Research Ethics -

Faculty policy

The Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge has a policy and procedure on ethics that all members of the faculty must observe. The following is a copy of the current (for review March 2017) policy as taken from the faculty website:

The Ethical Review Checklist is available here: Faculty Ethical Clearance checklist Nov 2018.doc

Research in the Faculty of Education often involves human participation and frequently children. In all cases it is important to plan the research carefully and consider ethical issues.

All faculty members (staff, students and visitors) are expected to conduct their research in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (Read Online), also taking account, where appropriate to the nature of the research being undertaken, of the ethical guidelines of other learned societies such as the British Psychological Society (www.bps.org.uk) or the British Sociological Society (www.britsoc.co.uk ).

Within these and University guidelines, the Faculty employs three stages of ethical clearance, prior to the commencement of research.

Stage 1 involves the researcher in completion of this  Ethics Review Checklist. This is the first stage of three. It is to help them (and others) decide to what extent they need to become involved in the second and third stages. When the researcher has completed it s/he (and the Faculty) will be in a position to make this judgment.

When the researcher is a student, they are guided in completing the checklist by ongoing discussions with their Faculty supervisor.

In the event that potentially significant ethical issues are identified from the checklist completed at Stage 1, Stage 2 will involve the researcher in discussing these particular ethical dimensions of their research in some depth with another ‘knowledgeable person of standing’.  

In the case of students within the Faculty, this person will, in almost every case, be the person supervising their research.

Members of Faculty staff conducting research are advised to exercise some care in selecting such a person and ensure that s/he is likely to be someone with considerable experience of research in a cognate area to their own. S/He should however, not be someone who is also involved in the research, nor should they be someone with whom the researcher regularly collaborates (whether in relation to research, teaching or administration) for example a researcher from another academic group. The test, in every case, should be whether an outsider would judge the person chosen to be ‘independent’.

On completion of the discussion, the ‘knowledgeable person of standing’ is asked to choose and affirm one of the following three responses.

a) I have discussed the ethical dimensions of this research and, as outlined to me, I do not foresee any ethical issues arising which require further clearance.

or

b) There may be some ethical issues arising from this research. I think it would be prudent for the researcher to seek further advice and return or possibly, invoke Stage 3 clearance.

or

c) Ethical issues arise in this research which require further discussion; my advice is that Stage 3 ethical clearance should be sought

[Response ‘a’ could be considered equivalent to the notion of determining a research proposal to be exempt from needing formal institutional review. Response ‘b’ provides an opportunity for the researcher to undertake further discussions and reflection upon design, before a decision is reached about whether a formal review is needed.]

Stage 3 will require you to seek formal ‘ethical clearance’ through the Faculty of Education’s Standing Panel; some projects will need to proceed to this stage.

Standing Panel on Research Ethics

Since 2002, the Research Committee agreed to set up a Standing Panel on Research Ethics. This would be convened on an ‘as necessary’ basis. Membership of the Panel would consist of the Head of Faculty and all the Professors, Readers, Senior Lecturers and Senior Research Associates within the Faculty. In the event of an ‘ethical issue’ being raised to stage 3, the Director of Research would arrange for 3 members of the panel (to include at least one Professor or Reader) unconnected with the concern being raised, to meet to discuss the issue(s). They would then be asked to make a short report and recommendation to the Director of Research who would decide whether the matter needed to be referred to Research Committee for a final decision. The Head of Faculty would replace the Director of Research in any case where the Director could be said to have an interest.

It would be open to any member of the Faculty (staff or students) to raise issues with the Panel. The Panel would also be used to respond to Ethical concerns raised by individuals outside the Faculty.

The primary source of reference for the Panel would be the latest version of the Ethical Guidelines drawn up by the British Educational Research Association. The Panel would have discretion to refer to the guidelines of bodies (such as the British Psychological Society or the British Sociological Association) in those instances where, in its judgment, these were more appropriate. Cases not concluded by the Standing Panel should be elevated to the School level or University level, Research Ethics Committees.

Student and visitor checklists should be retained by their supervisor but staff checklists and responses should be filed in the Faculty Research Office. Once a year, a summary of all active projects should be reported to the University Insurance Office and University Research Ethics Committee by the Faculty Research Office. Any intrusive research should be highlighted.

In the research grant applications process ethical consideration should be undertaken during the creation of the proposal and evidence of this thinking retained. If a proposal is successful, then the checklist must be lodged in the Faculty Research Office prior to activation of the grant.

The initial Faculty contact for any ethical issues is the Research Administrator in Faculty Research Office.

Index of topics