“By creating we think, by living we learn” Patrick Geddes
This Code of Practice applies to all undergraduate and masters students and others engaged in research for which the School has or shares any responsibility.
Doctoral research students, contract researchers and staff should submit their proposals to the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC). However, UREC has a lighter burden of proof than this Code and reviews proposals only at one moment in time. Consequently, doctoral research students, contract researchers and staff should also use the School Research Ethics Approval Form (below) and continue to do so during their research.
The School Code aims to help researchers uphold scientific standards, comply with the law and avoid social and personal harm. The first section outlines general principles; the second section gives a framework for translating these principles into action.
The Code of Practice has been drawn from the ethical guidelines of the UK professional associations relevant to the School: The British Educational Research Association, the Scottish Educational Research Association, the British Association of Social Workers, the British Sociological Association and the British Psychological Society. It has also been cross-referred with the European Respect code of practice (www.respectproject.org/code), the codes of practice of relevant US associations (e.g. American Educational Research Association, National Association of Social Workers) and other sources.
It also includes:
Students undertaking research should expect exploration of research ethics issues within their programme through discussion with peers and supervisor(s). Staff undertaking research can attend the relevant School research methods sessions for this purpose.
Responsibility to ensure and evidence compliance with this Code lies primarily with the individual researcher, and secondarily with their supervisor or line manager (through vetting and agreeing proposals, conducting effective supervision and evaluating artefacts and products of research).
This Code does not cover all possible circumstances. In the event of concern about unusual cases, advice must be sought from a senior research colleague, who may refer the matter to the School Research Committee. Such advice should be summarised in writing.
All research should be conducted with respect for the welfare of all persons who might suffer detriment, or benefit from or be otherwise affected by the research and its dissemination, including individual participants and the systems and organisations in which they function. Research should be conducted with respect for knowledge and evidence, and for the law and civic values of the host culture.
The School has nominated officers responsible for the operation of Disclosure Scotland relevant criminal records checks on all researchers who might have close personal contact with children/young people. These checks must be complete and clear before any researcher has access to children/young people.
Researchers must sustain a concern for the welfare of all research participants in relation to any potential physical or mental harm, particularly those who are young, disadvantaged, vulnerable or oppressed or who have exceptional needs. Any risk of harm must be no greater than in ordinary life, i.e. participants should not be exposed to risks greater than or additional to those encountered in their normal lifestyles. Researchers should have regard for issues of child protection and be prepared to deal professionally and legally with potential disclosure of abuse.
Researchers share responsibility for the ethical treatment of research participants with their collaborators, assistants, students, employees and indeed other researchers. A researcher who believes that another researcher may be conducting research that is not in accordance with the principles above should encourage that researcher to re-evaluate their research procedures. If there is subsequent evidence of contravention of ethical principles, the researcher is morally obliged to bring this evidence to the attention of appropriate authorities.
Researchers might face a range of potential risks to their physical and psychological wellbeing. Such safety issues must be considered in the design and conduct of research projects and procedures should be adopted as necessary to reduce the risk to researchers to acceptable and reasonable levels. Such procedures should be agreed between researcher and supervisor and recorded in writing. Information regarding insurance, personal liability and personal liability should be readily available.
Researchers should not engage in contract research without the agreement of their host institution. The host institution should not compel academic staff to engage in particular contract research projects.
Researchers must show official identification to participants and any other person with a reasonable need to know. Researchers must endeavour to maintain and develop their professional competence, to recognise and work within its limits, and to identify and ameliorate factors which restrict it. They shall refrain from laying claim, directly or indirectly, to qualifications or affiliations they do not possess, from claiming competence in any particular area in which they have not established their competence, and from claiming characteristics or capabilities for themselves or others which they do not possess. They shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that their qualifications, capabilities or views are not misrepresented by others, and to correct any such misrepresentations. Researchers will, in their chosen methodology and in every other aspect of their research, ensure that they are competent to carry out the particular research project. This responsibility also falls equally and jointly on supervisors of researchers.
Researchers must conduct themselves in a way that does not damage or unfairly enhance the welfare of the participants, the system within which the participant functions, or other stakeholders, or public confidence in researchers or related professions. They should be alert to and avoid potential conflicts of interest and/or relationship with participants or other stakeholders. They must not abuse or exploit any differential in trust, power or status which stems from their research activities or findings, for any purpose. Researchers must be mindful and respectful of cultural, religious, linguistic, nationality, colour, political, social class, age, disability, gender, sexual and other significant differences within participant populations and other stakeholders in the planning, conducting, and reporting of their research.
Researchers must report their findings accurately, truthfully and completely. They must seek to exclude from their work any unacknowledged bias or conflict of interest. If their findings are misused by others, they have a duty to point this out. When giving advice, expressing a professional opinion or making a public statement, they must appropriately acknowledge the limits of the available evidence. They must not claim credit for the research and intellectual property of others and must give due credit to the contributions of others in collaborative work (unless the collaborators request anonymity).
They must comply with all locally pertinent legislation governing human rights, data protection, publication, copyright and libel, and other relevant matters. Researchers must conduct themselves in a manner that will not bring into disrepute the discipline and the profession to which they belong. They must bring allegations of misconduct by a colleague to the attention of those charged with the responsibility to investigate them, doing so without malice and with no breaches of confidentiality other than those necessary to the proper investigatory processes. If the subject of allegations themselves, they shall take all reasonable steps to assist those charged with responsibility to investigate them. They must maintain adequate standards of safety in the use of all procedures and equipment in research.
Consents are often necessary at more than one systemic level: e.g. the local authority, the school (head teacher), the class teacher, the individual child participant, and parent(s) (whose wishes cannot over-ride those of the child).
Researchers must refrain from making exaggerated or unjustifiable claims for the effectiveness of their methods or materials in a way likely to encourage unrealistic expectations. Researchers must advise potential participants of any possible harmful consequences of participating. Researchers should not induce persons to participate by implying that access to services may be affected by or dependent on participation. Researchers must not abuse trust, power or status to pressurise persons into participating.
For any activity not usual or normal for the intended participants in a research study, they should be informed about the aims, purposes, methods and likely dissemination of findings involved in the research and of any potential consequences for participants, and give their voluntary informed consent before participating (through their signing a readily comprehensible consent form, or other appropriate, valid, effective and explicit evidence of consent, which is retained by the researcher). Consent cannot be inferred from a lack of response - it has to be positively affirmed. Consent should refer to a specified time period and research project. If analysis of existing archival data is proposed, reasonable efforts must be made to secure the informed consent of the intended participants. Researchers must recognise and uphold the rights of those whose capacity to give valid consent may be diminished, including the young, those with learning disabilities, the elderly, and those in the care of an institution or detained under the provisions of the law. Where research involves any participants less than 16 years of age, consent should also be obtained from parents, legal guardians or others with legal responsibility. Consent from those with legal authority to give it does not necessarily fulfil all the researcher's obligations in this regard.
Advance information about research aims, methods, dissemination and possible consequences can only be withheld when it is unequivocally necessary in the interests of the objectivity of the research procedure or of future professional practice, and then only with the agreement of relevant senior researchers. Full information must then be given to participants retrospectively prior to data analysis. Researchers may only withhold information with extremely strong scientific justification, and after carefully determining that alternative procedures avoiding concealment or deception are not available. Researchers must not withhold information or mislead participants if it is reasonably probable that the participants will object or be displeased once made aware.
Observational studies must respect the privacy and well-being of the persons observed, whether intended research participants or not. Unless those observed give their consent to being observed, observational research is only acceptable in situations where those observed would normally expect to be observed by strangers. Additionally, account should be taken of local cultural values and the possibility of intruding upon the privacy of individuals who, even while in a normally public space, may believe they are unobserved.
Researchers should clarify how research participants will be able to see their own data, dispute it if necessary, and to alter the content, withdraw data, provide additional data or add to interpretations. Researchers must make clear to participants their right to withdraw from the research at any time. Persistent avoidance may be taken as evidence of failure of continuing consent. In the light of experience of the research, or as a result of debriefing, the participant has the right to withdraw retroactively any consent given, and to require that their own data, including recordings, be destroyed.
Researchers must take all reasonable steps to preserve the confidentiality of all forms of data acquired through research (including photographic data, audio and video recordings) and to protect the privacy of individuals or organisations about which information is collected or held. Anonymity (individual identity irretrievable by anyone) and "pseudonymity" (individual identity concealed but retrievable with a code book held by the researcher) should not be confused with confidentiality. Only data relevant, adequate and not excessive for the current purpose of the research should be recorded. Information given for one purpose may not be used for a different purpose without the explicit permission of the participant. Researchers must clearly inform participants of the boundaries of confidentiality realistically available, in a way comprehensible to participants. Where relevant, participants should be advised that research data given in confidence do not enjoy legal privilege and may be liable to subpoena by a court. Potential participants possessing a combination of attributes which make them readily identifiable should be advised that it could be difficult to disguise their identity completely without introducing an unacceptably large measure of distortion into the data.
Researchers must take care to prevent the identity of individuals, organisations or participants in research being revealed, deliberately or inadvertently, unless appropriate permissions are given by the participants, subject to the requirements of law. Researchers must make clear to participants the extent to which personally identifiable information may be shared between colleagues in a research team or collaboration. They must take all reasonable steps to ensure that colleagues, staff and trainees with whom they work understand and respect the need for confidentiality regarding any information obtained. In exceptional circumstances, where there is sufficient evidence to raise serious concern about the safety or interests of participants, or about others who may be threatened by any participant's behaviour, it may be necessary to inform appropriate third parties without the prior consent of the participant. This should only be done after consultation with senior researchers, unless the delay caused by seeking this advice would involve a significant risk to life or health.
Researchers must inform participants of their rights under relevant copyright, data protection and related laws. They must ensure that data over which they have control remain personally identifiable only as long as is necessary in the interests of those to whom they refer. They must prevent unauthorised access to personal data and accidental loss or damage. They must not transfer data to countries outside the European Union not governed by data protection legislation. Data (including secondary data) must be validated as accurate and kept up-to-date as relevant. Participants must be advised of data retention and disposal policies and practices, with time scales and any firm intentions regarding later processing.
The Data Protection Act (1998) controls the storage of personal data held in any form (not just on computers). This code of practice incorporates the main requirements of the DPA, but any case of doubt should be referred to the university Data Protection Officer. The university is required to notify government of the types of activity for which data are held under the terms of the DPA. In Scotland it is supplemented by the Freedom of Information Act (2002), which takes effect on January 1st 2005.
Participants should be informed of means and procedures for contacting the researcher within a reasonable time period following participation should stress, potential harm, or related questions or concern arise. When data have been collected, the researcher should provide participants with information to complete their understanding of the research. The researcher should discuss with participants their experience of the research in order to monitor any unforeseen negative effects or misconceptions, false hopes, unwanted self-knowledge, unnecessary anxiety, stress, discomfort or embarrassment. This is particularly important for participants who may be especially vulnerable. Participants should be offered feedback on findings, for example in the form of a summary report. These issues should also be addressed in research where the boundary between researcher and participant may not be distinct, for example participant research or collaborative enquiry. Debriefing does not provide a justification for unethical aspects of any research project.
During research, a researcher may obtain evidence of psychological or physical problems of which a participant appears to be unaware. In such a case, the researcher has a responsibility to inform the participant if the researcher believes that by not doing so the participant's future wellbeing may be endangered. If a participant solicits advice concerning educational, personality, behavioural or health issues, caution should be exercised. If the issue is serious and the researcher is not qualified to offer assistance, the appropriate source of professional advice should be recommended. In some kinds of research project the giving of advice is appropriate if this forms an intrinsic part of the research and has been agreed with participants in advance.
Researchers should clarify in advance the respective obligations of funders and researchers, where possible in the form of a written contract. They should refer the sponsor or funder to the relevant parts of the professional code to which they adhere. Researchers should clarify in advance with sponsors and funders the limitations, advantages and disadvantages of the various methods of analysis and data sources. Contractual conditions that are contingent upon a particular outcome, finding or evaluation from a proposed inquiry should not be accepted. Researchers should not conceal factors which are likely to affect satisfactory completion of a proposed research project or contract.
Sponsorship of research should be made explicit by the researcher during recruitment and dissemination. Sponsors or funders have the right to have disclaimers included in research reports to differentiate their sponsorship from the conclusions of the research. Researchers should not agree to, or condone by inactivity, influence by government or other funding agencies on the appointment of research staff, conduct of research, the analysis of findings, or the reporting of conclusions, where this is clearly in pursuance of ulterior economic, political or other motives. Attempts at such influence should be discussed with the source of intended influence, if necessary reported via the ethics control procedures of the host institution, and if necessary reported to the relevant professional association(s).
Researchers must not fabricate, falsify or misrepresent evidence, data, findings, or conclusions. Researchers should report their findings to all relevant stakeholders and not keep secret or selectively communicate their findings. Researchers should report research design, instruments, procedures, results, and analyses accurately and in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to understand, interpret and replicate them. Researchers should communicate their findings and the practical significance of their research in clear, straightforward, and appropriate language to relevant research populations, institutional representatives, and other stakeholders. Researchers must not offer professional advice or judgements which go beyond the available evidence without making this clear. Researchers should not review the work of others when strong conflicts of interest are involved or when such requests cannot be conscientiously fulfilled on time. Materials sent for review should be read in their entirety and considered carefully, with evaluative comments justified with explicit reasons.
The data and results of a research study belong to the researchers who designed and conducted the study unless alternative contractual arrangements have been made with respect to either the data or the results or both. Authorship should be determined on the basis that all those, regardless of status, who have made a substantive and/or creative contribution to the research which led to the intellectual product are entitled to be listed as authors of that product. Any person listed as an author must have given their consent to be so listed. First authorship and order of authorship should be agreed by the authors in relation to relative contributions in terms of leadership, creativity and effort expended. Others contributing to the research should be appropriately acknowledged. Organisations which fund or otherwise resource research yielding intellectual property or products are entitled to a fair share of any profits from such property or products, and it is helpful if this is clarified in advance where possible.
Researcher(s) have a duty to report findings both to the funding agency and to the wider public. Maximising the dissemination of information is an integral part of research, which seeks to continuously test the accuracy, comprehensiveness and replicability of findings. The right to publish is therefore entailed by this duty to report. Researchers conducting sponsored research should generally retain the right to publish the findings under their own names. Conditions under which the right to publish might be legitimately restricted include:
Relevant bodies should not exercise restrictions on publication by default, e.g. by failing to answer requests for permission to publish, or by undue delay. Publications should indicate if they have been subject to reporting restrictions. Researcher(s) have the right, as a last resort and following discussions with the funding agency and advisory group, to publicly dissociate themselves from misleadingly selective accounts of the research.
This Code of Practice applies to all undergraduate and masters students and others engaged in research for which the School has or shares any responsibility.
Doctoral research students, contract researchers and staff should submit their proposals to the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC). However, UREC has a lighter burden of proof than this Code and reviews proposals only at one moment in time. Consequently, doctoral research students, contract researchers and staff should also use the School Research Ethics Approval Form (below) and continue to do so during their research.
Reading this is not a substitute for reading the preceding principles.
For any research project, the following formative assessment questions should be considered to address ethical aspects. Consider and address these before the research (when developing the proposal), during and after the research.
Not all questions are relevant to all projects. Indicate which items are relevant to your research project in the box provided. Sometimes the relevant issues will be dealt with at programme, School, institutional or other corporate level rather than the individual level. Indicate for each relevant item which is the case in the boxes provided (marking both if this is appropriate). Where you have marked the "individual" box, you must be able on request to show a written statement of exactly how you are addressing these issues in practice. The "action" box can be used to insert this detail (it will expand to accommodate the text). Other documents can be attached as relevant.
Both the researcher and their supervisor must sign the form at the end of the assessment and be prepared to show this original to the School Research Committee on request.
Research ethics issues can and do change as research projects unfold in ways which are not entirely predictable. You will need to revisit this assessment to reconsider the relevant issues from time to time, adapting your procedures accordingly. At the end of the research project you will need to be able to show on request a final summative assessment of all research ethics issues and how these were addressed in practice (if different from your original).
This assessment does not cover all possible circumstances. In the event of concern about unusual cases, seek advice from a senior research colleague, who may advise referral to the School Research Committee. A summary of such advice should be given in writing.
These requirements may appear daunting to novice researchers and to undergraduate or continuing professional development students undertaking research for the first time. Research is by definition a new activity and all new activity involves some risk. This is not intended to suppress research, but rather to ensure that the risk assessment is explicit.
This School Research Ethics Assessment Form (REAF) may be customised for application to specific programmes involving research. However, supervisors must then judge if any elements have been omitted from any abbreviated version of the Code which are in fact relevant to a particular project and advise the person undertaking the research accordingly. Columns may also be added, for example to ask is this Question Relevant to ethics permissions, to indicate whether Corporate agreement for many students has been arranged for any Question, or to indicate whether the Question is actually relevant to the Individual.
del.icio.us
digg
reddit
facebook
stumbleupon