research ethics sub committee · research ethics sub committee 06 march 2019 at 14:00 in g07 old...

§

RESEARCH ETHICS SUB COMMITTEE 06 March 2019 at 14:00 in G07 Old Broadcasting House, City Campus

Governance & Legal Services Leeds Beckett University, 101 Old Broadcasting House, City Campus, Leeds, LS2 9EN T: 0113 812 7542 E: [email protected]

RESEARCH ETHICS SUB-COMMITTEE

AGENDA for the Wednesday 6 March 2019 meeting

The Research Ethics Sub-Committee will be held at 14:00 in Room G07, Old Broadcasting House, City Campus.

14:00 Part A: Preliminary Items Paper Led by Page No A1 Apologies K Spracklen A2 Declarations of interest K Spracklen

A3

Membership To note addition of Shona Hunter to the membership to replace John Sharp for Carnegie School of Education

REE-2018-028 K Spracklen

1

A4 Minutes of the last meeting held on 05 December 2018

REE-2018-029 K Spracklen 5

A5 Matters arising REE-2018-030 Secretary 10

14:15 Part B: Items for Information & Monitoring Paper Led by

B1 PREVENT Update REE-2018-031 K Spracklen 16

B2 2017/18 action plan monitoring: (a) Art, Architecture & Design (b) Built Environment &

Engineering (c) Computing, Creative

Technology & Engineering (d) Carnegie School of

Education (e) Clinical & Applied Sciences (f) Cultural Studies &

Humanities (g) Film, Music & Performing

Arts (h) Health & Community

Studies

NS REE-2018-032 NS REE-2018-033 REE-2018-034 REE-2018-035 NS REE-2018-036

A Simson N Evans E Abbott-Halpin S Hunter R Brooks H Shore P Thompson F Brown

18 21 30 33 36

(i) Leeds Business School / Leeds Law School

(j) Social Sciences (k) Carnegie School of Sport (l) Events, Tourism, &

Hospitality

REE-2018-037 NS REE-2018-040 NS

J Guth/B Jones S Price J O’Hara A Kenyon

41 57

15:00 Part C: Items for discussion / decision Paper Led by

C1 Feedback from Research

Ethics Away-Day held on 14 February 2019.

Verbal K Spracklen

C2 Proposal for School Research

Ethics Audit Process for 2018/19


15:30 Part D: Other Business Paper Led by

D1* Schedule of meetings & business 2018/19


D2 Any other business K Spracklen

Date of next meeting: Wednesday 22 May 2019, at 14:00 in Room G07, Old Broadcasting House, City Campus

Shaded items indicate that the Board / Committee is being asked to make a decision.

*Starred items will be taken without discussion unless a member notifies the Chair or Secretary in advance that she or he wishes the item to be open for debate

RESEARCH ETHICS SUB COMMITTEE 06 March 2019

REE-2018-029 OPEN

Terms of Reference & Membership

Executive Summary

This report is to summaries the following changes in the membership:

Dr Shona Hunter will replace Professor John Sharp as the representative for the Carnegie School of Education.

Action Requested

This report is for information

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Terms of Reference Appendix 2 – Membership

Author

Name: Job title: Date:

Rachel Bradford Governance Services Manager February 2019

1

RESEARCH ETHICS SUB – COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE The University Research Ethics Sub-Committee (URESC) is responsible to the Research & Enterprise Committee for overseeing the development and implementation of the University’s Policy & Procedures relating to research ethics. The Committee’s terms of reference are to:

(a) oversee and monitor the implementation of, and compliance with, the University’s Policy & Procedures for Research Ethics;

(b) advise the Research & Enterprise Committee on the development of institutional policies and guidelines relating to ethical issues in research arising from teaching, research and other related institutional activities;

(c) monitor the external research ethics environment and ensure that the University responds to all external requirements;

(d) advise the Research & Enterprise Committee of the training & development needs of University Staff in relation to research ethics;

Delegated Authority

The Research Ethics Sub-Committee has authority from the Research & Enterprise Committee to consider for approval research projects:

(a) referred to it by a local research ethics coordinator; (b) that involve substantial and / or complex ethical issues; (c) where the consent of an external body is required; (d) where it is a requirement for funding by an external body.

Staff, and students and their supervisors, may be required to attend the University Research Ethics Sub-committee when their research proposals or other matters relating to the ethics of their research are being discussed. Delegation In accordance with the Standing Orders, the Committee may establish short life working groups to perform specific tasks and in so doing must determine their terms of reference, membership (including the Chair who must be a member of this Committee), and lifespan.

2

Membership Profile Members [18] Quorum [9] • Professor (Chair) [1] – Nominated • School Research Ethics Co-ordinators [13] – Nominated • Co-opted members of staff (co-optees must have relevant experience of research ethics)

[2] – Nominated • External co-opted member [1] - Nominated • A Research Student [1] - Elected In attendance

• Representative of the University Research Office For non-ex-officio members, terms of office should normally be three years. Students’ terms of office should normally be one year. All nominated staff will be so nominated by the Research and Enterprise Committee unless otherwise specified. The Constitution of the Committee is made by resolution of the Academic Board on 04 July 2018.

3

Research Ethics Sub-committee - 2018-2019

Membership [18]Quorum [9]

Position Member Start of term of office Expiry of term of office Elected / nominated / ex-

Professor (Chair) [1] Professor Karl Spracklen 01/09/2018 31/08/2021 Nominated

School Research Ethics Co-ordinators [13]

Leeds Business School Dr Brian Jones 01/09/2016 31/08/2019 NominatedFilm, Music and Performing Arts Dr Paul Thompson 06/12/2016 31/08/2020 NominatedCarnegie School of Education Dr Shona Hunter 01/02/2019 31/08/2021 NominatedCarnegie School of Sport Professor John O'Hara 04/10/2017 31/08/2020 NominatedCultural Studies and Humanities Professor Heather Shore 01/09/2016 31/08/2019 NominatedArt, Architecture and Design Professor Alan Simson 01/09/2016 31/08/2019 NominatedBuilt Environment and Engineering Dr Neil Evans 01/09/2016 31/08/2019 NominatedLeeds Law School Dr Jessica Guth 01/09/2016 31/08/2019 NominatedEvents, Tourism and Hospitality Management Dr Alex Kenyon 01/09/2016 31/08/2019 NominatedClinical and Applied Science Dr Rob Brooks 01/09/2016 31/08/2019 NominatedHealth and Community Studies Professor Fraser Brown* 01/09/2018 31/08/2019 Nominated

Leeds School of Social Sciences Dr Sophia Price 01/12/2018 31/08/2021 NominatedSchool of Computing, Creative Technology and Engineering Professor Eddie Abbott-Halpin 17/05/2017 31/08/2019 Nominated

Co-opted members of staff (must have relevant experience of research ethics) [2]1 Dr Andrew Wilson 01/09/2017 31/08/2020 Nominated2 Martin Watson 04/10/2017 31/08/2020 Nominated

External co-opted member [1] Dr Niall William Richard Scott 01/09/2016 31/08/2019 Nominated

One research student [1] Kay Nacto 01/09/2018 31/08/2019 Elected

*Professor Fraser Brown is nominated by the School for a one-year term of office. Dr Ros Brownlow will take over on 01 Sept 2019. Dr Brownlow will attend meetings in 2018/19 as an observer.

4


DRAFT

MINUTES of the meeting held at 14:00 on 5 December 2018 in Old Broadcasting

House, Leeds.

Present: Professor Karl Spracklen (Chair) Professor Fraser Brown Dr Neil Evans Dr Brian Jones Dr Alex Kenyon Professor John O’Hara Professor John Sharp Professor Heather Shore* Professor Alan Simson Martin Watson In attendance: Rachel Bradford (Secretary) Duncan Webb (for the School of Clinical & Applied Sciences)

Apologies: Professor Edward Abbott-Halpin Dr Rob Brooks Dr Jessica Guth Kay Nacto Dr Sophia Price Dr Niall William Richard Scott Dr Paul Thompson Wendy Hopkins Dr Andrew Wilson Dr John Willott *Attended the meeting as indicated in the proceedings.

Part A: Preliminary Items

Declaration of interest

025.2018.REENo declarations of interest were made.

Terms of Reference & Membership

026.2018.REE The Committee following changes to the Committee’s membership were noted: (a) Wendy Hopkins had agreed to join the Committee as a representative of

the University’s Research Office. She had sent her apologies for thecurrent meeting.

Minutes

027.2018.REE The Committee AGREED that the minutes of its meeting held on 3 October 2018 were an accurate record (paper reference REE-2018-018).

5

2

Matters arising 028.2018.REE The Secretary presented a report on the matters arising from the minutes of the

previous meeting of the Committee held on 3 October 2018 (paper reference REE-2018-019) and the following points were noted.

(a) European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

Arising from minutes 035.2017.REE and 021.2018.REE: It was noted that ownership of work to undertake a mapping of the University’s compliance with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity remained outstanding. It was agreed that Kay Nacto be approached to see if she had capacity to undertake the work and if she was not able to do it then to approach Professor Nick Frost from the School of Health & Community studies.

(b) URESC Membership

Arising from minute 004.2018.REE: It was noted that Wendy Hopkins would join the Committee as the representative of the University’s Research Office.

(c) List of institutions/ethics committees that have been approved for ‘light

touch’ approval Arising from minute 008.2018.REE: The Committee Secretary had sent a request for this list to be published on the Research Ethics webpage. This was still to be completed at the date of the meeting.

(d) Short Life Working Group – research ethics online

Arising from minute 019.2018.REE: No progress had been made in the establishment of the short life working group to discuss use of the online ethics system in the current and following academic years. Martin Watson took an action to follow this up with the Director of Research & Enterprise outside the meeting.

Part B: Items for Information & Monitoring

Prevent update 029.2018.REE It was reported that in the period 1 September 2018 to 26 November 2018 there

had been one student application and no student applications. The lack of student applications was not unexpected due to the decision to remove media content analysis projects from the scope of the approval process.

030.2018.REE It was agreed that it would be beneficial for the guidance for submitting research

ethics applications regarding the Prevent duty and projects using media content analysis to be shared amongst the Committee members. The Committee Secretary took an action to contact Dr Sophia Price from Leeds School of Social Sciences to obtain a copy of the guidance and circulate it to Committee members.

6

3

Research Ethics Audit action plan monitoring: 031.2018.REE The School’s provided an update on their action plans and the following points

were noted: School of Art, Architecture & Design

(a) The School’s LREC advised that a retrospective audit plan would be provided in due course. This would be circulated to the Committee by email.

(b) There had been a notable improvement in staff applying for ethics clearance for research projects and undergraduates and postgraduates were being encouraged to do the same.

(c) The School had experienced 2-3 cases of online applications ‘disappearing’ which subsequently had to be submitted manually.

(d) New staff were being trained in research ethics and compliance was expected to improve as a consequence.

School of Built Environment and Engineering (e) The School’s audit plan and monitoring reports had been circulated to the

Committee. (f) Pockets of non-compliance had been identified, concerning specific

individuals but the School was hopeful that these could be resolved. (g) Training was being undertaken and completed by new staff. (h) There were ongoing issues regarding franchise students.

Carnegie School of Education (i) The actions identified in the School’s action plan were of a long term

nature and therefore there were no specific updates for this meeting. Carnegie School of Sport

(j) Figures from the audit had not always tallied and some issues had been identified with applications that were classified as ‘not submitted’ and ‘not approved’. The reasons behind these issues were being investigated.

(k) Other issues identified were that pockets of staff had allowed group applications which had caused issues with numbers and some people had failed to press the ‘submit’ button.

(l) Colleagues were being updated on best practice and guidance was being developed to ensure processes were GDPR and IT compliant.

(m) A sampling process was to be agreed. (n) The School was looking to appoint a Deputy Chair of its research ethics

committee. (o) The external member of the advisory group had left and the School was

seeking to recruit a replacement. (p) New staff were receiving training on research ethics and resources were

being compiled for the different levels of approval required. School of Clinical and Applied Sciences

(q) A guidance sheet had been circulated to colleagues as part of their training.

(r) The School wished to know how franchise applications would be dealt with as part of the new online system as presently these were overseen as paper applications as the current online system did not work with

7

4

franchises. It was recommended that this issue be raised with the Head of Research.

School of Health & Community Studies (s) Training was underway, the need for which had been identified in the

audit. (t) Colleagues had been reminded of their data management obligations. (u) Due to the length of time NHS research ethics applications could take,

nursing undergraduates were generally advised not to do their research in hospitals.

(v) Franchise applications were submitted in hard copy. (w) A number of issues with applications had been identified including some

people submitting their applications without the required consent forms also attached, some applications were repeatedly submitted some as many as 3-5 times.

School of Cultural Studies and Humanities *Professor Heather Shore joined the meeting

(x) The majority of research ethics applications from the School fell into category 1 risk, with occasional categories 2 and 3.

(y) Compliance of students studying History, Media and English and Media submitting research ethics applications was improving.

(z) Staff research ethics was included in the wording of QR funding applications making it clear that ethical approval/compliance is required.

Leeds Business School (aa) New LRECs had been appointed. (bb) The School was looking at issues around awareness of ethical procedures.

Raising awareness of the new online system was on hold pending further information about when it would be ready for use.

(cc) In order to address common pitfalls resulting in rejected applications, the School had produced a short document which would be incorporated into module handbooks and would remind students of the requirement to upload consent forms etc. The School was happy to share the wording with Committee members and the Chair encouraged the sharing of good practice.

Part C: Items for discussion/decision

Away-Day 032.2018.REE The Committee discussed holding an Away-Day in 2019 and possible topics to

explore. It was agreed that it would be beneficial to discuss making the Committee fit for purpose, including obtaining a common understanding of what good practice constitutes and identifying training needs. It was also agreed that it would be helpful to discuss if and how the Committee could monitor high risk projects to ensure that they don’t stray from the agreed application.

033.2018.REE The Committee Secretary took an action to find out Committee members

availability to attend the Away Day in February.

8

5

Part D: Other Business

Schedule of meetings and business for 2018/19 034.2018.REE The Committee received its schedule of meetings and business for 2018/19

(paper reference REE-2018-025).

Date of next meeting 035.2018.REE The next meeting of the Research Ethics Sub-Committee would be held at 14:00

on 06 December 2019 in Room G07, Old Broadcasting House, City Campus.

036.2018.REE The Away-Day would be held on a date to be confirmed in February 2019.

Other business 037.2018.REE No other business was raised. Confirmed by the Committee/Board as a correct record and signed by the Chair: Signed: Date:

9


06 March 2019

REE-2018-030 OPEN

Matters Arising

Executive Summary This paper provides an update on matters arising and on matters from previous meetings of the Committee that are not otherwise covered by items on the agenda for this meeting.

Action Requested

The report is for information. The Committee is asked to note the report.

Appendices

Schedule of Actions

Author



10

Research Ethics Sub-Committee -Matters arising/Update on outstanding actions as at 6 March 2019 Minute

Matter and action required Responsibility Progress and status

035.2017.REE and 021.2018 REE

European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity A fuller mapping of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity would now be presented at the October 2018 meeting of the Sub-Committee once the administrative support in the Research Office was in place to support this piece of work.

Research Office Outstanding – It was agreed that Kay Nacto be approached to see if she had capacity to undertake the work and if she was not able to do it then to approach Professor Nick Frost from the School of Health & Community studies.

008.2018.REE List of Institution/ethics committees that have been agreed for light touch approval process Arrange for list to be published on Research Ethics webpages.

URESC Secretary/ Research Office

Outstanding – The Committee Secretary had sent a request for this list to be published on the Research Ethics webpage. This was still to be completed at the date of the meeting.

019.2018.REE Short Life Working Group Establish a short life working group to discuss and agree next steps for use of the online ethics system in the current academic year and understand progress and plans for the new system. Suggested membership was Professor John O’Hara, Dr Jess Guth, Dr Andrew Wilson, Martin Watson, Cathy Barnes and Wendy Hopkins.

URESC Members In progress – Martin Watson has followed this up with the Director of Research & Enterprise and the Head of Research. The Head of Research has advised a panel is being set up to own the system and to oversee developments and unexpected fixes. See attached email.

11

From: Hopkins, WendyTo: Bradford, Rachel; Spracklen, Karl; Watson, MartinSubject: Fwd: Research Ethics System - next stepsDate: 13 February 2019 23:08:54

My previous email refers,

Wendy

Wendy Hopkins Head of ResearchResearch & Enterprise Services Leeds Beckett University, 209 Bronte, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS, UK

Direct Tel: +44 (0) 113 812 4827Mail: [email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Hopkins, Wendy" <[email protected]>Date: 13 February 2019 at 23:08:10 GMTTo: "Mayet, Ebrahim" <[email protected]>Cc: "Mcintyre, Catriona" <[email protected]>, "Taylor,Michael (ITS)" <[email protected]>, "Evans, Christopher ISDeveloper" <[email protected]>, "Sidlow, Neil"<[email protected]>, "Maitland, Ian"<[email protected]>, "Ingold, Chris"<[email protected]>, "Allman, Sue"<[email protected]>, "Davies, Ryan"<[email protected]>Subject: Re: Research Ethics System - next steps

Dear Ebrahim and colleagues

Many thanks for your email. I hope that you are keeping well.

At the start of this week I have been able to catch up with Ryan Davies whoattended you last meeting when I was not able to.

Last month we met with Penny Wymer (Business School) who was takingresponsibility as the unofficial system owner and contact and she has verykindly take us through the system and briefed us on its origins and purpose.

12

mailto:[email protected]















As agreed, a panel is now being convened to jointly own this University wide/ cross service system and this has been an action approved through theResearch Ethics Sub Committee at its last meeting. In terms of the use panel Isuggest we have a standing core membership which provides representationfrom key professional support services:

Research & Enterprise Services: Wendy Hopkins and / or Ryan DaviesIT Services: to be advisedGovernance: Rachel BradfordRegistry: Catriona McIntyreFinancial Services: Martin Watson

An an extended user representation, which would be both invited to panelmeetings or work with core members as required on user acceptance testing offixes, updates land developments. This should include representation fromSchools, including:Business School: Penny Wymer and/or Becky CarlisleBuilt Environment & Engineering: Helen JonesHealth & Community Studies: Sheila Casey Social Sciences, Psychology: Nova Deighton SmithSport: Sam Sherwin (or nominee)

I have now contacted Penny to find out is there is a way of using the system toidentify the most heavy users in order to define the ‘user community’. As thissystem is accessed and used by students - undergraduates, masters anddoctoral- and staff, there is a significant ‘migratory’ poool of student userswho will be using the system for the duration of their studies only. This usergroup however will be significant in terms of volume.

The staff user group will be more stable and therefore can be assessed.Although I understand that staff members who have left the institution or mayhave moved roles still remain on the system.

The system administrator list is also unwieldy, unstructured, not up to date andneeds review.

There is also some work needed to define the roles of individuals involved inthe ethics approval process in Schools in terms of responsibilities and scope ofthese roles/responsibilities in relations to research ethics, as there appears tobe to me new to the process and system (and as a non user) significantvariation between Schools. Whilst variation is to be expected due toacademic/research discipline differences and ethics review requirements,rationales for such must be able to be justified I.e. the reasons for variationsare agreed and understood and not just through ‘happen stances’.

The composition and membership of the School Ethics Committees also needsto be considered for consistency and appropriateness and the interactionsbetween these, reporting and use of system assessed. I need to further my ownunderstanding of practices around this in the Leeds Beckett context.

Apologies for the long email but it is helpful for me to be able to bedocumenting this is one place. I hope the above will build on our initialactions and agreements forward in an effective way.

13

Will come back to you shortly,

Very best Regards

Wendy

Wendy Hopkins Head of ResearchResearch & Enterprise Services Leeds Beckett University, 209 Bronte, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS, UK

Direct Tel: +44 (0) 113 812 4827Mail: [email protected]

On 6 Feb 2019, at 13:36, Mayet, Ebrahim <[email protected]>wrote:

Hi all, As a result of the meeting that was held in December it was decidedthat the only real issue in using the system at the moment is to dowith Student access to the system.However, the discussion did uncover that there was no commonunderstanding on how/who is using the system and that the system isnot used in a consistent way across schools. It was agreed that the next steps were: -

· Agree list of panel members(Have a panel rather than one system owner)

· Define user community andwho should/will be using it to obtain a user group

- Wendy/Sue, provide list of most active users to obtain adiverse user group

Sue/Catriona already put forward Helen Jones and Sheila Casey as a representative for Schools pov.

14

· Arrange a workshopGo through current systemGo through enhancements on hold – are these stillrequired – when will they be promoted

· Manage expectation (nonew developments due to other priorities)

· Discuss supportstructures/process

I know Wendy couldn’t make the meeting but once we have Wendy’srecommendation on who should be on the System Owner paneland/or user group, we will set up the workshop.Please note we don’t want the Panel to be too big, I would say around4/5 people Kind RegardsEbrahim Ebrahim Mayet,Business Systems Development ManagerIT ServicesRoom 109,The Grange, Headingley Campus, Leeds LS6 3QX, United Kingdom.Tel: 0113 8123045 | 07342 032886 | Email: [email protected] |

15

RESEARCH ETHICS

SUB-COMMITTEE

06 March 2019

REE-2018-031 OPEN

Prevent Update

Executive Summary

This report provides an overview of applications made on the on-line system for approval to undertake research that falls under the Prevent Duty so far in 2018-2019.

Action Requested

The sub-committee is required to note the report.

Appendices

None.

Author

Name: Professor Karl Spracklen

Title: Chair, URESC

Date: 25 February 2019

Approval Route

25 February 2019 Professor Karl Spracklen / Chair, URESC

16

PREVENT UPDATE Introduction

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 contains a duty on specified authorities to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. This is also known as the Prevent duty. Universities are one of the key specified authorities that have to show they comply with the remit of the Prevent Duty, and research is clearly one aspect of higher education’s work where the Government requires information that we are doing all we can to assess and monitor anything considered to fall under the remit of Prevent. Our university revised the risk assessment on the research ethics system to enable ‘Prevent Duty’ research to be checked and approved through this sub-committee and its Chair. This has allowed us to ensure monitoring is effective while balancing academic freedom. This report provides an overview of applications made on the on-line system for approval to undertake research that falls under the Prevent Duty in total in 2017-2018, and so far in the academic year 2018-2019.

2018-2019 In the period 01 September 2018-25 February there has been one staff application, and seventeen student ones. The staff project was approved. Nine students had their project approved, eight were rejected because they did not fall under the Prevent Duty. Of the student projects, all were L6 apart from one M Level student. Schools were: LSSS; ETH; LBS; CSH; CSS; and BEE.

Conclusions and recommendations The sub-committee is required to note the report.

References and further information None.

Author Professor Karl Spracklen, Chair, URESC, 25 February 2019

17


6 MARCH 2019

REE-2018-032 OPEN

Research Ethics Audit Action Plan 2018/19 Monitoring Report 2: School of Built Environment and Engineering

Executive Summary

This report provides an update on progress on completing the 2018/19 Research Ethics Action Plan. It indicates that further progress has been made on the final uncompleted action concerned with overseas franchise courses but the action point remains ongoing.

Action Requested

The report is for information.

Appendices

Not applicable

Author

Name: Dr Neil Evans

Job title: Course Director BA Human Geography / Human Geography and Planning

Date: 28 February 2019

Approval Route

Not applicable

18

2018/19 Research Ethics Audit Action Plan Monitoring Report for School of Built Environment and Engineering Introduction

The 2017/18 BEE Research Ethics Audit was completed in September 2018. It included an action plan for 2018/19. This report is a second update on progress towards addressing the actions contained therein. School of Built Environment and Engineering Research Ethics - Action Plan 2018/19

Issue Action Responsibility Deadline

1. A high level of non-compliance within the Civil Engineering Group

Liaise with CDs and Dissertation Module Leaders to ensure all staff are aware of the need to engage with the University research ethics procedures

SREC Oct/Nov 2018

2. Some pockets of non-compliance within the Surveying Group UG courses

Liaise with CDs and Dissertation Module Leaders to ensure full compliance

SREC Oct/Nov 2018

3. Need for research ethics staff training, particularly for new staff

Hold training event(s) in course groups

SREC 2018/19 Semester 1

4. Need to ensure students on overseas franchise courses are compliant with Leeds Beckett research ethics procedures

Liaise with CD responsible for overseas franchise courses and with LBU Link tutors to explain need to ensure compliance. If necessary provide relevant information and guidance to Module leaders at franchise institutions

SREC and LREC 2018/19 Semester 1

5. Research ethics data reports not user-friendly

Report this at next URESC meeting

SREC 3 Oct 18

Actions taken

1. Action 1 was completed before 5 Dec UREC meeting. 2. Action 2 was completed before 5 Dec UREC meeting. 3. Action 3 was completed before 5 Dec UREC meeting – the SREC carried out staff training

for the Surveying, Construction and Project Management Group on 12 November and the LREC carried out staff training for the Civil Engineering Group soon after. The SREC subsequently carried out bespoke training for the new member of staff in the Planning, Housing and Human Geography Group

4. Action 4 is ongoing. Good progress was made with staff at the Asian Institute of Built Environment in Hong Kong, including making use of an accreditation visit to the Institute

19

and it is considered that they are now fully compliant with LBU’s research ethics procedures. Contact has been made with the Hong Kong College of Technology and the Rushmore Business School about verifying their processes.

5. Action 5 was completed before 5 Dec UREC meeting.

Conclusions and recommendations Actions 1, 2, 3, and 5 have been completed, while Action 4 is still ongoing.

References and further information Not applicable

[Author(s)] Dr Neil Evans, Research Ethics Coordinator, School of Built Environment, 28 February 2019

20


06 March 2019

REE-2018-033 OPEN

Research Ethics Audit Outcomes: 2017/18 action plan monitoring: Carnegie School of Education

Executive Summary

Audit monitoring summary – Carnegie School of Education

Action Requested


Appendices

Appendix 1

Author


Professor John G. Sharp Director of Research 20 February 2019

Approval Route

N/A

21

2

Research Ethics Audit Process – 2017-18

Introduction

1 The terms of reference for the University Research Ethics Sub-Committee (‘URESC’) expect the sub-committee to oversee the implementation of the University Policy & Procedures for Research Ethics and monitor ethical approval within the Schools. The Schools are required to submit an annual audit report to the URESC outlining and reviewing how the Policy is being implemented whilst also recommending where improvements should be made.

Audit Process 2 The proposed template (Appendix 1) covers all the elements required by the Policy and

the terms of reference of the University Research Ethics Sub-Committees and the responsibilities of the Schools.

3 The Schools are asked to:

(a) Provide details about how the recommendations made in the outcomes of the previous audit at the older, relevant, faculty level have been addressed through the action plan;

(b) Provide a summary of all ethical authorisations and approvals during

2017/18 as set out in the Policy and Procedures for Research Ethics (using the attached template);

(c) Provide statistical details of all research ethics staff development training

undertaken within the School during 2017/18 (including details of the number of staff that have attended training sessions);

(d) Provide a review of what Schools have in place to assure themselves that

international students are complying with the University’s Research Ethics Policy and procedures.

(e) Provide a review of the guidance provided by each School in the module

handbooks concerning the consequences of failing to adhere to the University policy & procedures for research ethics.

22

3

(f) Provide an action plan to be implemented during 2018/19 which will be reviewed as an element of any audit of research ethics covering the 2018/19 academic term.

Timescales 4 The following timescales and deadlines are proposed to ensure the relevant reports can

be fully considered at School and University Level

Task Deadline

Agreed Audit process released Following consideration by and agreement of Research Ethics Sub-Committee March 2018

Collation of data / statistics July & August 2018

Production of School Research Ethics Report and consideration / discussion by School Academic Committee (or School Research Ethics Forum if one is in place)

First School Academic Committee of 2018/19 and before end of September 2018 deadline for submission to University Research Ethics Sub-Committee)

Deadline for submission of final School Research Ethics Report to University Research Ethics Sub-Committee

End September 2018

Consideration of School Research Ethics Audit Reports by University Research Ethics Sub-Committee.

October 2018

23

4

Research Ethics Audit Report Covering 2017/18 – Carnegie School of Education

Name of School: Carnegie School of Education

Author of School Report:

Professor John Sharp

Outcomes / Actions carried over from the last audit: All actions reported for 2016-17 were completed.

2017/18 Applications and Statistics: Across its undergraduate programmes as a whole, the School received and authorised 246 applications for independent study projects in the main. From an anticipated number of 250 (98.4%) in total, the effectiveness of the ethics application and approval system remains high since rationalising and reducing the number of LRECs to two in the 2016-17 academic year (this has now increased due to the appointment of new Professors and the internal promotion of one Reader). Only four anticipated applications were missing due to the students involved deferring or withdrawing from study altogether. Across taught Mater’s provision the School received and authorised 75 applications from an anticipated 83 (90.4%). 8 anticipated applications were missing due to mitigation. The effectiveness of the system remains high for similar reasons. Information for Tables 3 and 4 was unavailable at the time of writing.

Overview of Staff Development and Attendance at Staff Development: Bespoke staff development was undertaken for all of our new Professors and Reader (Shirley Tate, Rachel Lofthouse, Jonathan Glazzard, Shona Hunter) and all have been added to the online approval system. A similar training programme was also arranged for and completed by Dr Tom Dobson who recently took over the School’s taught master’s awards. Staff have been kept up to date with respect to developments and changes to the online applications system. All staff were reminded by email of the importance of adhering to institutional procedure associated with students wishing to undertake overseas fieldwork and that all institutional guidelines must be followed to ensure compliance.

Outcomes of the Sampling Exercise and School Academic Committee scrutiny: The sampling exercise undertaken within the School is reported as an attachment to this report. Research ethics reporting is now a standing item at School Research and Enterprise and School Academic Committees where reports and developments are received and discussed as appropriate.

24

5

Research ethics and student projects undertaken outside of the UK:

One non-UK project was recorded. This involved an undergraduate student wishing to work in her place of residence. The student was directed to contact relevant authorities within the institution to comply with insurance and other risk assessment requirements as well as being directed to the draft European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity produced by ALLEA (2017).

Information provided to students regarding non-compliance with the Research Ethics Policy:

All undergraduate and postgraduate course and module handbooks contain information relevant to research ethics and ethics applications, and general ethical considerations are relayed to students during associated lecture sessions when required. All undergraduate and taught Master’s students are reminded by way of an introductory lecture of the requirements for ethical approval of all work regardless of its nature. The consequences of not applying when required, as well as failing to adhere to policy and practice, is reinforced. This applies particularly to Level 6 MIS projects which require due care and attention as these involve large sections of the academic staff group within the School and provide the greatest opportunity for the system to be overlooked or conducted inappropriately.

25

6

Carnegie School of Education Research Ethics - Action Plan 2018/19


1. Continued development of a School-wide training and development programme for ethics training wherever and whenever appropriate in order to improve the quality of applications and minimise rejection at first application.

Session to be included in the staff research seminar series.

Director of Research.

June, 2019.

2. To monitor and identify any areas of non-compliance and to take any remedial action considered appropriate to minimise the opportunity for repeated events.

Constant monitoring by supervisors and LRECs and SREC. Reporting to Director of Research for intervention and clarification.


June, 2019.

3. To monitor and evaluate the inclusion of ethics education at all levels within the School, addressing where appropriate.

Audit and monitoring by Heads of Subject and programme leads. Reporting to Director of Research.

Heads of Subject, Programme leads, Director of Research.

June, 2019.

4. To undertake an annual review of the ethics application process across the School including an evaluation of the quality of applications and decisions.

Preparation and submission of report to the Research Ethics Subcommittee and School Academic Board.


June, 2019.

26

Appendix 1 Research Ethics Audit 2017-18

Carnegie School of Education: Table 1 – Undergraduate Research Ethical Authorisation and Approval for all courses that have a Major Independent Study, dissertation,

research project or equivalent for the Academic Year 2017/18

Subject Group/School

Courses / Modules Number of ethical authorisations

Number of local level ethical approvals (Risk 1)

Number of School level ethical approvals (Risk 2 and 3)

Number of students expected to apply for Ethical authorisation or approval

Difference in number of students enrolled and decisions made

Comments on figures by course.

DU BA (Hons) Childhood Studies CHILD (11333) BA (Hons) Early Childhood Education (leading to QTS) BAECE; ECPBQ (11333)

120 73 38 (Risk 2) 9 (Risk 3)

123 3 Students deferred or withdrew and not completed the year.

DU BAH Primary Education QTS BAPEQ (13507)

77 77 0 77 0

DU BA (Hons) Education Studies BAHES (12833)

49 0 47 (Risk 2) 2 (Risk 3)

50 1 Student deferred. Did not complete the year.

27

2

Table 2 Postgraduate Taught course Research Ethical Authorisation and Approval for the Academic Year 2016/17


Courses / Modules Number of ethical authorisations

Number of local level ethical approvals

Number of School level ethical approvals

Number of University Level ethical approvals




DU MA Achievement in City School MACCS (12235)

4 0 4

0 4 0

DU MA Childhood Studies & Early Years MACHE (12501)

44 23 18 3 48 4 Mitigation Resubmission

DU MA Leadership and Management MALME (12475)

1 0 1 0 1 0

DU MA Education MAEDC (16394)

17 2 14 1 21 4 Mitigation Resubmission

DU MA Drama and Creative Writing in Education MDCWE (15744)

9 3 4 2 9 0

28

3

Table 3 – Postgraduate Research Ethical Authorisation and Approval for the Academic Year 2016/17


Number of ethical authorisations



Number of university level ethical approvals

Total number of ethical authorisations / approvals required for new students


Comments

PhD

EdD

MRes

External projects

Table 4 – Staff Ethical Authorisation and Approval for the Academic Year 2016/17





Total number of ethical approvals required for staff projects.


Comments

Education (DU)

29

RESEARCH ETHICS

SUB-COMMITTEE

06 March 2019

REE-2018-034 OPEN

Research Ethics Audit Outcomes 2017/18 action plan monitoring:

Clinical and Applied Sciences

Executive Summary

Audit monitoring summary – School of Clinical and Applied Sciences

Action Requested


Appendices

Author


Professor Rob Brooks Course Director February 2019

Approval Route

N/A

30

Issue Action Responsibility Deadline Current Outcome/comment (Feb 2019) Deadline

1. Develop a school research training and development programme, including opportunity for ethical debate.

For discussion and

planning at LREC

meeting

RB + LRECs December

2018

This has been discussed at SREG and agreed

that training and development would be

delivered, where needed, to course groups.

2. Develop minimum documentation standards for each risk category, to inform training and audit.

For discussion and

planning at LREC

meeting

RB + LRECs March 2019 On-going. RB has discussed with Ethics lead

from other schools who do not have a similar

process in place.

3. Review and develop local process for recording research ethics outcomes.

Coordinator to

discuss with

school

research admin.

RB + admin August 2019 Discussion has been held with research ethics

admin who have put in place a recording

processes. This should enable easier and

faster auditing.

4. Peer application review For discussion and

planning at LREC

meeting

RB + LRECs August 2019 All LRECs have a buddy that they can use for

peer review. This process is discussed at SREG

meetings.

5. Review non-compliance statements in module handbooks

For discussion and

planning at LREC

meeting

RB + LRECs March 2019 This has been discussed at SREG and all LRECs

have discussed this with research module

leads,

6. Need for clearer statements about the storage of data

For discussion at

SREG

RB + LRECs August 2019 This issue was added in February 2019

following discussion at SCA – SREG to agree a

school-wide guide for storage of data.

31


06 March 2019

REE-2018-035 OPEN

Action Plan Monitoring – School of Cultural Studies and Humanities

Executive Summary

Update on Ethics compliance within the School of Cultural Studies and Humanities, since 05.12.18.

Action Requested


Appendices

None

Author

Name:

Job title:

Date:

Professor Heather Shore

Professor of Cultural Studies and Humanities

26 November 2018

Approval Route

N/A

33

Research Ethics Audit Report Covering 2017/18 – School of Cultural Studies and Humanities


1. Non-compliance with the system (i.e. not signing of students applications) by staff member in History

LREC discussed with Line-managers (Subject Lead) in case of specific individual.

Line manager – Subject Head for History

Completed.

2. Non-compliance of staff generally, with staff research ethics

To arrange meeting with other LRECs to talk about strategy going forwards. Meeting took place in November 2018. LRECs to cascade to subject colleagues.

LRECs Completed.

3. Annual reminder to colleagues supervising dissertations to check students ethics compliance

LRECs to contact supervisors/course directors in their subject area.

LRECs Completed.

4. Non-compliance of students in History, Media and English and Media.

LREC to talk to course directors. This has been undertaken informally. However, a reminder has been sent to colleagues by LRECs for each subject (History, English, Media)

LRECs Completed.

5. School Secretary (Adele Jackson) requires full access to Online Ethics System, if she hasn’t got this.

Raised at the University Research Ethics Sub-Committee October, 2018

LREC; Chair URESC

Ongoing

34

Ethics Update for School of Cultural Studies and Humanities Introduction

This report outlines compliance and developments in Ethics policy since December 2018.

Report Things are largely unchanged since the last report, other than the reminders to be sent to course director and staff for the English and History and English and Media degrees. LRECs (Shore, Robbins, Raisborough) have periodically issued reminders to their colleagues undertaking dissertation supervision. History and English and History both attend a ‘dissertation day’ (non-complusory for the EngHi students) which provides a further opportunity to confirm that ethics have been complied with. Until the audit is completed later this year, it is not possible to address the School Secretary’s access to the system. We still have an issue of non-compliance by academic staff, with the ethics system. However, research funding from the Centre for Culture and the Arts (CCA), now comes with the proviso that funding is contingent on ethics compliance.

Conclusions and recommendations Compliance to be revisited once audit completed. More work still needs to be done on ethics

compliance in staff research project. LREC to discuss further with the Research Ethics Sub-Committee/

References and further information N/A

Author Heather Shore Professor of History 23/02/19

35

RESEARCH ETHICS

SUB-COMMITTEE

06 March 2019

REE-2018-036 OPEN

School of Health & Community Studies Research ethics audit action plan monitoring 2018-19

Executive Summary

This report is an update on progress towards addressing the actions for 2018-19 from the School’s Research Ethics audit report for 2017-18.

Queries have arisen in the School on the action related to research data management and the research Data Management Plans to be submitted by staff with research ethics applications, and guidance on these for the ethical approval process.

•

Action Requested

The report is for discussion.

Appendices

n/a

Author

Name:

Job title:

Date:

Professor Fraser Brown

School Research Ethics Co-ordinator

22 February 2019

Approval Route

36

School of Health & Community Studies Research ethics audit action plan monitoring 2018-19

Issue in 2017-18 Action in 2018-19 Responsibility Deadline Progress

1 Data management: For projects where personal data is collected, the data management information is to be clearly articulated in applications, and in participant information sheets and consent forms, in line with the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018 for research data.

Request that supervisors and LRECs review in particular the section 7 of the application regarding data management (e.g., security, retention, access and destruction) in line with the main principles for research data of GDPR (lawfulness, purpose, data minimisation, accuracy, storage, access, security, overseas transfer, accountability) and the new Data Protection Act 2018. This action will be checked as part of the sampling exercise in the 2018-19 audit.

SREC to advise academic staff

Sept 2018 School staff were advised on 26 September 2018 of this action. School staff were contacted on 22 November 2018 regarding the University’s new Data Management Policy for staff.* Queries have arisen on reviewing DMPs as part of the research ethics approval process, and guidance has been requested on this. We await further guidance from the University.

2 Supporting documentation: Adequate supporting documentation to be submitted with an application, to reduce the number of submissions made to obtain approval for a project.

To remind research supervisors of the support provided for students in the Research Ethics Procedures regarding the production of supporting documentation, to help reduce the number of submissions made to obtain approval for a project. This action will be checked as part of the sampling exercise in the 2018-19 audit.

SREC to advise academic staff

Sept 2018 School staff were advised on 26 September 2018 of this action.

38

Issue in 2017-18 Action in 2018-19 Responsibility Deadline Progress

3 Maximum number of versions submitted in order to obtain approval for a project: To limit the number of versions that can be submitted to obtain ethical approval for a student project.

Supervisors and LRECs to consider limiting the number of versions of an application that can be submitted (eg, three versions), if version 3 cannot still be approved without major revisions (at this point, students would have received feedback from a supervisor and/or LREC at least twice). Students can then undertake a literature review instead of primary research (submitting a new research ethics application for this). If agreed, this will need to be included in the module handbook so students are aware. This action will be checked as part of the sampling exercise in the 2018-19 audit.

SREC to advise research supervisors and LRECs

Sept 2018 School staff were advised on 26 September 2018 of this action.

4 Staff training: Sessions to be arranged and opportunities to discuss research ethical issues.

The School will deliver staff training sessions in semester 1 and 2, 2018-19. Dates to be advised to staff as soon as possible. Staff will be asked if there are specific topics they would like to discuss. For this action, attendance will be monitored for next year’s audit.

SREC and secretary

Sept 2018 An ethics training session was held on 9 October 2018. A second session is planned for 8 May and has been incorporated into the School’s research seminar programme.

5 Research undertaken outside of the UK: Guidance for student overseas research

Student overseas research projects guidance will be reviewed again when the proposed University checklist for research being undertaken outside of the UK is available, including reference to indemnity cover.

SREC and secretary

when available

The proposed University checklist is awaited.

39

*Data Management and Research Ethics: http://libguides.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/research/research_data

• All research projects need to show how data are managed to receive ethical approval. This will normally be through a Data Management Plan (staff only)

• All participants in research projects normally have to give their informed consent (with any exceptions in line with the Research Ethics Policy and Procedures)

• All data in the life of a project need to be stored securely, accessible only through password-protected files. The Data Management Plan needs to identify processes for secure archiving and destruction

• If data are to be made openly accessible, then informed consent forms and information sheets need to include this use. Where data will be made openly accessible, the data must be anonymised, and all participants must understand how that takes place so that they are comfortable taking part in the research

• Not all data from every research project needs to be made openly accessible as not all data are suitable for anonymisation and publishing openly. However, the University believes there is a strong ethical case to move anonymised data into openly accessible repositories

Data Management Plans - staff only Your Data Management Plan (DMP) describes what you will collect and how you will organise, analyse, preserve and share your data, taking into account the whole lifecycle of your data. Completing it helps ensure you meet funder requirements (where applicable) and you should complete it as early as possible during the research project. If your research project is externally funded by a research council or charitable organisation, check if they have their own DMP. Otherwise, you should download and use the Leeds Beckett University DMP Leeds Beckett University has agreed the following policy on Research Data Management, covering the activities of all researchers in our institution, both staff and students. It is acknowledged that full implementation of this policy will take place over a period of time. 1. Research data will be managed to the highest standards throughout the research data lifecycle, and will take into account the definitions and principles described in the RCUK Concordat

on Open Research Data 2016 2. Responsibility for research data management through an appropriate research data management plan; during any research project or programme lies primarily with Principal

Investigators (PIs) 3. All new research projects must include research data management plans that explicitly address data capture, management, integrity, confidentiality, retention, deletion, sharing and

publication 4. Research data management plans must outline how research data are available for access and re-use where appropriate, under appropriate safeguards, and subject to ethical

considerations 5. Where possible, researchers should seek to recover the direct costs of managing research data generated by projects from the research funder 6. The University will provide training, support, advice and, where appropriate, guidelines and templates for management of research data and for research data management plans 7. Our University will provide mechanisms and services for storage, backup, registration, deposit and retention of research data assets in support of current and future access, during and

after completion of research projects 8. The Principal Investigator (PI) should ensure that all relevant research data are offered and assessed for deposit and preservation in an appropriate University, national or international

data service or domain repository, unless specified otherwise in the data management plan. Any non-digital or digital data which is retained elsewhere, for example in an international data service or domain repository should be registered with the University, for example in our University repository

9. Data should not be deposited with any organisation that does not commit to its access and availability for re-use, unless this is a condition of the project funding or arising from other requirements

10. Exclusive rights to reuse or publish research data should not be handed over to commercial publishers or agents without retaining the rights to make the data openly available for re-use, unless this is a condition of funding

11. All relevant data and the intellectual properties rights of that data are subject to our University’s IPR policy

40

http://libguides.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/research/research_data

http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/-/media/files/student-hub/research-ethics/tx_research_ethics_policy.pdf

http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/-/media/files/student-hub/research-ethics/research_ethics_procedures.pdf

https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/public_templates

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/concordatonopenresearchdata-pdf/

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/concordatonopenresearchdata-pdf/

RESEACH ETHICS SUB-COMMITTEE

06 March 2019

REE-2018-037 OPEN

Action Plan Monitoring – Leeds Business School

Executive Summary

This brief report offers an update on matters relating to Research Ethics since the last report to this committee

Action Requested

For information

Appendices

N/A

Author


Dr Brian Jones Senior Lecturer 5th February 2019

Approval Route

N/A

41

LBS Research Ethics Update Ethics submissions and compliance Some points to note are:

• All undergraduate modules are engaging in the research ethics process o S1 modules are at 100% compliance o S2 and year-long modules are undertaking the process currently with research

ethics submission rates between 50% and 100%. Most S2 and year-long deadlines have been in the past two weeks so it’s not really appropriate to report on approvals at this stage.

• Only 2 PG modules have passed their research ethics submission date as these modules

tend to be year-long modules; as such reporting on approvals at this stage is also not recommended as applications are still going through the process.

• To date, no franchise ethics applications have been received. Link tutors and tutors with

modules delivered with franchise partners are advised to address this as soon as possible.

• There was a concerning issue regarding student access to research ethics in December due to the update of Banner, however this has been resolved. Students who can’t access research ethics at any time are encouraged to e-mail: [email protected]

• The following is an overall view of numbers as of 4th February:

Area

Student Numbers

Applications Submitted

Percentage Submitted

Applications Approved

Percentage Approved

Apps pending student action

Apps pending academic action

Apps Not Submitted

UG 679 492 72% 268 39% 89 135 188 PG 52 30 58% 16 31% 4 10 22

Total 731 522 71% 284 39% 93 145 210 As the semester progresses the above position will continue to improve and the position will continue to be monitored and staff as well as students will be encouraged to engage with the research ethics process.

42


LBS Research Ethics Action Plan 2018-19


Increase completion rates of UG franchise/ overseas applications

To ensure all relevant module/course leaders, course directors, supervisors and LRECS are aware of the off-line process, we will:

I. Identify all programme leads II. Identify good practice from PG programmes

III. Provide additional training to UG leads IV. Report progress at each SRERG

SRERG Co-ordinator, Research Ethics Support and LRECs

I. End November 2018

II. End December 2018

III. End February 2019

IV. Quarterly Work is ongoing on this issue, an update will be presented at the LBS Research Ethics Review Group in March.

Ensure all new DA cohort staff and students are aware of the Ethics Procedures

To ensure all DA ethics applications are submitted, we will:

I. Liaise with the Course Director to identify upcoming delivery

II. Offer specific ethics training support during block delivery periods and appoint a LREC for DA provision

III. Review and provide additional guidance as necessary IV. Report progress at each SRERG

SRERG Co-ordinator and Research Ethics Support

I. End October 2018 II. End November

2018 III. From end of

November 2018 IV. Quarterly

No further delivery requiring research ethics input is expected until May. Research Ethics will be covered on a larger scale as part of Project delivery day 1, with a session to complete the form as far as possible included.

Raise awareness and usage of the new online ethics system once rolled out

To ensure the smooth transition from the old system to the new, we will:

I. Schedule a series of training sessions to introduce the new system

II. Provide ad hoc support and guidance as necessary III. Monitor usage, feedback and report any issues to URESC IV. Review progress at each SRERG


I. TBC (depending on when the new system is available)

II. TBC III. TBC IV. Quarterly

43

N/A following the disappointing announcement regarding the new system.

Reduce common pitfalls which can result in applications being rejected/revisions requested

To assist with common issues and improve support available, we will:

I. Develop one-page good practice guidance for staff and students

II. Provide templates where necessary III. Review progress at each SRERG


I. End October 2018 II. End October 2018

III. Quarterly

Further good practice guidance has been circulated from other Schools which will be incorporated into the LBS good practice guide.

44


06 March 2019

REE-2018-038 OPEN

Research Ethics Audit Process – 2018/19

Executive Summary

The report proposes the process of research ethics audit to be followed by each School in 2018/19.

The report provides an overview of why an audit process is required and provides the timescales to be adhered to and the report template to be used.

Members of the sub-committee are invited to comment specifically on the following points:

(a) Whether the proposed process is fit for purpose?(b) Whether there are any further areas that could be addressed in the audit process?

Action Requested

This report is for decision. The Sub-Committee is invited to discuss and approve the proposed research ethics audit process for 2018/19.

Appendices

Appendix 1 – School Research Ethics Report Template

Author


Karl Spracklen Chair, URESC 26 February 2019

Approval Route

26 Feb 2019 Professor Karl Spracklen – Chair of the Research Ethics Sub-Committee

45

1

Research Ethics Audit Process – Covering 2018/19 Introduction 1 The terms of reference for the University Research Ethics Sub-Committee (‘URESC’)

expect the sub-committee to oversee the implementation of the University Policy & Procedures for Research Ethics and monitor ethical approval within the Schools. The Schools are required to submit an annual audit report to the URESC outlining and reviewing how the Policy is being implemented whilst also recommending where improvements should be made.

Audit Process 2 The proposed template (Appendix 1) covers all the elements required by the Policy and

the terms of reference of the University Research Ethics Sub-Committees and the responsibilities of the Schools.

3 The Schools are asked to:

(a) Provide details about how the recommendations made in the outcomes of the previous audit at the older, relevant, faculty level have been addressed through the action plan;

(b) Provide a summary of all ethical authorisations and approvals during

2018/19 as set out in the Policy and Procedures for Research Ethics (using the attached template);

(c) Provide statistical details of all research ethics staff development training

undertaken within the School during 2018/19 (including details of the number of staff that have attended training sessions);

(d) Provide a review of what Schools have in place to assure themselves that

international students are complying with the University’s Research Ethics Policy and procedures.

(e) Provide a review of the guidance provided by each School in the module

handbooks concerning the consequences of failing to adhere to the University policy & procedures for research ethics.

(f) Provide an action plan to be implemented during 2019/20 which will be

reviewed as an element of any audit of research ethics covering the 2019/20 academic term.

Timescales 4 The following timescales and deadlines are proposed to ensure the relevant reports can

be fully considered at School and University Level

46

2

Task Deadline Agreed Audit process released Following consideration by and agreement

of Research Ethics Sub-Committee 06 Mach 2019

Collation of data / statistics July & August 2019

Production of School Research Ethics Report and consideration / discussion by School Academic Committee (or School Research Ethics Forum if one is in place)

First School Academic Committee of 2019/20 and before end of September 2019 deadline for submission to University Research Ethics Sub-Committee)

Deadline for submission of final School Research Ethics Report to University Research Ethics Sub-Committee

End of September 2019

Consideration of School Research Ethics Audit Reports by University Research Ethics Sub-Committee.

October 2019

Conclusions and recommendations 5 The Sub-Committee is invited to approve the proposed research ethics audit process for

2018/19.

47

6

Name of School Research Ethics - Action Plan 2019/20

Issue Action Responsibility Deadline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

48

Appendix 1 Research Ethics Audit 2018/19

School: Table 1 – Undergraduate Research Ethical Authorisation and Approval for all courses that have a Major Independent Study, dissertation,

research project or equivalent for the Academic Year 2018/19


Courses / Modules







(how many students in a L6 cohort expected to undertake a Major Independent Study project or similar)

49

2

Table 2 Postgraduate Taught course Research Ethical Authorisation and Approval for the Academic Year 2018/19


Courses / Modules




Number of University Level ethical approvals




(how many students in a L7 cohort expected to undertake a Major Independent Study project or similar)

50

3

Table 3 – Postgraduate Research Ethical Authorisation and Approval for the Academic Year 2018/19






Total number of ethical authorisations / approvals required for new students


Comments

51

4

Table 4 – Staff Ethical Authorisation and Approval for the Academic Year 2018/19





Total number of ethical approvals required for staff projects.


Comments

52


06 March 2019

REE-2018-039 OPEN

Schedule of meetings and business 2018/19

Executive Summary

The report presents the Sub-Committees schedule of meetings and business for 2018/19.

Action Requested

The report is for information and discussion. The Sub-Committee is invited to note its schedule of meetings and business for 2018/19.

Should any additional items be identified that are agreed to come to future meetings then these items will be added to the schedule. Please contact the Chair and Secretary of the meeting if you wish to propose additional items of business.

Appendices

None.

Author



Approval Route

n/a

53

Research Ethics Sub-Committee: Schedule of meetings and business for 2018/19

03 October 2018 Deadline – 19 September 2018

05 December 2018 Deadline – 28 November 2018

06 March 2019 Deadline – 25 February 2019

22 May 2019 Deadline – 08 May 2019

School Research Ethics Audits 2017/18 2017/18 Research Ethics Audit outcomes – action plan monitoring

2017/18 Research Ethics Audit outcomes – action plan monitoring

2017/18 Research Ethics Audit outcomes – action plan monitoring

List of institutions/ethics committees that have been agreed for light touch approval process

Discussion about an away-day for research-ethics in the University

Feedback from away-day for the management of ethics in the University

Overview of the management of Research Ethics at School level

New Research Ethics Online System Proposal for School Research Ethics Audit Process for 2018/19

Implementation of the Research Ethics Procedures

Research Ethics Training

European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – mapping

Standing items Membership & terms of reference (first meeting only) PREVENT update Declarations of interest Minutes of the last meeting Matters arising Schedule of business

55


06 March 2019

REE-2018-040 OPEN

2018/ 2019 Research Ethics Audit Outcomes – Action Plan Monitoring (Carnegie School of Sport) Executive Summary

An update on the 2018 / 2019 Research Ethics Action Plan from the Carnegie School of Sport.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Action Plan and Progress to Date

Author

John O’Hara Professor of Sport and Exercise Physiology 1st March 2019


06 March 2019

REE-2018-040 OPEN

Appendix 1: School of Sport: Research Ethics - Action Plan 2018/19

Issue Action Responsibility Original Deadline

Progress

1. Increase staff and student’s awareness of research ethics policy and procedures in preparation to make all staff LRECs.

Provide training on research ethics policy and procedures for staff where appropriate.

Chair/LRECs 31/07/18 Training has been delivered by the ‘Super’ LREC’s to the staff who are new this academic year to supervising dissertations.

2. To support staff/LRECs with resources

Provide exemplar ethics applications, especially UG applications

Chair/LRECs/ Supervisors

31/07/18 This is an on-going item, which is discussed at each advisory group meeting.

3.To continue to provide feedback to URESC on the University Policy, Procedures and Online system

Written communications to the Chair of URESC

Chair 31/07/18 On-going

4. Recruitment a Deputy Chair Advertise, shortlist and appoint a Deputy Chair

Chair/Director of Research

01/11/2018

An outstanding item.

5. Sampling procedure for UG/PG ethics applications.

To undertake appropriate sampling of ethical submissions.

Chair/SREG 31/07/18 No action required as yet.

6. Annual Review of ‘Best Practice’.

Delivery of relevant workshops, discussing our ‘Best Practice’.

Chair/SREG 31/07/18 On-going

7. Appoint new LREC with specific Strength and Conditioning Expertise

Recruit relevant academic staff member

Chair 01/09/2018 Alex Dinsdale was appointed on the 1st September 2018.

8. Appoint a new external member

Make contact with appropriate contacts and recruit a new external member of the committee.

Chair 01/10/2018 Shaunna Burke from Leeds University was appointed but has since resigned. A new external needs to be recruited.

9. Develop and implement new and relevant GDPR and IT security measures.

Work with the University to develop appropriate policies, to be disseminated to staff and students.

Chair/SREG 01/12/2018 On-going

research ethics sub committee · research ethics sub committee 06 march 2019 at 14:00 in g07 old...

Documents