Researcher qualifications and credentials: judging appropriateness.

Abstract

The NEAF1 asks researchers at three points about their qualifications, credentials or experience. In s2 “Summary of qualifications and relevant experience”, Q6 “… any relevant certification, accreditation or credentialing requirements relevant to the conduct of the research” and “describe and specify these …” and Q7 “Do the researchers … require any additional training…”. The National Statement (NS)2 references the Australian Code3 in advising HRECs to assess whether research is “justifiable by … skill and expertise of researchers” (1.1a) and “conducted or supervised … with experience, qualifications and competence that are appropriate for the research” (1.1e). The Code requires the institution to “promote effective mentoring and supervision of researchers and research trainees” (1.4) and “ensure that each research trainee … has an appropriately qualified and trained supervisor” (3.1), and requires researchers to “cite awards, degrees … publications accurately” (1.6). The remit of HREC administration offices is to ensure that applications contain sufficient information before HREC review. This requires consensus on how much information is required for a HREC to decide that researchers and institutions can meet the standards specified in the NS and Code? An analysis was undertaken of the documentation provided by researchers for all active research approved by the BHSSJOG HREC. The nature of the information allowed compilation of a “BHSSJOG HREC Researcher Credentials Guideline” and administration check list summarising each application for HREC consideration. These analyses and tools will be presented to stimulate discussion to improve this local guideline and share it with the wider HREC community.