dissertation ethics approval

UCL Research Ethics

Do I need ethical approval?

Find out more about the importance of ethical review, if your research study requires ethical approval, and how to apply for ethical approval at UCL.

On this page

When do I need to apply for ethical approval?

When don't i need to apply, how do i apply for ucl ethical approval, further information.

In order for research to result in benefit and minimise the risk of harm, it must be conducted ethically. UCL's review processes are intended to ensure this whilst remaining sensitive to the needs of researchers.

All research involving humans carries some degree of risk. Even if the risk is very small or even negligible, it is important to always consider if the research you are doing raises issues related to privacy, equality, diversity, health and safety. A researcher must, therefore, consider the ethical implications of any work that:

Has the potential to damage the mental or physical health of human participants, (e.g., volunteers, UCL staff and students) or others who may be affected
Has the potential to jeopardise the safety of people affected by the research (e.g., volunteers working in sensitive situations or abroad)
Has the potential to compromise the privacy of individuals whose data is involved in the work
Involves methods (e.g., genetic research, interviews, questionnaires, randomised control trial) or subject matter (e.g. recreational and controlled drugs, human impact on the environment) that are sensitive and therefore need to be managed consistently with UCL’s high public reputation
Has the potential for environmental impact
Carries risk of an actual or perceived conflict of interest on the part of researchers and/or the university.

Accepted ethical standards

There are a number of ethical standards that have been accepted throughout the UK and abroad which all researchers and ethical committees are expected to comply with:

All participants must be fully informed of the study and what is being asked of them, including the potential risks/benefits and exclusion criteria, in order to make a fully informed decision about whether or not to participate in the research. This must be an active step on behalf of the participant and not due to any inducement, coercion, or perceived pressure to participate. This is required of all participants in a research study, except where there is a justification for covert research or deception (such cases will be considered on an individual basis by the ethics committee).

Research involving human participants must have a benefit to society and the risks involved to participants must be balanced against the potential benefit to the overall community.

All participants have the right for their participation to remain confidential in that only the researcher will be aware of who has participated. Generally, all data will also be anonymous in the final report so that nothing can be attributed back to an individual participant. There are exceptions, for instance where participants wish to be identified or they cannot realistically have their identities kept confidential, but written informed consent must be obtained from the individual participant in advance.

Why is ethical review important?

The aim of ethical review is primarily to protect participants. They are a valuable part of the research process both directly and indirectly and therefore it is essential that they, and their data, be treated with due care and respect.

Being ‘ethical’ means acting in accordance with a set of core values and principles, in particular, integrity, compliance with the law, respect for human rights, and avoiding unnecessary risk to people’s safety and well-being.

The UCL REC seeks to ensure that any potential ethical risks arising from research are limited and are strictly in proportion to the importance of the intended benefits.

Another aim of ethical review is to protect you as the researcher. In addition, careful consideration of research ethics principles and potential risks can help inform your research methods or increase participant recruitment, and as a result, enhance the quality of your research.

If ethical approval is not obtained when it should have prior to commencing a study (not including exempt projects):

There is the risk of harm to participants (either directly or indirectly) if the risks have not been appropriately considered and/or relevant approvals obtained
There could be an impact on a research participant's settlement in the event of a claim and could damage UCL's insurance profile. the individual researcher bears personal responsibility for any claim
Funders are unlikely to provide support for your research
Publishers are unlikely to accept your results for publication
It could amount to research misconduct and may lead to disciplinary action. See UCL’s procedure for investigating and resolving allegations of misconduct in academic research for further information.

It is expected therefore that all studies that require ethical approval have that approval in place before the research begins.

Unless exempt, all research, including pilot studies, by UCL staff and students involving human participants or the collection and/or use of their data requires ethical approval from the UCL Research Ethics Committee (REC). This includes:

Studies involving NHS staff recruited as research participants by virtue of their professional role
Studies on NHS premises, involving healthy volunteers not recruited as NHS patients and not subject to any legal requirements
A clinical trial conducted overseas
A 'mechanistic' study in which a drug is used to investigate a physiological process in healthy volunteers
A study involving a CE-marked medical device that has not been modified or is not being used for a new purpose.

Definition of data from human participants

The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) define data derived from human participants to mean all data derived from a human participant, either collected by a researcher as part of a project or accessing pre-existing data. This includes:

The use of secondary research data, and human data and records (e.g., genetic, financial, personnel, criminal, or administrative records)
Samples taken from participants such as blood samples and DNA
The collection and/ or analysis of passive or ‘big’ data, that is, data collected through the use of sensors and other digital ‘tracking’ tools or other online generated content.

Remember: The UCL REC cannot grant approval retrospectively and so if you are note sure if your project needs ethics approval, you should speak to your Head of Department and/or local Ethics Lead (or supervisor). If you wish to contact the UCL REC for an opinion, you need to provide information about the research, which project type (non-research) or exemption category applies, and an explanation of why you believe your research meets the criteria.

If your work is not classed as ‘research’ or your research falls under the exemption criteria, then you do not ordinarily need to seek approval from the UCL REC unless any of the following apply:

Your faculty or departmental ethics committee requires that you apply for local approval;
Approval is specifically required by another external body e.g. in order to obtain research permission, research funding, or to publish results.

Work not classed as ‘research’

You do not need to apply for UCL ethical approval if your work does not constitute ‘research’, such as staff or student performance reviews, or tests within normal education requirements. The following would also not be classed as ‘research’.

The evaluation, analysis, and interpretation of literature or artwork; providing a critique or opinion, not collecting new data/recruiting participants.

This does not include psychological interpretations of publicly available data such as analysing speeches and concluding that the language used indicates dementia onset at a particular age or autistic features, etc.

An audit is defined as assessing the level of service being provided against a set of pre-determined standards. This generally involves analysing existing data with results usually being used/distributed locally in order to effect change to improve/change the level of service currently being provided in the body being audited, though the process of conducting the audit does not involve randomization or changes prior to/for the purposes of evaluation of the service.

Service evaluation* is similar to an audit but there are no pre-determined standards and so the review is designed and conducted to define or judge the current level of service (a system supplying a need, such as a rehabilitation programme, public services) and is undertaken to benefit those who use a particular service.

The participants will therefore normally be those who use the service or deliver it or assess its function. The review does not involve any change to the service being delivered during/for the purposes of the review (e.g. no randomisation of service users into different groups).

Note: In order to use data already collected from participants during a service evaluation for research, this would require ethical approval, and in addition:

The data would need to be completely anonymous
It should not be possible to identify participants from any resulting report
Using the data should not cause substantial damage and distress.

The NHS Ethics Review Procedure, i.e. the Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service (HRA REC), distinguishes research from audit and service evaluation in a decision toolkit available on the NHS Health Research Authority website

Please note, the HRA REC decision toolkit does not relate to studies involving NHS staff, facilities, data, or other resources which may also require HRA approval. If you believe this may apply to your project, please contact the UCL/UCLH Joint Research Office to discuss your study requirements, or email [email protected] to ensure all governance and ethical requirements are met.

Research classed as exempt

Before assessing whether your research is exempt you must read the exemption guidelines and requirements:

These exemptions apply to the requirement to apply to the UCL REC. They do not apply to staff and students submitting to the Institute of Education (IOE) REC
Some departments have local arrangements in place to review all research, including exempt studies, so it is important that you are aware of them
The exemptions do not apply to research involving vulnerable participants as defined in our guidelines If research is exempt it means that you are exempt from applying for ethical approval from the UCL REC, however, it does not mean that you are exempt from: - Abiding by the appropriate ethical guidelines appropriate to your discipline - Applying for Data Protection Registration - Undertaking a risk assessment as per UCL Risk Assessment procedures
Heads of Department have final judgment as to whether a particular activity should be exempt from the requirement for approval by the UCL REC.

Research is classed as exempt:

Research involving information freely available in the public domain, e.g., published biographies, newspaper accounts of an individual's activities and published minutes of a meeting. Whilst still personal data under the Data Protection Act would not require ethics review.
Research involving anonymised records and data sets that exist in the public domain, e.g., datasets available through the Office for National Statistics or the UK Data Archive where appropriate permissions have already been obtained and it is not possible to identify individuals from the information provided.
Studies of public behaviour that are purely observational (non-invasive and non-interactive) unless the recorded observations identify individuals (names, photographs) which could place them at risk of harm, stigma, or prosecution
Research involving the use of non-sensitive, completely anonymous educational tests and surveys when the participants are not defined as "vulnerable" and participation will not induce undue psychological stress or anxiety
Research involving the use of educational tests, surveys, and interview procedures on human participants in the public arena (e.g. elected or appointed public officials, candidates for public office, artists).
Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies, if the food consumed is wholesome without additives or contains a food ingredient, agricultural, chemical, or environmental contaminant, for a purpose and at a level declared safe by the relevant national food safety agency.

Collaborative research within the UK

For UCL staff or student researchers involved as co-researchers on a project led by a Principal Investigator (PI) from another UK university and ethics approval has been granted by that institution (with the UCL co-researcher named on the application along with an account of their role on the project) then, provided that a UK university is the sponsor for the project (taking responsibility for the whole study) , additional ethical approval through the UCL REC will not be required. The co-researcher must ensure that the PI gains ethical approval from their own institution before the commencement of data collection as well as local ethics/research permission if the study is based overseas.

Note: If you become a UCL-based co-researcher part-way through a collaborative project with a UK university (that is led by a PI from a UK university) and the data is still being collected, you will need to inform the UCL REC immediately so that we can ascertain whether the above ruling still applies.

Depending on the nature and location of your research you may need to apply for ethical approval from one or more ethics committees, including within UCL or external committees (both in the UK and overseas). To find out more visit our Apply for ethical approval pages.

Codes of conduct
Committees and governance
Guidance, training, and resources
Responsibilities after ethical approval
Information for external researchers

Page last updated: October 2023

The Research Whisperer

Just like the thesis whisperer – but with more money, how to write a successful ethics application.

She has a particular interest in tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, adolescent health, and the health of people in criminal justice settings.

Kat advises colleagues from diverse backgrounds on research ethics, study design, and data analysis.

She tweets from @epi_punk .

Photo from Bernard Hermant | unsplash.com

The word “ethics” strikes fear into the hearts of most early career researchers.

Some of the reasons are beyond our control, but there’s actually a lot we can do to make our own experiences of the ethics approval process less painful.

I’m writing this from two perspectives: as an early career researcher (I finished my PhD in 2019), and as a committee member (I’ve sat on an ethics advisory group since the start of my PhD in 2014).

The job of ethics committees is to identify the possible risks in a project, and then assess whether the research team:

are aware of the risks.
are taking appropriate steps to minimise them.
have a plan to handle anything that does go wrong.

To do this, ethics committees need information. If you want your ethics application to get through the process as quickly as possible, you need to give the committee enough detail so that they understand your project and how you are managing any risks.

Getting your application as right as possible the first time makes the whole process go more quickly. If you don’t provide enough information, the committee will come back with questions. You may need to resubmit your application to the next meeting, which could be a month or two away.

Spending more time on your application for the first meeting can save you months later on!

Here are the main questions ethics committees will ask themselves when they assess your project:

Are there any risks to the researchers? (e.g. Injuries in the lab, safety risks travelling to study sites, exposure to distressing topics during interviews or data analysis.)
Are there any risks to the study participants? (From the study procedures themselves; risks to their privacy; risks of distress if they are asked about or exposed to upsetting content)
Are there any risks to third parties? (i.e. people who aren’t directly participating)
Could anybody’s privacy be invaded by the data collection process?
Are there other staff in a lab who might be hurt if there were an accident?
Are the research team aware of these risks, are they taking steps to minimise them, and do they have a plan if things go wrong?

The only way for the ethics committee to assess this is from the information you put into your application. Carefully think through your project and ask yourself those questions. And then put all of the answers into your application.

Here’s an example:

I am planning a project at the moment that involves interviewing health care providers about vulnerable people that they work with.

What are the risks to me? There aren’t any physical safety risks – I’ll be sitting in my office on the phone.

What about psychological risks? Could I be distressed by the content of the interviews? It’s possible. Some of the people I’ll interview are working with clients who have experienced child abuse, and some of their stories about their work might be upsetting.

What am I doing about these risks? I’m conducting interviews on the phone, rather than travelling to other people’s workplaces or homes. I won’t ask specifically about any distressing topics (minimising the risk), although they might come up anyway. If I get upset about the content of the interviews, I will probably be okay: I’ve worked in this area for many years, and I have strategies for dealing with it when my work upsets me (taking a break, talking to a colleague on the same project later on to help me process my feelings about it).

All of this goes into my application! I don’t write “I will conduct interviews with providers” and then say there are no risks, or that I have managed the risks. I give the committee all the details about each of the foreseeable risks I’ve identified, and exactly what I’m doing about them.

What about the risks to my participants? They could also find the content of the interviews upsetting. Again, my interview tool doesn’t ask directly about any distressing topics (minimising the risk), but it may come up. What’s my plan if my participants get upset? I’ll offer to change the topic, take a break, or stop the interview entirely. I mention this risk in the consent form, and the form will tell participants that they will have these options if they feel distressed. I will repeat this to them verbally at the start of the interview, and remind them that they don’t need to discuss anything with me that they don’t want to. Again, all these details go into my application.

What about risks to other people? Some health care providers might tell me private or sensitive information about their clients, by giving me specific examples instead of talking in general terms. To avoid this, I will ask them at the start of the interview not to talk about specific individuals, but to rather keep their answers general. If a participant does start to talk about an individual, I’ll remind them that this isn’t appropriate. I’ll also erase that part of the recording later on, so that those information isn’t transcribed. Again, all these details go into my application so that the ethics committee can see that I’m aware of the risk and I have a plan to manage it if it occurs.

As a committee member, I see applications get into trouble for a few common reasons.

The first is a lack of information , giving a very brief description of what will be done, without enough detail for the committee to understand the risks and what is being done about them.

The second is inconsistency , when a researcher says one thing on their application form, and something else in their consent form. Check carefully for consistency across all your documents before you submit.

A third is when a researcher proposes to do something that directly goes against the national ethical standards for research (e.g. collecting data without consent when they could get consent, or storing sensitive data in an insecure manner). Do not do this.

Some general tips:

Find out the deadlines for your committee now, and start your application well in advance. It’s very hard to do a good job at the last minute, especially if you need details from your supervisor or other people in the project.
Ask a colleague for a previous successful application for a similar project. Take note of the risks they identified, and how they managed them. Look at their consent forms and other documents, and see what you can adapt and reuse.
Use grant applications for the project as a source of information on background, aims, methods, and outcomes. The format and level of detail required by the ethics committee is often similar.
Read your country’s ethical guidance for research projects: this is what the ethics committee is working off. Think about which issues apply to your project, and how you can meet each of the standards. Spell this out for the committee.
Find out whether your institution has specific requirements regarding wording in consent forms, storage of data, handling chemicals in the lab, etc. In your application, tell the committee that you are aware of these requirements and say how your project will meet them. Make sure that your consent forms and other documents are consistent with your institution’s standards. If your institution offers templates, use them!
Ethics committees also assess the technical soundness of the research because poor quality research wastes time and resources, and exposes people to risks that aren’t justified by adequate benefits. Most committees include statistician and methods experts specifically for this reason (I’m one of them). Give a detailed explanation of your methods, and make sure they are appropriate to your research question. Get advice from a methods expert or a statistician to check that your project is sound – it’s much better to identify problems at the planning stage, rather than after you’ve gotten approval and collected your data.
If you are doing an application for the first time, get help from your supervisor or thesis advisor. They shouldn’t make you do the application on your own. The more help you can get before you submit, the more quickly your project will get approved.

Search form

Advanced search
Search responses
Search blogs

Guide to ethical approval

Related content
Peer review
Justin Nowell , specialist registrar, London Deanery
1 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St George’s Hospital, London SW17 0QT
justin.nowell{at}stgeorges.nhs.uk

For research involving patients, whether directly or indirectly, or involving NHS facilities, the ethical review process is mandatory. Justin Nowell takes you through it

Why read about ethics?

During their career journey many health professionals do a formal period of research. You may wish to improve your personal portfolio or raise the profile of a new department. Or are you thinking about pursuing research in the NHS? If so, you need to think carefully about ethics. As a chief investigator, whether you are a general practitioner or a nurse, a physiotherapist or a professor of medicine, the process is identical. It would be wise to plan your ethics application early, well before your proposed start date. The requirement for ethical approval applies not only to interventions like clinical trials but also to a range of other activities such as questionnaires, case note reviews, telephone surveys, and collecting samples or data. Many people find the process of applying for NHS ethical approval intimidating. A galaxy of red tape is guaranteed to dampen enthusiasm even in the most ardent researchers, however brilliant their ideas. Some knowledge of the application and review process can help ease this burden. Advance preparation may also save you a lot of wasted time.

Do I need ethical approval?

Traditionally, medical students are taught that the cornerstones of good ethics comprise beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, dignity, and truthfulness. Therefore activities that damage these six principles undermine ethics. It is not always clear how to translate such lofty ideals into improving research. The General Medical Council advises that research involving people directly or indirectly is vital in improving care and reducing uncertainty for patients now and in the future, and for improving the health of the population as a whole. GMC guidance 1 requires that if you are involved in designing, organising, or doing research you must:

Put the protection of the participants’ interests first

Act with honesty and integrity

Follow the appropriate national research governance guidelines and the guidance in Research: The role and responsibilities of doctors . 2

Ethical review from the appropriate NHS research ethics committee is required for any research involving:

Patients and users of the NHS. This includes all potential research participants recruited by virtue of the patient’s or user’s past or present treatment by, or use of, the NHS. It includes NHS patients treated under contracts with private sector institutions

Individuals identified as potential research participants because of their status as relatives or carers of patients and users of the NHS, as defined above

Access to data, organs, or other bodily material of past and present NHS patients

Fetal material and in vitro fertilisation involving NHS patients

Those who have died recently in NHS premises

The use of, or potential access to, NHS premises or facilities

NHS staff recruited as research participants by virtue of their professional role

Healthy volunteers, if done on NHS premises.

Application form

Obtaining ethical approval is divided into national and local stages. The first task is to complete an application form. This has recently changed from the National Research Ethics Service form to a new Integrated Research Application System. 3 This is much more than just a form; it is an integrated dataset designed to fulfil the requirements of a number of review bodies. Detailed guidance notes are included in the form, but completion is time consuming, so save completed sections as you go and return later.

The aim of the ethics review process is to protect participants and promote good quality research. With this in mind, there are some searching questions to answer. There are four parts A-D and some additional forms. Part A comprises the generic and core information. Answers to part A automatically generate appropriate header sections and datasets for the remainder of the application. Part A has 78 questions, although not all questions will need to be answered and the form sieve will automatically reflect this. Resist the temptation to cut and paste large sections of your protocol—it will be obvious at the review meeting if you do. You are asked to write a comprehensive lay summary and it is worth paying special attention to this task. Since 1 May 2008 lay summaries have been published, and this will soon be extended to include summary ethical opinions. 4

Part B, comprising 25 questions, asks specifically about the product or device to be tested, tissue collection, and information security measures. Part C contains an overview of all research sites. Part D is the declarations section. There are also Research Tissue Bank and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency forms to complete if relevant.

Applicant’s checklist

After completing the application form you must complete an applicant’s checklist. The checklist specifies supporting documents to be attached, including patient information sheets, consent forms, sometimes a letter from a statistician, and investigator and subinvestigator CVs. Online guidance is available on the format of protocols and other documents, but if you are unsure ask someone experienced; patient advisory groups are helpful in drafting documents designed to inform patients.

There is no prohibition on asking individual members of your local research ethics committee for advice; several of them are likely to be local health professionals. Probably the most valuable advice is to remember to identify all documents with a date and version number.

Where to apply

If you are unsure, the National Research Ethics Service website 4 contains a list of all local research ethics office contacts, which will be able to advise where to submit and how to book a review slot. Usually this will be via your local research ethics committee. The website also contains the standard operating procedures for ethics committees.

Provided the applicant’s checklist is complete, a reference number is issued, and the forms are locked, printed, and signed. If you do make a mistake you can ring the National Research Ethics Service helpline and they can unlock the form. Deliver signed hard copy forms with supporting documents to the designated research ethics committee office. Local research ethics committees consider around five to 10 studies a month. If they are fully booked you may be asked to return for submission the following month. There is no waiting list system for the research ethics committee —it is first come, first served. If time is tight, you could opt at this stage to submit to another research ethics committee within the same domain (area served by the same strategic health authority). Check local arrangements for submission carefully, because procedures may vary slightly. In some NHS trusts the research and development department wants to scrutinise the application before submission.

Once the application form and checklist have been approved you will receive a letter from the research ethics committee stating that the application is validated and giving a date for review. Ethics committees must provide an opinion within 60 days of validating an application.

Site specific information

The final online forms are the site specific information forms, which are submitted once the application is validated. The form has two purposes: one is to obtain NHS permission (a universal requirement) and the other is to request site specific assessment. Some types of study, such as questionnaires and surveys, are designated site specific assessment exempt. For most studies, however, once ethical approval is obtained local site specific assessment approval is required using the form. This is designed to ensure that individual sites have appropriate local resources to support the study safely.

The committee has a maximum of 18 members and one third of these are lay members. The investigator will receive an invitation to the meeting, and although attendance is not compulsory, it is advisable. The committee will consider the application for up to half an hour and then call in the investigator to answer questions. If you do attend, it will expedite the process as you may be able to clarify points raised by individual research ethics committee members.

Notification of decision

After the review meeting you will be informed of the committee’s provisional opinion, subject to certain conditions or any further information that is required. If the committee has serious concerns, complete resubmission may be requested. The committee will confirm their decision in writing within 10 days.

Request for further information

The committee may request further information or revision of documents before granting a final favourable ethical opinion. You will also be reminded that further consents may be required (site specific approval for other sites, research and development, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) before the study can begin.

Final approval and beyond

The research ethics committee will confirm the final ethical opinion in writing. Subsequent amendments to the study protocol must be formally notified to the committee. You are obliged to start your research within 12 months of a favourable ethical review. You must provide safety and progress reports as specified. You should also notify the committee when your study ends.

Complete the online application form

Complete the applicant’s checklist

Decide where to apply and book a review slot

Make your submission

Validation and review date

Complete site specific information form

Review meeting and provisional ethical opinion

Request for further written information

Final ethical opinion

After approval

Competing interests: None declared.

↵ General Medical Council. Good medical practice . London: GMC, 2006 .
↵ General Medical Council. Research: The role and responsibilities of doctors. London: GMC, 2002 .
↵ Integrated Research Application System. www.myresearchproject.org.uk .
↵ National Research Ethics Service. www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk .

Cookies & Privacy
GETTING STARTED
Introduction
FUNDAMENTALS

Getting to the main article

Choosing your route

Setting research questions/ hypotheses

Assessment point

Building the theoretical case

Setting your research strategy

Data collection

Data analysis

Research ethics

You may be able to learn about the ethical approach used in the main journal article (if this is discussed), but more often than not, it is better to focus on your own dissertation when it comes to setting out the approach towards research ethics you will take. At the undergraduate or master's level, the extent to which you will have to consider research ethics in your dissertation and the role that such ethics will play in shaping your research strategy will depend on a number of factors: (a) your dissertation and university ethics guidelines; (b) your chosen research method, the way that the research method is used, and the specific measures that are selected; and (c) your chosen sampling strategy, including the type of sampling technique used, your sample size, and the use of gatekeepers when selecting your sample.

CONSIDERATION ONE: Your dissertation and university ethics guidelines
CONSIDERATION TWO: The nature of the research method and measures you select
CONSIDERATION THREE: The sampling strategy that you select

CONSIDERATION #1 Your dissertation and university ethics guidelines

Whilst ethical requirements in research can vary across countries, there are a number of basic principles of research ethics that you will be expected to follow. Broadly speaking, your dissertation research should not only aim to do good (i.e., beneficence ), but also avoid doing any harm (i.e., non-malfeasance ). The five main ethical principles you should abide by, in most cases , include: (a) minimising the risk of harm; (b) obtaining informed consent; (c) protecting anonymity and confidentiality; (d) avoiding deceptive practices; and (e) providing the right to withdraw. In the article, Principles of research ethics in the Research Ethics section of the Fundamentals part of Lærd Dissertation, we explain these five basic principles in more detail. It is worth reading this article before reading on.

Following these basic principles is not only important for ethical reasons , but also practical ones, since a failure to meet such basic principles may lead to your research being (a) criticised, potentially leading to a lower mark, and/or (b) rejected by your supervisor or Ethics Committee , costing you valuable time. We mention your supervisor and the university Ethics Committee because the extent of the ethical requirements that you have to take into account will differ considerably from dissertation to dissertation. As a starting point, your dissertation guidelines should indicate whether you are required to complete an Ethics Proposal and/or Ethics Consent Form , even at the undergraduate or master's level, and if so, whether this should first be passed by your supervisor to see if ethical approval from the university Ethics Committee will be necessary. Even if such an Ethics Proposal is not required, it is still advisable to discuss the ethical implications of your dissertation with your supervisor; something that we discuss in STAGE SEVEN: Assessment point . At the very least, you will have to consider the role that research ethics will play in shaping your research strategy .

CONSIDERATION #2 The nature of the research method and measures you select

Research ethics is not a one size fits all approach. The research strategy that you choose to guide your dissertation often determines the approach that you should take towards research ethics. When we talk about an approach to research ethics, we are referring to ethical choices that you may make that are specific to your dissertation. For example, many students will be able to obtain informed consent from participants to take part in their research. However, there may be reasons that you cannot obtain informed consent from participants to take part, perhaps because the research design guiding your dissertation and the research method you use make this difficult or impossible (e.g., an experimental research design and the use of covert structured observation to study people in a nightclub or an Internet chat room).

When you consider the five practical ethical principles you read about earlier, it may appear obvious that your dissertation should include these. However, there are many instances where it is not possible or desirable to obtain informed consent from research participants. Similarly, there may be instances where you seek permission from participants not to protect their anonymity. More often than not, such choices should reflect the research strategy that you adopt to guide your dissertation. The potential ethical issues raised by different research methods not only differ from one type of research method to the next (e.g., surveys versus structured observation), but also the way in which a research method is used (e.g., overt versus covert observation) and your choice of measures (e.g., the specific questions that you ask in a survey). In each of our articles on different research methods, you can read up on the potential issues that your choice of research method will have for your dissertation (see the Research Methods section of the Fundamentals part of Lærd Dissertation and click on the relevant research method; there is a section on research ethics in each article).

Applying for ethical approval for research: the main issues

Affiliation.

1 Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, England.
PMID: 26758167
DOI: 10.7748/ns.30.20.40.s46

The need to obtain research ethical approval is common to all research involving human participants. This approval must be obtained before research participants can be approached and before data collection can begin. The process of ethical review is one way that research participants can be confident that possible risks have been considered, minimised and deemed acceptable. This article outlines some of the main issues researchers should consider when planning an application for research ethical approval by answering the following six questions: 'Do I need research ethical approval?', 'How many applications will I need to make?', 'Where should I apply for research ethical approval?', 'What do I need to include in my application?', 'What do research ethics committees look for?' and 'What other approvals might I need?' Answering these questions will enable researchers to navigate the ethical review process.

Keywords: ethical approval; ethics; governance; informed consent; research; research ethics.

Biomedical Research / ethics*
Ethical Review / standards*
Ethics Committees, Research*
Informed Consent / ethics
Research Design
United Kingdom

Library Guides

Dissertations 4: methodology: ethics.

Introduction & Philosophy
Methodology

Research Ethics

In the research context, ethics can be defined as "the standards of behaviour that guide your conduct in relation to the rights of those who become the subject of your work, or are affected by it" (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2015, p239).

The University itself is guided by the fundamental principle that research involving humans and /or animals and/or the environment should involve no more than minimal risk of harm to physical and psychological wellbeing.

Thus, ethics relates to many aspects of your research, including the conduct towards:

The participants of your primary research (experiments, interviews etc). You will need to explain that participation is voluntary, and they have the right to withdraw at any time. You will need the participants' informed consent. You will need to avoid harming the participants, physically as well as mentally. You will need to respect the participants’ privacy and offer the right to anonymity. You will need to manage their personal data confidentially, also according to legislation such as the Data Protection Act 2018. You will need to be truthful and accurate when using the information provided by the participants. 

The authors you have used as secondary sources. You will need to acknowledge their work and avoid plagiarism by doing the proper citing and referencing.

The readers of your research. You will need to exercise the utmost integrity, honesty, accuracy and objectivity in the writing of your work.  

The researcher . You will need to ensure that the research will be safe for you to undertake.

Your research may entail some risk, but risk has to be analysed and minimised through risk assessment. Depending on the type of your research, your research proposal may need to be approved by an Ethics Committee, which will assess your research proposal in light of the elements mentioned above. Again, you are advised to use a research methods book for further guidance. 

Research Ethics Online Course

Introduction to Research Ethics: Working with People

Find out how to conduct ethical research when working with people by studying this online course for university students. Course developed by the University of Leeds.

<< Previous: Methods
Next: Methodology >>
Last Updated: Sep 14, 2022 12:58 PM
URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations

CONNECT WITH US

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
JME Commentaries
BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

S Kjellström 1 ,
S N Ross 2 , 3 ,
B Fridlund 4
1 Institute of Gerontology, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden
2 Antioch University Midwest, Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA
3 ARINA, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
4 Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden
Correspondence to Sofia Kjellström, Institute of Gerontology, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, PO Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden; sofia.kjellstrom{at}hhj.hj.se

Background Conducting ethically sound research is a fundamental principle of scientific inquiry. Recent research has indicated that ethical concerns are insufficiently dealt with in dissertations.

Purpose To examine which research ethical topics were addressed and how these were presented in terms of complexity of reasoning in Swedish nurses' dissertations.

Methods Analyses of ethical content and complexity of ethical reasoning were performed on 64 Swedish nurses' PhD dissertations dated 2007.

Results A total of seven ethical topics were identified: ethical approval (94% of the dissertations), information and informed consent (86%), confidentiality (67%), ethical aspects of methods (61%), use of ethical principles and regulations (39%), rationale for the study (20%) and fair participant selection (14%). Four of those of topics were most frequently addressed: the majority of dissertations (72%) included 3–5 issues. While many ethical concerns, by their nature, involve systematic concepts or metasystematic principles, ethical reasoning scored predominantly at lesser levels of complexity: abstract (6% of the dissertations), formal (84%) and systematic (10%).

Conclusions Research ethics are inadequately covered in most dissertations by nurses in Sweden. Important ethical concerns are missing, and the complexity of reasoning on ethical principles, motives and implications is insufficient. This is partly due to traditions and norms that discount ethical concerns but is probably also a reflection of the ability of PhD students and supervisors to handle complexity in general. It is suggested that the importance of ethical considerations should be emphasised in graduate and post-graduate studies and that individuals with capacity to deal with systematic and metasystematic concepts are recruited to senior research positions.

Research ethics
human development
dissertation
graduate education
applied and professional ethics
scientific research

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.034561

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Research has a potential to encroach on people's lives, autonomy and integrity. To prevent or mitigate the potential for such effects, the research community has created ethics codes and regulations, institutionalised ethics review boards and formalised ethics requirements in scientific journals. 1–3 However, how do we know whether the formalisations of research ethics actually result in researchers' ability to operationalise ethics in the ways intended? One way is to analyse how they write about research ethics.

Including a well-written section about research ethics in a dissertation is important for several reasons. Compared to protocols written for research ethics committees, this section allows a comparison of the expected and actual research ethics as reflected in the entire research process. Scientific journals increasingly require that ethical considerations are elucidated, but most journals severely limit space for elaboration. 4 Since studies have questioned the ethical skills of doctoral students, dissertations provide a forum for students to expound on ethics and enable an assessment of acquired proficiencies. One purpose of graduate school is to train doctoral students in skills necessary for future research careers, including more critical thinking and more complex reasoning. The quality and depth of the research ethics section is essential to examine whether a researcher has acquired necessary skills to reflect and report on ethics.

Despite an increasing interest in research ethics, surprisingly little is known about the quality of research ethics in dissertations, particularly in nursing research. Research on written materials focuses primarily on research review boards 5–9 and journals—for example, ethics guidelines 10 and research ethics in articles. 4 Research on Turkish nursing dissertations showed deficiencies in informing participants and protecting privacy. 11 A study on Swedish nurses' dissertations from 1987 to 2007 showed that an increase in occurrence and proportions of reported ethical considerationsand that the texts were short, had few references and covered a narrow range of topics. 12 We found no other studies that address the design of the research ethics section and how different topics were combined.

The study's purpose was to examine which research ethical topics were addressed and how these were presented in terms of complexity of reasoning in Swedish nurses' dissertations approved in 2007. The research questions were: Which research ethics issues are reported? How is the research ethics section organized around different ethical issues? How is the information coordinated in terms of the complexity of reasoning that structures the text? What is the relationship between ethical issues and complexity of reasoning in the text?

Design and methodological approaches

The study used a mixed-methods approach to address the four research questions. 13 We performed a qualitative content analysis and a quantitative analysis of the hierarchical complexity of ethics-related content. The quantification method was the Hierarchical Complexity Scoring System (HCSS) (Commons, et al , unpublished manual), which derives from the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, a mathematics-based, formal general theory applicable to all actions in which information is organised. 14 15 All reasoning involves organising information. The theory and validated scoring method enable reliable measures of discrete stages of reasoning complexity. 16–20 In accord with Swedish law, ethical approval was not obtained for this study, 21 but ethical principles were used and issues were addressed in ongoing reflective processes.

Data collection

The sample consisted of 64 dissertations from Swedish universities in 2007 (Appendix 1). The primary inclusion criteria were that the dissertation was written by a nurse and that it was a PhD dissertation (4 years of full-time studies). Suitable dissertations were identified from the Swedish Society of Nursing's list of self-reported dissertations (n=65) followed by a systematic comparative analysis with the Swedish National Library (n=1). One of the self-reported dissertations discussed no research ethics and one was by an unsuccessful doctoral candidate: they were not included in the sample. Dissertation languages were English (n=48), Swedish (n=15) and Norwegian (n=1). Dissertations were retrieved via full-text online access or as books from the university library.

Data analysis

The dissertations were examined to identify research ethics sections, often under the subheadings “Ethical considerations” or “Ethical approval”. The texts were analysed for the topics addressed and how they were reported. An unstructured matrix of research ethics issues was created and grounded in the data. The coded texts were further analysed for subcategories through an inductive process. Descriptions of meanings of quantitative and qualitative character, that is manifest and latent content analysis, were sought. The analysis was performed by SK with BF—with extensive experience in qualitative methods.

In hierarchical complexity scoring, such content is “seen through” to examine its underlying structure. The method measures the levels of abstraction and how information is coordinated. Each section and subsection of a research ethics discussion was assessed on stage of hierarchical complexity. The overall discussion was scored based on the highest stage of performance the text demonstrated. The correlation of content and its complexity indicated which topics were addressed at different stages of complexity. Scoring was performed independently by SK and SR, then discussed to reach consensus. Both authors scored the English texts, and SK scored the ones in Scandinavian languages and discussed with SR. SR is an expert HCSS stage-and-transition scorer while SK is a qualified HCSS scorer of stages 8 through 11. See table 1 for stage complexity information. 22

View inline

Common range of stages of performance in adult tasks' hierarchical complexity

Research ethics issues in dissertations

Dissertations contained one to seven research ethics topics: approval of research ethics board (94%); information process and informed consent (86%); confidentiality (67%); ethical aspects of methods (61%); use of ethical principles and regulations (39%), rationale for the study (20%) and fair participant selection method (14%; table 2 ). All but three of the dissertations involved direct interaction with study participants; three were register-based studies.

Design of research ethics sections in Swedish nurses' dissertations

Ethics approval

The ethics approval category included descriptions of whether the dissertation has been vetted by an ethics review board. Almost all dissertations included a discussion of ethics approval (n=60), and a majority stated they had been approved by a research ethics review board (n=55). A quality and transparency concern was that several sections included no name of the ethics board and/or registration number (n=13). A minority related the issue of ethics approval to ethical codes, the Helsinki declaration or current national research ethics laws (n=14) by either stating that studies were performed in accordance with ethics regulations (n=8) or by arguing against the need for an ethics approval due to national laws (n=6).

Information and informed consent

We broadened the traditional informed consent category to accommodate information-giving processes discussed but not always expressed in terms of informed consent. Most dissertations discussed information-giving and informed consent (n=56). A third of these explicitly mentioned the concept of informed consent (n=19). A substantial amount of space was typically used to detail the informing phase of research, including the information's form (written and/or verbal) (n=41) and type. The most often-given information was freedom to withdraw from the study (n=33) and a declaration of voluntariness (n=30). Other information included confidentiality (n=22), withdrawals' non-interference with further treatment (n=7), the right to not answer questions (n=4), aim of the study (n=2), risks and benefits (n=2) and feedback of results (n=1). Those responsible for providing information as well as those receiving the information were described. Some informed consent discussions included an ethical rationale for the information process by referring to principles, codes or laws (n=16).

Confidentiality

Items coded in the confidentiality category reported that information was accessible to only authorised persons. Confidentiality procedures were succinctly reported (n=43). Besides describing confidentiality as something that participants were guaranteed and informed about, some researchers identified how confidentiality had been handled: data were safely stored protecting participant's identity (n=12); data were analysed and reported without identifying participants (n=19) and participants in focus group interviews were counselled in ways to promote freedom of expression and confidentiality (n=2).

Ethical aspect of the methods

The category for ethical aspect of the methods included the research ethics issues in collecting data, except for questions regarding informing participants. Ethical aspects of study methods were comprised of descriptions of interviews and questionnaires (n=37). Explanations of why interviews were ethically problematic were done by referring to principles or risks of harm (n=17). The negative aspects stated (n=24) were physical and psychological with an emphasis on emotional. Strategies to impede negative consequences were depicted (n=20): adopt a sensitive attitude, adapt to the physical and mental status of the interviewee, reduce questions, provide time to reflect on the interview and arrange for a contact person. Sometimes, statements about how the participants seemed to enjoy the interview experience were included (n=14). A few sections described problems that appeared during the research interview (n=14)—for example, interviewees who cried or did not answer all questions. The most comprehensive sections covered all these issues, but the most common strategy was to mention the potential laboriousness of the interview yet argue that participants benefited from practical solutions that were provided in the interview situation or by claiming that research participants appreciated the opportunity to tell their stories. The reported ethical problems with questionnaires were primarily the tedium of answering questions and how researchers adjusted the number of requests for completion out of respect and concern for participants' possible fatigue.

Use of ethical principles and regulations

Discussions that included the usage of principles and ethical regulations like laws and research ethics codes were coded to the category of ethical principles and regulations. This category was analytically different from others because it revealed how ethics were applied in the research sections. Explicit report of laws, ethics codes and principles occurred in fewer than half of the dissertations (n=25). Principles were employed but performed in qualitatively different ways (n=17). The simplest form was to state that the study had been performed in accordance with a research ethics declaration, code or rules outlined in a research ethics book. The most elaborate ones integrated the principles and described how they were used as compasses for research procedures (n=8).

Rationale for the study

To provide an ethical rationale for the study means to justify why the study is important in a wider perspective. Thirteen dissertations featured an ethical rationale for the study, and when included, it was framed in terms of risks and benefits. The need for new and valuable knowledge that could potentially improve conditions for other people weighed heavier than the extra demand and little direct gain that the research subjects gained from participating. Some reported that the value of pursuing the research outweighed the disadvantages but entailed the necessity of protecting the autonomy of the research participants.

Fair participant selection

Fair selection of participants signifies reflections on a justified choice of participants. The reason to include vulnerable groups and groups that previously has been excluded from research was sometimes given (n=9). A few sections justified the choice of participants (n=8). The importance of including important and vulnerable groups so their voices would be heard was the main reason reported.

Design of the research ethics section

The topics of the research ethics sections are outlined in table 2 . Most frequent was to report four ethics issues (n=16), followed by three (n=14) or five issues (n= 14). The majority (72%) included 3–5 issues. Four sections stated one topic and only one dissertation section reported seven issues. The most common composition of a section about research ethics discussed five topics: the approval from a research review board, information and informed consent, ethical aspects of the methods, confidentiality and principles.

Complexity of reasoning

The analysed texts demonstrated three stages of performance as measured by hierarchical complexity: abstract (n=4), formal (n=54) and systematic (n=6).

Abstract stage text performances consisted of declarative statements ( table 3 ). Unsupported categorical assertions were made and justified by invoking another assertion. Generalisations were created by quantifying people and events. Often-used quantifications in the sample were “all participants” and “all studies”. Research ethics sections included mainly generalisations about actions that had been performed.

Representative examples of reasoning in research ethics at three stages of complexity

Reasoning at the formal stage of performance used empirical or logical evidence ( table 3 ). Assertions were supported by explicit logic or evidence to justify the assertion—for example, by providing a logical explanation—for example, using such terms as because, in order to, since, if, then, therefore. Descriptions of hypothetical or alternative options in the future were sometimes included. The logic was linear. Such linear logic took the form of if–then constructions or chains of logic. Some used principles as logical reasons for actions.

Systematic stage performances were characterised by the ability to coordinate at least two logical relations into a system ( table 3 ); in other words, they demonstrated reasoning about complex causation and ability to understand a system of logical relationships. For example, one researcher described procedures for finding the “right people” by invoking a multivariate system that required the coordination of multiple variables. Systemic stage performances were characterised by more fluid reasoning than the linear, logical performances.

Comparing content and complexity

Few dissertations demonstrated abstract reasoning and systematic reasoning, four and six, respectively, but showed interesting patterns. The texts with abstract stage reasoning reported either one or two topics. All four mentioned approval; information and methodological issues were raised by only two. Texts with systematic reasoning introduced three to five ethical issues. Half of them discussed principles (as compared to merely citing a principle as the reason for an action), and the other three reported the rationale for the study, indicating that the topic and study could perhaps be viewed in a wider context. Among the majority of texts demonstrating formal reasoning, the topics varied from one to seven, meaning at least formal reasoning was needed to explain all conceivable aspects. Formal reasoning is required to report such tasks as fair selection of participants, rationale for the study and principles, ethics codes and laws.

Our study demonstrates that research ethics are insufficiently reported and inadequately described in many nursing dissertations. Few ethical topics are considered, and they are not discussed in a thorough way. While most note official approval and describe informed consent issues, other issues like the rationale for the study and how the participants were selected are infrequently reported. The level of complexity of reasoning was inadequate in most dissertations. The majority of the dissertations used formal reasoning, although by their nature, the ethical issues introduced in them require more complex reasoning to be satisfactorily addressed.

A methodological strength of our study is its inclusion of a large number of dissertations, which are likely representative of dissertations by Swedish nurses. A major advantage of our method is that the analytical approach permits assessments and comparisons of the coverage of ethical issues and the complexity of reasoning.

A methodological shortcoming is that the analysis was primarily focused on the section denoted “Ethical considerations/approval”, thus some ethics topics and reasoning might have passed undetected if they were treated in other parts of the dissertation. The analysis is thus limited to what the authors define as belonging to ethics sections. Our analysis identified the most complex stage of reasoning as a criterion for analysis because ethical considerations are complex matters. A more extensive analysis could have also analysed the entire low to high range of reasoning demonstrated in each ethics section. An implication of the language analyses is that we do not know which and how the ethical issues were applied in reality. Some issues could have been omitted from the dissertation text even though the issue was dealt with in practice and vice versa. The consistency between writing about ethics and ethical behaviour in the field—for example, in contact with research subjects and patients, should be investigated in future studies.

The first main finding is the incompleteness of the elaboration of topics and details in several dissertations, which is consistent with several studies in the domain of research ethics. A previous study showed a high level of errors in research ethics committee letters; that is, procedural violations, missing information, slip-ups and discrepancies. 8 Earlier research on Swedish nurses' dissertations demonstrate the questionable quality due to short length, few references and a narrow range of topics. 12

In our study, few topics were addressed. Emanuel et al argued for seven requirements to be considered and met in the conduct of ethical research: scientific value, validity, fair subject selection, favourable risk–benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for potential and enrolled subjects. 23 Applied to our findings, some requirements may be treated in other parts of a dissertation, but several dissertations leave out topics that are necessary for judging their ethical quality.

Informing potential participants and pursuing informed consent was reported in almost 90% of the dissertations' ethics sections. This frequency is higher than that reported in a study of Turkish nurses' dissertations where subjects were not informed about the study (72.7%) and the researchers had not obtained permission from the subjects (73.6%). 11

The second main finding is the insufficient level of complexity of reasoning, with which research ethics are handled. Findings from a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters showed that there was “the lack of formal reasoning” (p 258) and ethical arguments—for example, informed consent are described as procedural norms rather than an ethics principle possible to dispute. 9 This is consistent with our findings, because a significant number invoked research ethics principles to justify procedures taken, rather than to use principles to support ethical arguments for and against certain procedures. However, our findings also showed that the great majority used at least some formal reasoning, as measured by hierarchical complexity.

Unfortunately, formal reasoning is necessary but not sufficient for adequacy in ethical matters. The analysis showed that formal reasoning and systematic reasoning were needed to elaborate on topics, and the comparison of complexity reasoning and content indicated that higher levels of reasoning involved more elaborated use of ethics principles. Very few used systematic reasoning, and none used metasystematic, which would be preferable because several of the research ethics concepts are metasystematic stage principles. For example, informed consent is a metasystematic stage concept because it coordinates the system of informing a research subject and the system of obtaining consent from the person. 24 This means that metasystematic reasoning is needed for a full understanding and use of these concepts.

What are possible explanations for the low levels of reasoning on research ethics? One possibility is that ethical issues are dealt with at a sufficiently high level of complexity in practice, whereas the text of the dissertation merely reflects a research tradition that discounts the importance of performing and explaining ethical reasoning. Disciplinary norms for terse writing styles are presumably promoted by supervisors and department guidelines. For example, nurses' dissertations in social science use more references to methods, ethics and philosophy of science than dissertation in the medical science tradition. 23 In addition, poor writing may occur because researchers mimic previous dissertations or regard ethical considerations as bureaucratic hurdles rather than moral requirements to protect participants. The supervisor role is an important factor since they sometimes acknowledge a considerable lack of knowledge about research ethics. 25 Another conceivable explanation is that the level of ethical reasoning corresponds rather accurately to the level of complexity the doctoral students and their supervisors use to handle complex issues in general. In other words, they are arguing on ethical issues at their highest complexity level. In that case, the scientists' (PhD students' and supervisors') ability to discuss at more complex levels must be improved for ethical issues to be sufficiently managed in the future. All these possibilities suggest further research is needed to account for our findings, since ethics have long been an important part of nurses' education and occupation.

There are several implications of insufficient ethical reasoning. Integrity of the research subjects and patients are at risk, and patients, if they participate, may be informed without understanding the implications. From the perspective of the readers of the scientific literature, it is impossible to assess how and why the authors dealt with various ethical issues. A crucial implication is the consequences of selection of research questions, methods and participants/sample. Scientists performing at abstract or formal stages are less likely to integrate relevant ethical aspects into their research aims than scientists at higher complexity levels. This is because such integration, by its nature, is multivariate at minimum. They will differ quite dramatically in the way they understand principles as principles, “risks” and “benefits”, rationale of the investigation, etc. Researchers with systemic or metasystematic stage reasoning are able to ask more complex questions, juggle ethics, research questions, and methods and design more complex research projects. 26

Our conclusion is that if the established praxis to include discussion of research ethics in Swedish nurses' dissertations is going to be valuable, and if its purpose is to indicate that the research complied with expected ethics, then the reporting must exhibit a certain quality, comprehensiveness and sufficiently significant treatment of ethics. Our study illustrates that factors that improve the quality include: appropriately thorough consideration of several ethical issues while avoiding minutiae; use of ethical principles in appropriate contexts to justify choices and reasons to support actions taken and use of at least formal and systematic reasoning. In addition, we would like to see more reflection and a critical stance to what has been done in the dissertation work.

In order to accomplish the intent of reporting research ethics, several improvements are needed. The most straightforward solution is to enhance the research ethics teaching in graduate education. Students must learn how to perform ethically sound research from the first steps of planning and performing to writing up the results and their potential and ability to report and reflect on ethical aspects of the research process must be enhanced. A more profound resolution is to emphasise metasystematic thinking in post-graduate studies and recruit senior researcher and post-graduate students who already have developed a systematic or metasystematic way of reasoning. This longer-term solution will also constitute the foundation for further development of complexity in handling ethics issues in the future.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank professor Per Sjölander for valuable comments on the discussion.

Emanuel EJ ,
Wendler D ,
Dixon-Woods M ,
Ashcroft RE
Finlay KA ,
Fernandez CV
Angell EL ,
Jackson CJ ,
Ashcroft RE ,
Dixon-Woods M
O'Reilly M ,
Rowan-Legg A ,
Ulusoy MF ,
Kjellström S ,
Creswell JW
Commons ML ,
Smith JEV ,
Goodheart EA ,
Dawson TL ,
Swedish law
Rodriguez JA ,
Szirony TA ,
Richards FA

Supplementary materials

Web only appendix.

Files in this Data Supplement:

web only appendix

Competing interests None.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Dissertations - Skills Guide

Where to start
Research Proposal

Ethics Form

Primary Research
Literature Review
Methodology
Downloadable Resources
Further Reading

What is it?

An ethics form is a document that prompts you to provide information about your research to ensure you are meeting set standards. Readers usually expect to see ethics in a research proposal, or mentioned in your writing, even if there doesn't appear to be any problematic ethical issues to be addressed.

Why do I need to do it?

When someone embarks on a piece of research there is a chance of doing harm, even if harm isn't intended. Setting ethical guidelines ensures there are set standards for conducting research to ensure the research will not harm people physically or emotionally.

How do I do it?

You can find more information about completing your ethics form from the research ethics page of the university website ( click here ).

Ethics Further Reading

<< Previous: Research Proposal
Next: Primary Research >>
Last Updated: Oct 18, 2023 9:32 AM
URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/c.php?g=690330

Ethical review application

If your research involves human participants, their data or samples, then ethical review and approval is mandatory and must be obtained before starting your research. This page describes how to submit an application for ethical review and what to expect along the way.

Researchers should consult the guidance on ethical issues for more on what to consider when planning research and completing an application form.

There are ethical review application form - exemplars (PDF) available for reference when completing the free-text fields in the application form and there is also training (online and face to face) available for applicants.

Those making the following types of applications should follow the link for additional information:

collaborative application (if you are collaborating with another School or organisation)
amendment and extension applications (if you already have ethical approval but your plans have changed or you need to extend the approval period)
teaching module application (if you are a module coordinator)
human tissue and cell line related application (if your research uses human tissue or cell lines)

Applications for ethics review can only be for a specific research project or study and applications for 'umbrella', 'blanket' or generic approval (aside from teaching module approval) will not be reviewed.

For research involving the NHS

If your research involves the NHS you should also visit the Research involving the NHS page .

For research involving children

You should seek the advice of the Child Panel Representative before submitting your application - please email Dr Barbara Dritschel ( [email protected] ). There are template participant documents for children and letters to schools/parents and guardians . You may require PVG/DBS approval, check the guidance on the additional documents page.

What projects require ethical review and approval

All research involving human participants, their data or samples, requires ethical review and approval before the research starts. This includes observation-based research and research using social media .

The term 'research' refers to a process of investigation leading to new insights.

Applications for ethics approval must be for a specific study or project that is time-limited, clearly defined in scope or aims, and where the data, participants and methods used are specified. The only exception to this is teaching module approval.

Exemptions from ethical approval

The following types of work do not require ethical approval:

Service evaluation . This is work to monitor, improve or test a service being delivered, where a 'service provider' (or someone acting on their behalf) collects information from a 'service user'. For example, a module coordinator seeking feedback on a module from their students, or an employer seeking feedback on its support activities from its staff.
Audit . This is work to ascertain whether an activity was undertaken as it should have been.
Research involving only deceased subjects. If the subjects are deceased, and the information collected will not contain sensitive information about the living, then ethical approval is not normally required. However, research involving the use of health and census information that is less than 100 years old does require ethical approval.
The review includes analysis of the underpinning raw data or of a dataset attached to a publication (for which researchers should follow the guidance on using secondary data ).
The review will raise ethical issues such as around social profiling, data management issues such as managing sensitive personal data, or access issues that are best addressed by completion of the ethical review process.

If you are unsure whether your project is research or one of the above, contact your School ethics committee for guidance.

Other application scenarios

Blanket or generic applications.

Applications for the following will not be accepted:

‘Blanket or ‘umbrella’ approval to cover several projects or studies, a lab or research group’s activities, or an ongoing programme of research.
Generic approval where researchers will pick from several potential methods, topics, or participant groups, including where these are vague or not specified.
Approval to cover only the use of a specific research method, technique, or piece of equipment.
Open-ended iterative sequences of experiments or similar

This does not preclude applications for a single project with multiple experimental arms, participant groups, or methods if:

The project has a well-defined focus such as a specific research question or aim.
The ethical issues associated with each element of the study are accounted for.
The study’s elements, their timing, and their relationship to each other and the overall study end point and outcomes are clearly specified, defined, and justified.

Keep these points in mind when amending an existing ethical approval - your SEC may require you to submit a full application. All approvals must be renewed with a full application after five years. See the guidance on amendments and extensions .

Multi-phase, long-term and open-ended research

In large studies with multiple phases or long-term/open-ended research programmes each phase or ‘chunk’ of activity should be submitted for review as a separate application. This ensures the application’s records and documents, including any subsequent amendments, are clear and manageable. Applications can be made as each phase or activity arises (sequentially) or at the same time (in parallel).

Student researchers and student projects

Students sometimes assist on a project or study led by a member of staff which already has ethics approval, using the data or outcomes in an assessed piece of work – in these cases the staff research lead must ensure:

The project is, or remains, in line with the guidance on this page
Students are included in, or added to, the ethics approval
Research participants, if any, are aware of how their data will be used.

PhD (and often Honours and Masters dissertation) research, as a piece of ‘independent research’, will normally require its own ethics approval.

Autonomous student projects

Students undertaking an autonomous research project (an independent self-led project which is not carried out as part of a course, assessed work, or University-affiliated programme such as a Laidlaw Scholarship) may wish to seek advice or obtain an ethics opinion from a University ethics committee.

To request this, the student must identify an academic member of staff to voluntarily ‘sponsor’ the ethics application.

The sponsor should:

Provide advice on the application and project.
Check that adequate processes are in place to ensure the ethical conduct of the project.
Determine if their School’s SEC has capacity to review the application.

If appropriate, an ethics application can then be submitted to the sponsor’s SEC.

The SEC may, at their discretion, review the application and provide feedback, recommendations, and issue an opinion on the ethics of the project, such as reporting a favourable outcome.

This does not constitute University ‘ethics approval’, endorsement or affiliation and should not be represented as such, for example in participant information or by using University branding.

Student researchers in this scenario should also ensure they are familiar with data protection legislation and how this applies to their project, given it does not come under the remit of the University.

Why ethical review and approval is required

Ethical review is a peer-review process to help researchers fulfil their personal responsibility to act in accordance with the University’s Principles of Good Research Conduct (Policy) and fully account for ethical issues related to research involving humans . This minimises risk to the project, the researcher, the participants and the University.

Failure to obtain and adhere to ethical approvals is defined as research misconduct .

Who should complete the application

The lead researcher, whether that is a member of staff or student, should complete the ethical review application form (Word) . For student projects, supervisors must check and countersign the application form. Failure to do so may delay approval.

The form should name all researchers associated with the project so that ethical approval covers everyone involved.

The same applies to an ethical amendment application.

Which documents to complete

More detail is available on the template documents page.

All applications should normally include:

ethical review application form (Word)
participant information sheet (PIS) (Word)
consent form (Word) .

You may also need to include copies or drafts of:

participant advertisement (Word) : when an advert (electronic or hardcopy) will be used to recruit participants
participant debrief (Word) : when participants may need referral to support services or additional information about the purpose of a project following completion
surveys or questionnaires: when using surveys or questionnaires to collect data, append copies to the application - for online surveys or questionnaires , append screenshots of the initial and final pages, and the list of questions.
interview or focus group schedules or topic guides: when using interviews or focus groups to collect data, append copies to the application

Depending on the nature of your research project, there are other additional documents related to policies and procedures outwith the ethical approval process, which may need to be obtained prior to research commencing and might need to be appended to your application.

Some School ethics committees (SECs) require their own forms to be submitted alongside the ethical application form. For more information, contact your SEC .

Research involving child participants

If the research involves child participants or is taking place in educational establishments (schools) you should include the appropriate documents:

Letter to schools: when research is within an educational establishment. There is an initial letter to school - agreement in principle (Word) and a follow-up letter to school - study commencing (Word)
letter to parent or guardian (Word) : when research is with child participants
Age-appropriate documents : when research is with child participants. There are age-appropriate versions of the template PIS and consent forms (on the templates page under 'PIS and consent for child participants').

Where to submit your application

Following the completion of the form, most Schools require that you email it to your School ethics committee (SEC), however you should check with your SEC if they have specific instructions for submission.

You should submit your application as far in advance of needing to start research as possible to ensure it can be reviewed in time for your project.

Take care in completing your application form - application forms which are poorly completed, incomplete or unsigned will be returned and may delay approval. Student applications should be checked and countersigned by their supervisor.

If your research will involve child participants you should seek guidance from the Child Panel Representative (Dr Barbara Dritschel, email [email protected] ) before submitting the application to your SEC.

Researchers from the Schools of Geography and Sustainable Development, Medicine and Psychology and Neuroscience may send their applications directly to their SEC as usual.

The review process

After you submit your fully completed and signed ethical review application, it is reviewed by your School ethics committee (SEC). You can be invited to attend a meeting.

Standard and proportionate review

Proportionate review - this means that it can be reviewed and approved by a single SEC member without being taken to a full SEC meeting
Standard review - this means that it will be reviewed by three SEC members or taken to a full SEC meeting

Filter criteria and why they are used

The criteria are detailed in the filter form at the start of the ethical review application form (Word)

Research which is complex or that brings more substantial ethical considerations can be valuable and rewarding. However, it is important to consider whether the research is appropriate given the potential participants, nature of the project, experience of the researcher, and circumstances. Projects meeting the filter criteria undergo standard review processes to ensure these aspects are fully considered, while more straightforward projects can often undergo a 'lighter touch' proportionate review.

If an application reviewed under the proportionate review route is found to involve substantial ethical considerations it may be escalated into the standard review route for consideration by the SEC in full.

Developing a standardised protocol for research that is complex or which brings substantial ethical considerations

Researchers, research groups or Schools that frequently conduct research projects that would normally come under the standard review route can choose to develop a proposal with a protocol or 'standard operating procedure' (SOP) that puts in place a standardised approach that mitigates the ethical issues.

If approved, this means any subsequent research projects which strictly follow that protocol or procedure can be reviewed through the proportionate review route.

Protocols or SOPs should be submitted to the School ethics committee for approval in principle. The SEC will then seek final sign off from the University Teaching and Research Ethics Committee .

Review process and outcomes

All SECs aim to give their decision on applications as soon as possible, though exact timings vary.

The SEC can make three decisions following review:

Immediate approval : the SEC decides that your application meets the requisite standard and is approved. This is rare because, as a peer-review process, revisions (even if minor) are often requested.
Requires revisions : the SEC has identified a need for you to make revisions to your application. Make the required revisions, explicitly highlighting them in the application form, and resubmit the application as instructed by your SEC. Substantial revisions may need to be reviewed at a SEC meeting.
Escalation to the University Teaching and Research Ethics committee (UTREC) : sensitive or complex ethical applications may need to be referred to UTREC for further guidance and approval. For most SECs, applications involving child participants must be escalated to UTREC.

If the SEC escalates your application to UTREC review and approval might take longer. If you anticipate that your project will require review by UTREC, please make sure that you submit your application to the SEC in good time so as not to delay the start of your project. Once reviewed at UTREC (at a meeting of the committee), you should be informed within three days of their decision. For information on UTREC and their meetings, refer to the UTREC web page .

How to complain

If you have evidence that your application has not been properly processed by the SEC, please refer to the guidance on concerns and complaints .

Addressing a request for revisions

If the outcome of your ethical application has been a request for revisions, the SEC may be concerned with two areas:

Statutory : the committee cannot approve anything that does not meet statutory requirements. For example, if the proposed project fails to comply with data protection legislation.
Discretionary : the committee exercises judgment over ethical issues. For example, it may judge that the project entails risk out of proportion to the benefits it may bring or that the researcher has not adequately considered (or detailed in the application form) the ethical issues arising from the proposed research.

Using the committee’s comments, you should revise your application and address any issues. There is guidance available on the ethical issues to consider when planning your research or completing the application form.

When resubmitting your application, make sure to explicitly highlight where you have dealt with the committee’s concerns.

If you are unsure about how to revise or resubmit your application, contact your SEC .

Once your application is approved

You must wait for confirmation of approval from your SEC before you can start your research. This is normally in the form of an approval code, issued in a formal letter. Approval is valid for five years.

Once you have received approval, if your research changes and no longer reflects that which you described in your original application then you should submit an amendment application .

If you need to extend your approval then you should submit an extension application . Ensure you apply or an extension in good time, before your current approval is due to expire.

If any adverse events occur during your research you should contact your SEC and any other relevant contacts.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Example Documents

Each project is different and so the documentation required for different projects is different too. Below you will find some examples of study documentation, which you may use as a guide when producing your own.

General Tips

Use simple words and sentences.
Ensure the information is easy to follow - consider how you format the text and whether to use flowcharts/diagrams.
Ask rather than demand.
Avoid using jargon.
Use the active (not passive) voice, e.g. 'We invite you...' instead of 'You are invited to...'
Tailor your material to the audience, e.g. consent forms for preschool children will be different to those for young adults.
For guidance on writing a good lay summary, see VoiceNorth's short video: Bitesize Training - How to Write a Good Lay Summar y.

Ethics Application Forms

At Newcastle University, researchers must complete an ethics application form, before any research commences, either by:

completing the University Online Ethics Form or
by completing the HRA IRAS form (if NHS/HSC Research Ethics Committee approval required)*

*Note, if you are unsure whether your study requires NHS/HSC REC approval, you should complete the University Online Ethics Form first, which will notify you accordingly if NHS/HSC REC approval is needed.

Ethics application forms will ask the researcher for key information about the research project, including:

Principal Investigator contact details
Project description
Proposed project start and end dates
Details of the risks associated with the research
Proposed measures to prevent/minimise the risks
Additional details, as applicable

The information provided should be written for a lay audience, and supporting documentation should be attached with the application form (e.g. information sheets, consent forms, data management plans and other relevant research materials, including for example research questionnaires, recruitment materials).

Below are examples of ethics application forms:

1. Example Ethics Form - Cyber Bullying [PDF: 122KB]

2. Example Ethics Form - Student Project [WORD: 50KB]

3. Example Ethics Form - Food & Nutrition [PDF: 496KB]

4. Example Ethics Form - Sexual Health [PDF: 201KB]

Participant Information Sheets (PIS)

The Participant Information Sheet (PIS) provides participants with sufficient information about the research study to allow them to make an appropriate (fully informed) decision about taking part. For further information, please see the Human Participation - Informing Participants section.

‌ Example Information Sheet

Consent Forms

On receiving the information about the research study (typically through a Participant Information Sheet), the participant should be allowed time to consider whether or not to take part. If they wish to take part, typically participants will sign a Consent Form. For further information, please refer to the section on Human Participation - Acquiring Voluntary Consent and the University's Informed Consent Guidelines .

The University has also developed an Example Consent Form that can be downloaded and adapted to the research project.

Data Management Plans

A research data management plan outlines how a researcher will collect, use and store data, during and after the research study. For further information, please see the Data - Governance considerations for research data .

DMPOnline provides access to example Data Management Plans. The online tool can also be used to develop Data Management Plans that meet different funder requirements.

Further guidance is available through the University's Research Data Service (RDS) .

Privacy Notice

A Privacy Notice sets out how personal information will be processed in accordance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Participants in a research project should be provided with a Privacy Notice alongside a Participant Information Sheet (PIS), and have the opportunity to ask questions before they sign a Consent Form .

To support researchers, the University has created a template form that can be downloaded and adapted to the project:

Template Privacy Notice for research

If you wish to recommend any changes to the information above, or have any example documents that may help other researchers, please contact [email protected] .

Department of History

Ethical Approval for Research

In this section

Ethics in research, do you need ethics approval.

The University requires departments to consider the ethical implications of the students’ research. We will ask you to fill in a form and submit it together with your dissertation proposal. It is not acceptable to submit a blank form. If any ethical issues are identified, you will need to supply the PGT Director with an appropriate written description of the scope of the project, and a formal record of the decision to grant ethical approval will be kept in the departmental office.

In most historical research projects there will be no ethical implications, but in cases where your research involves human participants (perhaps involving interviews and the collection of oral histories), or confidential data (perhaps medical records might be among your sources), prior ethical approval will be required.

Any concerns you have about the ethics of your MA Dissertation research should be discussed with your Supervisor in the first instance, but you may also seek advice from the Director of PGT Studies .

If it is decided by your supervisor or the PGT Director that Ethical approval is required, students should complete the Taught MA Ethics Review form and e-mail it to the PGT Director Dr. Claudia Stein cc’d to [email protected] .

The form will be reviewed by a panel of academic staff and students will be notified within 7 working days of the outcome of the review.

Looking through this checklist will help you to know whether you are required to seek ethics approval for your research.

You are advised to discuss your project, methods and ethical issues with your module tutor or dissertation supervisor BEFORE looking at this checklist.

If you are required to submit an Ethics Review Form, you should not begin your research until your form has been approved by the PGT Course Director

Does your intended research include any of the following methodologies?

Interviews or oral histories
Questionnaires or surveys
Analysis of any kind of social media
Ethnography or observation
Any other methodology that involves live human participants or their data?

If you said yes to any of the above, then you will require ethics approval for your project. Please complete the History Department Ethics Review Form.

For further guidance on issues to consider when using social media in your research, see https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_487729_smxx.pdf

Does your intended research involve any of the following groups or their data?
NHS patients, staff, or facilities
Children aged under 16
Vulnerable adults (those who may be unable to give informed consent or are in a dependent position)
People engaged in criminal or illegal activities (including visiting websites even if there is no direct contact with individuals)
Terrorist or extremist organisations (including visiting websites even if there is no direct contact with individuals)
Ministry of Defence personnel

If you said yes to any of the above, please note that you may need additional approval from the university for your research. Please complete the History Department Ethics Review Form, and the PGT Course Director will advise if further approval is necessary. Please note that approval may take some time, so ensure that you seek ethics approval well in advance of beginning your research.

Will your research require any travel or take place in any “high risk” locations?
A foreign country (especially if there is a travel warning in place)
Anywhere where you might put yourself at personal risk by visiting or with which you are unfamiliar
Any other location you think might be "high risk"

If you said no to all of the above, then you are not required to seek formal ethics approval for your project. If your answers to any of the above questions change, you will require ethics approval for your project.

If you are required to submit an Ethics Review Form, you should not begin your research until your form has been approved by the PGT Course Director.

Expectations and Departmental Information
Communication
The Library

Welfare and Support

Mitigating Circumstances
Personal Tutors
Reasonable Adjustments

Course Regulations

Course Structure
Lectures and Seminars
Associated Costs
Dissertation
MA Dissertation Supervision Request Form
Exam Boards

Personal Development

Awards and Prizes
Careers and Employment
Events and Engagement

Student Voice

Appeals and Complaints
Feedback and Surveys

Student intranet

Ethical approval

Student research occasionally raises ethical issues.

If you are undertaking research for a course unit, dissertation, thesis or project that involves collecting data on or from human participants, it will involve ethical considerations and University requirements for research ethics.

For coursework involving limited data collection such as evaluations, market research or working with professionals (note: students are not classed as professionals) ethical approval is not normally required but this is subject to local requirements and the decision is made by your course leader. Therefore, it is important to verify this with your course leader before you start your research.

Ethical approval of coursework is required if:

topics are sensitive or contentious;
vulnerable groups are included such as NHS patients, children under 18, adults with learning difficulties, adults with a terminal illness, mental illness or dementia, adults in care homes, adults or children in emergency situations (eg refugees, asylum seekers, prisoners or criminals, young offenders, users of illegal drugs or illegal substances);
unless otherwise exempt, the data collected will form the basis of a publication or similar.

Please note that even if your project does not require formal ethical approval you must adhere to the best practice guidelines:

a GDPR Compliant participant information sheet and content form/script must be used, normally your course leader will have copies available for you to use;
ethical consent must be obtained and you must provide the signed copies to your course leader (in their role as the data custodian);
any audio transcripts must be anonymised and the original recordings deleted;
all data protection expectations regarding storage, confidentiality and retention must be followed.

If, after speaking to your course leader, you need further advice please contact the General Reviewer for your area.

Projects, dissertations and thesis

Before you begin your ethics application, you should complete the Ethics Decision Tool . The tool will advise whether ethical clearance is needed for your project. Ideally, you will complete the Ethics Decision Tool with your supervisor but if this is not possible, take a screengrab of the outcome and share it with your supervisor for discussion.

If the tool and your supervisor agree that ethical approval is not required, your supervisor will email the screengrab to your Programme Administrator so that this is recorded and you can proceed with your project or research.

If the tool determined that you require ethical approval then you need to log on to the online Ethical Review Manager (ERM) to create a new ethics application and have it reviewed and approved so you can start your project or research, without receiving formal ethical approval by email you cannot start your research.

You may view the School of Social Sciences guidance and the health, safety and risk information online, there is also ethics guidance for staff members.

All ethics applications are submitted via the Ethical Review Manager (ERM), please read our guidance on completing the ERM form or read our frequently asked questions (FAQs) document.

Further information on good research conduct, misconduct and policies and guidelines can be found on our research governance, ethics and integrity webpage on the central University website.

The application

Students and supervisors are advised to complete the application together. There are two main routes for obtaining ethical approval for your research project. The first set of questions, as well as the School of Social Sciences (SoSS) guidance notes, will determine which route you need to follow via the Ethical Review Manager (ERM).

The SoSS Research Ethics Template (do not take this route if your data collection does not comply with the template in the SoSS guidance notes).
The University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) reviews projects that fall outside of the scope of the SoSS template and/or require full ethical review.
Projects involving NHS patients/users typically require review by an NHS REC.

Completing the application

When completing your application, consult with the help of bubbles beside each question as they contain lots of vital information and links to documentation such as templates for participant information sheets and consent forms.

Do not submit your application without checking that it is fully completed and all the necessary documentation is attached (consent forms, recruitment adverts etc). Applications that are not fully considered or are incomplete will be returned to you and this will significantly delay the process.

Submitting the application

Once you have completed your application (including the risk assessment) and you have signed it, you then request your supervisor signature by pressing the blue "sign" button. Once it has been signed by both of you, it will automatically be submitted. You will receive an email confirmation that it has been submitted, if you do not receive this, check with your supervisor or read our Frequently Asked Questions guidance .

Health and safety

The health and safety of you and your participants is very important. For this reason, all students embarking on fieldwork must complete a risk assessment with their supervisor and attach it to the ethics application. These can be found on our Health and Safety intranet , you will also need to ensure that you have adequate insurance in place.

How long does the ethical review process take?

This will depend on whether you are seeking review via the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) or at the School level.

On average, the process can take:

8-12 weeks for full UREC.
6-8 weeks for Proportionate UREC.
4-6 weeks for Division/School Review although we endeavour to process applications that are fully completed within 2 weeks.
NHS approval can take a very long time, for example, a year.

It is therefore very important that you submit your application in good time and when entering the dates of your proposed data collection that they are far enough in the future for your application to be considered. Often applications are returned to applicants to amend those dates as they are not far enough in the future. Approval cannot be given retrospectively.

School template review and approval

When your application is submitted, it will be assigned to a General Receiver and to a Chair Reviewer for their consideration. You will receive an email following their consideration. The outcome of this will either be "approved" or "revisions needed".

If approved

You and your supervisor will receive email notification of this and you can embark on your research. It is very important that you read the contents of the approval letter.

If revisions needed

You and your supervisor will receive an email advising you that the application has been returned for further amendments or clarifications.
You and your supervisor will consider the feedback, make the amends in the Ethical Review Manager (ERM) and resign the application, you will both need to sign this again.
Check you have received your confirmation email.
Your application will then be sent back for consideration and you will be informed of the outcome.

UREC review and approval

If your research project needs ethical review and approval from the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC), read our research ethics guidance .

The UREC application is submitted via the Ethics Review Manager (ERM), the process is:

Complete the application online and upload documents and appendices (eg participant information sheets, consent forms and recruitment advertisements). Templates for participant information sheets and consent forms are available on the research ethics guidance webpage.
The completed form will be pre-screened by a research ethics signatory authorised on behalf of the School. The purpose of pre-screening is to check if the project necessitates UREC approval and ensure that all applications are completed appropriately. The school signatory will aim to review your application within 10 working days.
Once completed, the signatory will submit it directly via the ERM (applicants will be copied into the email confirmation) for subsequent review at the next available UREC meeting. Dates of UREC meetings and potential outcomes can also be found on the research ethics guidance webpage.

The Research Ethics Office will email you to confirm the details of your review. You cannot proceed with your research until you have received an email confirming you have received ethical approval.

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

Do you require a dbs check.

This depends on various factors such as the environments, the activity being completed, the duration and the subjects involved, read our DBS webpage for more information.
If you do need a DBS check, please contact Susan Rowe in the Faculty of Humanities.

If you already have a DBS certificate from The University of Manchester

You may upload this certificate when completing your online ethical application.

If you already have a DBS certificate but it is not from The University of Manchester

If you signed up for the update service at the time your certificate was produced, you can contact your Programme Administrator who will check the update service to verify that there have been no changes since your check was completed. You can upload a copy of the certificate when completing your online ethical application.
If you did not sign up for the update service, you may require a new check to be completed by The University of Manchester.

Data protection

It is imperative that data is handled confidentially and securely to protect research participants and to preserve the reputation of students, staff and the University.

Data protection and processing personal data guidance has been issued by the University and should be followed in all research studies.

Please ensure the guidance is read carefully and issues of data security are explicitly addressed in applications for ethical approval.

Training on research ethics, practice and integrity

Training related to research ethics, practice and integrity that you should take depends on the nature of your research and may include:

research integrity;
clinical trials;
human tissue;
DBS check; and
data protection.

Some of these may be required by the research ethics reviewer/committee. Please see the research governance, ethics and integrity website for more information.

Research integrity training for PhDs

PhD students within the School of Social Sciences can view our research ethics policies in the PGR handbook.

Schools & departments

The School of Literatures, Languages and Cultures attaches great importance to research ethics and integrity and has developed rigorous procedures for ensuring proper ethical review and accountability.

Research ethics

The University is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity .

The research ethics review process is designed to support researchers in managing risks associated with their research, and to ensure the highest professional standards in designing, conducting and disseminating research. The University of Edinburgh adheres to the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) Code of Practice for Research and the Universities UK (UUK) Concordat to Support Research Integrity .

In line with the principles outlined in these documents, the University of Edinburgh has published the University Research Ethics Policy and the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (CAHSS) has developed the College Research Ethics Framework (CREF) and the College Research Integrity Framework (CRIF) .

Staff and students in LLC should familiarise themselves with these policies before completing the LLC Research Ethics Checklist and, if required, the online Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Application , which serves as the vehicle for formal research ethics review.

Why do we need ethics review?

Research ethics are “the moral principles that govern how researchers should carry out their work” (Wellcome Trust, 2014). The aim of the ethics review process in LLC is to facilitate high quality ethical research by ensuring that research comes in line with University research ethics principles. The LLC Research Ethics Committee (REC) is committed to working with staff and student researchers in a collaborative way and aims to help researchers think through any ethical issues associated with their research and to find appropriate solutions and/or mitigations. The REC plays an important role in the research process by ensuring that research is planned appropriately, safely and ethically. It is therefore of prime importance that applicants set out any ethical issues clearly and explain the reasoning behind their decisions, as well as describing in detail the processes they have put in place to ensure that the research is conducted in an ethically viable way. Applicants should bear in mind that the ultimate responsibility for research being carried out in an ethical manner lies with them.

Applicants should note that although the LLC REC will consider how the research will keep data secure and obtain informed consent (where needed), a favourable opinion given by the REC does not mean that the research is compliant with data privacy and UK GDPR requirements for processing personal data. It is ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that their research is compliant.

When should research ethics review be conducted?

This depends on the type of research being conducted.

In line with University policy, all staff and student researchers should:

explicitly self-evaluate the ethical implications of all their research. Where the research might reasonably be considered to raise ethical questions, then research ethics review will be required before the research commences. Ethical consideration is not solely the preserve of research on humans and animals. Many other fields have ethical considerations (e.g. ranging from physics, the environment, energy, to the arts). It is the responsibility of the researchers to consider, and where appropriate, seek ethical review prior to instigating any project. University Research Ethics Policy, p.2

The LLC Research Ethics Checklist is an aid to helping staff and student researchers "self-evaluate" whether or not their research requires formal ethics review via the LLC Research Ethics Committee by submitting a Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Application .

It is the responsibility of all researchers – staff and students – to ensure that their research project undergoes ethics review via the LLC Research Ethics Committee, if required.

Supervisors of undergraduate, postgraduate taught, MScR and PhD projects should ensure to the best of their ability that student research under their supervision goes through the formal ethical review process where required. In addition, "supervisors of student research have an ongoing responsibility throughout the research to make students aware of the ethical issues and requirements associated with their research" (University Research Ethics Policy, p.8).

Any new ethical issues which arise during the carrying out of the research should be addressed via further ethics review in a timely manner.

For Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Applications, please ensure that you adhere to the LLC submission deadlines of a minimum of:

8 weeks before the commencement of any project or submission of a funding application

This will allow sufficient time for proper research ethics review of the proposed research to be conducted. Please note that for projects which involve complex ethical issues, it may be necessary to seek advice from the College Research Ethics Committee or specialists in other schools within the University.

For student research projects , the following deadlines apply:

Undergraduate dissertations:  If a dissertation project requires formal ethics review, it is expected that Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Applications will be submitted no later than the end of the first week of December in the academic year in which the dissertation will be submitted. Such dissertation projects should secure a favourable opinion (“approval”) no later than three months before the submission deadline. No data gathering or analysis should take place before a favourable opinion is secured.

If a favourable opinion is not secured by the deadline, the student will have to change their research project plan to a low-risk project which does not require ethics review. This means that they should not conduct research which is not defined as low-risk according to the LLC Research Ethics Checklist (ie, answers to all questions are ‘No’).

Taught postgraduate dissertations:

If a dissertation project requires formal ethics review (via a Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Application), such dissertation projects should secure a favourable opinion (“approval”) no later than three months before the submission deadline. No data gathering or analysis should take place before a favourable opinion is secured.

MScR dissertations:

15,000 word dissertations: If a dissertation project requires formal ethics review (via a Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Application), such dissertation projects should secure a favourable opinion (“approval”) no later than three months before the submission deadline. No data gathering or analysis should take place before a favourable opinion is secured.

30,000 word dissertations: If a dissertation project requires formal ethics review (via a Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Application), such dissertation projects should secure a favourable opinion (“approval”) no later than six months before the submission deadline. No data gathering or analysis should take place before a favourable opinion is secured.

PhD theses:  If a PhD project requires formal ethics review (via a Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Application), such projects should secure a favourable opinion (“approval”) no later than three months after the First Year Review. No data gathering or analysis should take place before a favourable opinion is secured.

Please note that for projects which involve complex ethical issues, it may be necessary to seek advice from the College Research Ethics Committee or specialists in other schools within the University.

If required to submit a Research Ethics, Integrity and Governance (REIG) Application, when should I submit my application?

There is a wide range of approaches to designing and conducting research. It is not always clear exactly when a research project begins and ends. You will need to take some preparatory steps in order to identify things such as your topic, possible research questions, primary materials, secondary literature, theoretical approach, etc. You should submit your research ethics application for review when you have a clear idea of what your project is about (topic and research question/s) and what your approach will be (your methods or methodology). You should not begin analysing primary materials or generating new data before securing a favourable ethical opinion (sometimes referred to as “ethics approval”).

If, having completed the LLC Research Ethics Checklist, I am required to complete a Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance (REIG) Application, what are some of the elements of research that I could do before submitting my REIG application?

It is generally fine to identify primary materials or potential sources of primary data; for example, audio-visual materials such as audio recordings, videos, films; texts such as novels, poems, diaries; visual materials such as photographs, murals, propaganda posters; interview participants; performances; archival materials; online discussion forums or online communities; policy or legal documents.

If, having completed the LLC Research Ethics Checklist, I am required to complete a Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance (REIG) Application, what are some of the elements of research that I should NOT do before submitting my REIG application?

While it is fine to identify primary materials or potential sources of primary data before submitting your research ethics application, you should not generate (“collect”) primary data or conduct systematic analysis of primary materials. For example, you should not analyse audio-visual or textual materials (in cases where you have identified ethical issues with the use of these materials), or conduct surveys, interviews or participant observation.

Can I apply for research ethics review after I have started my research?

No. Retrospective research ethics review refers to ethics review which is conducted after a research project has commenced or after a research project has been completed. Retrospective research ethics review is not permitted under any circumstances for projects which have already been completed, without exception. In the case of projects which have already commenced (or where data has been collected or generated) retrospective ethics review is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, and usually only where changes have been made to a previously reviewed Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Application. In cases where a researcher seeks retrospective research ethics review, there MUST be a clear and justifiable reason for doing so. For the sake of clarity, retrospective ethics review would be permitted in the following scenarios:

In circumstances where a researcher comes across or is given access to materials or a setting which later have the potential to serve as data for a research project.
In circumstances where, in the course of an existing research project which has already been through the research ethics review process, the researcher comes across or is given access to materials or a setting which was not anticipated at the outset of the project.

In either of these circumstances, further research using this data should not proceed without formal research ethics review. This should be done in a timely manner.

It should be stressed that if the generation or collection of any data does not meet the research ethics and GDPR criteria set out in these pages, then it may not be possible for the researcher to utilise the research data in any output, including dissertations and publications.

Whose research is subject to ethical review procedures?

All research carried out by members of the School, including academics, emeritus staff, teaching staff, undergraduate students, postgraduate students (Masters and PhD), visiting scholars and fellows, and research assistants, are subject to the procedures outlined in these pages.

The review process

Undergraduate and taught postgraduate students:

Applications will go to the Supervisor (or Course Organiser for in-class projects other than dissertations) for ethics review and sign-off/escalation. The application will then go to the LLC Research Ethics Committee (REC) for review. In the majority of cases, the REC will provide an ethical opinion. However, if the LLC REC determines that an application needs further scrutiny then it will be escalated to College for additional review.

MScR and PhD students:

Applications will go to the Supervisor (or Course Organiser for in-class projects other than dissertations) for ethics review and sign-off/escalation. Applications will then go to the LLC Research Ethics Committee (REC) for review. They will be reviewed independently by two REC members. In the majority of cases, the REC will provide an ethical opinion. However, if the LLC REC determines that an application needs further scrutiny then it will be escalated to College for additional review.

Applications will go to the LLC Research Ethics Committee (REC) for review where they will be reviewed independently by two REC members. In the majority of cases, the REC will provide an ethical opinion. However, if the LLC REC determines that an application needs further scrutiny then it will be escalated to College for additional review.

‘Legacy’ Research Projects and Ethics Review Guidance

An increasing number of journals are requesting evidence of formal ethics review for the research upon which outputs are based. While it seems to be the case that journals in the Arts and Humanities are less likely to request this, the situation is changing, and there have been several cases in LLC where scholars have been asked for proof of ethics review after an article has been accepted for publication. In cases where formal ethics review has been carried out, this is not a problem. However, in situations where scholars have been working on a research project which started before the introduction of ethics review processes in the School, the situation is more complicated since we do not conduct retrospective ethics review in LLC. In such situations, we suggest that colleagues try the following:

Consider to what extent the research adheres to either University or external ethics guidelines/policies (or both – this will very much depend on the field). Assuming that the research does adhere to the University (or external) ethics guidelines/policies, put together a ‘defence’ of the research, explaining how it adheres to the guidelines/policies.
Use this ‘defence’ to try to negotiate with the publisher (assuming that ethics review processes were not in place at the time the research was conducted (in LLC, this would be prior to 2013).

NB: LLC does not conduct retrospective review and the LLC REC should not be approached to provide a cover letter or other documentation where ethics review has not been conducted.

What are the consequences of conducting research that requires ethics review without first securing a favourable opinion from the relevant Research Ethics Committee?

If you conduct research which requires formal ethics review and you do so without a favourable (or conditional favourable) opinion, you are in violation of the University of Edinburgh’s University Research Ethics Policy.

In such cases, the REC may recommend the deletion of data or the halting of the research project. In addition, the University has put in place processes for dealing with misconduct in relation to research ethics.

“Failure to meet research ethical obligations can constitute research misconduct, and as such may lead to the implementation of a research misconduct investigation, following the Research Misconduct Policy ” (University Research Ethics Policy, pp. 8-9).

For students:

“Failure to meet research ethical obligations may constitute research misconduct. This failure may lead to a referral to the relevant Academic Misconduct Officer and implementation of academic misconduct procedures, and could lead to referral of the case for disciplinary action under the Code of Student Conduct ” (University Research Ethics Policy, p.10).

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

Undergraduate courses
Events and open days
Fees and finance
Postgraduate courses
How to apply
Postgraduate events
Fees and funding
International students
Continuing education
Executive and professional education
Courses in education
How the University and Colleges work
Term dates and calendars
Visiting the University
Annual reports
Equality and diversity
A global university
Public engagement
Give to Cambridge
For Cambridge students
For our researchers
Business and enterprise
Colleges & departments
Email & phone search
Museums & collections
Ethics, Risk and Fieldwork (ERF)
Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS)
About us overview
The Centres
Aaron Rapport Teaching Prize
The R.A Butler Prize
News overview
This Week's POLIS Newsletter
Events overview
Cambridge Historical International Relations Conference
Annual Lectures
Contemporary Political Theory Seminar Series
POLIS Political Economy Seminar Series
History and Politics Seminar Series
2023 PhD Fieldwork Photography Competition
Public Policy Annual Lecture overview
Annual Public Policy Lecture 2022 - video available
Gender & Tech
Privacy statement: Registering for an event
Application Guide
Ethics, Risk and Fieldwork (ERF) overview
Ethical Approval
Risk Assessment
Fieldwork and Leave to Work Away (LTWA)
Witwatersrand-Cambridge Exchange Programme
CamPo: Cambridge - Sciences Po, Paris Exchange Scheme overview
Collaborative Research
Faculty Exchange
Doctoral Exchange
Interview with Louis Baktash, CamPo Visiting PhD Candidate
Pathways from Disorder to Order
People overview
Head of Department - Professor Jude Browne
Deputy Head of Department - Dr Glen Rangwala
University Teaching Officers (UTO) and Fixed-Term Lecturers (FTL)
Other Teaching Staff and Affiliates
Professional Staff
Research Associates/Postdocs
PhD Students
Emeritus Staff
Visiting Scholars overview
Become a Visiting Scholar
Prospective undergraduates overview
Course Details
Course information
First Year Students
Second Year Students
Third Year Students
One-year Part II
Information for prospective postgraduates overview
Prospective PhD in Politics and International Studies overview
How to Apply
Fees and Funding
Information for current postgraduates overview
Research Best Practice
Postgraduate Hardship Fund
Information for supervisors
PhD in Politics and International Studies overview
POLIS Carers fund
The Lisa Smirl PhD Prize
Fieldwork Funding
PhD in Development Studies
PhD in Latin American Studies
PhD in Multi-disciplinary Gender Studies
MSt in International Relations
MPhil in Politics and International Studies overview
What Our Students Say
Current MPhil in Politics and International Studies overview
MPhil Politics and International Studies Courses
MPhil Hardship Fund
MPhil in Political Thought and Intellectual History
MPhil in Public Policy overview
Programme Description
Course Structure overview
MPP Podcast
Work Placements
What our students say
MPhil in African Studies
MPhil in Development Studies
MPhil in Latin American Studies
MPhil in Modern South Asian Studies
MPhil in Multi-disciplinary Gender Studies
MPhil in Political Thought and Intellectual History (co-taught with History and Classics)
Intranet (Staff only)

Work with us

CamPo: Cambridge - Sciences Po, Paris Exchange Scheme

Undergraduate students

Undergraduate students writing a dissertation involving research participants or using protected data will need to seek ethical approval from the Ethics, Risk and Fieldwork (ERF) Committee.

Please note : Undergraduate students conducting interviews/focus groups may need to be supervised, and you must provide the details of this supervisor when you complete the form.

Please download and complete the Undergraduate Ethical Approval Form and return it to [email protected] .

Once the ERF Committee has considered your application, you will be notified of the outcome.

Deadline to submit ethics applications:

Students doing dissertation in 2023-24:

19th June 2023 (required if wanting to do research that requires Ethical Approval over the summer)
16th October 2023

Students doing dissertations in 2024-25

17th June 2024 (required if wanting to do research that requires Ethical Approval over the summer)
21st October 2024

You can only do your research once you have approval so please consider which deadline would be most appropriate for your schedule.

Postgraduate students (Masters and PhD)

When planning your research, and before you complete the application form, please consult the following guidance:

When ethical approval is required

This document is drawn from the ESRC Framework for Research Ethics and lists some of the many types of research which require ethical approval. The full ESRC Framework for Research Ethics is available online and is a very useful tool for researchers. Any research involving human participants will require ethical approval , but some participant groups may require more or less safeguarding.

Points to consider when planning your research

This list of points to consider includes examples of areas you will need to have explored when planning your research, writing your proposal and submitting your application for ethical approval.

Example detailed research proposal

This is an example proposal from the ESRC Framework with ethical considerations included.

The Data Protection Act

This is a guide to the principles and how you should ensure you protect personal data you have gathered/are using for your research. This predates 2018 and so has been superseded by GDPR (and the associated 2018 DPA update) in many ways, but the guidance in this document all still applies.

When to apply

Step 1: Consult your supervisor and the relevant guidance when writing your research proposal to ensure your study design does not include anything that might be problematic.

Step 2: Select the correct application form using the flowchart below and return it to your Course Administrator by the following dates.

For MPhils:

All students (applications for research)

3rd November2023 (if wanting to do research in the Christmas break, or for students needing early approval so that they can make travel arrangements).
22nd January 2024

MPP students (applications for work placements)

15th February 2024
7th June 2024 ( First year PhD students - Submit as part of your first year registration materials).

Second and Third year PhD students - select the correct application form using the flowchart below and return it to your Course Administrator by the following dates.

2nd November 2024
15th February 2025
23rd May 2025

These dates ensure that you apply more than one term prior to the commencement of the research that requires ethical approval.

Students: All applications for Ethics, Risk and LTWA must be submitted along with the ERF coversheet, to your programme administrator.

Ethics flowchart

The procedure you need to follow depends on whether your research involves certain types of data or human participants, and whether the participants are adults, vulnerable adults or under 18.

Each procedure is listed and summarised below:

flowchart_3.png

Download Ethics Flowchart pdf .

Ethical Approval Forms

All applications for Ethics, Risk and LTWA must be submitted along with the ERF coversheet, so that we can quickly identify what approvals you need. This form will need to be signed by your supervisor. Click here to download the ERF Coversheet Template .

If your research involves adult participants

Please submit the (A) Application for Ethical Approval Form and the required documents listed on the form to your course administrator by the dates listed above.
You will need a signature from your Supervisor and approval by the POLIS ERF Committee.

If your research involves 'vulnerable' adult participants

Please submit the (VA) Application for Ethical Approval Form and the required documents listed on the form to your course administrator by the dates listed above.
You will need confirmation from your Supervisor, and approval by both the POLIS ERF Committee and the HSS REC.
You may also need to apply for ethical approval from any relevant external committees who have oversight of your participants.

If your research involves participants under the age of 18

Please submit the (U18) Application for Ethical Approval Form and the required documents listed on the form to your course administrator by the dates listed above.
You will need a signature from your Supervisor and approval by both the POLIS ERF Committee and the HSS REC.
You should also read the additional Guidance for participants under 18 .
If you are working with schools or other educational institutions then they may also have procedures which you must observe.

If your research involves access to personal, controlled or confidential data

Please submit the (DATA) Application for Ethical Approval Form and the required documents listed on the form to your course administrator by the dates listed above.
You will need a signature your Supervisor, to be confirmed by the ERF Committee.

If your research does not involve participants or use personal, controlled or confidential data

You will not need POLIS ERF Committee approval but should still obtain confirmation from your supervisor, and submit the Ethics Confirmation Form to your Course Administrator. Confirmation forms are stored by the committee to record that the ethical requirements of the project were considered properly and determined not to require a full committee review.

Supporting Information:

The participant consent form can be found here .

The participant project information sheet can be found here .

Amendment form - please use if the nature of your research has changed and you want to make minor amendments, or if the ERF committee have asked you to make amendments to your submitted application. Amendment form here

Extension form - please use this form if you are currently on a research trip but you wish to extend your period of working away. Extension form here

Staff need to complete the Staff and Postdoc Ethical Approval Application Form before the research commences and with sufficient time for any feedback from the committee to be incorporated. This should preferably be done even earlier, before a research funding application is submitted, in order to allow time for any feedback from the committee to be incorporated at application stage. It is however recognised that this may not always be practical.

If you have any questions about this process and the documents required, please contact the secretary of the ERF committee via [email protected] for advice. Completed forms should be sent to [email protected] .

GDPR Compliance

All researchers conducting studies with human participants must ensure that their participant information documents are compliant with GDPR legislation. In-depth details can be found here and here .

If you are unsure of whether your participant information sheet will be sufficient, please include a link to direct your participants to the University's standard GDPR policy for research participants . This will provide a basic level of compliance, but please ensure that you have read the statement too and can provide all of the information mentioned.

We also strongly advise that you personalise and include the following additional Privacy Notice template with your participant information sheet: GDPR Privacy Template

The Department of Politics and International Studies, The Alison Richard Building, 7 West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9DP

Contact: [email protected]

Site privacy & cookie policies, university privacy policy, follow us on twitter, follow us on linkedin, sign up for our weekly news and events.

Contact the University
Accessibility
Freedom of information
Privacy policy and cookies
Statement on Modern Slavery
Terms and conditions
University A-Z
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Research news
About research at Cambridge
Spotlight on...

School of Social and Political Science

Research ethics, ethical practice in sps.

In the School of Social and Political Science (SPS) we recognise that good ethical practice is a cornerstone of all our research and a mark of our commitment to professionalism, including our care for our research participants, our colleagues, collaborators, and research partners, as well as the data produced in our research.

SPS attaches great importance to research ethics, and is developing extensive procedures for supporting staff and ensuring proper ethical review and accountability.

Please use the links below to find out more and complete the online ethical review.

Good practice guidance is available from various sources including:

College of Humanities and Social Science - Research Ethics and Integrity
The University of Edinburgh - Policy on Conflict of Interest (PDF)
ESRC - Framework for research ethics
UKRIO - UK Research Integrity Office
UKRI - Research Integrity
European Commission - Ethics for Researchers (PDF)

All research carried out by members of the School is are subject to ethical review. The ethical review process is designed to support researchers in managing risks associated with their research, ensuring the highest professional standards in designing, conducting and disseminating research.

PLEASE NOTE: The staff ethics form and associated material has now been moved onto the Research Office intranet. This section of the (public) webpage is only updated on student ethics processes. To view information related to staff ethics processes, please visit the SPS Ethics Intranet webpages .

Further information on ethics processes can be found on the CAHSS Research Ethics site .

All research carried out by members of the School, including undergraduate and post-graduate dissertation projects, needs to go through an ethical review process. The ethical review process is designed to support researchers and students in managing risks associated with their research, and to ensure the highest professional standards in designing, conducting and disseminating research.

Before starting any empirical research, all students need to complete ethical review through using the support form on the SPS intranet. This will involve a series of prompts about issues which might arise during research. Completed forms will be reviewed by the student’s supervisor or relevant course organiser. Please review the important information below.

Ethics, Data and Research Integrity Online Support Form

On page 1 of the form, students will be asked to specify their supervisor and/or course organiser. For PhD students or MSc students submitting their dissertation, it is important that they list their dissertation or PhD supervisor here and must leave the course organiser box BLANK. Otherwise the form will be sent to the wrong person and will not be processed. If their supervisor does not appear in the drop down list, please select specify someone not in the list and add in their details.

All of the questions asked on the form are directly related to the type of research to be undertaken and so it should be a straightforward form to complete. The form can be saved and returned to at a later point, so students can clarify any issues with their supervisors as they complete the process.

View a listing of current in-progress and submitted applications

Note that if you are uploading more than one document into a form field, this must be uploaded in a single file eg a zip file.

If the research involves human participants , students must complete the checklist for either on campus or off campus research, and include it as an attachment with the ethics application.

Research activity - COVID-checklist

Once submitted, the supervisor will be in touch via email to request further information or with the outcome. Students should check their Clutter and Junk folders on their student email account in case any of the communications are sent there.

If for any reason students need to update, revise, or check the status of their form, this can be done by logging in and viewing your submissions .

MSc students must carefully read section 6 of the Dissertation Handbook for guidance on dissertation ethics review.

MSc Dissertation Handbook 2023-24.docx (live.com)

In case of any queries on the process or the status of an application please contact your supervision or course organiser in the first instance. You may also contact:

for MSc Dissertation Research Ethics submissions: [email protected]
for PhD and MScR Research Ethics submissions: [email protected]

Supervisors are the first point of contact for students reflecting on the ethical implications of their planned research. They play a key role in guiding students through the ethics review process, conducting initial reviews of the ethics form, and ensuring that research carried out by their students adheres with ethical standards. The role of supervisors and other staff in ethics review differs depending on the level of study with differing processes at PGR, PGT and UGT. Supervisors must consult the relevant guidance on the Supervisor Resources intranet page: Supervisor Resources (sharepoint.com) .

We have prepared a template consent form and a template information sheet for colleagues in the School to adapt for projects as appropriate for the research.

Use of these templates is not compulsory. You can create your own versions, tailored to your own research context. Even if you do not use these templates, working through them may help you clarify appropriate practice for your own project.

For collaborative projects, or projects using oral consent, creating a list of key commitments and intentions around participant information and consent based on these templates may still be useful for sharing with team members, or documenting practice when oral consent is being used.

Participant Information Sheet Template

Informed Consent Form Template

What are SARELS?

This is a new role created to expand capacity across the School for dealing with ethical and related data management issues.

These new roles are intended to increase capacity for dealing with:

ethical review
to provide more integration and oversight of staff and student ethics processes
to contribute to promoting good practice in research ethics across the School
to contribute to the development of strategy around ethics

The appointees will work closely with the Deputy Director of Research Ethics (DDoR Ethics).

These roles are appointed by the Head of School in consultation with the DDoR Ethics. The appointments are normally for a period of three years. Appointees will normally be active in research and not solely desk-based research.

Areas of responsibility

Strategy and development.

To work together with DDoR (Ethics), the DDoR (Data Management), the Director of Research, as well as the Research Support Office and other members of the Research Management Team as necessary, in order to promote best practice around ethics and data management in the School
To contribute to the development of School strategy around ethics and data management

Research ethics: staff

To review and provide an opinion on Level 1 applications (from across the School; not all in own subject area)
To work with Deputy Director of Research Ethics & Integrity for review and provide an opinion on Level 2 applications (from across the School; not all in own subject area)
To act as the lead to coordinate the review and provide an opinion on Level 3 reviews (from across the School; not all in own subject area) and to be available to sit on the panel for other Level 3 reviews if appropriate.
To act as a point of contact for ethics queries at subject area level

Research Ethics: PhD students

To provide guidance on SSPS research ethics processes and requirements for PhD students.
To provide advice on level 2 ethics applications to Subject Area supervisors.
To act as the lead to coordinate the review and sign-off of level 3 reviews for students and to be available to sit on the panel for other level 3 reviews, or project set-up meetings, if appropriate, in conjunction with DDoR (Ethics)
To participate in planning for support for PhD student projects at level 2 and level 3
Supervisor Resources for Ethics, including details of the PGR Ethics process, can be found here: SPS Sharepoint - Ethics Supervisor Resources .
To participate in induction and training for the role
To participate in an ethics and data management committee meeting, approximately monthly in term time (may be virtual or face-to-face)
To contribute to the ongoing development of ethical practice in the School, including around data management, identifying emerging issues, addressing gaps in provision, proposing solutions etc
To manage the ethics email box, where ethics applications will be forwarded from the RSO
To carry out other emerging tasks related to ethics and data management as appropriate

Current SARELS (last update: February 2024)

Undergraduate open days
Order a prospectus
Subject areas
Why study at Manchester Met?
Chat to our current students
How to apply
Schools and colleges
Parents and guardians
Mature students
Online learning
Admissions policies and procedures
Virtual tour
Postgraduate open days
Join us in January 2024
Find a postgraduate course
Professional development
Research study
Information for employers
Funding and the levy
Employer case studies
Apprenticeship information for students
Student case studies
Apprenticeship Research Unit
How to apply for accommodation
Living in halls
Your contract
Rent a private property
Course enquiries Ask us a question
Find your country
Before you apply
When you have an offer
Apply for your visa
Exchange to Manchester Metropolitan
Study abroad
Becoming a partner
Innovation Work with world-leading academics
Leadership and growth Get training and support from specialists
Talent, recruitment and development Connect with our students. Develop your people
Conferences and events Hire our spaces, technology and facilities
Championing creative excellence
Driving economic growth
Leading sustainability
Tackling inequalities
Transforming health
Case studies
Research Excellence Framework
Engaging the public with our research
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
Our commitment to researchers
Why study a doctoral degree
Choose Manchester Met
PhDs and Doctoral Degrees
Research degree subjects
Postgraduate research fees
Scholarships
Doctoral College
News and events
Academic partnerships
Ethics and Governance
Responsible metrics
Internationalisation
Board of Governors
Vice-Chancellor
University Executive Group
Faculty of Arts and Humanities
Faculty of Business and Law
Faculty of Health and Education
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Institute for Children's Futures
Institute of Sport
Professional Services
Honorary graduates
Environment
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
Close Search mmu.ac.uk Search
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Apprenticeships
Become a degree apprentice
Accommodation
Course enquiries
International
Study at Manchester Met
International partnerships
Business and employers
Leadership and growth
Talent, recruitment and development
Conferences and events
Our research
Research Integrity
Our strategy
Economic growth
Current students

Applying for ethical approval

Internal applicants from manchester metropolitan university.

If you are seeking ethical approval from the University then follow the guidance in the table below. There are some projects where you will need approval from an external body rather than the University (these include but are not limited to Health Research Authority projects, research involving the Human Tissue Authority and projects with the Ministry of Defence). In these instances, the University will act as the Sponsor for you and the route for approval is different. If in any doubt, please contact a member of the team for advice .

Academic staff

Phd students, ug/pgt student, professional support staff, external applicants.

Alternatively, use our A–Z index

University ethical approval

Here at The University of Manchester there are five possible routes of ethical review and approval:

Division/School review: Low risk student projects only
Proportionate University research ethics committee (UREC) review: Low risk staff or student projects
Full University research ethics committee (UREC) review: High risk staff or student projects
Health Research Authority (HRA) approval (including NHS REC)
Both HRA and UREC approval

To help determine whether your project requires formal ethical approval, please use the University’s ethics decision tool . Important note: please use Firefox, Internet Explorer or Safari to access the tool, it is currently not working in Google Chrome. If after using the tool you still have specific queries about your project, please contact your Ethics Signatory.

Does your research require ethical approval?

Evaluation (including course evaluation, service evaluation or teaching evaluation)
Market research

The University of Manchester does not normally require formal ethical review for these activities provided the following criteria are met:

The data is completely anonymous with no personal information being collected (apart from their name, their publically available contact details and a record of consent);
The data is not considered to be sensitive or confidential in nature;
The issues being researched are not likely to upset or disturb participants;
Vulnerable or dependant groups are not included;
There is no risk of possible disclosures or reporting obligations.

Research involving interviews with participants on subjects deemed to be within their professional competence

The subject matter is limited to topics that are strictly within the professional competence of the participants.

Audit of Data/Secondary data analysis

Items 1 and 2 above;
You are able to provide explicit consent from the data controller to access the data;
You are able to prove that the data will be used for a purpose which falls within the remit of the original consent provided by data subjects.

When an ethical review is required

An ethical review will be required in the following circumstances, where research involves:

the collection or use of person-identifiable or special category data;
the collection or use of data which is classed as sensitive or confidential;
the use of audio/video recordings or photographs;
vulnerable groups, including children or adults with special needs;
the ingestion (by whatever means of delivery) of any substance by participants;
any invasive/semi-invasive procedure or the administration of drugs;
the physical testing of participants or the use of medical devices;
the use of psychological tests or interventions;
privileged access to clinical or personal records, or access to potential volunteers on the basis of their being or having been patients, or the invitation to volunteers to divulge facts about themselves which they would not wish the investigator to allow to become known to other persons;
any form of physical risk, distress, embarrassment, anxiety, stress, fatigue or inconvenience to the participant;
any form of adverse effect on the personal, social or economic well-being of the participant;
social sensitive topics;
uncovering or is likely to uncover illegal or potentially harmful activities.

Frequently asked questions

For further guidance, download our list of frequently asked questions (Word document, 70KB)

Download the document

Do you have queries relating to UREC review?

Ethics information for University researchers

Are you a student or staff researcher at Manchester? Find more information on ethics signatories, the ethical approval processes and preparing ethics applications in the ERM system.

Visit StaffNet

Browser does not support script.

Departments and Institutes
Research centres and groups
Chair's Blog: Summer Term 2022
Staff wellbeing

Research Ethics Submission System

This page provides instructions for using the online ethics review submission system and links to access the ethics review form.

Before completing an ethics review form you may find the following resources helpful: - Ethics review in a nutshell : provides an overview of the ethics review process. - A pdf of what questions you will be asked in the form. - Ethics review considerations: A quick guide for researchers (students or staff) - Detailed user instructions for using the online submission system are below.

For general research ethics guidance, links to training materials, etc., please see the main research ethics webpage

If you have technical issues with the review form please try refreshing the page or try an alternative browser. If you still have issues please contact the systems team .

instructions for student researchers
instructions for staff researchers
instructions for supervisors and Departmental approvers
guidance for programme managers
how to download a pdf copy of your review form
Amendments post-approval: see paragraphs 29-31 of the Research Ethics Policy and complete the amendments form . (For very minor amendments please email the Research Ethics team to check if an amendments form is required.)

Staff can find the name of their Departmental faculty ethics approver here .

To access the online review system, please use the link in the relevant box on the right.

If you have any technical issues please contact the support team If you have any ethics-related questions please contact the research ethics team If you require copies of instructions or any related guidance in an alternative format, or other reasonable adjustments, please let us know by contacting us .

Access the review system Access for researchers (staff or students)

Access the review system Access for approvers or managers

BC.EDU LINKS

Boston College
Campus Life
Jesuit, Catholic
Academic Calendar
BC Magazine
Directories
Offices, Services, Resources
Agora Portal
Maps & Directions
Study Abroad

Courses from many departments are available to International Studies students. Because some of these courses have prerequisites and not all courses are offered every year, students are advised to carefully plan their program of study in consultation with their faculty advisor, our Peer Advisors , and/or our Director of Undergraduate Studies .

Course Plans

IS majors and minors should fill out their Course Plans as they enter the program and update them each semester. Bring your Course Plan with you to your advising meetings each semester , and compare it to your official course audit to make sure your classes are properly designated in the UIS registration system. Here are links to the IS Major Course Plan form and the IS Minor Course Plan form. (These forms must be downloaded and saved to your computer before you fill them out.)

Pre-approved Courses

See below for a list of pre-approved courses offered in the coming semester for the IS major and minor. You can also view our central list of pre-approved electives , which lists all pre-approved courses but does not indicate whether they are taught in a given semester. (This is most helpful if you want to search or scan by class title or theme; it lists about 300 pre-approved courses and notes the concentrations for which each counts.)

Course Audits

Course Audits are reports from the BC registration system (accessible through the Agora Portal) that chart a student's cumulative progress toward fulfilling graduation requirements. The IS Program's Advising Handbook describes how to read a Course Audit. If a class you've taken (e.g. an elective for an IS major concentration) doesn't appear in the proper part of your Course Audit, fill out a Course Substitution Form to say where it should be placed. Other important forms can be found at the Academic Forms & Diploma Information page at the Office of Student Services.

IS Core for Majors

Conflict and Cooperation

Ethics and social justice, global cultures.

Political Economy and Development Studies
Senior Seminars and Thesis
New in 2024-25
Summer Abroad

International Studies Core courses

Pre-approved courses.

The following Fall 2024 courses are pre-approved for the core requirements of the IS major.

Fall 2024 pre-approved course list IS Core courses are also listed on the "IS Core" tab of the Fall 2024 pre-approved courses shreadsheet.

**All sophomore majors must enroll in one Introduction to International Relations lecture and one discussion section with the corresponding professor. See EagleApps for discussion section times

Where on Earth: Foundations in Global History (INTL 2200) Professor TBA Lecture MW 4:30-5:45

Where on Earth: Foundations in Political Geography and Global Cultures (INTL 2204) Prof. Joe Getzoff INTL 2204.01 Lecture Tue 1:30-2:45 Prof. Joe Getzoff INTL 2204.02 Discussion Wed 9:00-10:15 Prof. Joe Getzoff INTL 220403 Discussion Wed 10:30-11:45 Prof. Joe Getzoff INTL 220404 Discussion Wed 1:30-2:45 Prof. Joe Getzoff INTL 220405 Discussion Wed 3:00-4:15

Principles of Economics (ECON 1101)

There are many sections offered throughout the week. Register for one lecture and one discussion with the same professor.

Upper-Level Economics Electives The list below only includes ECON2xxx classes. Any ECON elective at/above the 2000 level can fulfill this requirement , but you may need to be an ECON minor or major to take ECON courses at/above the 3000 level

ECON 2201 Microeconomic Theory (Multiple times) ECON 2202 Macroeconomic Theory (Multiple times) ECON2203 Honors Microeconomic Theory ECON2204 Honors Macroeconomic Theory ECON 2207 The Global Economy TuTh 12 ECON 2228 Econometric Methods (Multiple times) ECON 2231 Financial Forecasting - Online Asynchronous ECON 2246 Impact of News on Financial Markets TTh 3-4:15 ECON 2876 Development and Social Justice in Korea TTh 12-1:15 INTL 2xxx International Economics course TBA from new faculty member. Details by April 7

Notes on ECON electives: You must take (or AP out of) ECON 1101 before taking an ECON elective, but some ECON 2xxx classes have additional prerequisites (commonly, calculus and/or econ stats); double-check that you meet those requirements. If department permission required, please email the ECON administrator (Ms. Rowley) well in advance of registration. .

Comparative Politics POLI2402 Comparative Revolutions POLI2407 Introduction to South Asian Politics MW 4:30 POLI2408 Religion-State Relations in the Modern Middle East POLI2410 Latin American Politics POLI2412 Political Parties, Voters and Party Systems in Comparative Perspective POLI2416 Politics of Inequality POLI2440 A Continent on the Move: Immigration in Contemporary Europe TTH 1:30-2:45 POLI2442 African Politics POLI2445 European Political Development

Ethics, Religion & International Politics ["ERIP"] (INTL 5563) Prof. Erik Owens

Lecture : [choose one]: INTL5563.01 Lecture: MW 1:30 - 2:45pm INTL5563.02 Lecture: MW 3:00 - 4:15pm Discussion : [choose one]: 03 Discussion: Th 1:00 - 1:50pm (Mcguinn 11) 04 Discussion: Th 2:00 - 2:50pm (Mcguinn 11) 05 Discussion: Th 3:00 - 3:50pm (Gasson 308) 06 Discussion: Th 4:00 - 4:50pm (Gasson 308)

The following courses are pre-approved for the C&C concentration in the IS major and minor. Students may petition the Director of Undergraduate Studies to consider courses that are not on this list toward their elective concentration.

Fall 2024 pre-approved course list

** See the "CC" tab on the linked spreadsheet for specific information about the Conflict & Cooperation concentration. ** IS minors should also consult the "Minor" tab for a list of Foundation I and Foundation II courses.

The following courses are pre-approved for the ESJ concentration in the IS major and minor. Students may petition the Director of Undergraduate Studies to consider courses that are not on this list toward their elective concentration.

Fall 2024 pre-approved course list

** See the "ESJ" tab on the linked spreadsheet for specific information about the Conflict & Cooperation concentration. ** IS minors should also consult the "Minor" tab for a list of Foundation I and Foundation II courses.

The following courses are pre-approved for the GC concentration in the IS major and minor.

Please note: Majors and minors who concentrate in Global Cultures should take only those electives that are pre-approved for their cluster ("Cultures at Work" or "Cultures and Social Movements"). Students can seek approval to count other courses -- including courses from the other cluster -- as electives by sending a course abstract and/or syllabus to the Director of Undergraduate Studies ( Prof. Nakazato ) before the first week of that class (and ideally during registration period).

** See the "GC-CW" and "GC-SM" tabs on the linked spreadsheet for specific information about the Conflict & Cooperation concentration. ** IS minors should also consult the "Minor" tab for a list of Foundation I and Foundation II courses.

Political Economy & Development Studies

The following courses are pre-approved for the PEDS concentration in the IS major and minor.

Please note: Majors and minors who concentrate in Political Economy and Development Studies can take electives approved for EITHER the PE or DS cluster and count them for their own cluster . Students can seek approval to count other courses as electives by sending a course abstract and/or syllabus to the Director of Undergraduate Studies ( Prof. Nakazato ) before the first week of that class (and ideally during registration period).

** See the "PEDS" tab on the linked spreadsheet for specific information about the Conflict & Cooperation concentration. ** IS minors should also consult the "Minor" tab for a list of Foundation I and Foundation II courses.

Senior Seminars and Thesis Courses

2024-25 academic year, senior thesis.

Senior Thesis writers enroll in INTL4951 (Prof. Hiroshi Nakazato) ** Your first semester of INTL4952 will count as an elective in your concentration ; the second semester will fulfill your senior project requirement.

Senior Seminars:

Environmental History and Environmentally-Just Futures Prof. Brian Gareau INTL 4941.01 Mondays 3:00 - 5:25pm (Stokes 111S)

Abstract to come.

A Cinema of Dissent Prof. Jonathan Kirshner INTL4941.02 ** Required film screening Wednesdays 7:00-9:30pm (Higgins 300) ** Seminar meets Thursdays 4:30-6:55pm (Stokes 101N)

What is a cinema of dissent? For more than a century now, the movies – principally a form of mass entertainment – have also commonly been vehicles to express critical and even radical opposition to the prevailing practices (and the powers that be) of the day. Raising the stakes in these endeavors, since their inception the movies have been subject to strict and often draconian censorship by dangerous, frightened governments (and abetted by timid studios). Yet throughout history many brilliant films expressing subversive and forbidden ideas have been able to find production, even under the ominous, watchful eyes of brutally repressive dictatorships (and hypocritical censorious democracies). This class looks closely at a number of dissident masterpieces produced under chilling circumstances from around theworld—and the contentious political contexts in which they were crafted.

Spring 2025:

Critical Appropaches to Development Prof. Joseph Getzoff INTL4941.01 Thursdays 3:00 - 5:20pm

Development, since World War II, reigns as the mandate for addressing inequality in the Global South. Development’s promise has been to equalize the uneven relations between the former colonized and colonizers. And yet, many post-colonial states face continued poverty, exploitation, and environmental degradation, what some call neo-colonial relations. Students will engage with interdisciplinary scholarship that spans many engagements with development, including Third Worldist critiques, postcolonial theory, environmental issues, the politics of expertise, social justice, biopolitics, and case studies of developmental efforts in the present. Our goal, as a class, will be to reimagine development for the challenges facing not only the Global South, but for the North as well.

Geopolitics, Religion & Security Prof. Elizabeth Prodromou INTL4941.02 Mondays 1:30-3:50pm

What is geopolitics? This seminar explores geopolitics as a way of making sense of territorial (classicalgeopolitics) and identity (critical geopolitics) geographies and their implications for politics, in order tounderstand international relations as a geopolitical contest for hegemony waged by state and non-stateactors. The seminar analyzes the significance of religion for defining geographies, for competitivestruggles, and for affecting security. Introducing country, regional, and transregional case studiesprimarily drawn from Eurasia, the seminar uses cross-disciplinary literatures and presentations by guestexperts with diverse professional expertise at the intersections of religion and security in historical andcurrent geopolitics.

New Courses offered in 2024-2025

These courses are new and/or newly approved for the IS major.

New courses will be listed here soon.
Preparing the Whole Person for Global Citizenship (FORM 2253) Prof. Erik Owens ESJ, GC-CW, GC-SM elective credit
Additional new courses will be listed here soon.

Approved Summer Abroad Courses

Summer 2024 abroad courses taught by is faculty, contentious history and the politics of contemporary korea: decolonization, division, development, and democratization (intl/hist 2856).

Prof. Ingu Hwang June xx-July xx, 2024, based at Sogang University, Seoul, South Korea Approved for CC, GC-SM, PEDS-PE/DS electives; also History elective

This introductory immersion course surveys the contentious intersection between history and politics in contemporary Korea on the topics of decolonization, division, development, and democratization. In addition to the class discussion, students will be guided to actively participate in the historical and cultural immersion/excursion programs, including the National Museum of Korean Contemporary History, the DMZ tour, and the Kim Dae-jung Presidential Library and Museum.

Food, Power and Politics (INTL 2251)

Prof. Hiroshi Nakazato late May - late June, 2024, based at University of Parma, Italy Approved for CC, GC-SM, PEDS-PE/DS electives

Description TBA

History of the Italian Mediterranean: Una Faccia, Una Razza (INTL 2251)

Prof. Elizabeth Shlala Located in Venice, Italy

All Pre-approved Summer Abroad courses

NB: Electives are abbreviated as follows: CC = Conflict & Cooperation; ESJ = Ethics & Social Justice; GC-CW = Global Cultures/Cultuers at Work; GC-SM = Global Cultures/Social Movements; PEDS-DS = Political Economy & Development Studies/Development Studies focus; PEDS-PE = Political Economy & Development Studies/Political Economy focus

Art and Patronage in Renaissance and Baroque Rome and Beyond Location: Rome, Italy Professor: Guendalina Serafinelli Approved for: GC-CW
Borders and Refugees: The Ethics of Migration Location: Athens, Greece Professor: Micah Lott (Philosophy) Approved for: CC, ESJ
Contentious History and the Politics of Contemporary Korea: Decolonization, Division, Development, and Democratization Location: Seoul, South Korea Professor: Ingu Hwang Approved for: CC, GC-SM, PEDS-PE, PEDS-DS
The European Union: The Economic Shaping of Europe (ECON 2110) Location: Lisbon, Portugal Professor: Rui Albuquerque Approved for: 2000-level Econ requirement; PEDS-PE/DS concentration elective
Global Health Perspectives Location: Quito, Ecuador Professor: Rosemary Byrne, M.S.N Approved for: ESJ, PEDS-PE
History of the Italian Mediterranean: Una Faccia, Una Razza Location: Venice, Italy Professor: Elizabeth Shlala Approved for: GC-CW
Imagination and Creativity in the Irish Landscape Location: Ballyvaughn, Ireland Professor: Candice Ivy Approved for: GC-CW
Modernism in Paris Location: Paris, France Professor: Thomas Epstein Approved for: GC-CW
Principles of Public Health: In the Happiest Place/ Public Health in a Global Society Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Professors: Joyce Edmonds, Summer Hawkins Approved for: ESJ, PEDS-DS
Provence: Art, Culture, Cinema, Diversity Location: Aix-en-Provence, France Professor: Andréa Javel Approved for: GC-CW
Saints and Sinners Location: Rome, Italy Professor: Liam Bergin Approved for: GC-CW
Restorative Justice and Prison Reform in Global Contexts: Australia Location: Sydney, Australia Prof. Julia DeVoy // July 16 - August 13, 2022 Approved for: ESJ
Spanish Art History: from Al-Andalus to Picasso Location: Madrid, Spain Professor: Ana Peláez Approved for: GC-CW
An Innovative Economy: Smart Cities and the Start-Up Culture in Tel Aviv, Israel Location: Tel Aviv, Italy Professor: Edward Chazen Approved for: GC-CW, PEDS-DS
The Business, History & Politics of Sport Location: Dublin, Ireland Professor: Michael Cronin Approved for: GC-CW
The Ethics of Capitalism: Flourishing in a Commercial Society Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Professor: Jeremy Evans Approved for: ESJ, PEDS-PE, PEDS-DS
The Imaginary City: Why Writers Love Venice Location: Kevin Newmark Professor: Venice, Italy Approved for: GC-CW
Which is Better? An Economic Comparison of Health and Health Care in France, the UK and the US Locations: London, UK + Paris, France Professor: Tracy Regan Approved for: ESJ, PEDS-PE, PEDS-DS

International Studies Connolly House 300 Hammond Street Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

617-552-6396

IMAGES

Dissertation Ethics Form Example
Ethics Approval in Research Sample
Research Ethics
Ethical Approval for Research
Ethics Approval in Research Sample
FREE 10+ Research Ethics Form Templates in MS Word

VIDEO

#dissertation #MA EDUCATION #HOW TO GET APPROVAL FOR DISSERTATION
Research and Publication Ethics
MMED MASTERY
ICJ Podcast -Preliminary Approval & Request for Oral Defense, Final Electronic Dissertation Approval
Format of Acknowledgement, table of content, table of cases for Dissertation
Supporting Registrars on their MMED Journey

COMMENTS

PDF Ethical Statement Templates
3. Ethical approval was not sought for the present study because *REASON*. 4. Our institution does not require ethics approval for reporting individual cases or case series. 5. The IRB determined that the protocol is considered exempt because *REASON* on *DATE*. 6. This research did not require IRB approval because *REASON*. Informed Consent 1.
Ethical Considerations in Research
Getting ethical approval for your study. Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you'll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB).. An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution's code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures ...
Do I need ethical approval?
Remember: The UCL REC cannot grant approval retrospectively and so if you are note sure if your project needs ethics approval, you should speak to your Head of Department and/or local Ethics Lead (or supervisor). If you wish to contact the UCL REC for an opinion, you need to provide information about the research, which project type (non-research) or exemption category applies, and an ...
How to write a successful ethics application
The job of ethics committees is to identify the possible risks in a project, and then assess whether the research team: are aware of the risks. are taking appropriate steps to minimise them. have a plan to handle anything that does go wrong. To do this, ethics committees need information. If you want your ethics application to get through the ...
Guide to ethical approval
Application form. Obtaining ethical approval is divided into national and local stages. The first task is to complete an application form. This has recently changed from the National Research Ethics Service form to a new Integrated Research Application System.3 This is much more than just a form; it is an integrated dataset designed to fulfil the requirements of a number of review bodies.
Step 6: Issues of research ethics for your dissertation
As a starting point, your dissertation guidelines should indicate whether you are required to complete an Ethics Proposal and/or Ethics Consent Form, even at the undergraduate or master's level, and if so, whether this should first be passed by your supervisor to see if ethical approval from the university Ethics Committee will be necessary.
Applying for ethical approval for research: the main issues
The need to obtain research ethical approval is common to all research involving human participants. This approval must be obtained before research participants can be approached and before data collection can begin. The process of ethical review is one way that research participants can be confident that possible risks have been considered ...
Do I Need to Complete an Ethics Form?
Before you start any research, you must consider the ethical implications of what you are studying for your dissertation and get ethical approval. This usually involves completing an ethics form and obtaining permission to do the study. You will also need to demonstrate that the project is correctly designed to meet the conditions of scientific ...
PDF Ethical approval for C329 Dissertations
Ethical approval for C329 Dissertations. Principles. All undergraduate students need ethical approval for any research project or element of coursework involving gathering or holding data from human participants in any form. It is a requirement that ethical approval is given before the research project begins.
Dissertations 4: Methodology: Ethics
Research Ethics. In the research context, ethics can be defined as "the standards of behaviour that guide your conduct in relation to the rights of those who become the subject of your work, or are affected by it" (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2015, p239). The University itself is guided by the fundamental principle that research involving ...
Research ethics in dissertations: ethical issues and complexity of
Results A total of seven ethical topics were identified: ethical approval (94% of the dissertations), information and informed consent (86%), confidentiality (67%), ethical aspects of methods (61%), use of ethical principles and regulations (39%), rationale for the study (20%) and fair participant selection (14%). Four of those of topics were most frequently addressed: the majority of ...
LibGuides: Dissertations
An ethics form is a document that prompts you to provide information about your research to ensure you are meeting set standards. Readers usually expect to see ethics in a research proposal, or mentioned in your writing, even if there doesn't appear to be any problematic ethical issues to be addressed. Why do I need to do it? When someone ...
Ethical review application
Applications for ethics approval must be for a specific study or project that is time-limited, clearly defined in scope or aims, and where the data, participants and methods used are specified. ... PhD (and often Honours and Masters dissertation) research, as a piece of 'independent research', will normally require its own ethics approval.
Example Documents
At Newcastle University, researchers must complete an ethics application form, before any research commences, either by: completing the University Online Ethics Form or; by completing the HRA IRAS form (if NHS/HSC Research Ethics Committee approval required)* *Note, if you are unsure whether your study requires NHS/HSC REC approval, you should complete the University Online Ethics Form first ...
Ethical Approval for Research
Ethics in Research. The University requires departments to consider the ethical implications of the students' research. We will ask you to fill in a form and submit it together with your dissertation proposal. It is not acceptable to submit a blank form. If any ethical issues are identified, you will need to supply the PGT Director with an ...
Ethical approval
Ethical approval. Student research occasionally raises ethical issues. If you are undertaking research for a course unit, dissertation, thesis or project that involves collecting data on or from human participants, it will involve ethical considerations and University requirements for research ethics.
Research ethics in dissertations: ethical issues and
Ethics approval The ethics approval category included descriptions of whether the dissertation has been vetted by an ethics review board. Almost all dissertations included a discussion of ethics approval (n=60), and a majority stated they had been approved by a research ethics review board (n=55). A quality and trans
Ethics
30,000 word dissertations: If a dissertation project requires formal ethics review (via a Research Ethics, Integrity & Governance Application), such dissertation projects should secure a favourable opinion ("approval") no later than six months before the submission deadline. No data gathering or analysis should take place before a ...
Ethical Approval
Deadline to submit ethics applications: Students doing dissertation in 2023-24: 19th June 2023 (required if wanting to do research that requires Ethical Approval over the summer) 16th October 2023; Students doing dissertations in 2024-25. 17th June 2024 (required if wanting to do research that requires Ethical Approval over the summer) 21st ...
Research ethics
MSc students must carefully read section 6 of the Dissertation Handbook for guidance on dissertation ethics review. MSc Dissertation Handbook 2023-24.docx (live.com) In case of any queries on the process or the status of an application please contact your supervision or course organiser in the first instance. You may also contact: for MSc ...
Applying for ethical approval
How to apply. Approver. Dissertation/any final degree project. At least 4-6 weeks before research starts. Using the UG/PGT Application route in EthOS. Academic supervisor through EthOS. Scientist Training Programme (STP) students. Before the collection of data. Using the UG/PGT route in EthOS.
University ethical approval
Here at The University of Manchester there are five possible routes of ethical review and approval: Division/School review: Low risk student projects only. Proportionate University research ethics committee (UREC) review: Low risk staff or student projects. Full University research ethics committee (UREC) review: High risk staff or student ...
Research Ethics Submission System
Research Ethics Submission System. This page provides instructions for using the online ethics review submission system and links to access the ethics review form. - Ethics review in a nutshell: provides an overview of the ethics review process. - A pdf of what questions you will be asked in the form. - Detailed user instructions for using the ...
Courses
Senior Thesis. Senior Thesis writers enroll in INTL4951 (Prof. Hiroshi Nakazato) ... Approved for: GC-CW; The Ethics of Capitalism: Flourishing in a Commercial Society Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Professor: Jeremy Evans Approved for: ESJ, PEDS-PE, PEDS-DS; The Imaginary City: Why Writers Love Venice

Do I need ethical approval?

When do I need to apply for ethical approval?

Accepted ethical standards

Why is ethical review important?

Definition of data from human participants

Work not classed as ‘research’

Research classed as exempt

Collaborative research within the UK

The Research Whisperer

Here’s an example:

Some general tips:

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Search form

Guide to ethical approval

Why read about ethics?

Do I need ethical approval?

Application form

Applicant’s checklist

Where to apply

Site specific information

Notification of decision

Request for further information

Final approval and beyond

Research ethics

CONSIDERATION #1 Your dissertation and university ethics guidelines

CONSIDERATION #2 The nature of the research method and measures you select

Applying for ethical approval for research: the main issues

Library Guides

Research Ethics

Research Ethics Online Course

CONNECT WITH US

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Design and methodological approaches

Data collection

Data analysis

Research ethics issues in dissertations

Ethics approval

Information and informed consent

Confidentiality

Ethical aspect of the methods

Use of ethical principles and regulations

Rationale for the study

Fair participant selection

Design of the research ethics section

Complexity of reasoning

Comparing content and complexity

Acknowledgments

Supplementary materials

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Dissertations - Skills Guide

Ethics Form

Ethics Further Reading

Ethical review application

For research involving the NHS

For research involving children

What projects require ethical review and approval

Exemptions from ethical approval

Other application scenarios

Multi-phase, long-term and open-ended research

Student researchers and student projects

Autonomous student projects

Why ethical review and approval is required

Who should complete the application

Which documents to complete

Research involving child participants

Where to submit your application

The review process

Standard and proportionate review

Filter criteria and why they are used

Developing a standardised protocol for research that is complex or which brings substantial ethical considerations

Review process and outcomes

How to complain

Addressing a request for revisions

Once your application is approved

Example Documents

Ethics Application Forms

Participant Information Sheets (PIS)