Ethical review in creative industries and other practice-based research

The processes used in Australian universities for reviewing the ethics of research projects are based on the traditions of research and practice from the medical and health sciences. The national guidelines for ethical conduct in research are heavily based on presumptions that the researcher–participant relationship is similar to a doctor–patient relationship. The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee have made a laudable effort to fix this problem by releasing the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research in 2007, to replace the 1999 National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. The new statement better encompasses the needs of the humanities, social sciences and creative industries. However, this paper argues that the revised National Statement and ethical review processes within universities still do not fully encompass the definitions of ‘research’ and the requirements, traditions, codes of practice and standards of the humanities, social sciences and creative industries. The paper argues that scholars within these disciplines often lack the language to articulate their modes of practice and risk management strategies to university-level ethics committees. As a consequence, scholars from these disciplines may find their research is delayed or stymied. The paper focuses on creative industries researchers, and explores the issues that they face in managing the ethical review process, particularly when engaging in practice-based research. Although the focus is on the creative industries, the issues are relevant to most fields in the humanities and social sciences.