ESRC’s approach to Research Ethics University of Sussex, 8 February 2007 Dr Stephen Struthers.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Role of the IRB An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a review committee established to help protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Advertisements

Areas of Research Specific issues. Clinical Trials Phase I First use in humans of an experimental drug or treatment In a small group of healthy volunteers.
The School Research Ethics Committee Welsh School of Architecture.
Ethical Considerations
An Introduction to the Ethics Review Procedure Lindsay Unwin: Research & Innovation Services, UREC Secretary.
1 Ch. 3: Becoming an Ethical Researcher (pp )
Tri-Council Policy Statement 2010 Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.
Understanding Research Ethics Dr Meera Warrier Research Development Coordinator Academic Practice
Protecting the Privacy of Family Members in Survey and Pedigree Research Jeffrey R. Botkin, MD, MPH University of Utah.
+ Developing Codes of Practice for Indigenous Research Suzanne Urbanczyk, HREB Member, Assoc Prof, Linguistics Eugenie Lam, Ethics Coordinator Wanda Boyer,
ICS 417: The ethics of ICT 4.2 The Ethics of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Business by Simon Rogerson IMIS Journal May 1998.
Fundamentals of IRB Review. Regulatory Role of the IRB Authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research.
Workshop 501 and 505 Review barriers to communication
Ethical Considerations when Developing Human Research Protocols A discipline “born in scandal and reared in protectionism” Carol Levine, 1988.
Human Research and Ethics Dr Michèle de Courcy Chair, Faculty of Education HEAG University of Melbourne.
IRB Determinations 1. AAHRPP Site Visit Results Site visitors observed a real commitment to human subject protections Investigator and research staff.
Responsible Sponsorship A case study Dr Birgit Whitman, Head of Research Governance.
Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar January 2014 Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar.
Use of Children as Research Subjects What information should be provided for an FP7 ethical review?
1 Arja Kuula, Development Manager, Finnish Social Science Data Archive, University of Tampere Ethics Review in Finland IASSIST conference 2010 Cornell.
School of Education, University of Leicester 1 Ethics of Educational Research: An agenda for discussion Hugh Busher SMEC 9 Conference, AUB, Lebanon 2005.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم. THE TITLE “INTRODUCTION”
1 Ethics in Psychological Research  Ethics – __________________  Research ethics – responsibility of researchers to be honest and respectful of all individuals.
PROF. CHRISTINE MILLIGAN SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND MEDICINE LANCASTER UNIVERSITY Ethics and Ethical Practice in Research.
Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives Version 1.0 Presentation by: Joe Hostler (Yurok Tribe) Climate & Traditional.
Data Protection Recruitment Process
Research Ethics A guide to principles and procedures
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics Report : The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical research and health care: ethical issues. Martin Richards.
Dealing with confidential research information and consent agreements in research Louise Corti Associate Director UK Data Archive University of Glamorgan.
Putting Professional Ethics into research and practice BASW.
 About SP ERC  Role of SP ERC  SP ERC Members  ERC Operations  Definition of Research  Definition of Principal Investigator (PI), Co-PI, Collaborator.
Welcome Maria Hegarty Equality Strategies Ltd. What ? Equality/Diversity Impact Assessment A series of steps you take that enable you to assess what you.
REF Information Session August Research Excellence Framework (REF)
The Ethical Dimension of Collaboration Professor Simon Rogerson Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility De Montfort University, UK
Psychology 291 – Lab 4 Ethics October 9, 2012
Writing Impact into Research Funding Applications Paula Gurteen Centre for Advanced Studies.
John Oates Andrew Rawnsley Birgit Whitman. Plan The background to the Framework The structure of the Framework How the Framework might be implemented.
Introducing Research Ethics: Policy and Procedure
Guidance for AONB Partnership Members Welsh Member Training January 26/
Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints. 2 Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due.
PRESENTED BY: RAHIMA NJAIDI MJUMITA 3 RD APRIL 2012.
“What’s Ethics Got To Do With It” Presentation to the Canberra Evaluation Forum Gary Kent Head Governance Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
1 Ethics of Working with Human Subjects (BIOL/CHEM 397 ) Header image designed by Michelle Jordan, UMBC Creative Services, 2009.
Canadian English LING 202, Fall 2007 Dr. Tony Pi Research Ethics.
A step-by-step guide to help you determine if your research protocol is required to be reviewed by the Lindenwood University IRB INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD.
Safeguarding - LINK GOVERNOR. Safeguarding – Why Section 175 requires school governing bodies, local education authorities and further education institutions.
FORUM GUIDE TO SUPPORTING DATA ACCESS FOR RESEARCHERS A STATE EDUCATION AGENCY PERSPECTIVE Kathy Gosa, Kansas State Department of Education.
Case Studies: Puzzles in Human Research Kevin L. Nellis, M.S., M.T. (A.S.C.P.) Program Analyst, Program for Research Integrity Development and Education.
Objective 9/23/15 Today we will be completing our research methods unit & begin reviewing for the upcoming unit assessment 9/25. Agenda: -Turn in all homework.
WELCOME to the TULANE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION OFFICE WORKSHOP for SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH (March 2, 2010) Tulane University HRPO Uptown.
Paper III Qualitative research methodology. Objective 1.4 Discuss ethical considerations in qualitative research.
5-6-1 Unit 6: Ethical considerations After completing this unit, you should be able to: Understand the basic ethical principles of working with.
Ethical Guidelines in Research Ethics refers to doing what is morally and legally right in conducting research. Research ethics deals primarily with the.
Ethics: Doing the Right Thing
Elements of Ethical Review of Study Documents Dr.C.H.Shashindran Director-Professor & Head Department of Pharmacology JIPMER.
8 th November 2007 Research: ethics and research governance Rossana Dowsett Research and Regional Development Division [Pre Award Support] University of.
Chapter 2: Ethical Issues in Program Evaluation. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) Federal mandate for IRBs –Concern during 1970s about unethical research.
VICTORIAN CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
The research ethics review process Hazel Abbott, Chair University Research Ethics Committee.
SOCIAL CARE RESEARCH AND NHS RECs Professor Jan Pahl University of Kent Contact:
Research Ethics Dr Nichola Seare Aston Health Research & Innovation Cluster.
7/7/20161 The Public Sector Equality Duty for Schools in England Jonathan Timbers – Policy Manager, PSED Team, Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Ethics and Educational Research. The aims of the session  To consider the ethical values that inform educational research  To reflect on our own values.
Scientific and Scholarly Validity

Research Ethics Matthew Billington
Tri-Council Policy Statement 2010
© 2016 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Research Ethics and Integrity Officer
Ethics: Doing the Right Thing
Presentation transcript:

ESRC’s approach to Research Ethics University of Sussex, 8 February 2007 Dr Stephen Struthers

ESRC’s six ethical principles 1Research should be designed, reviewed and undertaken to ensure integrity and quality 2Research staff and subjects must be informed fully about the purpose, methods and intended possible uses of the research, what their participation in the research entails and what risks if any, are involved. Exceptionally, some variation may be acceptable 3The confidentiality of information supplied by research subjects and the anonymity of respondents must be respected.

ESRC’s six ethical principles 4Research participants must participate in a voluntary way, free from any coercion. Exceptionally, covert research and deception may be acceptable. 5.Harm to participants must be avoided. avoidance of harm extends to family, kin, community groups should not be unreasonably excluded from research exceptionally, some limited short term and minimal harm may be acceptable 6The independence of the research must be clear; any conflicts of interest or partiality must be explicit.

ESRC’s Research Ethics Framework - development Developed by team led by Professors Andrew Webster and Mary Boulton Takes a distinctly social science perspective ( i.e. it recognises range of theories and methods) Builds on existing traditions of ethics reviews Widespread consultation within research community – HEIs., learned societies, researchers Aims to reflect, disseminate, standardise best practice REF Document published July 2005 –2 parts – principles and guidance Implemented January 2006

Why introduce new ESRC Research Ethics Framework? Changes in policy context – development of governance and ethics reviews (DH, Cabinet Office) Development of new procedures for NHS ethics Changes in public attitudes and expectations e.g. increased concern and transparency Changes in social science research and methods, especially interdisciplinary work within and outside social sciences Implications of changes in context of social science research – globalisation, ICT advances, data sharing. Existing general guidance insufficient Need for ethical approach appropriate to social science

What research ethics covers Ethics –moral principles Research –any form of disciplined enquiry that aims to contribute to body of knowledge or theory Concerned with all stages of research –from its inception through to completion and publication of results and beyond

Social science research - some implications for ethics review includes wide range of disciplines, often linked to complementary fields, or applied areas; has diverse research methods; may be critical; may generate new theoretical and empirical work, which may have policy relevance; may involve human participants or subjects as source of primary data, or indirectly, via existing secondary data. – questions of informed consent, confidentiality, accountability.

Risks in social science research Diverse range: not only - potential physical or psychological harm; discomfort or stress but also disruption or damage to e.g. a subject’s personal social standing individual privacy personal values and beliefs a subject’s links to family and wider community a subject’s occupational status or position implications of revealing illegal, sexual or deviant behaviour …. as individuals, as whole communities, or categories of people

Research where risk of harm may be legitimate Research which is deliberately opposed to the interests of the research subjects –E.g.- studies of power or inequality –aim to reveal and critique economic, political, or cultural disadvantage –may have negative impact on some subjects Research which balances short-term risks to subjects against longer terms gains to beneficiaries

Secondary Data Ethical review of original research does not rule out issues over secondary use. –Researchers who initially collect data need to expect others to want to re-use it Needs careful consideration – –Risks of disclosure - e.g. where birth date is included –Issues of presumed consent –Potential issues of ownership and control –Risks in archiving - e.g. inappropriate access

Main features of Research Ethics Framework (1) 1.Responsibility for the conduct of research rests with principal investigator 2.Responsibility for ensuring research is subject to ethical review, approval and monitoring lies with research organisation seeking or holding an award with ESRC and employing the researchers (or some of them if it is co-ordinating a collaborative project.)

Main features of Research Ethics Framework (2) 3. Ethical review should always be proportionate to the potential risk, whether this involves primary or secondary data. 4. ESRC does not seek to impose model arrangements, but will only fund research in organisations/institutions with procedures in place which meet minimum requirements 5. As part of ESRC decision-making: - peer reviewers and assessors comment on ethical self-assessment; Boards or panels may set conditions.

Main features of Research Ethics Framework (3) 6.Funds commence only when Institution confirms project has started and any specified ethical approvals have been obtained. 7.Additional costs of satisfying ethical conditions can be claimed from ESRC 8.Breaches of good ethical practice in ESRC funded research will be treated as a very serious matter by the Council

ESRC’s minimum requirements (1) 1.Ethical issues must always be addressed in a research proposal and grounds for view about the risks must be explained. Not necessary to secure approvals before submission, but must state what approvals would be required, if funded, and how they would be obtained. In submitting proposal, administering institution concurs with this and agrees to carry this out.

ESRC’s minimum requirements (2) 2.Where potential risks of harm to participants or others is minimal – (or, very exceptionally, where there is particular urgency) - expedited (or “fast track”) review would be appropriate (usually REC chair’s action) 3. Where potential risks are identified – i.e. more than minimal risk - review to be undertaken by a properly constituted Research Ethics Committee.

ESRC minimum requirements (3) Research with any “more than minimal” risk must go through an REC: –Vulnerable groups (egs. children, learning disability, old people) –Sensitive topics (egs. violence, political views) –Groups where gatekeeper permission required (indigenous communities) –Deception, or without full and informed consent –Use of personal/confidential information (identifiable individuals) –Subjects in stress, anxiety, humiliation –Intrusive interventions (drugs, hypnosis, physical exercise)

ESRC minimum requirements (4) University based Research Ethics Committees must: –Include members from more than one discipline –Include men and women –Have at least one lay member – not affiliated to the university –Include members with broad research experience in relevant areas, with confidence and esteem of research community. –Include at least one member knowledgeable about ethics Would benefit from –some reflection of local community, relevant service users, methodological expertise –at least 7 members

ESRC’s minimum requirements (5) 4.Universities must have arrangements for monitoring conduct of research which has received ethical approval until is complete, and to ensure continuing review where research design anticipates possible changes over time. 5.Universities must have a complaints procedure for addressing concerns about conduct of research. 6.Special arrangements must be made for multi- funded and multi- performer projects. 7.All legal and data requirements must be met. –Data Protection Act 1998 –Use of secondary data.

What is compulsory in R.E.F? Ethics review must: –be undertaken prior to research starting, except by agreement with ESRC –Proportionate to the risks involved Research Ethics Committees must have: –at least one lay (unaffiliated) member who is trained –at least one academic member from outside the unit conducting the research Universities and Research organisations must: –monitor research that has received ethical approval –ensure continuing review where research design anticipates change –have mechanisms for receiving complaints or concerns –comply with requirements of legislation and data providers Departments “recognised” by ESRC for research studentships must provide ethics training

Monitoring and sanctions Universities, ESRC and the research community have a shared interest in good ethical practice Monitoring –that appropriate reviews take place, not the outcome of those reviews –as part of Research Councils’ Financial checks – “dipstick” testing and annual questionnaire Sanctions –Prevention better than cure –As a last resort - withdrawing research funding from a university

Training in research ethics A formal requirement for some but not necessarily all REC members Universities should expect to build ethical competences over time through formal and informal training Long term goal to improve ethical literacy of social science research community, so that research ethics are an integral part of good research practice –ESRC initiatives: part of training requirements for next generation of researchers Research Methods Programme, Research Methods Centre Researcher Development Initiative

Experience of R.E.F. so far Few problems, or change from past practice Research ethics always has been an issue for ESRC Boards and Panels Increased awareness of ethical dimension among applicants Great majority of researchers accept desirability of review A few misconceptions: –covert research –bureaucratic, heavy handed All universities have system in place –perhaps some weaknesses More conditions attached to awards

Further information We are committed to on-going review of REF and its implementation Comments or queries to: or Dr. Stephen Struthers tel: ESRC Website: (Short cut to research ethics “home page” –