1 . The principles outlined below are to be adhered to when raising any matters of concern with the Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (AUTEC):
1.1. The procedures of the AUT Ethics Committee are designed to ensure that research conduct meets or exceeds established ethical standards. This is necessary to protect the participants in research as well as staff and students.
1.2. AUTEC guidelines and procedures are to be regarded as guidelines and not as regulations. The spirit of the Guidelines requires full disclosure. Just because the Guidelines do not specifically require certain information it should not be assumed that such information need not be supplied.
1.3. The principle of informed consent free of coercion or undue influence (Section 2.1 of AUTEC guidelines and procedures) and the spirit of full disclosure clearly require applicants to state if any potential participants occupy a position of dependence or close social proximity with them. A clear example is where staff members wish to involve students as participants of research.
1.4. AUT makes its decisions on the basis of the information supplied. It is the responsibility of applicants to present such information as clearly as possible. In particular, jargon and technical terminology should be avoided if at all possible. Where jargon and technical language are unavoidable, adequate explanation of terms should be included. Every Proposal, Participant Information Sheet, and Consent Form should be understandable to a lay person.
1.5. The procedures given in this appendix may be followed where there is a specific issue regarding a research project or with the conduct of the research itself.
1.6. Any researchers who proceed in a project involving human participants without the scrutiny of AUTEC or in a manner not identified in their applications as approved should be aware that AUTEC will be unable to provide protection should any complaint be made. Failure to gain ethics approval may affect funding and publication decisions. This failure may be referred to the University’s disciplinary processes by AUTEC.
Applicants who are not satisfied with an AUTEC decisions about their applications may seek reconsideration of the decision, or subsequently appeal against a decision as outlined in the procedures below. Such actions are to be commenced within four calendar weeks of receipt of the decision.
2.1. An applicant may request reconsideration of the decision, which will be given in writing to the AUTEC Secretariat, detailing the grounds for the reconsideration.
2.2. The request will be considered by the Chair and Executive Secretary and any other appropriate AUTEC or Secretariat member.
2.3. The Chair may, if necessary, refer the matter back to AUTEC with recommendations for consideration.
3.1. An applicant may appeal against the reconsideration outcome if:
3.1.1. there was a material irregularity in the conduct or processes of AUTEC, or
3.1.2. additional information is now available which was not reasonably available at the time the application was considered or reconsidered.
3.2. Any appeal must be lodged in writing with the AUTEC Secretariat within one month of receiving the reconsideration outcome.
3.3. The appeal shall be considered by an appeals panel established by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
3.3.1. The panel shall be comprised of three senior researchers who have relevant experience of human research ethics and no involvement with the applicant or his or her research context.
3.3.2. One of the three members will be appointed as Chair of the panel.
3.3.3. The two remaining members are to be an AUT researcher and a researcher external to the University.
3.3.4. The Chair of the panel may consult with other experts as required.
3.3.5. The Chair of the panel will call for submissions from the applicant and AUTEC on the issues raised.
3.4. The appeals panel shall make recommendations to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor which may include:
3.4.1. upholding the appeal
3.4.2. dismissing the appeal
3.4.3. referring the application back to AUTEC with recommendations for further consideration.
3.5. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor shall convey the decision in writing to AUTEC.
4.1. Where a decision upholds a reconsideration outcome, then an applicant may seek a second opinion from the Health Research Council Ethics Committee (HRCEC).
4.2. This decision will then be referred back to AUTEC for consideration.
4.3. AUTEC must then respond to the second opinion in writing to the applicant and the HRCEC and include a copy in its Annual Report.
5.1. Any person may raise matters of concern with, or make a formal complaint to, AUTEC regarding ethical standards of research on human participants conducted by members of AUT.
5.2. Where the expression of concern or formal complaint relates to the Chair or Executive Secretary, it shall be forwarded to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research).
5.3. Any expression of concern or formal complaint should be addressed to the Chair of AUTEC through the Executive Secretary.
5.4. While expressions of concern can be made informally in conversation, formal complaints should be made in writing. The Executive Secretary will not accept anonymous written complaints.
5.5 At any point in the procedures outlined below, the Executive Secretary or the Chair may take legal advice.
6.1. On receipt of the matter of concern, the Executive Secretary will conduct a preliminary investigation, scrutinise the research ethics application and approval. The Executive Secretary may consult with both the initiator and with the relevant researcher/applicant to resolve the matter.
6.2. Where the matter is not resolved, the initiator will be advised by the Executive Secretary of the option to lodge a formal complaint. The initiator will be sent these complaints procedures and is required to make the complaint in writing before it will be taken further.
7.1. When a formal written complaint is received by the Executive Secretary it will be forwarded to the Chair, along with a briefing of the Executive Secretary’s preliminary investigation. The Chair will take up the process, and will seek resolution of any problem through mutual discussion and agreement.
7.2 Throughout the complaints process, complainants will be kept informed about the progress of their complaints and will be notified in writing about the resolution of the complaint.
7.3 The Chair will notify the person/s who are the subject of the complaint of the nature of that complaint. The Chair may forward the written complaint verbatim, or a modified version, to the subject of the complaint. Where the Chair regards disclosure of the complainant’s identity may be prejudicial to that person, then the Chair may withhold the complainant’s identity.
7.4 All parties will be made aware of the avenues of support available to them. For staff, this includes but is not limited to the Employees Assistance Programme scheme, the Employee Advisory and Resolutions Service and, if a union member, their union representative. For students, this includes, but is not limited to, the AUT Student Association and support services through Student Hub.
7.5 The Chair will conduct an investigation as to whether the issue is potentially research misconduct, a breach of ethical standards or the conditions of AUTEC’s approval, or is prejudicial to any person’s rights or welfare.
7.6 In conducting this investigation the Chair may discuss the complaint with other parties as appropriate, including the complainant and the researcher/s responsible for the project.
7.7 In order to protect the privacy of the complainant, the names of researchers, and their participants, all complaints or expressions of concern will be treated as confidential until the preliminary investigation is completed, unless the Chair determines that the welfare of participants necessitates limited disclosure to specific persons.
7.8 If the outcome of the Chair’s investigation is that the complaint is unfounded and/or that no further action is necessary, the complainant and the person/s responsible for the research will be notified.
7.9 If the Chair finds the issue being complained about is poor or ill-advised practice but not research misconduct, a breach of ethical standards or prejudicial behaviour, the complainant will be notified. The researcher will be notified with recommendations for remedial action with desired outcomes e.g. supervision, and/or professional development.
7.10 If the Chair finds that the issue is of concern, s/he may determine that it is best addressed by mediation in the first instance with the aim of resolving conflict. The following mediation procedures will be initiated within 21 days of receipt of the written complaint:
7.10.1 The Chair of AUTEC will act as a mediator.
7.10.2 In any mediation procedure, the mediator, the complainant and the researcher(s) may be accompanied by support people. Such an arrangement may only be entered into by mutual agreement, recognising the implications for maintenance of confidentiality.
7.10.3 If appropriate to the context of the complaint the Chair may agree to proceed with the mediation in a way where the parties are not required to meet together.
7.10.3 The Chair will aim to reach a mutually agreeable outcome.
7.10.4 The outcome of the mediation shall be communicated to AUTEC at its next meeting
7.10.5 If the parties do not agree to the Chair acting as a mediator, or if a mutually agreeable outcome cannot be reached, the matter will be referred to a Complaints Subcommittee for consideration and possible action.
7.11 If the Chair finds that the issue is of significant concern or may indicate research misconduct or prejudicial behaviour, or if the complainant does not agree to mediation, or is not satisfied by the mediation outcome, the Chair will convene a hearing by Complaints Subcommittee.
7.12 The following procedures for the Complaints Subcommittee will be initiated within 21 days of receipt of the written complaint. However, if the matter has been subject of a mediation process and the complainant remains dissatisfied, a Subcommittee will be convened within 21 days of receipt of the expression of dissatisfaction. This expression of dissatisfaction must be communicated to the Chair within 10 business days of the mediation.
7.13 The following procedures will be followed by the Complaints Subcommittee with view to resolving the issue.
7.13.1 The Complaints Subcommittee will comprise the Chair and one other lay member of AUTEC and one other experienced researcher or senior AUT academic staff, to be chosen by AUTEC.
7.13.2 The Complaints Subcommittee will set a date for the panel hearing. The complainant and person/s responsible will be notified of the date of the panel and will be able to bring a support person and/or legal representative to the hearing.
7.13.3 The Subcommittee may request further information to be supplied before the hearing.
7.13.4 The procedure for the hearing will be at the discretion of the Subcommittee, and will be in accordance with natural justice, and the ethical principles of dignity and respect.
7.13.5 The Executive Secretary will provide Secretariat services to the panel and will record the hearing as audiotape and may arrange for transcription as appropriate.
7.13.6 The Subcommittee will aim to reach a mutually agreeable outcome at the hearing. Any decision to refer the matter to the University’s disciplinary processes will be communicated verbally to the parties at the time, and in writing within 21 days of the hearing.
7.13.7 The panel may decide that it requires further information prior to reaching a mutually agreeable outcome. In this event, the panel will specify the information requested and establish a timeline for continuing the hearing.
7.13.8 If a mutually agreeable outcome is not achieved, the Subcommittee may to refer the matter to the University’s disciplinary procedures.
7.13.9 If the matter is referred for action under the University’s disciplinary procedures, the Chair will undertake to apprise the complainant of progress.
7.14 The outcome of the mediation or Subcommittee hearing shall be communicated to AUTEC at its next meeting.
7.15 AUTEC may request supervision or professional development for the person/s responsible in the light of the issues raised.
7.16 AUTEC may also suspend its approval of the research at any stage in the complaints process pending a further review of the research by AUTEC. The process is as follows:
7.16.1 AUTEC notifies the suspension of approval to the Principal Investigator.
7.16.2 Principal investigator must produce response/make presentation to AUTEC.
7.16.3 Explanation provided is either satisfactory or the Principal investigator agrees to change or vary proposal.
7.16.4 AUTEC withdraws or confirms approval.
7.17 Any systemic issues that arise as a result of the complaint should be considered and acted on by AUTEC.
7.18 All complaints will be recorded and included in the annual report of the AUTEC which is sent to the HRCEC.
8.1. The person with the concern or complaint has an additional right to seek a second opinion from the HRC Ethics Committee. (See 3.0 for second opinions).
9.1. In the case of health research complainants have an additional right of the complaints procedure under Right 10 of the Code of the Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (Appendix O).
9.2. The advocate working under the Health and Disability Commissioner may be contacted to assist in writing the complaint as appropriate.
View the contact details for faculty representatives, research ethics advisor and AUTEC.