Jan 2016

A Very Short Guide to Research Ethics for Staff and Postgraduate Students in the Departments of Defence Studies and War Studies, SSHM & Geography

Ethical approval is needed for all staff and students carrying out research involving human participants or raising other ethical issues. It is a mandatory requirement that all research with human participants be conducted in accordance with sound ethical principles. The ethics approval process is designed to help you think through any ethical risks associated with your research, to mitigate any such risks to the extent possible, and to consider whether the potential gains from the research justify those risks. Research that raises ethical issues that is conducted without ethical approval will be treated as misconduct and the College takes no responsibility (financial or otherwise) for such research.

The term ‘research’ should be taken in its broadest possible sense and includes questionnaires, observations and the use of materials derived from human participants as well as invasive or intrusive procedures. The re-use of personal data may also require ethical approval due to its sensitive nature or if individuals can be identified from it. Research raising any ethical issues with potential social or environmental implications may also require approval.

Retrospective approval is NOT possible for any research; ethical approval must be received BEFORE you begin your research. We encourage everyone who is eligible to sign up to the Serendipitous Research Ethics Code (see below) in advance if you wish to take advantage of unanticipated research opportunities that may arise.

Ethical Research

One of the foundations of ethical research is informed consent; participants must be fully informed about:

  • the objectives of the research;
  • about what participation involves (both substantively in terms of the types of questions you will ask and logistically in terms of how much time participation will take, etc.);
  • about how you will use the information that you collect from them. Will it be used in course essays? in a MA dissertation that is stored in the KCL library? In a publication?, Etc.? And will that information be attributed to them or quoted anonymously?
  • and about any possible risks they may face as a result of participation.

Often this information is provided in a written information sheet. Depending on your research (especially if it entails minimal risk) you may also do this through an email or even orally if that is appropriate. It is important to remember that you need to provide all participants with an explanation of why the research will be done, what you are asking of them, how the information they provide will be used, and any risks involved. Written information can usually be more detailed and allows potential participants to thoroughly consider what is being asked of them before they agree to participate. [There are some research questions that require deception; any use of deception about the aims of the research makes a project high risk and requires the submission of a high-risk research ethics application.]

Another central element to ethical research is voluntary participation. Participants should not be under any coercion to participate. Coercion can arise from the researcher’s current or former relationship to the participant (your friends or subordinates may not feel like they can refuse), from the use of gatekeepers (if you reach contact potential participants through the employer or superior, they may feel obliged to participate), through the use of financial incentives/compensation, etc. You should carefully consider whether your recruitment strategy entails any possibility of coercion and if so, you need to devise a strategy to mitigate it. For example, if you approach participants through an employer or supervisor, you can take steps to prevent that employer or superior from knowing who then agreed to participate. Written consent via a formal consent form provides a clear record of what you have asked and what the participant has agreed to, and provides the best protection for both the researcher and the participant. However, there may be times where other written consent (e.g. an email agreeing to be interviewed) or even oral consent may be appropriate, depending on the level of risk involved in the research and the research context.

It is standard practice to offer participants anonymity. This is because a potential risk of almost all research is that something a participant tells you comes back to haunt them in some way. (Perhaps they were critical of their employer and their employer takes exception to their comments.) It is also the case that your participants may be more frank and honest if they are speaking anonymously. But you can also offer participants the choice of having their comments fully attributed (by name), or partially attributed (by some agreed upon designation, e.g. ‘senior officer in the UK navy’ or ‘international aid worker’). You should decide on what anonymity/attribution options you want to offer, explain these clearly to your participants, and then keep a clear record of the participant’s choice. Note that when you agree to provide anonymity to a participant, this entails obligations not only for how you use the information provided in your research but also for how you secure the raw data and contact details of the participant.

Applying for Approval from the King’s Research Ethics Committee

The College has developed a risk-based application process to ensure that all research is subject to only an appropriate level of scrutiny. Going through the risk checklists on the how to apply page will help you to pitch your application to the right reviewing body and you will also find the appropriate application forms, useful templates and guidance there.

Minimal Risk As part of its endeavour to ensure that the ethics review process is in proportion to the ethical risks of a research project, four departments in SSPP (Defence Studies and War Studies, SSHM & Geography) are trialling a new review process for simple research that poses minimal risk to participants. This might include people speaking in public places, competent people who are very well-informed about the research, or research involving completely anonymous individuals with no way of identifying them. This new category complements the existing Low Risk and High Risk processes but rather than submitting a detailed application, relies upon the supervisor to confirm that the Minimal Risk checklist has been completed accurately. Applications can therefore be turned around within three working days but may be subject to audit to ensure this ‘light touch’ process is being used appropriately. If the continuation of the pilot Minimal Risk application route is not approved by the CREC, it will be withdrawn only after a 6-week notice period. Existing approvals will remain valid.

Low Risk Any research that does not qualify as minimal risk or high risk is classified as ‘low risk’. To be eligible for the peer-reviewed Low Risk research application procedure, the research must not involve any participants that could be considered vulnerable, the consent process must be straightforward, there must be no risk of the research leading to disclosures of a sensitive nature or causing anxiety in the research subject and there must be no drugs, placebos etc. involved in the study. Low Risk applications will normally involve an information sheet and consent form. Applications should be turned around by the review Panel within 15 working days.

High Risk Research that raises more substantial ethical risks requires a more in-depth application to give applicants the opportunity to demonstrate that they have adequately considered any potential risks and that those risks can either be justified or mitigated according to the nature of the research. Applications will be reviewed by one of the College’s Research Ethics Committees to ensure that potential risks have been considered and can either be justified or mitigated according to the nature of the research. The Committees meet regularly within term time, reviewing applications in the order that they are submitted. There is substantial help and guidance available on the research ethics website, and the research ethics office or your departmental research ethics panel members can be consulted if required and may be able to help you with ensuring that your application is consistent with College policy and sound research ethics practise.

Application Procedure

The most up-to-date information on how to apply can be found on the Research Ethics webpage. Before you apply, you need a clear understanding of your topic and methods. If your research involves human participants, you need to determine whom you are trying to recruit, how you will recruit them, and what participation in the research will involve. You can then determine the level of risk involved and what process to use for ethical approval.

Minimal Risk Student Application Procedure: To see if your research is eligible for the Minimal Risk process, complete the Minimal Risk form with your supervisor. Once both student and supervisor are happy with the application form, the supervisor will need to email the finalised form to , ensuring that the student’s KCL or JSCSC email address is copied. This way the student will know the submission has been made. The Research Ethics Office will only accept submissions that have come by email from the supervisor (if the application is emailed by the student, the office will have no way of knowing that the supervisor has authorised submission of the form).

Once a Minimal Risk application confirming that the research entails minimal risk has been received by email, a Research Ethics Approval Number will be automatically generated and emailed back to the applicant and the supervisor. This email provides information on what research records you need to keep; be sure to read it carefully and save it along with your Research Ethics Approval Number. Note that your Research Ethics Approval Number should be included in any emails or other material provided to participants or otherwise associated with your research.

Minimal Risk Staff Application Procedure: The same basic process and provisions as above apply.

Low Risk/High Risk Application Procedure for Students:

If your research is not eligible for the Minimal Risk process, you apply for ethical approval through REMAS (the Research Ethics Management Application System). This system handles research classified as both low risk and high risk.

Discuss your research with your supervisor. Then, log into the KCL online research ethics system using your KCL ID and password and complete your application (for students in Defence Studies, if you are not registered for the KCL qualification, then contact your DRP writing team leader in the first instance). Upload your supporting documents (templates and advice available here). This will include an Information Sheet and will normally also include a Consent Form. (If written consent of participants will not be sought, then you must explain on the application form why this is the case and how verbal consent will be gained and recorded). Other supporting documents, such as survey questions etc. can also be uploaded to help inform the review process. The system will automatically send the completed application to your academic supervisor for initial approval. Once happy with the application, the supervisor will sign it off and the application will be forwarded onto the relevant review body.

How long does the process take?

If you answer YES to a question on the High Risk checklist your application will be considered as high risk. High risk applications go for review to the SSHL committee, therefore leave plenty of time! Make sure you thoroughly consider and address all the ethical issues that might cause concern.

If you have not answered YES to a question on the High Risk checklist then your research is considered low risk. It goes to a department-level Research Ethics Panel (REP) rather than to the SSHL committee (but may be referred upwards if it appears to raise more complicated questions). If no other questions are raised, an outcome will be received within 15 working days from your supervisor authorising the form.

Outcomes:

•Approved – crack on (possibly with amendments that may be done by the student and approved by the supervisor or it may need to come back to research ethics)

•Not Approved – what you need to do to get approval if/when you resubmit

Low Risk/High Risk Application Procedure for Staff: The same basic process and provisions as above apply, although the steps involving ‘supervisor approval’ do not apply to staff.

Some Elements of Good Practise

Often applications are sent back for revision because of sloppiness or failure to follow the guidance; this has been a problem particularly with the formal information sheets and consent forms, so please write and format these carefully. See the Training and Guidance section from the Research Ethics webpage for more information, commonly made mistakes, and FAQ; particular advice on Information Sheets and Consent is also available.

If you are following the minimal risk review process, it is still important that you are providing clear and consistent information to potential participants and keeping records of consent. It is important especially for students using the minimal risk process to discuss with their supervisors how they will ensure informed consent.

If your research involves human subjects, you must agree with them the extent to which they will be identified and their data attributed to them. For example, when interviewing it is common to give the subject a choice of full identification and attribution, partial identification and attribution, or full anonymity. With partial identification you might provide a general description of their job or profession, or their organisation but not their name. Whatever you agree must be recorded. Note that this has consequences, not only for what you write in your research, but also for how you record and store your data. If you have guaranteed full or partial anonymity, you must store names and other identifying details separately from the data you collect. If you are applying through the Low Risk or High Risk process, this must be addressed on the application form as well as in the information sheet and consent form so that people understand how their material will be handled. Please note that it is often possible to identify people by the information provided even if they are not named so care must be taken to ensure that anonymity can be maintained if participants require it. A good resource on anonymity can be found here.

All researchers must provide potential participants with information about the proposed research as well as what you are asking of the participant (how long the interview will last, and the type of questions that you will be asking etc.). If using a written information sheet to do this, be sure that all relevant material is in the main part of the information sheet, and that you have removed any extra material from the template. Note that full institutional contact details must be provided for yourself (and for students, your supervisor), including a mailing address. Please do not use personal contact details.

Various organisations have formulated Codes of Conduct for researchers and these can be reviewed for more information on ethical issues that might arise and how they can be addressed.

Interviewing Officials, Professionals or High Ranking Officers

The Research Ethics Committees are sympathetic to the often sensitive nature of research amongst professionals, and also when those professionals might be regarded as peers. Such circumstances can make the formal requirements of the Research Ethics process appear out of place. However, gathering information, data and quotes from people who may believe they are speaking off the record, to a fellow professional or even simply to a friend carries a whole host of risks. Informed consent is the basis of all good research involving individuals and the social standing of the interviewee or the professional role they fulfill does not change this requirement in any way. Researchers need to be particularly careful when they are in a position of trust that their interview subjects know that what they say is not off the record but may well be attributed to them. For the researcher, being able to demonstrate that they have received informed consent is vital, both for the integrity of the data and for the protection of the researcher if an interviewee later changes their mind. This is true for student or staff research.

The staff in the Research Ethics Office at King’s are very used to dealing with this type of research and will be happy to advise you, should you require it, in how to do this in the least invasive way. For example, it may be that a formal information sheet or consent form is not appropriate for some interviewees. However, you still need to transmit the information that would have been contained in the information sheet to the potential interviewee somehow. This might be done pre interview in an oral manner, or included as part of the text of an initial email. Consent may be recorded by emailing a transcript of a conversation and asking if there are any objections to being quoted in such a way, rather than using a signed form. There are many other ways of doing this so if unsure, please do ask what has been done before and what works.