QUT Codes in Duck Walk Lock Step?

Track down your own institution's governance framework and summarise how it maps onto the relevant code(s), in particular the Australian Code.

QUT in Duck Walk Lock Step?

Referencing my boss’s response to a local code or governance of research framework inquiry there is nothing immediately available here in Korea regarding my own institution of employment so I rely upon the easily accessible policies available at my educational provider in QUT.

Compliance with and implementation of the Australian Code appears evident and expounded upon in QUT’s Manual of Policy and Procedure (MOPP) which includes a governance framework mostly covered by D/2.6 QUT Code of Conduct for Research, with additional documents providing more details such as MOPP B/8.1 Code of Conduct, MOPP D/2.7 Procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct, MOPP D/2.8 Management of research data (to be approved), and MOPP D/5.4 Code of Good Practice for Postgraduate Research Studies and Supervision at QUT.

MOPP D/2.6 QUT Code of Conduct for Research: Covers principles for the responsible conduct of research, roles and responsibilities for responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, management of research data, supervision and training of research students and staff, publication and dissemination of research findings, authorship, peer review, management of conflicts of interest relating to research activities, and collaborative research with other institutions. These subsections correlate highly with the Australian Code in both Parts A and B as may be seen in the following chart.

MOPP D/2.6 QUT Code of Conduct for Research	Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
2.6.1 Principles for the responsible conduct of research	Section 1 General principles of responsible research 1.3
2.6.2 Application	Dealt with at length in description of institutional, individual responsibilities for each subsection.
2.6.3 Roles and responsibilities for responsible conduct of research	Responsibilities of researchers and supervisors of research trainees 3.1
2.6.4 Research misconduct	Section 9 Breaches of the Code and misconduct in research 9.3
2.6.5 Management of research data	Section 2 Management of research data and primary materials 2.1
2.6.6 Supervision and training of research students and staff	Section 3 Supervision of research trainees 3.1
2.6.7 Publication and dissemination of research findings	Section 4 Publication and dissemination of research findings 4.1
2.6.8 Authorship	Section 5 Authorship 5.1
2.6.9 Peer review	Section 6 Peer review 6.1
2.6.10 Management of conflicts of interest relating to research activities	Section 7 Conflicts of interest 7.1
2.6.11 Collaborative research with other institutions	Section 8 Collaborative research across institutions 8.1
http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/D/D_02_06.jsp	http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/r39.pdf

It is interesting to note that the ranking for misconduct are so highly positioned in the QUT document reference as compared to falling under Section 9 of the Australian Code. Surely this does not indicate order of importance or evidence of disregard?

QUT MOPP B/8.1 Code of Conduct: This document explores the QUT designation of conduct code above and beyond the Australian Code description which defines national guidelines while local Queensland legislation includes institutional and individual compliance from The Public Sector Ethics Act 1994:

respect for the law and system of government

respect for persons

integrity

diligence

economy and efficiency

QUT MOPP D/2.7 Procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Elaborates upon the Australian Code however requires modifications in description of procedural investigations of complaints dependent upon collective bargaining agreements differentiated among: academic, professional or senior staff. The Australian Code does not itself make such distinctions but permits institutions to do so. This might represent differentiation in representational allowances and/or effect private or public investigations or publication of results.

QUT MOPP D/2.8 Management of research data (to be approved): As this section is being reviewed it must indicate that it is an area of necessary improvement at QUT for alignment with Australian Code requirements.

QUT MOPP D/5.4 Code of Good Practice for Postgraduate Research Studies and Supervision: Responsibilities are clearly described in the areas: institution, department, supervisor and candidate. It is refreshing to note that the candidate’s list is shorter than the others.

In conclusion, is it possible that the Australian Code and the QUT Code might have been written by the same group of perhaps itinerant authors?