Research Ethics Code of Practice

1 Introduction  

1.1 Research conduct should always follow the basic guiding principles of beneficence and non- maleficence (non-harming or inflicting the least harm possible to reach a beneficial outcome). Research involving human subjects in any capacity is subject to a  moral obligation through mutual respect and trust between participants and investigators in line with professional standards.  

1.2 This Code of Practice provides guidance on the ethical issues that are likely to arise in the conduct, supervision, dissemination and use of research and to ensure that it is carried out with regard to the principles outlined above. It applies to all staff and students engaged in or associated with research. It should be interpreted appropriately for different forms of research activity, and this is reflected in the information to follow.  

1.3 This code sets out the standards for research ethics and should be read alongside the university’s policies, procedures and advice relating to ethical review, health and safety, data protection, insurance cover and research contractual issues. Researchers should also follow the ethical codes of any professional association, educational institute or  other  external body with which they are associated and abide by relevant legislation.  

1.4 This Code of Practice seeks to promote best practice in research and apply to all students and staff carrying research under the aegis of the University of West London.  

2. Context  

2.1 The University of West London’s Research Ethics Code of Practice and Research Governance Policy are congruent with the MRC/NHS governance frameworks, the Statement on Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice issued  by the BBSRC (2006) and the ESRC’s Research Ethics Framework (Updated January 2015). The Code also sits within the framework of national and international legislation and guidelines, in particular Human Rights Legislation and the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association 2000), the Concordat for Engaging the Public in Research (Research England), and the Concordat to support Research Integrity (UUK, 2016).  

2.2 Furthermore, the Human Rights Act (1998) contains three articles explicit to safeguarding the rights of research participants, minimising risks, ensuring informed consent, privacy and confidentiality: 

• Article 3: No-one shall be subjected to torture inhuman or degrading treatment;  
• Article 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his/her private and family life, his/her home and correspondence;  
• Article 9: Everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  

2.3 The code of practice also deals with the risks of researchers who are accessing security sensitive materials such as: 

• Materials that are covered by the Official Secrets Act (1989) and the Terrorism Act (2006)
• Materials that could be considered ‘extremist’, defined in the Statutory Guidance to HEIs under Section 29 of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 as, 'vocal or active 4  opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'
• Materials used for research projects commissioned by the military, the police or under an EU security call.
• Research projects subject to prior acquisition of security clearances ‘Materials’ refers to online, electronic and hardcopy sources, audio and video recordings.  

3. Ethical principles  

3.1 Research should be undertaken under the basic principle that it does not cause harm, allow harm to be inflicted, or otherwise damage the interests of any parties involved.

3.2 Risks to participants should be considered as part of the ethics process. Ethical considerations must also be carefully considered for research where there is a potential risk to the researchers themselves through either accessing security sensitive or other sensitive material or travel to areas where they might put themselves in danger.  

3.3 Exceptionally, these principles can be overridden, and this should be dependent on the following conditions:

• a) explicit informed consent is given by participants in the research, demonstrating  that they understand and accept the possibility of their person or interests being harmed;
• b) that appropriate arrangements for access to and storage of sensitive material, including security sensitive material are made;  
• c) that risks to participants and researchers are considered as part of the ethics process; and approved by the University Research Ethics Committee;  
• d) that any such risks are undertaken in order to  bring  about a greater benefit in terms of the acquisition of knowledge. Research should be carried out in the interests of the community, society and humanity as  a whole. Any risks involved in a  project must be balanced against the likely favourable outcomes of a successful investigation;  
• e) research must respect the autonomy, privacy and dignity of research participants;  
• f) no project should be considered that runs a risk of causing harm to a person or persons who are unaware of such risks, or are incapable of evaluating the risks to themselves;  
• g) researchers must be aware of, and respect, the rights of any who are directly  or indirectly affected by their research. The physical, personal  and  psychological autonomy of participants must be respected.  

3.4 Researchers have a duty to care for participants and may be held liable where this duty is breached and harm is incurred.  

3.5 Any research that takes place in the public domain, or results in outcomes disseminated in the public domain, should respect cultural sensitivities and abide by decency and obscenity laws. 

4. Ethical requirements for research

4.1 Any participation in a research project should normally take place in the context of a clear and unambiguous agreement between researcher(s) and participant(s). In projects which carry some risk for participants, this should normally take the form  of  written consent  by the participant(s), with written information provided, giving explicit details of any risks.  

4.2 Participants should in most cases be given clear and unambiguous information relating to the activities in which they will be involved. Failure to fully inform participants of any known relevant factor may make consent invalid.  

4.3 Researchers should allow sufficient time for participants to reflect on and consider information before they agree to participate in the study and any eventualities that may result from the investigation.  

4.4 There may be exceptions to the principle of informed consent in forms of research that requires covert observation to be effective. Examples of such exceptions may include research involving groups with which open research access is particularly difficult or inappropriate to obtain - for example, research on illegal activities and research taking the form of general, unobtrusive community observation. In certain cases where prior information may invalidate the research by affecting participants’ behaviour, as in certain forms of social or psychological research, it may be ethical to provide full information to participants following rather than prior to the research.

4.5 Where participants are unable to give informed consent, the researcher should consult a subject-relevant Professional Body and discuss with the Chair of the School/College Research Ethics Panel to determine an ethical course of action. Any project involving children or vulnerable adults falls under this category.  

4.6 Anonymity of participants and confidentiality must be maintained in all cases. In exceptional cases where anonymity cannot be guaranteed, full and explicit written permission should be obtained to use images or other forms of personal data of participants. Personal data should only be disclosed in exceptional cases, and with reference to the latest general data protection and data protection legislation. Specific permission should also be sought for such data to be put into the public domain, for example in an exhibition, publication or recording.  

4.7 Researchers should inform individuals of their rights to decline participation in a study   or to withdraw at any time, without penalty, irrespective of any agreement(s) or incentives. These rights must be respected by the researcher in all circumstances,  and participants may require destruction of their personal data if prior permission has not been obtained – which of itself would constitute a breach of research integrity (see Research Integrity Code of Practice), and under GDPR legislation.  

4.8 Researchers should be aware that coercion might be introduced indirectly. Such instances could include the recruitment of students known in a professional capacity to academic staff and/or the use of financial inducements or lavish incentives. It is however appropriate to reimburse participants’ personal costs for participating in research where relevant.  

4.9 Researchers should, where possible and appropriate, communicate  with participants at the end of a study or following the completion of data collection. This is to provide information, clarify any issues or misconceptions and monitor any unforeseen negative effects requiring intervention. 

4.10 Researchers are expected to be aware of any legal requirements that may apply to their work. Legislation that may apply to research projects include, but are not limited to, the Equality Act (2010), the General Data Protection Regulations (2016) and the Data Protection Act (2018), the Computer Misuse Act (1990), the Human Rights Act (1998) and the Obscene Publications Act (1959).

5. Professional standards  

5.1 All researchers, both staff and students, should exercise integrity, a n d be honest in respect of their actions. Research design, collection and analysis of data, publication of research findings and acknowledgment of the contribution(s) of colleagues, collaborators and affiliated individuals should all be referred to with honesty (see Research Governance Policy).  

5.2 The University encourages and supports researchers in openness  in  their research wherever possible, whilst recognising the requirement to protect any confidentiality agreements. Researchers are required to deposit research outputs in the UWL Repository, as described in the UWL Publications Policy. The University encourages researchers, wherever appropriate, to discuss their work with other  researchers  in  the field,  but also with the general community at large.  

6. Documentation and data retention

6.1 All staff and students must abide by the guidance on retaining research data, particularly where there are professional body, funding bodies, or other requirements.  

6.2 All researchers are required, while conducting research, to adequately document their procedures, data, and findings.  

6.3 All staff researchers and research students must retain their anonymised data records securely, retaining research data (including laboratory notes) for 10 years after  completion  of a research project and/or 5 years after publication whichever is the greater; however, funding bodies may require longer periods of retention and those must be adhered to. Data and records should be accurate, complete and in sufficient detail to enable verification of research results and to reflect what was communicated, decided or done. This will avoid any allegations of misconduct should any aspect of the research findings ever be put into question. They should also be stored safely as per the University’s Data Management Policy.  

6.4 Students who are completing projects at undergraduate or taught Masters level should destroy their research data as soon as the project or dissertation marks have been ratified by the Assessment Board unless a resit or major amendments are required or unless the project is going to be published (in which case it should be retained for five years).  

6.5 It is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure that appropriate direction of research and supervision and support of students is provided. Supervisors should refer to the University’s Code of Practice for Research Supervisors and Students for guidance on good practice in supervision of research students.  

6.6 For research projects the Principal Investigators carry the primary responsibility for ensuring that research governance principles and contractual obligations are maintained.

7. Authorship  

7.1 For a person to be recorded as author of a publication requires that  s/he is directly involved in the publication by:

• Conceiving it, analysing and interpreting the data on which it is based;
• Writing or revising the intellectual content and giving final approval of the version to be published.  

Named researchers on a publication or research output (such as exhibition or performance) should have made a significant intellectual or practical contribution to the work and given explicit permission for their authorship. Researchers should address issues related to publication outlets and authorship in collaborative projects at an early stage in the project. The decisions they make should be made and agreed jointly and communicated to all involved. Authors should accept personal responsibility for ensuring they are familiar with their  contribution to, as well as the entire contents of the output and be able to clearly identify their contribution made if the work is not of their sole authorship. Researchers should acknowledge the contribution of all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship in an acknowledgment statement (Source: UWL Research Integrity Code of Practice 2018, Section 4.11).  

7.2 All individuals who have contributed to a research work should be clearly and fairly cited in the list of authors. The right to authorship is not tied to position or profession but to intellectual contribution. Ghost, gift, or honorary authorship is unacceptable. Authorship should honestly reflect the contribution to the work being published; for example, participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data is not sufficient for a person to be attributed as an author of a publication.

7.3 No person who is an author, consistent with the definition above, may be excluded as an author without their written agreement.  

8. Procedures for ethical approval of research projects  

8.1 School/College Research Ethics Panels, and The University Research Ethics Committee  

Overall responsibility for the University’s research policy and conduct rests with the University Research, Scholarship and Enterprise Committee (URSEC). This functions as a sub-committee of the University’s Academic Board. In each School, a School/College Research Ethics Panel (SCREP) oversees Research Ethics. Each of these has representation at, and reports to, the central University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) that, in turn, reports to the University Research, Scholarship and Enterprise Committee.  

Responsibility for ethical scrutiny and clearance of research is delegated to the SCREPs, which scrutinise proposals at their regular meetings.  

Details of how research projects address ethics are outlined below. In all cases staff and postgraduate students should complete the online Research Ethics Risk Assessment Form for consideration by their SCREP. Undergraduate students should complete the research ethics and integrity risk assessment form for all undergraduate dissertations and research projects. Those unsure how the procedures may apply to their project should contact the administrator to their SCREP via their School/College administrator.

Staff members and students should remain aware of the necessity to allow time in project planning for submission of a proposal to ethical review. They should contact the administrator to their SCREP for information on forthcoming meeting dates and deadlines, and should take account of  the possibility that formal queries may be raised by the SCREP following an initial application.  

SCREPs will record all decisions made in respect of ethical review, reporting those data to UREC to allow for consideration of a ‘whole University’ picture.  

8.2 Types of project  All research proposals – whether a Student or Staff project - are assigned to one of two categories for purposes of ethical approval. This classification is determined at School/College level by the nature of the research, not the level of study at which the research is conducted. Those unsure which category applies to their (or their student’s) project should contact the administrator to the relevant SCREP or the University Research Office for advice.  

Student research projects:

Explicit and relevant advice on ethical considerations will be provided for students in all Module Study Guides. Where relevant, ethical research conduct should be embedded within the Learning Outcomes and Marking Criteria for research projects. A student’s research supervisor, module leader or tutor should advise on the procedure for ethical clearance for the project, and monitor adherence to ethical standards as the project is being carried out. Gaining ethical approval for an undergraduate or postgraduate dissertation/project is a requirement for all students. Students who do not gain ethical approval before they start their project will be referred for Academic Misconduct and this may have an impact on the mark awarded for the dissertation/project.  

A template has been agreed by UREC and this risk assessment form should be used for all undergraduate (on paper) and postgraduate students (online) research projects.  

Category 1: Projects that have minimal ethical implications (i.e. work that does not involve participants or does not have potential for harm to the researcher or uses data/materials that are already in the public domain).  

This includes literature or documentary-based analysis, secondary analysis of data in the public domain, creation of artefacts, experimental laboratory-based work not involving human or animal tissues, and other forms of creative/artistic activity.  

Category 1 projects require that the researcher(s) complete the relevant sections of the Research Ethics Risk Assessment Form to indicate that this is the case and in order that the University can maintain a record of all research conducted. Category 1 projects will be scrutinised by the module leader and a member of the SCREP and a decision will be made that the project is ‘minimal risk’. Decisions will be recorded by the SCREP and communicated in writing to individual students by the module leader. It  should  be noted  that the usual University policies and over-reaching legal frameworks apply to all research. These include Health & Safety, Data Protection and General Data Protection, Intellectual Property and Copyright Law.  

Category 2: Projects that have ethical implications and must be considered by the relevant SCREP. 

Category 2 projects are those that directly involve human participants (or human tissue) and/or those where the researcher or the participant may be exposed to harm. This category includes all projects directly involving human participants (or human tissues) and those projects where the researcher or the respondent may be exposed to harm.  

The category includes all projects being planned or conducted by students, as well as any projects by members of staff, which directly involve the University’s students, and/or staff as participants; or any human participant outside of the University. It also includes projects where security sensitive material may be accessed by the researcher, including materials that may be otherwise prohibited or access to people or places where there is potential for harm. Category 2 projects require the researcher(s) to complete the relevant sections of the Research Ethics Risk Assessment Form in order that the University can maintain a record of all research conducted. SCREPs will consider all applications based on their completion, in full, of the Research Ethics Risk Assessment Form and the additional documents uploaded to the UREC site.  

Staff and students conducting research in certain discipline areas are formally required to obtain clearance from an external ethical committee (for example, The Law Society or NHS Research Ethics Committee.) These applications must be conditionally approved by the relevant SCREP/High Risk Panel before they are submitted to an external ethics committee. Where projects are sponsored by external sponsors, researchers should ensure that their signature is obtained following ethics approval, and returned to the Research Office.  

The main category of research currently requiring external approval is that involving NHS and Social Care work, and the current relevant guidance on categories requiring application, and the procedures, should be followed.

8.3 Procedure for ‘High-Risk’ projects:  

Work in either category 1 or 2 above but which also carries particular risks may require clearance by the University Directorate/Finance Office.

In addition to “high-risk” human participation in research projects, other high-risk attributes may include: 

1. Projects entailing complex collaborative and contractual arrangements with external partners;
2. Work with external partners or organisations that may give rise to particular concerns;
3. High-risk clinical trials and other experimental research which may carry hazards warranting additional insurance provision or legal/contractual advice;
4. Research which may require access to security sensitive material and as such is subject to the University’s Prevent Duty - See UUK for guidance.
5. Any other forms of risk which are by their nature not covered by the usual ethical clearance procedures.

9. Procedure for dealing with allegations of misconduct in research  

9.1 The University of West London Procedure for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct in Research is for the benefit of  all the University’s staff researchers and their collaborators who are conducting research on University premises or using University facilities in the pursuit of the highest standards of research. 

9.2 Students related allegations of misconduct will be dealt with using the Academic Misconduct Regulations.  

9.3 Staff should familiarise themselves with the above procedure/regulations, and make sure their students are aware of its terms too. All UWL documents referenced in this code of practice are available on the website.  

10. Sources of further guidance  

1. Association of Social Anthropologists-Ethical guidelines ~ interesting discussion on ethics from the ASA's Chair, plus Position Paper, ASA guidelines and other material.

2. British Sociological Association: Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018) 

3. British Psychological Society: Code of Ethics and Conduct (2017)

4. Ethics and Educational Research (2014) from BERA (British Educational Research Association).

5. NHS Health Research Authority: Defining Research (revised 2016)   

6. Nuffield Council on Bioethics ~ leading UK body examining bioethics across a range of contemporary issues. 

7. Oversight of security-sensitive research material in UK universities

8. Royal College of Nursing (2011) Research ethics: RCN guidance for nurses 

9. Social Research Association (SRA) Code of Ethics ~ leading UK social research organisation

10. UK Market Research Society: Code of Conduct (2018) 

11. UK Research Integrity Office Code of Practice for Research