No abstract

A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes that determine the ethical merit of research. Citing criticism on the bureaucratic nature of ethics review processes, this literature provides a useful provocation for (re)considering how the ethics review might be enacted. Much of this criticism focuses on how ethics review boards deliberate, with particular attention given to the lack of transparency and opportunities for researcher recourse that characterise ethics review processes. Centered specifically on the conduct of ethics review boards convened within university settings, this paper draws on these inherent criticisms to focus its analysis on the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative deliberative practices. Outlining a set of principles against which ethics review boards might establish strategies for engaging with researchers and research communities, this paper draws attention to how Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility for the ethics review might be enacted in the day-to-day practice of the university human ethics review board. This paper develops these themes via a conceptual lens derived from Jürgen Habermas' (1984) articulation of 'communicative action' and Nancy Fraser's (1990) consideration of 'strong publics' to cast consideration of the role that human ethics review boards might play in supporting university research cultures. Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility provide useful conceptual prompts for considering how ethics review boards might undertake their work.

One of the primary concerns employers hold about hiring an ex-offender is the potential reoffending risk they pose. However, criminological literature shows that an ex-offender may be able to mitigate employers’ concerns by signalling their desistance from crime. Less understood is how ex-offenders can signal their desistance to (a) make desistance recognizable and (2) communicate desistance signals that employers value. This article draws on the results from the second phase of an Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods study with a sample of Australian employers who participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 43). The findings show desistance signals can be communicated to employers via strategic design. These findings along with the theoretical and policy implications are then discussed.

No abstract

No abstract