Dr Malcolm MacLeanChair – UoG Research Ethics Committee

Reader in the Culture & History of Sport, Faculty of Applied Sciences

29 January 2015

Why do ethical research?

Policies and procedures at the University of Gloucestershire

Advice on developing ethical literacy

There is a large number of on-line sources, usually best explored through subject specific databases

Networked notion of innovation: farmers as recipients and demanders of knowledge/skills/innovation Consider the extent to which networks conceal or

obfuscate implicit power relations (is there a tyranny of structurelessness?)

Food chain research: consider responsibilities to participants and audiences/research users in different socio-economic contexts/locations Denmark cf Senegal

Local/global chain participants

To what extent can we be responsible for how 3rd parties (or funders) use research findings? e.g., when job assessments become a case for job cuts: to what

extent can we manage the risk that participants will suffer negative effects from participation and what are our responsibilities to participants as a consequence?

Considering research in communities with marked income and social cohesion differentials Managing educational issues/distinction

Under what circumstances do rural communities become vulnerable? Is there a distinction between dispersed and localised

communities?

Approaches and principles

Autonomy/respect – participants’ ability to think, decide and act freely More obviously the case in research with (live) human participants

Beneficence – to do some good

Non-malfeasance – to do no harm

Justice – fairness and equity

Fidelity – honesty, integrity, trust

Academic freedom

Dominates discussions of research ethics

What is the extent of harm (malfeasance)? Consider objectives of research and balance factors

Nazi ‘medical’ experiments – straightforward

Drug Testing on Animals –less clear cut

Suspect that it is the core of the ‘anti-ethics’ sentiment Ethics clearance often seen as an impediment to

research

Implicit, but seldom discussed

Need to consider benefits in the context of risks/potential harm What is the balance and how do you assess it in your project?

Three levels of benefit To participants

To participants’ population (group or community or institution)

To general scientific/scholarly knowledge/wider society

To assess who benefits and how you need to consider your wider responsibilities

What are (y)our responsibilities to The common good?

(Y)our participants’ population?

(Y)our participants?

(Y)our supervisors/funders?

Others?

Ethical research is about process, not outcome

Many participants assess personal credentials (researcher trustworthiness) rather than the project itself

The ethical researcher is the humble researcher Our participants have knowledge we seek

Dominant model for research ethics derived from biomedical sciences Assumes the independence and autonomy of the

individual participant

Uncomfortable fit with some areas of social sciences and humanities (e.g., in cross cultural research, or emancipatory approaches)

Objectives of research projects Knowledge outcomes

For students and new researchers (but it never really ends): Understanding of research process and research skill enhancement

Voluntary informed consent [VIC]

Risk & Harm

Confidentiality

Anonymity

Privacy

Data Protection

Covert methods

Risk of harm to others

Risk of harm to self

On / off the record

‘Trespass into’: Private space

Private data

Guilty knowledge

Civil liberties

Animal rights

Environmental issues

How we do things at the University of Gloucestershire

Research Ethics: An Handbook of Principles and Procedures 2008 Professional codes of conduct

NHS Ethics Committees

University Research Ethics Committee Decision-making body for research degrees and staff research projects

Faculty Research Ethics Panel All other projects in taught programmes, UGT and PGT

The rules: Academic regulation 6.18: Any work which breaches the University’s

Research Ethics: Principles and Procedures (see University’s Research Ethics: Principles and Procedures) will not knowingly be assessed.

Go to http://resources.glos.ac.uk/currentstudents/research/ethics/index.cfm

Staff: Faculty Associate Dean Research/Head of Research unit or equivalent FREP chair UREC

Students – UGT/PGT: Dissertation Advisor/Module Tutor Course Leader FREP chair FREP

Students – PGR: Thesis advisor Faculty Research Director/Research Degrees Tutor or equivalent FREP chair UREC

Research which involves biomedical and clinical intervention (except those approved under standard protocols)

Deceptive research and covert research

Certain types of research involving vulnerable groups Only group always ‘vulnerable’ is children and young

people under 18 (see separate guidelines)

Research which deals with sensitive issues

How do we determine vulnerability?

The only people defined as always vulnerable are people under 18

In every other case, vulnerability is determined by the research questions and situational factors Power relationships, e.g., who determines research

participation?

Are the likely participants over-researched?

Are the issues ‘sensitive’?

Do the benefits to participants outweigh the risks of the research?

Have the participants been fully informed of the purpose of the study?

Is participation voluntary? Can participants withdraw at any time?

Have the risks (including physical) to participants been eliminated or minimised as far as possible?

Will all information be treated confidentially?

Will the participants be debriefed after the research/data collection?

Have the correct procedures for ethical approval been followed?

You have more to do if you cannot answer yes to all these.

Concordat to support research integrity http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2012/TheConcordatToSupp

ortResearchIntegrity.pdf

See also UK Research Integrity Office Code of Practice http://www.ukrio.org/publications/code-of-practice-for-research/

The concordat: includes but not limited to research ethics applies to all fields of research. emphasises responsibilities and accountabilities. complements existing frameworks. recognises the autonomy of employers. relates to many of the areas noted earlier as ‘responsibilities’,

and overlaps with emerging debates about ethical literacy

Almost certain to become a HEFCE funding requirement UoG compliance uneven; major issue effects of misconduct

Significant area of work for UoG: Significant policy gaps, esp. re misconduct

main issues Intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research. Accuracy in representing contributions to research proposals and

reports. Fairness in peer review. Collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and

sharing of resources. Transparency in conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. Protection of human subjects in the conduct of research. Humane care of animals in the conduct of research. Adherence to the mutual responsibilities between investigators and

their research participants.National Research Council of the National Academies (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: creating an environment

that promotes responsible conduct. Washington: The National Academies Press.

Chair: Dr. Malcolm MacLean, Applied Sciences/Academic Registry

Officer: Dr. Sharon Brookshaw, Research Administration Office Dr Ros Jennings, Head of Postgraduate Research Elaine Barwell, University Insurance Manager Chris Foy, Glos. Hospitals R&D Support Unit Stuart Wilding, Media, Arts and Technology Dr. Will Large, Media, Arts and Technology Dr. Emily Ryall, Applied Sciences Dr. Claire Cooke, Applied Sciences Dr. Maggie Zeng, Business School Simon Chippendale, Institute of Education & Professional

Studies

Bell, J. (1999) Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education and social science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Farrimond, H. (2012) Doing Ethical Research Basingstoke, Palgrave

Hammersley M. & Traianou, A. (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts London, Sage

Lee, R.M. (1993) Doing research on sensitive topics, London: Sage.

McNamee, M., Olivier, S., & Wainwright, P. (2007) Research Ethics in Exercise, Health and Sports Sciences London, Routledge.

Ransome, P. (2013) Ethics and Values in Social Research Basingstoke, Palgrave

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. (2000) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples London, Zed Press.

Wiles, R. (2013) What are Qualitative Research Ethics? London, Bloomsbury

Stages in the research process

What are your research questions?

Do your research questions add to knowledge?

If working with human participants, who will be able to best answer your questions?

Is there a risk that your population is overstudied?

What are your other sources of ‘data’ or evidence?

Who benefits from the research?

Are there direct benefits to participants if these questions are answered?

Who funds the research?

Are there potential conflicts of interest?

Are there any taboo topics?

Depends on your field.

What methods will you use? Why are they best way answer your specific questions?

What is your sampling frame (or criteria)? Can your sources/participants best answer your questions?

Do human participants have an incentive to participate? What are the ethical issues when you know the participants?

What sort of input do your participants have to the project? What are your ethical obligations to your participants – human or

otherwise?

Is your research design the best way to answer your questions?

Ethical moments in ‘the field’ Varies by subject/discipline area.

Ethical discussions With participants?

With students?

With advisors?

With funders?

What are your obligations to ensure data quality?

What steps do you take to ensure fair representation of participants/from sources?

What steps to you take to ensure data quality? The danger of doing violence to the data?

What do you do with evidence that does not ‘fit’?

How do you ensure that your research design and analytical methods are transparent?

Are there copyright issues to consider?

What is(are) the audience(s)? What are your publication obligations to your participants?

Are there any policy or practice influences in your research findings? How do you respond to them?

How do you make sure they get to the people who need to know?

Are there any social change implications in your findings? How do you respond to them?

How do you make sure they get to the people who need to know?

Do we have an ethical obligation to publish?

Authorship

Falsification, fabrication, plagiarism UoG Assessment Offences (see

http://insight.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/Quality/assessment/Pages/AssessmentOffences.aspx)

Conflicts of interest What happens when you are part of the group you are

researching?

Who funds the research? Is there funding source you would not use?

What are the challenges of evaluation research?