ESRC Framework Research Ethics (FRE) Professor Ann Buchanan, Chair of FRE Committee
ESRC Framework Research Ethics (FRE)
Professor Ann Buchanan, Chair of FRE Committee
In this talk:
I will outline the challenges of the task
I will summarise the conduct of the review
I will highlight the major changes in the new ESRC Framework for
Research Ethics. (FRE)
Finally will introduce some case studies for discussion
What I am hoping to do is to start a dialogue. We are all learning.
The Challenge: Updating the Framework for Research Ethics
My background: considerable research with children and young people in
some very sensitive areas.
Involved in the development or original Barnardo’s Guide
The challenge was to continue the push for the development of high
ethical standards while at the same time not block research using new
innovative methodologies.
ESRC need to enforce basic minimum standards but we need a
flexible approach which enables us to overcome new ethical
dilemmas in research.
Key Aspects of Original Framework Research designed, reviewed and undertaken to
ensure integrity and quality
Staff and subjects must be fully informed about purpose, methods, uses and risks
Confidentiality and anonymity must be respected
Voluntary basis free from coercion
Harm to participants must be avoided
Independence of the research must be clear, and conflicts of interest must be explicit
The 2009 Review
Promised after three years
Some issues had arisen in that time (none major)
Some significant developments in legislation
RCUK Research Integrity (Good Research Conduct)
2008 consultation and its relevance
Major developments in ESRC with new funding
across disciplines, across research councils, across
countries.
Conduct of the Review Aim was that the review would be light touch and
framework would retain similar structure for familiarity
Public consultation January-February 2009
Research organisations (universities, etc. - ROs), Learned Societies and wider public consulted
Over 100 responses
Reviewed by small review panel chaired by ESRC Council member (Professor Ann Buchanan) in May 2009.
The Review Panel
Chair: Professor Ann Buchanan, ESRC Council and Oxford University
Professor Sheila Peace – Open university
Professor John Oates – Open University
Professor Graham Crow - Southampton
Professor William Dutton – University of Oxford
Dr Janet Boddy – Institute of Education
The Panel was ably assisted by:
Michele Dobson and Mary Day of ESRC.
Some of the Issues raised in the consultation
The non-prescriptive approach generally welcomed. But varying
levels of development in the different Research Organisations.
The need for enforcement of minimum standards.
Asked to make Framework make more accessible and to give
more information on specific concerns.
New methodologies and new technology were raising new
ethical issues.
They felt that the FRE should be available on the web: a ‘living
tool’:
Specific concerns
Vulnerable groups: need for greater definition and guidance
Security, Data and Risk: further guidance was needed
Use of technology: more guidance was necessary Privacy and consent: secondary, video and image
evidence in particular needed more guidance, and also for small / elite populations where people might be identifiable
Some more of the Issues Raised Risk assessment : more advice and guidance was asked for
Co-funded and International research: particular challenges
in ensuring ethical best practice
More guidance on social care issues in the light of recent /
current developments and the role of SCIE (Social Care
Institute for Excellence) and SCREC (National Social Care
Research Ethics Committee)
More guidance on and reference to other bodies with
supervisory responsibilities
Structure of updated ESRC Framework
SUMMARY Principles and Minimum Requirements
SECTION 1: The ESRC’s Minimum Requirements
SECTION 2: Frequently Asked Questions Relating to the
Principles: Assessing Risk, Consent, Vulnerable Groups and the
links between Research Governance and Ethics.
Appendices
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Sample REC Initial Checklist, List of Points to Consider
for Full Review, UKRIO Checklist
APPENDIX B : Flowchart of Review Process
APPENDIX C: Key Terms
APPENDIX D: Relevant Legislation and Data Requirements; Disciplinary Websites,
Useful Links
APPENDIX E: Summary of Changes made to the 2005 Framework
APPENDIX F: Illustrative Case Studies and Protocols
Key Changes
New Name: Framework for Research Ethics (FRE)!
New Guidance for key legislative changes: e.g.
Mental Capacity Act 2005 and links to relevant
websites for other legislation.
Clear link made between Governance and Ethics. The
RCUK Research Conduct and Research Integrity Policy.
Reminders and further changes
The role of Research Ethics Committees :
They should publish a timetable for considering proposals.
Feedback comments to researchers; dialogue between RECs and
researchers to inform best practice.
Institutions encouraged to undertake periodic reviews of research
funded by ESRC
ESRC to undertake periodic audits of institutional arrangements
Key changes: Types of review All ESRC research must go through at least a Light Touch Review. risk
awareness whilst not being risk adverse.
Light touch review for projects of minimum risk
Use of approved protocols. To speed up the approval process.
Full Ethics Review. This should be carried out by a REC under the same
conditions as stated in the original REF.
FRE encourages researchers to consider Full Ethics Review if research is carried
out in international settings or with international partners. Similarly Elite interviews,
internet based research (particularly those involving visual images).
Ongoing review may be necessary after the start of an award to consider emerging
ethical issues.
Further clarification Student research: treated in the same manner as other research. It
cannot be assumed that all student research is minimal risk.
International /security. ESRC/DflD is funding increasing volume of
overseas research, some in sensitive areas. Consultation raised issues
including risk to researchers and participants
Use of approved research ethics protocols for commonly occurring
situations (e.g. normally developing children in school).
Limits to Confidentiality. when working with vulnerable populations and
where it becomes apparent that the vulnerable person/child is at risk of
significant harm.
Internet and technology: concerns about the vast increase in the use of
e-technology: further guidance is given but it is also recognised that this
will be a growing area and experience needs to be exchanged.
Next Steps
Revised Framework for Research Ethics was
published on web in January 2010
New web version under preparation
Requirement for New ethics guidance to be
incorporated by researchers and RECs by next year.
Ethics and Knowledge Exchange Possible areas of concern that raise ethics’ issues
As far as possible these need to be considered at the start of a project:
Data archiving of interviews:
Linking and sharing of data: ‘Just because you can does not mean you should’
Pressures to demonstrate IMPACT. Could there be risks to researchers, participants or
others from demonstrating impact and/or disseminating findings?
Knowledge exchange is important.
Case Study: Evaluation of Creative Relaxation (not ESRC funded)
The Girasol Foundation established in 2006 for the well-being of children and
those who work with them.
Their vision is to give every child the opportunity to experience their positive potential and to
develop resources to deal with the inevitable difficulties which life presents.
Cascade programme: train teachers in Creative Relaxation and teachers then train children
Centre for Research into Parenting and Children at Oxford responsible for evaluation of pilot project
What were the ethics’ issues?
Research with vulnerable group i.e. children
But research on ‘typically-developing children’ in school
Oxford University has an agreed Research Protocol for
‘Non-invasive methods with typically-developing children in schools.
(MSD/IDREC/2005/p.2.1)
For the ESRC purposes: this could be a Light Touch Review. This would
highlight that the research was with a vulnerable group but that the project
was suitable for and would be able to follow the agreed protocol
What issues does the protocol cover?
Young carers of AIDS’ parents in South Africa : Lucie Cluver (Ex ESRC student currently funded by ESRC)
What happens when a parent gets sick ?
Ethics’ Issues
The key issue here was risk awareness – unable to avoid all risks
Vulnerable group: interviewing children in a particularly vulnerable situation
Vulnerable parents: sick/dying ; stigma of HIV/AIDS
International setting: safety risks to children, parents, researchers (research took place in
townships with high levels of violence)
But also: politically sensitive. Findings presented as attacking Government are unlikely to enter
policy
This proposal had to go through a full Oxford Ethics Review as ell as Univ. of Cape town; Univ.
of Kwa-Zulu, natal; helth Departments and Education Departments of each province.
Young Lives funded Department for International Development (DFID)
Young Lives is a long-term international research project investigating the changing nature of childhood poverty in order to: improve understanding of the causes and consequences of childhood poverty and to examine how policies affect children’s well-being inform the development and implementation of policies and practices that will reduce childhood poverty.
To do this they are tracking the lives of 12,000 children growing up in four developing countries over 15 years. The study countries – Ethiopia, the state of Andhra Pradesh in India, Peru and Vietnam – were selected to reflect a wide range of cultural, political, geographical and social contexts.
What are the ethics’ issues?
Young Lives: ethics’ issues
The study raises numerous ethics questions :
Research with children
Research in a developing countries with international partners
Research that is longitudinal, thus requiring sustaining of relationships over time;
Research that involves the archiving of collected data.
Approach was informed by:
• Guidelines from the University of Oxford’s Department of International Development, adapted
from the ethical guidelines of the Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth,
and based on the Helsinki guidelines.
• Save the Children Child Protection Policy (2003).
Ethics approaches in Young Lives were developed collaboratively with the country
Process, not a one-off event.
Lessons learnt
The need to understand the dynamic nature of communities is crucial in longitudinal research.
While broad shared ethics practices are important, these need to be applied with some flexibility
Researchers should be aware that they are not going into neutral situations –
• Survey and qualitative research teams undergo additional training sessions before each
round of fieldwork, and ethics questions are discussed across the study, with the aim of
developing a shared understanding of research ethics.
• Consent is understood as an ongoing process and is renegotiated at each stage of the
study.
• To ensure that staff knew what to do should they encounter children they believe may be
suffering from abuse or exploitation; we use the child protection protocols developed by
Save the Children (2003).
Virginia Morrow (2009) The Ethics of Social Research with Children and Families in Young Lives:
Practical Experiences, Young Lives Working Paper 53
For further information: contact ESRC
Michelle Dodson, Head of Research Grants, Policy and
Development [email protected]
telephone 01793 414357
Mary Day, Senior Policy Manager, [email protected] telephone 01793 413078
Phil Sooben, Director Corporate Strategy,
[email protected] telephone 01793 413028
Glyn Davies, Director with special responsibility for research
integrity, [email protected]
telephone 01793 413009
Now over to you! ESRC Framework Research Ethics (FRE)