The Ethics of Ethics

In LABsome on Thursday we discussed the RMIT policies around ethics. Although I understand why the ethics committee is in existance it seems a tad over-sentimental.

After listening to horror stories of people having to spend 3+ months to-ing and fro-ing with the committee just to gain approval to begin their research – I’m not looking forward to the whole ordeal.

It seems that the guidelines are stringent and not directly related to the studies of communications (Does the research involve a fertilised human ovum!?). I worry that this may quash students creativity, and the depth and validity of their research. There should be a seperate framework for students undertaking scientific research to those undertaking creative/academic research. Looking at the Application for Ethics Approval of a Project Involving Human Participants form – there is no distinction. It appears to be a one size fits all blanket form.

Originally, I wanted to interview children as part of my research project (see the abstract post) I am now thinking twice about this (even though it may comprimise my level of understanding on the topic).  Not only are children an ‘at risk’ level three group according to the RMIT ethics committee, I also need a working with children clearance check from the Department of Justice which can take 3 – 8 weeks to approve at a cost $71.70 (free for a volunteer). I was discouraged as I don’t have a spare eight weeks to waste waiting to hear whether I am a moral and proper human being capable of interviewing (under full teacher supervision) children. However, After speaking over the phone with the Department of Justice (who were absolutly fantastic and very helpful -  Centrelink take note) I learnt that I could commence my research so long as I had an application lodged (i.e. I don’t need to wait 8 weeks for approval to begin). Unfortunatly, I need this approval form to meet RMIT’s standards. I wish I had been aware of this earlier so I could have organised it before the year commenced.

There must be an easier (and quicker) way to go about this. Perhaps every student could have a scheduled hour to meet with members of the committee to discuss their project and refine the scope in light of any objections they have…further meetings could be scheduled if no resolution is reached. Surely hearing from the student directly (and have them present a signed written statment of intention) will shed more light on the project then a written submission. Any discrepancies could be dealt with immediatly in an open dialogue rather than a back and forward paper chain.

Also, in my Transient Spaces tutorial (we are required to make an online documentry focuses on the theme of community as our major assessment task) on Friday I brought up the issue of ethcis. I was advised that because Transient Spaces is an elective, not a core honours program subject all I would need to do is get interview particpants to sign an informed consent for form. I don’t need to make a submission to the ethics committee. So – I can interview anorexics, prisoners, or people who have a history of suicide attempts without committee clearance for Transient Spaces yet I can’t interview supervised primary school students for my thesis – It all seems a bit unbalanced.

I don’t mean to vilify the ethics committee, although I know I am  – I do see their value - but right now I am frustrated with the administration of it all.

Why I don’t want to not be here

Today I was asked to list the three things I want to get out of my honours year and essentially answer the question why am I here. Upsettingly my first response to that is “I don’t know” (thank god there was no enterence interview for this). That’s not to say that I don’t want to be here because I do, I really do. I just wasn’t entirely sure why. So this afternoon I spent ALOT of time thinking about why I am so excited to be studying again and tried to go beyond the “i’m not ready to enter the workforce” and the ”I feel my degree has more to offer” generic responses.

While I enjoy the academic perks of being a student (not to mention that golden concession card) I definatly don’t wear enough fluro, chain smoke enough cigerettes, or use profanities in place of enough adjectivies to fully fit in with the wider RMIT student body.

There are no bad decisions only bad reasons for making them…or even worse no reason what so ever. I’ve always tried to resist the flow and make sure I bring purpose and passion to my pursuits. So not being able to answer the big why was worrying. Then I spoke to my (genius) friend.  He asked me if I would be upset if the opportunity to study this year was taken from me. I replied Yes….He then said why??? and I threw these three reasons at him…

1.  I love social media, actually all media, actually all communications…learning about it, talking about it, using it, absorbing it.

2. I am to put it nicely technologically challenged, to put it accurately totally incompetent with computers. This blog is a big step and fast becoming an addictive one. I’ve always been a spectator: reading blogs, listening to podcasts, watching films….I want to get active.

3. Knowledge is power in any society, in any language. I intend to be very very powerful!

Now that wasn’t so hard! In summary this year I want to study media and theories of communication in both an Australian and Asian context. I want be across as much technical and theoritical informaiton in the areas of public relations, media, Asia, social media and politics. Most of all I want to participate.