Black and White and Read All Over: Undergraduate research, risk and ethical review Dr Sarah Hale (Chair, Research Ethics Panel; and Dr Willy Kitchen (Director of Learning and Teaching; Institute for Lifelong Learning University of Sheffield

‘The Sheffield Graduate is a... skilled and ethical researcher...’ More and more research is being undertaken by undergraduates Research Ethics policies and procedures may not have been drawn up with such researchers primarily in mind Does this raise potential problems?

The Director of Learning and Teaching’s perspective … Research-led Learning is a key motivator for many mature students; Heightens awareness of Research Integrity as much as Research Ethics; Encourages “evidence-based practice” throughout the curriculum

Chair of RE panel’s perspective … UG lack of experience and training as researchers; Potential vulnerability of undergraduate researchers and their participants; Increased volume of research projects risking ‘survey fatigue’; Significant new knowledge or publishable results? Resource requirements of supporting UG research adequately

Should we limit the kinds of research undergraduates do? For example – a blanket ban on ‘high risk’ projects Limits on who can be asked to take part (to avoid ‘survey fatigue’) Encouraging library based research or use of existing datasets – stressing that this is equally valid research

But … We want to and should treat students as serious researchers – even though they are still learning the relevant skills; Problems may be few and far between – is it worth worrying about? Prescriptive approaches (who you can ask; what you should read) simply close down learning … and can never plug every gap

Outline of the workshop Additional potential issues? What is and isn’t a problem? – Small group discussion – Feed back key priorities What are we doing/can we do to address these? – Small group discussion and feedback Collection of conclusions for writing up

Issues raised: Group 1 Preparedness for research – interdisciplinarity Depts’ skill sets – supervision Volume of ethics applications – 75% at UG and PGT level Outsourcing of research – Commercial providers – Social networking Management vs. Avoidance of risk ‘Offshore’ and in-country research

Issues raised: Group 2 Risks to students and participants (health and social sci) – but does no risk mean no interest? Need to show progression from pre-university Academic community involvement Useful research for student Experience provides better insight/understanding Students learn to appreciate the value of research Skill set for future enquiry - employability

Plenary feedback from groups Student preparedness for research (partic. In relation to overall curriculum balance); At what point should “research” kick in beyond what’s experienced at school; Supervisory skills sets within and across different departments; Risk to students & participants in “difficult areas”; dealing with the unexpected; 75% of TUOS ethic applications from UG & PGT; learning through experience of research – learning to respect what lies behind research & evidence-based practice;

Plenary feed feedback from groups Outsourcing of research – people bidding to “do” the research (fill in surveys, test & interact with websites etc.); Becoming part of the academic community important … Is “low risk” necessarily “low interest” … risk awareness v. risk aversion …

How TILL is tackling this: The Research Spine Introducing research training from Level 1 – Academic integrity - referencing – Familiarity with research conventions through literature review and annotated bibliography Research Ethics introduced at Level 2 – Prior to small scale Independent Research Project – Alongside Research Methods And embedded by Level 3 and Dissertation