ÌìÃÀ´«Ã½

Table One: Themes identified and frequency of occurrence

For the purpose of this paper, the following outline of the results focuses primarily on the most frequent themes.

The most common theme, by far, was that of 'insufficient/inaccurate information for participant decision making'. All feedback comments relating to this theme were directly linked to the PIS. This is not surprising as many members of the committee view this as one of the most crucial documents submitted as part of an application. This document facilitates REC members to view the project through the lens of a potential participant, rather than an academic and, consequently, provides evidence as to whether potential participants are able to make informed decisions, or not. Often the information was available elsewhere in the application but had not been included in the PIS. The frequency of feedback comments in this theme is 77. Most applicants received multiple comments under this theme. Only five of the twenty two applicants did not receive any feedback under this theme. The number of comments for each applicant ranged between one and nine regarding additional information potential participants ought to be given. These can be summarised by the following quote:

'The PIS would benefit from revision to ensure participants have all the necessary information in a user-friendly style……to give clearer details of what will happen, when and by whom.' (Applicant 22)

The second most frequently occurring area of concern was that of potential for bias/invalid data collection and/or analysis. Within the category two thirds of the comments referred to the data collection, and one third about the analysis. The most common concern about the data analysis was that the researchers provided little or no information about how they intended to analyse the data collected. Whilst there were one or two legitimate cases where analysis for all proposed methods could not be finalised until after some initial data collection, in the majority of cases the applicant simply did not provide sufficient detail about their intentions. Whilst this related to qualitative methods, in the main, there were also examples of quantitative data collection where details about how the data would be analysed were insufficiently articulated as indicated in the feedback below:

'From an ethical perspective, there is concern that a lack of planning for statistical interrogation of the data may compromise the effectiveness of the project.' (Applicant 18)

There was only one case where the concern was more related to a potential for bias rather than insufficient detail on the proposed analysis. This related to a project where two of the participants in a qualitative study with a small sample were also acting as supervisors for the researcher. It was felt that this may inhibit the researcher's analysis of data. The following feedback was given:

 'You may be reluctant to critically analyse and evaluate the responses from these participants, if such analysis may be critical. There may be data you collect from other participants that you feel unwilling to utilise because it is critical of your supervisor(s). Your supervisor has significant institutional responsibility in this area.' (Applicant 16)

Although there was only one such issue in this sample, there is potential for similar situations when researching pedagogic policy and practice, particularly in small institutions. It is feasible that the study sample is likely to be drawn from the same small population that would be best placed to supervise such a project. There is also the potential problem of attempting to anonymise the data when there is only one, or possibly two people, who are in positions from which such data could possibly arise.

Concerns about data collection included the ability of the data collection tool to answer the research questions; the amount of data being collected; and particularly the construction of questionnaires. Concerns were raised when the data being collected, particularly demographic data, were superfluous to the stated research questions. Feedback on questionnaires illustrated concern about lack of instructions and ambiguous questions which posed a risk of eliciting unusable data.

There were fewer concerns about interview and focus group schedules. There were concerns, however, about the use of observation as a data collection tool in two applications. The concerns related to lack of clarity about what the observer was observing, and how that observation would be recorded or analysed.

The third largest category represents the request for further information or clarification from the applicant. Inviting applicants to clarify and/or expand on issues appears to be a common characteristic of RECs (e.g. Doyle, Mullin and Cunningham 2010; Tilley 2008), some of which constitute ethical concerns such as vulnerability and informed consent. The examples we give in Table 2, however, illustrate that the feedback does not necessarily represent an ethical concern by the REC. Nevertheless, the committee feels that in order to make a thorough appraisal of the application, further information is needed. The nature of the feedback requesting clarification falls into the categories noted by Tilley (2008). First, there is 'Surface clarification' which has included requests for more detailed information, for example, about the data collection tools and the nature of research assistants' involvement in the research. 'Substantive clarification' includes issues such as participants' vulnerability, privacy and confidentiality. Much of the feedback comprised a mix of both surface and substantive clarification and, for the applicant, might be interpreted as a 'to do' list. It is acknowledged that requesting and gaining such information can cause unwelcome delays for the applicant and can exacerbate the impression of ethics approval being a hurdle to jump, rather than a developmental opportunity. In order to assist applicants to avoid this problem, the REC has recently begun inviting applicants to attend the meeting in person. In addition the applications have to be submitted a week prior to the meeting. This gives the Chair the opportunity to anticipate potential areas that are unclear, or not fully explained, and request further information to avoid unnecessary delay.

Making provision for vulnerable groups to participate, in our view, occurs surprisingly often in the feedback. Perhaps more surprising than the actual frequency, is the nature of the concern. The most common response, in applications where the feedback raises concerns, is that the research project is not targeting vulnerable groups. This would seem to indicate some misunderstanding of the term. Whilst the term 'vulnerable' is contentious in a philosophical sense, it is common parlance in research terms. It might be anticipated that an understanding of what might be referred to as a 'vulnerable groups' would exist in a HEI.

The issue of undue influence appears as a theme but with relatively low frequency. However, there are several other issues which have the potential to impact on the principle of voluntary consent to participate. The first of these, as indicated above, is the nature of pedagogic research because it is not always clear where practice development ends and where research begins. The second is the issue of insufficient information for decision making by potential participants. These will be discussed further in the next section.

Discussion and implications for practice

From the results outlined above, several ethical issues emerge which have specific relevance to pedagogic researchers. First, the nature of pedagogic research may present a risk to voluntary participation because the distinction between practice development and the research itself is not always clear. This lack of clarity by the researcher may result in confusion about what students must participate in as part of the programme of study, versus what they can choose to participate in. The fact that the pedagogic researcher is often occupying dual roles of both researcher and teacher can exacerbate this problem, along with the fact that data are often collected during 'teaching' time. Such confusion may also influence the students' decision to participate. This, in turn, could impact on the validity of consent, as discussed below. Whilst the benefits of pedagogic research are that the teacher/researcher gains an understanding of pedagogic dynamics and has the opportunity to reflect on their own practice (Stierer & Antoniou 2004), the very nature of such research presents challenges. Whilst the risk of harm is relatively low, compared to other forms of research on human subjects, researchers should be cognisant of this potential risk and take measures to reduce the likelihood of it occurring. It is clear from this sample, that this risk is not always given due consideration when inviting volunteers to participate.

The context in which most pedagogic research takes place, together with the institutional value placed on such research, may further exacerbate this issue. Most practitioners in our institution undertake pedagogic research without funding or teaching remission, and the majority of studies are small-scale with a single researcher. It is mainly driven by a desire to problem solve using a systematic approach (Gurung & Schwartz 2009), together with a desire to collect evidence of effectiveness/impact. Practitioners are mainly undertaking such research alone, which not only means that dual roles of teacher and researcher are a practical necessity, but it also means that benefits of critical collaboration are not afforded to the researcher. An institutional mechanism for facilitating collaboration for researchers with common interests would prevent duplication and provide possible dilution of the dual role issue. Likewise, promoting a pedagogic research culture which facilitates the use of supportive 'critical friends' could afford lone researchers the opportunity of an alternative perspective. For the past four years, in this institution, five grants of up to £10,000 have been available for pedagogic research each year. This has encouraged larger-scale, collaborative projects, usually discipline based, and a supportive monitoring system is in place. There is also a mechanism for bringing together researchers bidding for the same external grants. More now needs to be done to support the lone researcher investigating their own teaching practice, outside of any funding structure. Providing such support would also demonstrate that the institution valued this type of research.

Secondly, and probably related, is the issue of insufficient and/or inaccurate information being given on the PIS. The ethical implication of this is invalid consent. Although all applicants recognised the need for a 'consent form' it might be that the conditions necessary for valid consent are not fully understood. The three necessary conditions for informed consent are capacity, sufficient information and an absence of undue influence (Pedroni and Pimple 2001). In the case of adults, capacity is assumed unless the researcher can establish otherwise (Department for Constitutional Affairs 2007), which covers the vast majority of higher education pedagogic research. The PIS, and the opportunity to ask for further clarification, are viewed as facilitating the second condition. On reviewing our guidance we found that there is no explicit link made between the PIS and the ethical principle of informed consent. Informed consent, in turn, is the way in which participants manifest their personal autonomy (Beauchamp and Childress 2001). Therefore the way in which researchers approach and satisfy the conditions for informed consent, demonstrates their respect for the personal autonomy of potential participants.

Insufficient or incomplete information could also impact on the third condition. Whilst the committee may have assumed that the lack of information was an oversight, withholding information or wording it favourably could be construed as trying to influence people to participate. The suggestion of coercion to participate by means of insufficient or inaccurate information conjures up serious violations of research ethics and applicants would, most likely, be highly offended by such a suggestion. However, manipulation of information for a favourable response could be viewed as such. Faden and Beauchamp (1986) discuss the notion of a continuum between persuasion and coercion, upon which manipulation of information can lie. Whilst there were no examples of explicit deliberate coercion, there were examples where potential participants may have felt they would have made a different decision had they been armed with all the information. For example, one study invited students to attend a workshop to demonstrate their use of particular software. From the application the committee understood that the researchers were in fact assessing the performance of the participants but the term 'assessment' had not been used. Potential participants may well have been put off by the information that they would be assessed. Thus avoiding the use of the term 'assessment' would be more persuasive. Faden and Beauchamp (1986) argued that manipulation of information towards the 'persuasion' end of the continuum can sometimes be acceptable in research, depending on the potential harms and benefits of participating. In this case, the result of the assessment had no impact whatsoever on the students' degree results and no individual 'scores' would ever be published. However, the researchers need to make the argument for such actions in their application, but first they must have an awareness of the implications of manipulating the information given.

It is tempting to say that the implication of these findings is to give even more guidance, or provide exemplars of what is required for each method of data collection. However, the researchers feel that this may perpetuate the notion of ethical approval being a bureaucratic process rather than an opportunity to reflect carefully on the ethical implications of all aspects of one's research, and a learning experience. Rather than increase guidelines or insist on compliance with a uniform template, less is sometimes more thought provoking. Perhaps it would be more effective to remind applicants of the ethical principles which underpin the necessity for a comprehensive PIS. This may facilitate viewing the PIS through the eyes of the potential participant. It is also recommended that researchers be reminded that the PIS is an invitation to participate and, by inference, something that can be declined. This concept should underpin the tone and language of the PIS.     

Conclusion

As a result of our analysis of the findings, we have concluded that ethical considerations for informed consent in pedagogic research are not fully appreciated by many researchers. The issue is viewed more practically as the act of obtaining written or implied consent to participate, rather than the process which must underpin the gaining of such consent. Although the first of the necessary conditions for informed consent may be assumed in higher education, the other two conditions require careful consideration. The information needs to be accurate, understandable, comprehensive, and clearly establish what is voluntary. Because the researcher may well be occupying dual roles, and the boundaries between practice development and research blurred, particular attention is needed to minimise undue influence on potential student-participants to participate. We use the term 'minimise' to reflect the reality that, despite assurances to the contrary, some students may, nevertheless, feel an obligation to participate in research being undertaken by their teacher. In general our findings mirror those found in the limited literature on this topic.

Having identified the concerns of the REC, and the frequency with which they occurred, we will use these findings to assist future applicants. It appears that extensive guidance on completing an application and the arrangements for Research Governance may not be effective in facilitating applicants to view the ethical approval process as an opportunity for development, rather than a barrier to be overcome. This REC will consider re-drafting the guidance into a matrix format on a single side of A4, with bullet point prompts for consideration and emphasise the above points. In respect of the feedback to applicants rather than merely inviting applicants to attend, this will be strongly encouraged as it is recognised that the extensive written feedback given to applicants may be viewed less positively by them than face to face feedback. It is difficult to achieve the right tone with one-way written communication. By encouraging applicants to attend, the committee can adopt more of a dialogic approach to eliciting the additional information, which is so often required. This approach will also provide an opportunity to assist applicants in considering the PIS from the viewpoint of a potential participant and recognise, for themselves, that insufficient information has been given. Where there is confusion about the term 'vulnerable groups' this too could be explored in dialogue. It is hypothesised that a two-way dialogic approach to feedback will be less confrontational and more likely to achieve development, as opposed to compliance. It is clear from our analysis that it is not only novice or less experienced researchers who may benefit from a raised awareness of the risks to valid consent, which pedagogic research may pose. Therefore dissemination of these results should aim to reach a broad range of researchers in the field.

References

Anthony, R. 2004. Consistency of ethics review. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6, no. 1, www.qualitative-research-net

Beauchamp T. and Childress J. 2001. Principles of Biomedical ethics. 5^th Edition. New York: Oxford ÌìÃÀ´«Ã½ Press

Braun V and Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (20), 77-101

Brown, P. 2010. Teacher research and university Institutional Review Boards. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 31: 276-283

Bryman, A. 2004. Social research methods. 2^nd ed. Oxford: Oxford ÌìÃÀ´«Ã½ Press

Castle, K. 2006. Autonomy through pedagogical research. Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 1094-1103.

Cohen, L, Manion, L., and Morrison K.  2006. Research methods in education. 5^th ed. London: Routledge.

Department for Constitutional Affairs 2007 Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. London: The Stationary Office.

Doyle, E., Mullins, M. and Cunningham M. 2010. Research ethics in a Business School context: The establishment of a review committee and the primary issues of concern. Journal of Academic Ethics 8: 43-66. doi: 10.1007/s10805-010-9108-x

Edwards, S., Stone T., and Swift T. 2007. Differences between research ethics committees. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 23: 17-23.

Faden R. and Beauchamp T. 1986. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford ÌìÃÀ´«Ã½ Press

Gurung R..and Schwartz B. 2009. Optimizing teaching and learning: Practicing pedagogical research. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell

Haggerty, K. D. 2004. Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 27: 391-414.

Hemmings, A. 2006. Great ethical divides: Bridging the gap between Institutional Review Boards and researchers. Educational Researcher, 35(4): 12-18.

Kramer, M. W., Miller, V. D. and Commuri S. 2009. Faculty and Institutional Review Board communication. Communication Education 58: 497-515. doi: 10.1080/03634520903006208

Lincoln, Y. S., and Tierney W. G. 2004. Qualitative research and Institutional Review Boards. Qualitative Inquiry 102: 219-234. doi: 10.1177/1077800403262361

Lomas Scott, C., and Fonseca L. 2010. Overstepping the mark: Ethics procedures, risky research and education researchers. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 33: 287-300. doi: 101080/174327X.2010.511710

Mogalakwe, M. 2006. The use of documentary research methods in social science. African Sociological Review 10(1): 221-230

O'Neill, J. 2010. One chairperson's experience of ethical review: Balancing principle, convention, relationship and risk in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 33: 229-243. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2010.511715

Opie, C. 2004. Educational research: A guide for first time researchers. London: SAGE.

Pedroni, J. and Pimple K. 2001 A Brief Introduction to Informed Consent in Research with Human Subjects. Poynter Center for the study of ethics, Indiana ÌìÃÀ´«Ã½, USA. http://poynter.indiana.edu/sas/res/ic.pdf

Punch, K.  F. 1998. Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: SAGE.

Robinson, E. H., and Curry J. R. 2008. Institutional Review Boards and professional counselling research. Counselling & Values 53: 39-52.

Scott, J. 1990. A matter of Record. Cambridge: Polity Press, cited in Bryman A 2004 Social Research Methods. 2^nd Ed. New York: Oxford ÌìÃÀ´«Ã½ Press

Shi, L. 2006. Students as research participants or as learners? Journal of Academic Ethics, 4: 205-220

Sikes, P, and Piper H. 2010. Ethical research, academic freedom and the role of ethics committees and review procedures in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 33: 205-213. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2010.511838

Stierer, B. and Antoniou, M. 2004. Are there distinctive methodologies for pedagogic research in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 9: 275-285

Tilley, S. A. 2008. A troubled dance: Doing the work of research ethics review. Journal of Academic Ethics 6: 91-104. doi: 10.1007/s10805-008-9058-8

Tracy, F., and Carmichael P. 2010. Research ethics and participatory research in an interdisciplinary technology-enhanced learning project. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 33: 245-257. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2010.511716

White, J., and T. Fitzgerald. 2010. Researcher tales and research ethics: The spaces in which we find ourselves. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33(3), 273-285. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2010.511711

*Moyra is now a Senior Lecturer in Oncology at The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre.

[1] Hereafter, these members will be referred to as 'the researchers'.

[2] For example, submitting further details of data collection tools as the project progresses and the tools are developed.