Research Ethics & Integrity

1. Research Ethics & Integrity Peter Ayton Professor of Psychology Chair of Senate Research Ethics Committee

2. What is research integrity? • Compliance • Misconduct: falsification, fabrication, authorship, conflict of interest, plagiarism, duplication… • Ethics: methodology, harms/benefits, consent, usefulness/social value • Continuing responsibility to research participants, colleagues, institution, discipline, society

3. Research Integrity: Why is it important? • Research integrity is vital to ensure that research is carried out to the highest possible standards. • It should be self-evident but often it is not. • It therefore needs to be promoted and supported. • For researchers: know what is required of you, where to get help and try to think about issues and problems in advance. • For organisations: support your researchers and make sure there is no stigma attached to asking for help.

4. University Framework for Good Practice in Research The aims of the Framework are to: • To establish and promote a code of good practice in the conduct of all aspects of research • To encourage members of the University to maintain the highest achievable standards in their research conduct • To ensure the quality of research conducted by members of the University is safeguarded and to document the procedure for investigating allegations of misconduct http://www.city.ac.uk/research/about-our-research/framework-for-good-practice-in-research

5. What is the point of research ethics committees? To ensure the following are not harmed; • Participants • Researchers • Reputation of the university Ethics needs to be your first consideration when planning research; , not an afterthought to be added on when everything else is in place.

6. Protecting participants from harm • Traditionally biomedical • Now all disciplines • Professional and legal requirements • All research involving human participants or collecting personal information and data have ethical implications! • Anonymity • Confidentiality • DPA • Never collect more data than is required • Transportation of data • Storage • Destruction • Re-use of personal data • International

7. What if I do not get ethical approval when it is required? Ethics needs to be your first consideration, not an afterthought If you do not get ethics approval when it is needed; • You may be subject to disciplinary proceedings • Your PhD/MSc will not get awarded • Your research will not be publishable • You are not insured Retrospective ethical approval is never given.

8. Do I need ethical approval for my research? Perhaps you don’t. Some research is exempt, such as; • Most work not involving humans or animals. • Any research that is being conducted on existing data publically available • Research involving public officials Almost all other research involving humans and their data must undergo ethical scrutiny

9. Some research needs approval by outside bodies For example; • NHS approval will be needed if research participants are identified from, or because of, their past or present use of NHS services, including participants recruited through these services as healthy controls. This also applies to research participants identified because of their status as relatives or carers of past or present users of these services. • Research involving members of the armed forces or research funded or sponsored by the Ministry of Defence will need MoD approval. • If participants are recruited who are currently under the auspices of the Criminal Justice System, for example, but not limited to, people on remand, prisoners and those on probation, guidance from the Offender Health Research Network must be followed. • If the study involves participants who unable to give informed consent, for example, but not limited to, people who may have a degree of learning disability or mental ill-health, that means they are unable to make an informed decision on their own behalf, the HRA: Mental Capacity Act 2005 needs to be followed.

10. Levels of ethical review within the University Senate Research Ethics Committee School Research Ethical Committees SHS Cass MCSE SASS Law Optometry LCS culture music journalism politics psychology sociology Divisional/Departmental Research Ethical Committees

11. Proportionality The level of ethical scrutiny should be proportional to the risk. Lower risk projects obviously need less intense scrutiny than higher risk ones. An uncontentious undergraduate project, for example, might be ‘signed off’ at departmental level by the supervisor and one other academic, while a full scale clinical trial would need consideration by the Senate Research Ethics Committee.

12. Low risk • The study does not involve participants who are vulnerable or unable to give informed consent or are in a dependent position • Participants will not be asked to take part in the study without their consent or knowledge at the time and no deception will be used • There is no risk that the highly sensitive nature of the topic might lead to disclosure from the participants concerning their own involvement in illegal activities or other activities that represent a risk to themselves or others • The study does not induce psychological stress or anxiety, or produce humiliation or cause harm or negative consequences beyond the risks encountered in the normal life of the participants • No drugs, placebos or other substances (such as food substance or vitamins) will be administered as part of this study and no invasive, intrusive or potentially harmful procedures of any kind will be used.

13. Potentially higher risk project (from an ethics point of view) • Does the study involve participants who are particularly vulnerable, unable to give informed consent or in a dependent position? • Will participants be asked to take part in the study without their consent or knowledge at the time or will deception be involved? • Is there a risk that the highly sensitive nature of the research topic might lead to disclosures from the participant concerning their own involvement in illegal activities or other activities that represent a risk to themselves or others ? • Could the study induce psychological stress, produce humiliation or cause harm beyond the risks encountered in normal life? • Are drugs, placebos or other substances to be administered to the study participants or will the study involve invasive, intrusive or potentially harmful procedures of any kind? • Is there a risk of harm to the researcher?

14. Protecting participants from harm (some things you will need to consider/do) • Methods must be appropriate to answer the question posed and the question should be worthwhile • Risks of physical and psychological harm must be minimised/negated • Participants must give ‘informed consent’ • The project must be fully explained to them in writing by a Participant Information Sheet. • They must sign a consent form agreeing to all aspects of the project • Sufficient time must elapse between being informed of the study and giving consent • How will potential participants be approached recruited (care must be taken to avoid any pressure on them) • How have you determined your sample size (has a power calculation been done)? • What selection criteria are you using? Specify inclusion and exclusion criteria. If exclusion of participants is made on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity, race, disability, sexuality, religion or any other factor, please explain and justify why. • If people are to be excluded how will this be explained to them? • What procedures are in place for the appropriate referral of a study participant who discloses an emotional, psychological, health, education or other issue during the course of the research or is identified by the researcher to have such a need?

15. Any questions please call or email Anna Ramberg Research Governance & Integrity Manager Secretary to Senate Research Ethics Committee University Research Office Drysdale E214 Anna.Ramberg.1@city.ac.uk X3040 Chair of Senate Research Ethics Committee: Professor Peter Ayton Department of Psychology p.ayton@city.ac.uk X8524