Ted Palys

Ethics and Institutional Conflict of Interest: The Research Confidentiality Controversy at Simon Fraser University

This paper describes the lengthy controversy at Simon Fraser University (SFU) over academic freedom and the ethics and law of research confidentiality that began when the Vancouver Coroner subpoenaed criminology graduate student Russel Ogden to testify at an inquest. There were two parts to the controversy. The first concerned the SFU administrations failure to mount a legal defense of Ogdens undertaking to keep “absolutely confidential” the identities of participants in his study of assisted suicide and euthanasia of persons with AIDS. The second concerned the threat to academic freedom created by the administrations subsequent imposition of “limited confidentiality” on researchers according to its “Law of the Land” doctrine of research ethics. We examine these controversies and the institutional conflict of interest underlying them in light of the ethical principles for research with human subjects laid out in various disciplinary ethics codes and, after the fact, by the Tri-Council Policy Statement, the research ethics code created by Canadas three federal research-granting agencies.

The betrayal of research confidentiality in British sociology

Research confidentiality in Britain is under attack. Indeed, in some quarters the ‘Law of the Land’ doctrine that absolutely subjugates research ethics to law is already a fait accompli. To illustrate the academic freedom issues at stake, the article discusses: (i) the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee’s ban of interview questions about a research participant’s involvement in criminal acts; (ii) the awarding of damages against Exeter University when it reneged on its agreement to uphold a doctoral student’s guarantee of ‘absolute confidentiality’ in his research on assisted suicide; and (iii) the controversy around the UK government’s attempt to obtain confidential records from the Belfast Project − an oral history of paramilitaries involved in the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The article urges British researchers to practice – or, at least, defend the academic freedom of their colleagues to practice – the ‘ethics-first’ doctrine of strict confidentiality that several North American disciplinary associations encourage.

This is how we did it: one Canadian First Nation community's efforts to achieve Aboriginal justice

The current proliferation of community-based Aboriginal restorative justice programmes in Canada cannot be understood solely as the direct expression of Aboriginal Peoples asserting their right to self-determination, or the result of the Canadian governments appropriation, compartmentalization and administration of restorative justice. To explain the ambiguous state of Aboriginal justice in Canada, and to illuminate government and community responses to these Aboriginal justice initiatives, we offer a case study of one such initiative in Canim Lake, British Columbia. Through interviews, the Canim Lake Band and their supporters tell of the development and implementation of a Family Violence Programme, which we (re)present as a process-oriented story of community ownership, community development and community/government relationship building. Their example suggests that justice on Aboriginal terms can be realized provided that the solutions to crime and justice issues are community-generated and that political will is not limited by narrow interpretations of government policy.

“Hope for the Best, Plan for the Worst”: Understanding Institutional Inertia in Developing Confidentiality Protection Policies

When legal challenges to research confidentiality arise, researchers are expected to resist while the institutions that approve their research provide legal support to enable that resistance. Although researchers have done their part, university administrators have been much less consistent doing theirs. Canada’s federal policy now affirms university administrations “must” provide independent legal representation and “encourages” them to develop policies that articulate how they will do so. A national survey of Research Ethics Board (REB) Chairs and administrators found only one such policy, which turned our attention to factors that impeded creation of others like it. Administrative inertia, a lack of clear lines of responsibility, and resource issues top the list of justifications respondents offered. Implications for researchers, REBs, and university administrators are discussed.

‘I don‘t know what you people are so concerned about’: homicide survivors’ experience with the Canadian criminal justice system

Abstract Victims of crime are often confused and frustrated by the criminal justice process. Those who have lost loved ones to homicide – often called ‘homicide survivors,’ ‘secondary victims,’ or ‘co-victims’ – suffer not only loss and a justice system that seems to have little place for them, but are often also left unaware of the circumstances of their loved one’s death. The current study sought to further our understanding of the experience of homicide survivors in the Canadian justice system. Toward this end, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five individuals who lost loved ones to homicide. Results showed that receiving information and being treated kindly were far more important than having an influence over the proceedings; additionally, there was a great deal of distrust of the justice system as a whole, regardless of the kindness shown by individual actors in the system. Policy implications and directions for future research are discussed.