Policies and procedures
POLICY NO: C-5.0
DATE OF APPROVAL: 28 October 1991, (C-10/91-32)
AMENDMENTS: Council 2011/7/10
REFERENCE AUTHORITY: Vice Chancellor
CROSS REFERENCES:
Code
of Ethical Conduct
Code of Conduct for Students
UniSA
Code of Practice: Marketing the University
Australian
Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007)
The university encourages its staff and students to participate in
public discussion in areas of their academic and professional expertise
in order to contribute to a more informed society.
Academic freedom of expression also has associated responsibilities and
this policy aims to clarify these rights and responsibilities for staff
commenting in the public domain, and in particular with reference to
their involvement in the media.
This policy applies to all UniSA staff, including professional and
academic, part-time, full-time, and casual staff, as well as holders of
honorary and adjunct titles.
Clauses 5 to 9 also apply to UniSA students who are conducting research.
If in doubt whether a proposed statement falls within the scope of this
policy, staff members should discuss the matter with the relevant member
of Senior Management Group.
‘Established expertise’ means that:
‘Media’ includes all means of publicly broadcasting information,
including television, radio, printed news and magazine publications and
online/web media including blogs and other social media formats.
‘Peer review’ means impartial and independent assessment of expertise by
others working in the same or a related field (in the case of research,
Section 6 of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
would apply).
1. Official statements in the name of the university must be authorised
by the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor or other people as nominated by the
Vice Chancellor.
2. All staff members have the right to express their views publicly on
any matter of public interest as private citizens. Subject to clause 3,
such statements should not include the name or address of the university
(or any campus name or address) or the member’s university position
title.
3. Where the subject matter of public statements relates directly to
staff members’ established expertise, they are encouraged to establish
their credentials and give the title of their university position.
4. Staff members should not use the name or logo of the university in
the endorsement of products or in third-party advertising in any form
unless this is approved by the Vice Chancellor or the Pro Vice
Chancellor: International and Development or nominee.
5. University research is attributed first to the university and then,
if necessary, to other organisational units.
6. UniSA encourages its researchers to utilise the media in
communicating research findings with the wider community and to do so in
a responsible manner as required by Section 4 of the Australian Code for
the Responsible Conduct of Research. University staff and students
should only act as expert spokespersons in areas where their expertise
has been established through the process of peer review.
7. Unless immediate publication serves a clear public interest, research
findings should not be disseminated to the general public until they
have been tested through peer review. In discussing the outcomes of a
research project, care should be taken to explain the status of the
project (e.g. whether it is still in progress or has been finalised).
8. Researchers should inform those directly affected by the research,
including interested parties, before informing the popular media or
general public.
9. Any restrictions on communications that have been agreed with a
sponsor of a research activity must be honoured. (Such agreements
should be entered into with proper regard for the importance of open
communication of academic findings.)
Advice and assistance on working with the media and identifying research of suitable nature and interest for the public domain is available from the Marketing & Development Unit and on the web at http://www-p.unisa.edu.au/mdu/understandmedia.asp or by telephoning the Director MDU or Manager: News and Media.
These notes incorporate comments about the policy from senior
academics with experience in public comment.
This policy covers three situations. They are:
• Staff members expressing a view on behalf of the university
• Staff members expressing their personal views as private citizens
• Staff members expressing views about matters of public interest on the
basis of their professional expertise.
The policy covers in some detail public statements by staff and students
about their own research. These sections of the policy are based on the
requirements of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of
Research.
In our interactions with the public and other stakeholders we should
act ethically. This not only means abiding by the rules set down by
ethics committees, but thinking carefully about the short- and long-term
effects of our statements. These can include damage to the participants
of a study (for example, by releasing private information), distortion
of public debate (for example, through stepping outside our area of
expertise) and damage to the reputation of academia (for example, by
making premature or sensationalist claims).
Researchers should honour the letter and spirit of agreements with
research subjects, funding bodies, partners and co-authors, and stay
within the limits of their established expertise.
If you have a PhD or a professional doctorate, you are entitled to
use the prefix ‘Dr’ at your discretion. The title does not depend on an
employment relationship with this or any other institution.
Titles such as ‘professor’, ‘associate professor’ and ‘director’ are
usually granted as part of an employment relationship with a university.
These titles will usually be accompanied by the name of the institution
which has granted them – for example, Professor X, University of South
Australia. You should only use such a title and the name of the
institution if you are commenting on an area in which the university has
employed you for your expertise.
Academic expertise is usually established through the process of peer
review – typically, the assessment by peers of material for publication.
Peer review establishes your competence to speak about a particular
research finding. However, over a long career, it may also establish
your competence to speak more generally about the discipline (see next
section - ‘The level of expertise’).
If a recent PhD graduate were asked to comment on the findings of their
research, then the examination of their thesis and the granting of the
award would be counted as peer review for the purposes of this policy.
However, they would be expected only to comment on the findings which
formed part of their thesis, and it would be wise for them to seek
advice from more experienced colleagues.
Some academic staff are experienced practitioners but may not be active
researchers. Such people are qualified to reflect on the practice of
their discipline. However, they should bear in mind that they are
speaking from a practical point of view and consider referring enquiries
to researchers in the field where appropriate.
Good questions to ask yourself are ‘Is my view backed up by high-quality
research? If not, is there someone more appropriate to answer this
question?’
Staff members may have expertise that has not been assessed through
academic peer review but which has been recognised by their peers
through, for example, election to a national body. This is particularly
relevant to senior professional staff or academic staff in senior
management positions.
If you make a comment in your professional capacity, then it should
be commensurate with the level of your expertise.
For example, if you are an experienced academic who has published widely
in a discipline, then you may be able to comment on a range of issues
related to that discipline. This would be on the basis of both your own
body of research and your deep understanding of the literature. However,
there may still be times when it would be appropriate to refer an
enquiry to a colleague who has more current knowledge.
On the other hand, if you are an early-career researcher with, say, two
conference papers and an article in a low-ranked journal, your capacity
to comment would be more limited.
Staff or students may from time to time wish to engage the public in projects. These may be professional or personal. The following examples illustrate some of the differences.
The point is sometimes made that it is researchers who win grants, not institutions. This is complex – grants are generally awarded to institutions but in some cases it is customary for them to be transferred if the lead investigator leaves the institution. On the other hand, projects may come to an institution because it has a large body of expertise in an area, not because of any one researcher. If UniSA is the administering organisation on a research grant, or if the contract for commercial research is with UniSA, then it is reasonable to say that the research is conducted at or by UniSA. If the situation is more complex (for example, if there is a commercial contract with two research partners), then the university simply asks that it is explained as clearly as possible within the limitations of the particular medium. For instance, a five-second TV news sound bite does not allow for much detail, whereas a report in the Higher Education Supplement of The Australian or in a trade journal does.
Most people who have dealt with the media have experienced their
message being distorted. Often this is accidental. Sometimes it reflects
the difficulty of the topic. The university only asks that you make the
best efforts to communicate your message clearly.
For example, it may be part of your research funding agreement to
provide running reports on a research project to a partner organisation
through an in-house or trade journal. If the outcomes have not been
peer-reviewed, you should always state this. If the general media picks
up on this communication and reprints it without this reservation, then
this is not your responsibility, but if you are asked for comment you
should make it clear. Apart from anything else, this is a chance to
educate the media and the general public about how research findings are
validated.
There is a great difference between academic communication and media commentary. Some find it easy to switch from one mode to the other, and others find it more difficult. You may be concerned that essential information will be omitted if you do not include it. Paradoxically, this may complicate the message and make it less likely to be reported accurately. It is important to remember that journalists will hardly ever be expert in your field and that they have quite different priorities and performance measures. If you are inexperienced in media commentary, it is always worth seeking advice from a colleague with greater experience or from the UniSA Manager: News and Media, who is very experienced at interpreting academic material for the media.
