Black and White and Read All Over: Undergraduate research, risk and ethical review

1. Black and White and Read All Over: Undergraduate research, risk and ethical review Dr Sarah Hale (Chair, Research Ethics Panel; s.hale@shef.ac.uk) and Dr Willy Kitchen (Director of Learning and Teaching; w.kitchen@shef.ac.uk) Institute for Lifelong Learning University of Sheffield

2. ‘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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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;

11. 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 …

12. 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