Search

In this paper, the evolution of the ethics committees for health research, their history, membership, and function in China and Australia is described. Investigators in each country compared the history and governance of their ethical systems based on the published evidence rather than personal opinions. Similarly, examples of challenges were selected from the literature. In both countries, the aim was to maximize the social benefits of research and minimize the risk imposed on the participants. Common challenges include maintaining independence, funding and delivering timely ethical reviews of the research projects. These challenges can be difficult where research ethics committees rely on voluntary contributions and lack a strong resource base. They must adapt to the increasingly rapid pace of research as well as the technological sophistication. Population health research can challenge the conventional views of consent and privacy. The principles of the sound ethical review are common in both countries; governance arrangements and operational procedures, however, can differ, reflecting the cultural values and norms of their host countries and in respect of legal environments. By studying the evolution and function of ethics committees in the two countries, we established the differences in the governance and health systems, while similar ethical objectives helped sustain collaborative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor safety is a perennial problem for the construction industry worldwide. The concept of safety climate has been strongly linked to safety performance, yet inconsistent methodologies make international comparisons problematic. In addressing this gap in research, a comparative safety climate survey of 515 construction operatives and managers in Australia, Indonesia, and China is presented using a standardized tool. The results highlight interesting similarities and differences between safety climate in each country and question taken–for–granted assumptions that safety climate in countries with relatively mature regulatory structures like Australia are more positive than in less developed countries like Indonesia and China. Results also highlight the intermediating effects of factors such as management commitment and cultural differences in shaping safety climate. Highlighting the potential value of theories of new institutionalism and cultural and ethical relativism, the paper concludes by raising important new practical, theoretical, and methodological questions about the merits and challenges of making international comparisons of safety climate, even when using standardized measurement tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Safety is a major concern in the construction industry because fatalities and injuries from construction work bring great losses to individuals, organizations, and societies as a whole. This paper aims to understand how construction personnel perceive safety risks in China as compared with those in Australia. Postal questionnaire surveys were used to collect data on safety risk perceptions from the two nations. The safety risk factors were assessed using a risk significance index based on the likelihood of occurrences and the impacts on safety performance. The survey results revealed that in China the main perception of safety risks came from human-and/or procedure-related issues, with “low/no safety education” paramount, followed by “inadequate fire prevention and electrical prevention procedures,” etc. In contrast, the major safety risks perceived in Australia were related to the environment and physical site conditions with “contamination of land, water and air” ranked first, followed by “unforeseen excavation of soil,” etc. To minimize construction safety risks in China, this paper suggests that the government should develop collective legislation and safety protection procedures, and enforce safety education and training to all site participants. Risks related to environmental and site conditions were generally realized by the Australia construction industry, which were not highly acknowledged in China. This may also bring imminent attention in this regard to the Chinese government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hong Kong has been one of the early jurisdictions to adopt Public Private Partnership (PPP) model for delivering large public infrastructure projects. T he development of this procurement approach in Hong Kong has followed an intricate path . As such, it is believed that there are a number of areas which are interesting to unveil . As part of a comprehensive research study looking at implementing PPPs, interviews with experienced local industrial practitioners from the public sector were conducted to realize their perspective on the topic of procuring public works projects . Amongst these interviews, fourteen were launched government officials and advisers . The interview findings show that the majority of the Hong Kong and Australian interviewees had previously conducted some kind of research in the field of PPP. Both groups of interviewees agreed that "PPPs gain private sector's added efficiency/expertise/management skills" when compared to projects procured traditionally. Also, both groups of interviewees felt that projects best suited to use PPP are those that have an "Economic business case". The interviewees believed that "Contractor's performance" could be used as key performance indicators for PPP projects. A large number of critical success factors were identified by the interviewees for PPP projects; two of these were similar for both groups of interviewees. These included "Project objectives well defined" and "Partnership spirit/commitment/trust". Finally it was found that in-house guidance materials were more common in the organizations of the Australian interviewees compared to the Hong Kong ones. This paper studies the views of the public sector towards the topic of PPPs in Hong Kong and Australia, which helps to answer some of the queries that both academics and the private sector in these jurisdictions are keen to know. As a result the private sector can be more prepared when negotiating with the public sector and realise their needs better, academics on the other hand are provided a wider perspective of this topic benefiting the research industry at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]