Ethics

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.

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.

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.

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 (i.e., answers to all questions are ‘No’).

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.

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 (i.e., answers to all questions are ‘No’).

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.

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 (i.e., answers to all questions are ‘No’).

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.

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”).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

Staff:

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.

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.

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.

For staff:

“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).