The importance of not breaching ethics approval

2 comments

I am sure that none of us, researchers and supervisors alike, need reminding of the robust Ethics Approval procedures now in place, but the information below provides a salutory reminder:

Protocol for handling instances of potential breaches by students of research integrity in the School of education with particular reference to the ethical protocol

A.  Background 

Ethical protocol can be breached if a student a) conducts data collection prior to notification of ethical approval, or b) diverges from the methodological design for which approval has been given.  That is:

¨       appropriate permissions not obtained as stated

¨       the number/type of participants is different from that specified in the approved application;

¨       the location of data gathering is different to that specified in the approved application;

¨       the data gathering instruments differ from those described in the approved application.

 

Any person who identifies an issue relating to any of the above should email the Research Ethics Administrator (copied to Research Development Manager) immediately.

[the protocol then outlines the procedures and possible outcomes that might result, including the formation of a fact-finding Panel with the objective of establishing ‘intentionality’. In determining the seriousness of the breach, the Panel will take into account the degree of study (UG, PGT, PGR), evidence of training that was provided to the student, clarity of Supervisor instructions relating to data collection, information regarding the progress of application through ethics screening process, as well as a consideration of what was originally approved where relevant. The outcome of such deliberations will be one of three verdicts, each with implications for what happens next: 1)  No/Low intentionality and 2)  Medium/High intentionality.

 

IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS AT ANY POINT ABOUT THE FULL APPROVAL FOR WHAT YOU ARE DOING BEING IN PLACE, STOP AND TAKE ADVICE IMMEDIATELY.

tagged with , , , ,

2 comments

  • Richard Fay
    21/03/2011 12:41

    Many thanks Paul. That is a very helpful insight … as I understand, even initial contacts to potential participants must come AFTER UREC approval, yes?

    With no intentionality involved, I could see how this might happen if any of us took our eye off the ‘approval ball’ even for a moment, and, in the real world of part-time studies, that can easily happen, especially when the context we are researching is located in our professional world, i.e. when what we are researching forms part of our daily work reality.

    So, it’s good to be reminded here (and to continually remind ourselves in this community) that all and any action to begin implementing our research design must come after we have officially been given UREC approval to begin (i.e. nothing can happen until the paperwork from UREC reaches us some time after the committee meeting where the research project was discussed).

  • Paul Breen
    21/03/2011 10:17

    Hi Richard,
    This is a very important piece of information for all research students. Even if there is a low intentionality a research project can be turned down for ethical approval. One of the main areas, it seems, where work can be turned down is in the tendency to go ahead with the initial steps of data generation prior to getting ethical approval.
    This data generation does not have to be COLLECTION of data. It can be something as simple as sending out letters or emails in advance of being given ethical approval.
    I would advise all students to follow the procedures. I speak from the voice of experience, from having unintentionally acted in a way that breached protocol.
    Regards,
    Paul Breen.