Notes from ethics docs

 

Ethics notes from documents:

GUIDANCE ON RESEARCHING WITH CHILDREN:

 

researchers will need to have obtained appropriate ethical approval from the university before embarking upon their research with children according to the processes outlined by UW guidance. 

Within this document settings refers to schools and other settings.

Children are defined as those under the age of 18 as delineated by the Family Law Reform Act 1969

In these cases, it would be best practice to deploy a gatekeeper (as outlined in BERA, 2018, p. 10) and seek the guidance of the appropriate UW College Ethics panel.

Landsdown (2005) identifies different levels of involvement of children in research, which are equally applicable to researching with adults, but important to consider when designing your research. These are: 

(i) Consultation- with the aim of the adult eliciting the child’s perspective 

(ii) Participation- where the child plays a role in the process of the research 

(iii) Self-initiation- where the children are the instigators of the research, and the adults support them.

In the case of focus groups, since participants have a reasonable right to expect their expressed views will not be disseminated (including via social media) following the focus group, it is advised that participants and the researcher co-construct ‘rules of engagement’ before such data collection activities.

Consent: It is vital that consent from the parents/guardians/carers has been gained before embarking on any collection of personal data from children…establish trusting relationships between the researcher, participants and context.

Informed consent parents/carers:

Before acquiring any data about/from children within the research study, informed consent of the parents or carers should be gained, as required by BERA (2018).

This will involve a written signature to confirm consent given, in order to retain a record of appropriate ethical procedures.

It is sound ethical (and respectful) practice to still inform parents/guardians/carers of the research that is taking place and to invite them to clarify any queries that they may have with the researcher or the setting.

Even if permission has been gained from the responsible adults, it is still vital to gain assent from the children involved. This is confirmation from the children that they are happy to be a part of the research activity. This will need to be re-negotiated for each activity and, when appropriate, even during activities.

If the child is showing unease, lack of interest, irritation or fatigue at any point then the research activity should cease for that child.

Sample and participation:

Such a view could be taken of all research, not just research with children, but careful thought should be given to the sample chosen and whether it adequately represents the ‘multiple realities’ (Frones et al 2000) that children experience. Careful consideration should be given to variables such as age, gender and ability (to name but a few) and whether this fully represents the group that are being researched. In the case of small-scale studies (4- 6 participants) this may not be possible to achieve, however consideration should be taken by the researcher to ensure the research is appropriate and purposeful.

Responsibility to Disseminate:

“All research participants, including young children, have a right to feedback on the research process and outcomes” (EECERA, 2014: 8)

Refs:

Frones, I., Jenks, C., Qvortrup, J., Rizzinin, I. and Thorne, B. (2000) ‘Editorial: children’s places and spaces I the world’. Childhood 11 (1), pp 5-9.

Landsdown, G. (2005) ‘Can you hear me?’ The right of young children to participate in decisions affecting them’, Working Paper 36, Bernard van Leer Foundation, The Hague. Mukherji, P. and Albon, D. (2010) Research Methods in Early Childhood. Sage: London

British Educational Research Association [BERA] (2018a). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fourth edition, available at https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018online#footnote-016

British Educational Research Association [BERA] (2018b). BERA Statement on Close-to-Practice Research, available at https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/bera-statement-on-close-to-practice-research.

EECERA (2015) Ethical Code for Early Childhood Researchers Available at https://www.eecera.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EECERA-Ethical-Code.pdf

 

Research Integrity Policy

 

•Honesty Researchers should be honest in relation to their own research and that of others. They should do their utmost to ensure the accuracy of data and results, acknowledge the contributions of others

• Transparency 

Researchers should promote the open exchange of ideas, research methods, data and results and their discussion, scrutiny and debate, subject to any considerations of confidentiality.

• Accountability

They are also expected to be aware of subject-level and professional codes of conduct and frameworks relevant to their own area of research and to engage with these accordingly.

##

Publication and authorship

e) appropriately acknowledge anyone who has directly or indirectly assisted their work. This includes collaborators, funders and participants. Sources should be cited appropriately.

 

Research Ethics Policy

 

The University’s stance on ethical issues is underpinned by the following key principles: 

• Research must be justified 

• Informed consent must be given by participants 

• Participation in research must be voluntary 

• Confidentiality must be ensured 

• Any risk of harm to participants, animal subjects or the researcher(s) should be appropriately mitigated

 

Justified:

The value of the new knowledge gained should outweigh the potential disruption and inconvenience caused to those involved in the research.

2.3 Informed consent:

2.3.1 Those involved in research whether as participants or researchers should be informed of the nature and purpose of the research, and any potential benefits, risks, obligations or inconvenience associated with the research before they choose to participate. It is therefore normal practice to provide an information sheet or similar to potential participants that sets out the details of the research in a form accessible to the non-expert and in a format appropriate to them.

2.3.2 Wherever possible, and proportional to the nature of the research, evidence of consent (either written consent, or oral consent witnessed by another) should be obtained and retained as appropriate.  Participants should be informed that they are free to withdraw this consent and request that any data provided by them will be destroyed should they request it where this is practicable and within a reasonable timescale y.

2.3.3 Particular care is needed in gaining consent from vulnerable groups, such as: children

2.3.5 In the case of research in educational settings, the researcher must consider carefully the need to gain parental consent for participation in addition to that of the child. 

2.3.8 When access to participants is controlled by a ‘gatekeeper’1, researchers should adhere to the principle of gaining informed consent/assent from the participants themselves, whilst respecting the legitimate interests of the gatekeeper.

Voluntary participation:

2.4.1 As well as being informed, consent should also be freely given.  Researchers should ensure that participants are taking part in the research voluntarily

2.4.3 Researchers should also be aware that the use of incentives to encourage participation may be viewed as coercion if such incentives are any more than a token.  For example, giving those who complete a questionnaire access to a free prize draw will not normally be seen as coercive.  On the other hand, paying individuals more than reasonable expenses to take part in an interview would normally be seen as coercive. However, it should also be recognized that in some cultural contexts payment for participation in research is a recognized part of the research process.   

Confidentiality:

2.5.1 Except where explicit written consent is obtained to the contrary, researchers should protect the confidentiality and anonymity of all human participants and their data relating to them at all times.

2.5.2 Researchers should be aware of the risks to anonymity, confidentiality, privacy and security posed by the data they collect and store, and take measures to prevent accidental breaches of confidentiality.  The collection, storage, use and disclosure of data must comply with the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulations.

Ethical review procedures:

5.4 It is important to note that students should keep their answers to the checklist questions under review.

11. Continuing Ethical Review

11.1 The university encourages all researchers to review their answers to the checklist on an ongoing basis and to resubmit for approval where there are deviations from the approved research.

 

GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING RISK

 

1 THE POTENTIAL VULNERABILITY OF YOUR PARTICIPANT GROUPS

If your participants are from a vulnerable group (e.g. children, young people under 18 years, those with cognitive impairment or learning disability, individuals with psychiatric conditions where capacity to consent may fluctuate, individuals in a dependent relationship with the researcher) the research will normally be considered as high risk.

However, if a researcher has considerable experience in working with such groups or working with such groups is the disciplinary norm and there are well established protocols for engaging with the group, risk may be considerably reduced.

2. THE SENSITIVITY OF THE SUBJECT OF THE RESEARCH If the subject is a sensitive one (e.g. sexual behaviours, sexuality and/or gender identity, religious beliefs, physical or mental health conditions, experience of  violence, abuse or exploitation (child, adult), illegal  behaviour, political opinions, ethnic status), the research will normally be considered as high risk, especially if participants are being asked to talk about their own experience. 

However, if the participants are being asked their opinion on sensitive subjects rather than to reflect on their own experience, risk might be seen as low. Again, experience is also a factor; risk might be greatly reduced if a researcher has significant experience in the area, as a researcher or a professional.

 

3 THE NATURE OF DATA COLLECTION: SAFETY OF PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCHERS

Some types of data collection become high risk because of the participant group, the location or the focus of the research: e.g. 1 to 1 interviews in private settings would normally be considered high risk for the researcher even if the subject was uncontroversial and the participant group inherently posed no risk.

Research that requires permission of a gatekeeper for initial access to participants (where involvement of the gatekeeper might raise issues of whether participants’ involvement is truly voluntary).

POLICY FOR THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH DATA

 

Introduction:

1.2 Research data will be managed in line to comply with the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulations

1.4 Research Data are defined as any datasets, texts, images, recordings or artefacts generated through the research process which underpin the findings of a research project.

Handling data:

2.12 Researchers are expected to:  Produce processed data that is accurate, complete, authentic and reliable;

Data Storage:

2.14 This is a legislative requirement for personal data but it is recommended that all data is treated in this manner to ensure the integrity of that data.

2.15 Researchers are expected to: 

 Store all data, unprocessed and processed, whether digital or in some other form, securely and safely for the lifetime of the project unless there is a clear rationale why this is not possible or desirable 

 Use digital storage that is fit for purpose, both in terms of its security and its size - for this reason the robust, managed storage provided by the University is the recommended option 

 Back up all digital data and hold copies of data in other forms as far as that is possible and practicable on a regular basis

Data Preservation 2.17 

High quality research data are a public good and therefore should be preserved and made accessible to others unless there is a clear reason not to. Reasons include but are not limited to: 

 Consent for participation was subject to data not being preserved 

 Ethical considerations, such as need to ensure anonymity, argue against preserving the data 

 The data is insufficiently robust or meaningful to warrant preservation 

 The data does not have long-term value

2.19 It may not be practicable or appropriate to preserve all data generated or processed in the course of a project and decisions will need to be made as to what data should be preserved.

2.20 Researchers are expected to:  Identify if, how and for how long data will be preserved at the planning stage and communicate this to participants

Data Sharing:

2.22 Research data are preserved so that outputs from the research can be assessed against this data but also so that this data can be re-used by others. 

2.23 It is important that preserved data is easily discoverable and that it is accompanied by sufficient metadata to enable other researchers to understand the research and re-use potential of the data. 

2.24 Researchers are expected to: 

·       Produce metadata and documentation to describe the data (sufficient to understand what research data exists, why, when and how it was generated), to identify who owns the data and where it is archived, and to set out how the data can be accessed and any restrictions on access. 

2.25 The University will: 

·       Create a catalogue of data produced by its researchers including this metadata, to include a direct link to this data where this is appropriate and possible (e.g. through a digital object identifier).

ME?: Preservation - Sharing the outputs on ‘Creative Commons’ for others to use/build upon/ research further – e.g. lesson plans, activities, handouts, presentations, resources, toolkit. Interview questionnaires/focus group schedule of questions/plans? Observation sheets (Dudley (2014). Project website/dissemination events/conferences etc? Write targeted academic papers on the findings from parts of the research.

DMP will need regular review as there maybe other forms of data that get collected.

From DMP template:

Data Preservation:

5. What data will you keep at the end of the project and why?

6. How will you preserve the data?

Data Sharing:

7.How will you share the data?

8.Are there any restrictions on data sharing?

9.What documentation and metadata will accompany the data?