Hints and tips for reviewing an ethics application in Psychology
July 2014
Process
- Applications to review will be sent to you from
- You must complete your review and fill in your decision and any comments in the section on the final page of the application. You should then email the document back to
- Applications which are sensitive or from members of staff must be double reviewed.
- The first reviewer will be any member of staff from the department and the second will be a member of the ethics committee.
- These applications will be sent to the first reviewer and then on to the second once the first reviewer’s comments have been submitted (therefore if you are the first reviewer, try to do your review promptly).
- If a resubmission is needed the resubmitted document will only be sent to the second reviewer.
- We operate a single blind review system so applicants should not know who the reviewers are. Do not disclose this information. If you need to discuss an application please contact the chair of the ethics committee NOT THE APPLICANT or reviewer.
- The turn-around time from submission to decision is 3 weeks, so to allow for processing please try and complete all reviews within 2 weeks.
- Risk Assessments are required for research conducted outside the University or involving participants who are not Middlesex University staff or students. Risk assessments are not required for online surveys or interviews conducted via telephone or through the internet (e.g. skype).
Your first port of call for advice and guidance about ethical issues should be the ethics section on the psychology department page on Moodle. First and foremost we must ensure that all research and practice in the department of Psychology complies with the ‘British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct’ (see alongside the rules and regulations for any other bodies relevant to the specific topic.
What are ethical issues?
Four BPS ethical principles:
Respect for the autonomy and dignity of persons
- Has the nature of the research been explained? Can individuals choose not to take part or if they agree can they subsequently request their data is destroyed? Are time limits on data withdrawal made clear to participants? Has a balance been struck between protecting participants and recognising their agency and capacity? Will the data collected be appropriately anonymised?
Scientific value
- Are the scientific and scholarly standards of the research sufficiently high quality and robust? Have the potential risks of harm and protocols for addressing such difficulties been addressed? Are the aims of the research clear? Is the scientific value of the research appropriate to the context (e.g. the status of the researcher – UG student, PhD student, lecturer, professor).
Social responsibility
- Does the proposed research acknowledge social structures and is it respectful of them? Will the knowledge generated from the research be used for beneficial purposes? Are the researchers aware of their personal and professional responsibilities?
Maximising benefit and minimising harm
- Does the research expose participants to risks greater than or additional to those to which they are exposed in their normal lifestyles? Has a robust risk assessment been conducted? Have risk management protocols been developed? Does the research have the possibility to cause individual distress, normalise unhelpful behaviours or create self-doubt in participants? Has the researcher shown awareness of the power differential between themselves and their participants?
Key issues to consider when reviewing an ethics application
Risk(defined as ‘the potential physical or psychological harm, discomfort or stress to human participants that a research project may generate.’ (p.13, BPS, 2010))
- More than minimal risk is always involved in research with: vulnerable groups; sensitive topics; an element of deception; access to records of personal or confidential information; access to potentially sensitive data through third parties; that could induce psychological stress, anxiety or humiliation or cause more than minimal pain; invasive interventions; an adverse impact on employment or social standing; that may lead to ‘labelling’ either by a researcher or by participant or that involves collection of human tissue, blood or other biological samples.
- Consent should be given freely on the basis of adequate information.
- During data collection participants should be able to freely withdraw or modify their consent and ask for destruction of all or part of their data.
- Procedures for consent should be proportional to the nature of participation and the risks involved.
- Does the information sheet contain enough relevant information to allow participants to give informed consent?
- Has the applicant fully addressed the requirements for obtaining consent from vulnerable populations? (see guidance on Moodle)
- Participants have the right to expect that what they provide will be treated confidentially and if published will not be identifiable as theirs. If confidentiality/anonynimity cannot be guaranteed participants must be warned in advance of agreeing to participate.
- Giving of advice to participants as part of research can be ethical if agreed with each participant and subject to ethics review in advance.
- If the investigator obtains evidence suggesting existence of psychological or physical problems of which a participant is unaware they have a responsibility to discuss this with the participants if the investigator believes that by not doing so the participants future well-being may be endangered.
- If a participant asks for advice and the researcher is not competent to offer assistance the appropriate source of advice should be recommended.
- Researchers should seek to supply as much information as possible participants. If this is not possible for methodological reasons and the reaction of participants when deception is revealed later is likely to lead to discomfort (more than they would experience in daily life), anger or objections then deception is inappropriate.
- Deception or covert collection of data should only take place where it is essential to achieve the research results required, where the research objective has strong scientific merit and where there is an appropriate risk management and harm alleviation strategy.
- Studies involving deception should be designed in such a way as to protect the dignity and autonomy of the participants.
- Studies based on observation in natural settings must respect the privacy and psychological well-being of the individuals studied. Unless those observed give their consent to being observed, observational research is only acceptable in public situations where those observed would expect to be observed by strangers.
- Appropriate debriefing must be provided for all participants. Debriefing is particularly important for participants involved in studies using an element of deception (e.g. bogus feedback or affect manipulation).
- Vulnerable populations include children under the age of 16, people with learning or communication difficulties, patients in care, people in custody or on probation, individuals in a dependent or unequal relationship, and people engaged in illegal activities, such as illicit drug use.
- Research within the National Health Service, Prison service, Probation service, civil and criminal courts and Youth Justice system.
What are not ethical issues?
- Spelling/grammar/format issues in the proposal however if these issues occur in participant documentation and/or materials they constitute ethical issues.
- Your opinion about value of a topic, method or analytic strategy, e.g. you personally favour quantitative research and a reviewing a qualitative study. Not liking or agreeing with a topic/method or analytic strategy is not an ethical issue.
Other
- If you are reviewing an application and you have concerns about its value or any other element you can always refer it for the committee to discuss (please email the chair to refer it).
1