研究伦理委员会负责人与数据保护官员在研究中个人数据保护方面的比较:结构化访谈的混合方法研究

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Academic Ethics Pub Date : 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1007/s10805-024-09509-8
{"title":"研究伦理委员会负责人与数据保护官员在研究中个人数据保护方面的比较:结构化访谈的混合方法研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09509-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Personal data protection is an ethical issue. In this study we analyzed how research ethics committees (RECs) and data protection officers (DPOs) handle personal data protection issues in research protocols. We conducted a mixed-methods study. We included heads (or delegated representatives) of RECs and DPOs from universities and public research institutes in Croatia. The participants provided information about data protection issues in research and their mutual collaboration on those issues through structured interviews that contained closed and open-ended questions. Qualitative description was used to analyze open-ended questions. The results showed that 55% of the REC representatives were not aware who was DPO in their institution. Among RECs, 65% never contacted the DPO. There were 61% of RECs who reported that they received no training from the organization on personal data protection. When asked about barriers to personal data protection in their institutions, 26% of REC members highlighted the lack of a clear protocol for assessing personal data protection issues, while 30% of DPOs mentioned lack of knowledge among researchers about personal data. In conclusion, we found that when it came to protecting personal data in research protocols, RECs and DPOs hardly ever worked together. When developing future personal data protection policies for academic and scientific research institutions, it is essential that RECs and DPOs should collaborate and both continue to expand/update their knowledge on personal data protection procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Heads of Research Ethics Committees with Data Protection Officers on Personal Data Protection in Research: A Mixed-Methods Study with Structured Interviews\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10805-024-09509-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Personal data protection is an ethical issue. In this study we analyzed how research ethics committees (RECs) and data protection officers (DPOs) handle personal data protection issues in research protocols. We conducted a mixed-methods study. We included heads (or delegated representatives) of RECs and DPOs from universities and public research institutes in Croatia. The participants provided information about data protection issues in research and their mutual collaboration on those issues through structured interviews that contained closed and open-ended questions. Qualitative description was used to analyze open-ended questions. The results showed that 55% of the REC representatives were not aware who was DPO in their institution. Among RECs, 65% never contacted the DPO. There were 61% of RECs who reported that they received no training from the organization on personal data protection. When asked about barriers to personal data protection in their institutions, 26% of REC members highlighted the lack of a clear protocol for assessing personal data protection issues, while 30% of DPOs mentioned lack of knowledge among researchers about personal data. In conclusion, we found that when it came to protecting personal data in research protocols, RECs and DPOs hardly ever worked together. When developing future personal data protection policies for academic and scientific research institutions, it is essential that RECs and DPOs should collaborate and both continue to expand/update their knowledge on personal data protection procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09509-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09509-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 个人数据保护是一个伦理问题。在本研究中,我们分析了研究伦理委员会(REC)和数据保护官(DPO)如何处理研究协议中的个人数据保护问题。我们进行了一项混合方法研究。我们的研究对象包括克罗地亚大学和公共研究机构的研究伦理委员会和数据保护官的负责人(或委托代表)。参与者通过包含封闭式和开放式问题的结构化访谈,提供了有关研究中的数据保护问题以及他们在这些问题上的相互合作的信息。定性描述用于分析开放式问题。结果显示,55% 的区域经济共同体代表不知道谁是其机构的数据保护官。在区域选举委员会中,有 65% 的人从未联系过 DPO。61%的区域选举委员会报告说,他们没有接受过组织提供的有关个人数据保护的培训。当被问及其所在机构在个人数据保护方面遇到的障碍时,26% 的区域经济委员会成员强调缺乏评估个人数据保护问题的明确规程,而 30% 的 DPO 提到研究人员缺乏个人数据方面的知识。总之,我们发现,在研究协议中保护个人数据时,REC 和 DPO 几乎从未合作过。在为学术和科研机构制定未来的个人数据保护政策时,区域研究中心和数据保护专员必须开展合作,并不断扩大/更新他们在个人数据保护程序方面的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Heads of Research Ethics Committees with Data Protection Officers on Personal Data Protection in Research: A Mixed-Methods Study with Structured Interviews

Abstract

Personal data protection is an ethical issue. In this study we analyzed how research ethics committees (RECs) and data protection officers (DPOs) handle personal data protection issues in research protocols. We conducted a mixed-methods study. We included heads (or delegated representatives) of RECs and DPOs from universities and public research institutes in Croatia. The participants provided information about data protection issues in research and their mutual collaboration on those issues through structured interviews that contained closed and open-ended questions. Qualitative description was used to analyze open-ended questions. The results showed that 55% of the REC representatives were not aware who was DPO in their institution. Among RECs, 65% never contacted the DPO. There were 61% of RECs who reported that they received no training from the organization on personal data protection. When asked about barriers to personal data protection in their institutions, 26% of REC members highlighted the lack of a clear protocol for assessing personal data protection issues, while 30% of DPOs mentioned lack of knowledge among researchers about personal data. In conclusion, we found that when it came to protecting personal data in research protocols, RECs and DPOs hardly ever worked together. When developing future personal data protection policies for academic and scientific research institutions, it is essential that RECs and DPOs should collaborate and both continue to expand/update their knowledge on personal data protection procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
期刊最新文献
Developing Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity Through an Educative Approach: Exploring Students’ Experiences and Perspectives Fabricating Citations: The Policies of New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1