Well, interesting.
In my previous post on the QUT shenanigans, there's mention of the National Health and Medical Research Council - the peak body for research ethics in Australia, possibly investigating claims that QUT PhD student Michael Noonan may have breached protocols in relation to his research project "Laughing at the Disabled".
I emailed the acting Director of Progam Assurance, Dr Gordon McGurk (see below)
Dear Gordon, I am writing as a concerned academic.I would like to know if the NHMRC is investigating claims of unethical research practices made against QUT PhdD student Michael Noonan in relation to his thesis "Laughing at the disabled".I understand that Mr Noonan may well have violated well-established ethical guidelines for dealing with Indigenous people in some aspects of the video work he is compiling towards his thesis. There is an allegation against him that he has possibly misrepresented May Lulu Dunne and obtained a consent form/release form from her under false pretenses, or worse.Drs Hookham and MacLennan are facing serious misconduct charges for raising some of these issues and from my understanding of their case, they have been badly treated by QUT for blowing the whistle on what they saw as poor supervision of Mr Noonan's thesis and the ethical issues surrounding his work with both disabled persons and Indigenous Australians.As a supervisor of postgraduate students I am familiar with ethics considerations in relation to thesis work and other research projects in Australia and elsewhere. I also know that in most cases they are stringently enforced. I can only wonder at what the breakdown was at QUT in relation to Mr Noonan's thesis.Are you in touch with QUT over this matter and do you intend to conduct any inquiries of your own, or to cause the NHMRC to investigate this matter further?Thanks
Martin
About an hour later I received a response:
Dear Martin
Following yesterday's revelations regarding the alleged lack of consent or ethical approval before filming Ms Dunne, I am making this issue a matter of urgency. I have put together a brief for the Chief Executive to alert him and the executive to what may have happened.
The NHMRC had planned to investigate other alleged breaches following the conclusion of the legal action between QUT and Drs Hookham and MacLennan. However, this most recent information may precipitate some action sooner than planned.
Yours sincerely
Gordon McGurk
Communication and New Media: From Broadcast to Narrowcast, co-authored with Dr John Harrison 
3 comments:
This is Michael Noonan. This post contains many errors of fact: my comments here are to set the record straight about the most significant - in particular, the allegations that the research approval regimes I implemented were flawed and corrupt. My study was approved by the QUT Ethics Committee before any filming was undertaken.
Subsequently, and in response to the concerns raised by John Hookham and Gary MacLennan, my study was subjected to a full ethics audit by a committee of review, which included one expert member external to QUT.
That committee found I had not breached the relevant ethics guidelines.
All documentation was shared with the audit committee, including the appropriate consent and release forms. I have this documentation for all 33 people who participated in the film production. The accusations that appropriate consent was not gathered or was gathered under duress or fabricated after the event are not true and will not stand informed scrutiny.
There are many other errors of fact in this video – my film crew was not even in Boulia 18 months ago as claimed and there was no hostility to us at any time from Boulia residents.
Reluctantly but proudly, I made my film rushes available for public review to counter the innuendoes and untruths maliciously propagated over the depiction of disability in my film and also to set the record straight about the scene in the hotel at Boulia.
It had been obnoxiously misrepresented from the beginning and was hysterically reported in The London Times that James had been ‘severely beaten’ by an aboriginal woman – a vile and unsubstantiated slur.
I hoped that releasing my footage would destroy the negative stereotypes invoked by so many uninformed commentators. I am distressed to hear of the claim that May feels ‘hurt and shamed’ by that footage. Acknowledging this may be the case, and out of respect for her, I have written to the media outlets hosting my film rushes and asked them to remove those rushes from their websites.
I am happy to be held to account for my actions and my study in any properly-constituted space but I do not recognise Youtube, which has no means of testing gossip, innuendo and lies, as the forum in which to deal with these serious matters. I am prepared to discuss my study and its impact in any properly-constituted place and with any person of good faith – if this applies to you and you have genuine concerns, please send me an email.
Hi Michael,
you may or may not be aware that the Courier Mail at least has not yet heeded your request to take the footage down- did they say they would?
You could have reluctantly, proudly, or in any other way released this footage at any time in order to 'destroy the negative stereotypes invoked by so many uninformed commentators.' Is it or is it not the case that you released it on the occasion of H&M's lawyers getting hold of the footage?
Bit nasty the way your mates got stuck into Ted Watson on youtube. Seems to have stopped for the moment, did you reign them in?
Hi Michael,
Courier Mail still haven't taken the footage down
Post a Comment