1. Background.

The University Ethics Committee (University of Surrey EC) recognises several problems in managing the ethical screening of student research proposals:-

• time taken for University of Surrey EC to review the increasing number of proposals;
• imbalance in submissions across Faculties within the University;
• increased demand for ethical scrutiny;
• increase in volume of student research activity
• increasing external requirement for ethical scrutiny e.g. accrediting bodies such as the BPS,
• more extensive requirements from NHS, EC.

As a solution, University of Surrey EC has delegated authority for granting a favourable ethical opinion on student research to Faculty level

The Faculty of Arts & Human Sciences Ethical Committee (FAHS EC)  members are:

Chair

• Dr Adrian Coyle (School of Psychology)

Deputy Chairs

• Dr Almuth McDowall (School of Psychology)
• Dr Vicky Senior (School of Psychology)

Members

• Dr Dora Brown (School of Psychology)
• Dr Ally Clifford (School of Psychology)
• Phil Dean (School of Psychology)
• Dr Bernadette (Egan School of Psychology)
• Dr Alistair Gill (Department of Sociology)
• Dr Helen Hughes (School of Arts)
• Mary John (School of Psychology)
• Dr Corinne Jola (School of Psychology)
• Dr Rob Meadows (Department of Sociology)
• Dr Tom Phillips (School of English & Languages)
• Dr Laura Simonds (School of Psychology)
• Dr Emma Williams (School of Psychology

The procedure was the subject of a round of consultation and was ratified by the Faculty senior management group on 25th May 2005

2. Principles

2.1 There is a general obligation to undertake research of merit (having pedagogic and/or scientific value) as well as maintaining the integrity of the academic discipline. The BPS makes the additional point that the line of accountability becomes particularly important if there are breaches of ethical requirements or the research protocol has not conformed to required ethical standards. It must be clear who is the designated authority for granting a favourable ethical opinion.

2.2 Specific requirements are :-

• protection of participants i.e. eliminate, mitigate, reduce any potential harm as a consequence of their involvement in research;
• supervision by competent supervisors;
• protection of supervisees from possible harm;
• obligation to obtain and record informed consent from participants or appropriate other;
• maintenance and preservation of confidentiality;
• volunteered participation;
• identification and remit of levels of authority in granting a favourable ethical opinion.
• protection of the reputation of the academic institution.

FAHS EC guiding principles are:-

• reasonableness (i.e. conform to the Clapham omnibus test such that a lay person would judge the procedure sufficient for purpose);
• manageability ( i.e. limit administrative record keeping to its practicable minimum);
• robustness (i.e. provides a sufficiently thorough and workable system fit for purpose);
• accountability (i.e. placing the responsibility for ethical conduct of the proposed research with the supervisor and student/trainees). The procedure has been designed as an opt-in process whereby supervisors assess the ethical requirement for the research they are responsible for.

3. Delegated requirements

3.1 University of Surrey EC has stipulated certain conditions Faculties must meet when designing their ethical procedure under University of Surrey EC delegated powers. These are that they should :-

• maximise the involvement of academic staff;
• render an ethical opinion for research which may involve any risk to volunteer’s health or well being; within a survey/questionnaire included items which may be offensive, distressing or personal to a particular target group; involve payment or benefits in kind given to participants; and/or projectss involving fellow students or members of university staff (unless the supervisor decides that the student project does not require formal ethical approval);
• participants associated with students’ profession or place of work;
• refer more contentious research to University of Surrey EC;
• refer research to the appropriate external ethical committee e.g. NHS;
• create a visible procedure and an audit trail to allow University of Surrey EC to monitor Faculty ethical processes and permit University of Surrey EC access to all research protocols, including a quarterly return to University of Surrey EC;

Appropriate level of ethical opinion

If the supervisor assesses that the design is sufficient for purpose and there are no foreseeable risks they may under right the project, then the research may be exempted from consideration by an Ethics Committee and it is not necessary to seek additional ethical opinion. Criteria for exemption include;

• Sample not drawn from staff associated with student
• Children not respondents
• Non sensitive subject matter
• Deception is not part of the research design
• Participants anonymised
• Non problematic confidentiality issues
• Sample does not select patients or prisoners or other vulnerable respondents.

If the proposal carries any risk and/or the research involves any of the following a formal ethical opinion is required:

• any risk to volunteer’s health or well being;
• within a survey/questionnaire items which may be potentially offensive, distressing or personal to a particular target group;
• payment or benefits in kind given to participants;
• participants are students or members of university staff;
• participants associated with students’ profession or place of work.

3.2 Submissions to the Faculty Ethics Committee must use EC documentation (which has been adapted for use by FAHS).

3.3 FAHS EC will consider undergraduate, MSc and Psych D research. but not staff and/or funded research

4. Supervisors responsibilities

4.1 Dean of Faculty and Heads of Departments are responsible for teaching and research carried out within their Faculty/departments and under the supervision of their staff. They delegate responsibility to supervisors to ensure any student/trainee involved as researchers or in conducting experiments are aware of the Faculty’s ethical guidelines and that these guidelines are observed.

4.2 Data gathering as teaching exercises will not normally be expected to be submitted to an ethical procedure (unless the lecturer concerned wishes this to be undertaken). Teaching matters are more likely to be a requirement of validation panels.

4.3 The generation of the research topic , soundness of the research design and management of the student during the period that the research is conducted as primarily the responsibility of the supervisor. The supervisor in consultation with the student also makes the decision whether to seek a formal ethical opinion. In other words an opt in procedure. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to assess whether the research is exempt (see exemption options) or whether the research requires external, University and/or Faculty ethical opinion.

4.4 Supervisors should be aware that there may be an ethical implication if the proposed methodology is faulty (e.g. viability of sample size for quantitative statistical analysis) so that the resulting collected data cannot be subjected to meaningful analyses. Technical proficiency of the research design is the responsibility of the supervisor.

4.5 Supervisors of student research (i.e. undergraduate/masters/doctoral) are asked to make three assessments: the soundness of the research design, the risk loading of the research and which level of ethical opinion is appropriate.

Research design

In projects involving primary data collection the scientific merit and quality of the research design is a matter of judgment for each supervisor e.g.

• viable estimate of the number of respondents;
• appropriate control groups;
• adequate informed consent;
• adequate information sheet;
• appropriate analytic methods;
• relevant contextualising research literature.

In projects involving desk studies, analysis of secondary data supervisors may consider e.g.

• permissions necessary to conduct the secondary analysis;
• viability of access to sources;
• adequacy of analytic methods to undertake the analysis/review;
• key references.

The format supervisors wish students to submit their proposals is a matter of preference of the supervisor. This paperwork should be kept and be available for auditing purpose.

Risk loading

The supervisor carries a further responsibility to establish any risk factors attaching to the proposal, the participant or the investigator e.g.

• location of the data collection;
• vulnerability of the potential participants;
• sensitivity of the subject matter;
• payment to participants.

4.6 It is the supervisor’s responsibility to assess which ethical committee is appropriate:-

Faculty of Arts & Human Sciences Ethical Committee
University of Surrey Ethics Committee or external ethics.

If an independent ethics opinion is required, the supervisor can approve the research only when a favourable ethics opinion is received. If the research requires an external ethical opinion, the University Ethics Committee requires a parallel application.

5. Procedure

5.1 Meeting schedule

FAHS EC proposes to meet 4 times a year to consider proposals and to coincide with the departmental timetables of research activity (January, March/April, June, October).

5.2 Submissions

If the proposal requires a formal ethical opinion from FAHS EC then submission on the appropriate form is required (documents).

The FAHS EC will consider proposals sent to it and either

• give a favourable opinion;
• require some adjustments and render an opinion when satisfactorily dealt with;
• pass onto the University of Surrey EC if necessary.

Details of all submissions will be recorded on a spreadsheet maintained by the Faculty office for auditing purposes. The Faculty office will send a summary of Departmental returns to the Head of Department.