Abstract

There is a tension within research ethics, and other areas of higher education governance, between the responsibilities of individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. We expect researchers to demonstrate sufficient competence in their research design and track record to engage in often high-risk activity, to the extent that higher education institutions (HEIs) are satisfied that their reputation (and legal liability) are protected and that the interests of research participants are guaranteed. Research ethics processes, typically, are understood to work best when they afford HEIs sufficient assurance of this sort while not placing an undue administrative burden on active researchers.

However, in response to non-research ethics-related adverse events and/or crises (financial, governance, or political, for example), institutions often react by imposing (1) new governance processes on the HEI community, and/or (2) increasing the onerousness of existing processes. What this discussion will explore is the effectiveness of conventional formal governance processes on the management of institutional risk; whether or not their introduction or increased complexity in response to crisis and adversity is appropriate; and if not, propose potential alternatives.

This presentation will draw from work on governance limits in the "age of financialisation," per Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra (2020), as well as the imposition of governance requirements on colonial subjects in Vietnam per Shaun Kingsley Malarney (2018), and the intersection of research ethics, research integrity, and research governance per Kolstoe and Pugh (2023). The discussion will also consider the (relatively) recent increase in compliance obligations of researchers in higher education, in the areas of data management, export controls, and health research in particular.

What benefits do these compliance obligations have for the rigour and impact of research activity? Should the onus for policy and compliance adherence always ultimately fall on individual researchers? What role do HEIs have in informing the content of these obligations, and should the University sector be seen to "push back" more strongly on responsibilities being placed on researchers to meet national policy objectives?