SSPS Research Ethics: Procedures

Research Ethics Self-Assessment Procedures

The SSPS Ethics Self-Assessment is normally done by the Principal Investigator (PI), except in the case of postdoctoral applicants and (undergraduate and postgraduate) students, in which case see sections 3 and 4 below.

Section 1. Academic Staff Level 1

Section 2. Academic Staff Level 2/3

Section 3. PostDoctoral Research Fellows

Section 4. Students

Section 4.1 Research Postgraduates (PhD and Masters by Research)

Section 4.2 Taught Masters dissertation work

Section 4.3 Undergraduate Honours dissertation/project work

Section 1. Academic Staff Level 1

The level 1 self-assessment must be carried out first. This is available in the full SSPS Research Ethics Policy and Procedures document, and also as a stand-alone document, both accessible at If no special ethical risks are identified (i.e. if all answers are ‘no’), email the Research Office with the following text:

“I confirm that I have carried out the School Ethics self-audit in relation to my proposed research project [insert name and funding body] and that no reasonably foreseeable ethical risks have been identified.”

The Research Office keeps a copy of the email on file with the application.

If risks are identified (i.e. if one or more answers are ‘yes’), proceed to level 2/3.

Section 2. Academic Staff Level 2/3

Undertake level 2/3 ethical review form (available to download as an rtf as part of the SSPS Research Ethics Policy and Procedures document, at

If it is a level 2

  • The PI sends the completed form with a copy of the research proposal (both preferably in electronic format) to the Research Office, making clear in the covering email that it is a level 2.
  • The Research Office forwards the form and research proposal to the Research Co-Directors, who scrutinise it on behalf of the Research & Research Ethics Committee (Research Co-Directors would expect that they would not normally expect to differ with colleagues' professional judgements). The Research Co-Directors will confirm that it is a level 2 assessment, unless they disagree with the PI’s judgement of the level, in which case their judgment will take precedence and the assessment will be treated accordingly. The PI should assume there are no problems unless contacted otherwise. If there are particular concerns or queries, the Research Co-Directors will discuss the issue with the PI (copying any correspondence to the Research Office for the file).
  • The Research Office keeps a copy on file with the rest of the proposal.
  • At the next meeting of the SSPS Research and Research Ethics Committee, the committee are informed of the level 2 self-assessments that have been dealt with on their behalf. Copies can be forwarded to them electronically if they so wish, and are also available for consultation in the Research Office.

If it is a level 3

  • The PI sends the completed form with a copy of the research proposal (both preferably in electronic format) to the Research Office, making clear in the covering email that it is a level 3 and indicating which aspects will be problematic.
  • The Research Office forwards the form and research proposal to the Research and Research Ethics Committee for scrutiny. Committee members are free to make comments to the Co-Directors of Research, who will come to a decision regarding whether the project can proceed in its current form, whether it requires to be modified, or (theoretically possible) whether it cannot go ahead. A copy of the decision reached is lodged with the Research Office for filing.
  • The Research Office keeps a copy on file with the rest of the proposal.
  • Level 3 proposals will be reported by the Research Office to the College Research Committee, which has external and lay representation.

Section 3. Postdoctoral Research Fellows

The self-assessment should be conducted by the applicant in collaboration with the proposed mentor, who is the person recommending that the School take on the fellowship. If level 1, the mentor should email to confirm that the audit has been conducted; if level 2/3, the mentor should send the completed form & application to the Research Office, making clear whether they think it is a level 2 or level 3. For PDRFs, the e-mail must come from the mentor; otherwise, the procedure is the same as detailed above.

Section 4. Students

Section 4.1 Research Postgraduates (PhD and Masters by Research)

All research postgraduates should conduct ethical self-assessment of their proposed research as part of the proposal process. The audit should be integrated with the student’s Review Board. Where ethical issues are likely to arise, the self-assessment should begin well in advance of the Board.

Level 1

The self-assessment should be conducted by the student in collaboration with the supervisor. If level 1, there is no need to send an email confirmation of the audit, but the ethical statement should be included in the student’s Review Board report.

Level 2

The audit should be completed by the student in collaboration with the supervisor, and the supervisor should email the completed audit form, along with a copy of the research proposal, to the Director of the GraduateSchool, making clear in the covering email that they consider this to be a level 2.

The Director of the Graduate School will confirm that it is a level 2 assessment, unless she/he disagrees with the supervisor’s judgement of the level, in which case her/his judgment will take precedence and the assessment will be treated accordingly. The student may not proceed with the proposal until the Director of the GraduateSchool has confirmed that it is level 2 (or lower).

Any correspondence about the ethical audit should be held on file by the GraduateSchool.

For level 2 and 3 cases, the Director of the GraduateSchool may choose to delegate their responsibility for ethics in certain areas to an appropriate colleague.

Level 3

The audit should be completed by the student in collaboration with the supervisor, and the supervisor should email the completed audit form, along with a copy of the research proposal, to the Director of the GraduateSchool, making clear in the covering email that they consider this to be a level 3, drawing attention to any problem areas.

The Director of the Graduate School will confirm that it is a level 3 assessment, unless she/he disagrees with the supervisor’s judgement of the level, in which case her/his judgment will take precedence and the assessment will be treated accordingly. The Director of the GraduateSchool may wish to discuss the proposal and its ethical implications with the Research Co-Directors. The Director of the GraduateSchool will come to a decision regarding whether the project can proceed in its current form, whether it requires to be modified, or (theoretically possible) whether it cannot go ahead. A copy of the decision reached is lodged with the GraduateSchool for filing in the student’s file.

The student may not proceed with the proposal until the Director of the GraduateSchool has reached her/his decision.

Level 3 proposals will be reported by the Research Office to the College Research Committee, which has external and lay representation.

For level 2 and 3 cases, the Director of the GraduateSchool may choose to delegate their responsibility for ethics in certain areas to an appropriate colleague.

Section 4.2 Taught Masters dissertation work

In many cases this would not require ethical audit. However, if it does (for example, if it involves original fieldwork), the audit should proceed as for Research Postgraduates above, with the exception that the audit is conducted by the student in collaboration with the dissertation supervisor (on behalf of the Programme Director). For level 1 audits, there is no need to send the confirmation email.

For levels 2 and 3, the dissertation supervisor is responsible for sending the email.

Section 4.3 Undergraduate Honours dissertation/project work

In many cases this would not require ethical audit, but if it does (for example, if it involves original fieldwork), the audit should be conducted by the student in collaboration with the dissertation/project supervisor (on behalf of the programme director), or with the designated Subject Area dissertation convenor, depending on Subject Area practice (in some Subject Areas, supervisors are not assigned until later in the process).

Level 1

The self-assessment should be conducted by the student in collaboration with the dissertation/project supervisor. For level 1 audits, there is no need to send the confirmation email. The dissertation/project supervisor should retain the ethical audit with the student’s dissertation/project papers, with the student’s name, the name of the proposed dissertation/project, and the date, added to the audit form.

Level 2

The audit should be completed by the student in collaboration with the dissertation supervisor (on behalf of the programme director), and the supervisor should email the completed audit form, along with a copy of the research proposal, to the relevant Programme Convenor, making clear in the covering email that they consider this to be a level 2. The Programme Convenor may seek further clarification and information from the supervisor/student if necessary.

The Programme Convenor will confirm that it is a level 2 assessment, unless s/he disagrees with the supervisor’s judgement of the level, in which case her/his judgment will take precedence and the assessment will be treated accordingly. The student may not proceed with the proposal until the Programme Convenor has confirmed that it is level 2 (or lower).

The Convenor may consult with the Subject Area /Centre Honours Convenor when assessing a Level 2 audit, but final responsibility rests with her/him.

Any correspondence about the ethical audit should be held on file by the Programme Convenor.

Level 3

The audit should be completed by the student in collaboration with the dissertation supervisor (on behalf of the programme director), and the supervisor should email the completed audit form, along with a copy of the research proposal, to the relevant Programme Convenor, making clear in the covering email that they consider this to be a level 3, drawing attention to any problem areas.

The Programme Convenor will confirm that it is a level 3 assessment, unless s/he disagrees with the supervisor’s judgement of the level, in which case her/his judgment will take precedence and the assessment will be treated accordingly. The Programme Convenor may wish to discuss the proposal and its ethical implications with the Research Co-Directors. The Programme Convenor will come to a decision regarding whether the project can proceed in its current form, whether it requires to be modified or (theoretically possible) whether it cannot go ahead. A copy of the decision reached is lodged with the Programme Convenor and the Research Office for filing.

The student may not proceed with the proposal until the Programme Convenor has reached her/his decision.

Level 3 proposals will be reported by the Research Office to the College Research Committee, which has external and lay representation.

Antonia Kearton

Administrative Officer (Academic)

May 2008

(Revised March 2011)