Ethics governance in Scottish universities: how can we do better? A qualitative study

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2023-01-12 DOI:10.1177/17470161221147801
E. Dove, C. Douglas
{"title":"Ethics governance in Scottish universities: how can we do better? A qualitative study","authors":"E. Dove, C. Douglas","doi":"10.1177/17470161221147801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While ethical norms for conducting academic research in the United Kingdom are relatively clear, there is little empirical understanding of how university research ethics committees (RECs) themselves operate and whether they are seen to operate well. In this article, we offer insights from a project focused on the Scottish university context. We deployed a three-sided qualitative approach: (i) document analysis; (ii) interviews with REC members, administrators, and managers; and (iii) direct observation of REC meetings. We found that RECs have diverse operation and vary in terms of what members understand to be the remit of their REC and what should constitute the content of ethics review. Overall, though, most participants perceive university RECs as operating well. When asked what they consider to be areas for further improvement, most commented on: implementation of an online system; more experience with how to evaluate various kinds of research projects; best practice exchange and training opportunities; more accurate reflection of the REC role as part of the university’s workload allocation model; and greater recognition of the importance of research ethics governance in the university’s research environment, and, for the members themselves, their career advancement. Based on our findings and subsequent discussions during an end-of-project roundtable with stakeholders, we propose a model of collaboration that can address some of the identified areas that could benefit from further improvement. This model would facilitate a heightened awareness of the importance of supporting REC members in their own effort in assisting students and staff alike in undertaking as ethically robust research as possible.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"40 1","pages":"166 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221147801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

While ethical norms for conducting academic research in the United Kingdom are relatively clear, there is little empirical understanding of how university research ethics committees (RECs) themselves operate and whether they are seen to operate well. In this article, we offer insights from a project focused on the Scottish university context. We deployed a three-sided qualitative approach: (i) document analysis; (ii) interviews with REC members, administrators, and managers; and (iii) direct observation of REC meetings. We found that RECs have diverse operation and vary in terms of what members understand to be the remit of their REC and what should constitute the content of ethics review. Overall, though, most participants perceive university RECs as operating well. When asked what they consider to be areas for further improvement, most commented on: implementation of an online system; more experience with how to evaluate various kinds of research projects; best practice exchange and training opportunities; more accurate reflection of the REC role as part of the university’s workload allocation model; and greater recognition of the importance of research ethics governance in the university’s research environment, and, for the members themselves, their career advancement. Based on our findings and subsequent discussions during an end-of-project roundtable with stakeholders, we propose a model of collaboration that can address some of the identified areas that could benefit from further improvement. This model would facilitate a heightened awareness of the importance of supporting REC members in their own effort in assisting students and staff alike in undertaking as ethically robust research as possible.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
苏格兰大学伦理治理:如何做得更好?定性研究
虽然在英国进行学术研究的伦理规范相对明确,但对于大学研究伦理委员会(rec)本身如何运作以及它们是否被视为运作良好,很少有经验上的理解。在这篇文章中,我们提供了一个专注于苏格兰大学环境的项目的见解。我们采用了三面定性方法:(1)文献分析;(ii)与REC成员、管理人员和经理的访谈;及(iii)直接观察选举委员会会议。我们发现,伦理委员会的运作方式各不相同,成员对其伦理委员会职权范围的理解以及伦理审查的内容也各不相同。但总体而言,大多数参与者认为大学RECs运作良好。当被问及他们认为需要进一步改进的地方时,大多数人评论说:实施在线系统;对如何评估各种研究项目有更多的经验;最佳实践交流和培训机会;更准确地反映REC作为大学工作量分配模式一部分的作用;并进一步认识到研究伦理治理在大学研究环境中的重要性,以及对成员自身职业发展的重要性。根据我们的发现和随后与利益相关者在项目结束圆桌会议上的讨论,我们提出了一种合作模式,可以解决一些可以从进一步改进中受益的已确定领域。这种模式将有助于提高人们对支持研究中心成员努力协助学生和教职员工进行尽可能符合道德规范的研究的重要性的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1