On this page

    Purpose

    In March 2026, we invited people working in human research ethics across Victoria to share their experiences of the current ethics system via a survey. Learn more about our listening survey outcomes.

    During April and June 2026, we ran  a structured listening program of focus sessions to gather additional insights to inform the early phase of the Strategic Ethics Reform Project. In this phase, we wanted to capture further perspectives from across the Victorian research ethics system.

    Sessions brought together participants based on their roles within the ethics system, recognising that different functions experience the system in different ways.

    Insights gathered through the listening sessions will complement findings from the listening survey and help build a system-level understanding of how the current system operates in practice.

    Who the program is for

    The listening program was designed to ensure perspectives were captured from across the Victorian research ethics system. Focus groups were organised by role rather than institution to allow participants to discuss their experience within the system alongside peers performing similar functions.

    Participants included representatives from:

    • metropolitan and regional health services
    • universities and medical research institutes
    • industry partners
    • consumers and community representatives
    • those responsible for ethics oversight, operational delivery, and research leadership.

    Regional health service network listening roundtables

    Format: In-person (1 hour)

    The in-person regional listening roundtable sessions brought together participants from regional and rural health services to explore how ethics review and research governance operate in regional contexts. 

    Discussions focused on the experience of conducting and supporting research across regional networks, including:

    • collaboration between services
    • access to ethics review
    • opportunities to strengthen research capability outside metropolitan centres.

    Role-based sector focus groups

    Format: Online (1 hour)

    If you are involved in human research ethics or research governance decision-making, coordination, oversight, or delivery anywhere in Victoria, we would love you to participate in one of our online focus groups.

    The role-based sector focus groups  brought together individuals who perform similar functions across ethics and research to discuss their experiences of how the current system operates in practice.

    The sessions were designed to ensure that the perspectives of those exercising ethical oversight, supporting ethics processes, delivering research, and managing organisational risk are all captured.

    Feedback and written submissions

    The listening program has ended, but the conversation is not finished. If you missed the survey or could not participate in a listening sessions, you can still contribute by completing an anonymous feedback form or by emailing a written submission.

    Feedback form

    The feedback from is anonymous unless you add your name and contact details. Some questions are embedded to guide you. Answer some, all, or none of them if you want to address something not covered. Access the form.

    Written submission

    Written submissions are an opportunity to go deeper – to share experiences, perspectives, and ideas that a survey or group discussion may not fully capture. Submissions can come from individuals, teamsteams, or organisations. All are welcome. 

    How to make a written submission

    Submissions can be as brief or detailed as you choose. You may respond to the suggested questions for your role below, address the general questions, or write freely about your experience and ideas.

    Send submissions to research@safercare.vic.gov.au by 5pm Sunday 31 May 2026.

    If you would prefer to talk to us rather than write, please contact us to arrange a short interview.

    All submissions will be treated confidentially. Individual responses will not be attributed in any published materials without your explicit consent. Submissions from organisations will be acknowledged as organisational submissions unless you request otherwise.

    Questions for everyone

    These questions are relevant to every role. Respond to some or all of them.

    1. What aspects of the current system are working well and should be protected in any future changes?
    2. Where is the system under the most pressure, and what is that pressure costing in practice?
    3. From your experience, where does ethics review end and research governance begin, and is that boundary clear enough to support an effective reform of the ethics function?
    4. What would a stronger Victorian human research ethics environment need to look like, not just for your role, but for the system as a whole?
    5. Is there anything the survey, roundtable or focus group processes may not have captured about your experience that you would like to put on the record?

    Questions by role

    Select your role to see suggested questions. You do not need to answer every question. These are prompts to help you think through what you want to share.

    1. What does high quality ethical review require, in terms of committee composition, resourcing, meeting frequency, and member support, that the current system does or does not provide?
    2. Where does the current system constrain rather than enable your committee's independent judgement?
    3. Ethics applications have grown significantly in length and complexity over time. If you could reduce what committees are asked to review, not simplify it but actually remove elements, what would you remove and why?
    4. What would a well-functioning state-level support function for committees look like, and what would it need to avoid doing to protect committee independence?
    1. Describe the operational realities of supporting ethics review that are not visible in system-level data or to those outside your role.
    2. Where does the current platform and process environment create risk or inefficiency that would not be apparent from outside your role?
    3. What authority, resourcing, or infrastructure would most improve your capacity to support safe and consistent review?
    4. What do you know about how this system actually operates that the people designing its future probably need to understand?
    1. From your experience, where does the boundary between ethics review and research governance processes create duplication, delay, or unclear accountability in your organisation?
    2. When a study has ethics approval but cannot start because of research governance processes, who is currently responsible for that timeline, and who has the authority to address it?
    3. What does the interface between ethics approval and subsequent research governance processes look like in practice, and what would make that interface work more effectively?
    1. Describe the specific points in the ethics process where time is lost that should not be lost, not in general, but in a study you have actually run.
    2. What research is not happening, or happening more slowly than it should, as a direct consequence of the current ethics environment?
    3. What would you be willing to do differently, in how you prepare submissions or support junior researchers, to make a better system work?
    4. What support would most help you navigate the ethics process more effectively, particularly at the point of first application?
    1. Describe the operational reality of coordinating ethics review across multiple sites and platforms. Where does the system create the most friction?
    2. What would Victoria need to look like for you to actively recommend it to a sponsor over another jurisdiction, not just accept it, actively recommend it?
    3. What does the fragmented platform environment actually cost you, in time, in risk, in staff capacity?
    4. What is the one change that would make the most difference to study start-up timelines from an ethics perspective?
    1. What specific changes to the Victorian ethics environment would shift decisions about where to place clinical trials?
    2. What does genuine mutual acceptance require in operational terms, not in principle but in practice, and what currently prevents it from working as intended?
    3. What would a well-functioning independent ethics review function need to look like for Victorian public health services to accept it consistently?
    4. What is the minimum viable change, not the ideal but the real bar, that would change how you recommend Victorian sites to global sponsors?
    1. Where does the boundary between university and public health service ethics review create confusion, duplication, or inequitable outcomes in practice?
    2. What would proportionate ethics review look like for non-interventional, qualitative, and data-driven research, and how does the current system fall short of that?
    3. What changes to the ethics environment would most support collaborative research between universities, medical research institutes, and health services?
    1. What does research participation feel like from the community's perspective, and does the ethics system reflect that experience?
    2. Where does the system make it difficult for community voices to shape research design and ethics review in practice?
    3. Do you believe the ethics system is protecting research participants, not in principle but from what you have seen?
    4. What would genuine community partnership in research oversight look like, and what would need to change to make that real?
    1. What is your organisation's strategic interest in the Victorian research ethics environment, and is the current system supporting or constraining it?
    2. What does your organisation need from the ethics environment that the current system is not reliably providing?
    3. What would you need to see from a strengthened ethics environment before you would actively invest in its implementation, not just support it in principle?
    4. From a leadership perspective, what does the research ethics system need to deliver that it currently does not?

    Outcomes

    Findings will be prepared in aggregate only. A summary of themes identified through the listening program will be shared via our website and SCV’s Research Ripple newsletter.

    Contact

    Questions can be directed to Heidi Gaulke at research@safercare.vic.gov.au. 

    Was this content helpful to you?
    Print this page
    [ Back to top ]