Handbook for Ethical Approval & Practice
Procedures
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Ethical Principles ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Why is Ethical Approval Needed?.................................................................................................................. 3
Committees responsible for monitoring research integrity and ethical scrutiny ......................................... 4
Academic Board ......................................................................................................................................... 4
University Research Committee ................................................................................................................ 4
University Ethics Committee ..................................................................................................................... 4
Faculty Ethics Committee .......................................................................................................................... 5
Ethics Subject Panels and Reviewers ......................................................................................................... 5
Applying for Ethical Approval ............................................................................................................................ 7
When to apply ............................................................................................................................................... 7
How to apply.................................................................................................................................................. 7
To which Subject Panel should I submit my application? ............................................................................. 8
Ethical Approval from Partners and or Collaborating Organisations ............................................................ 8
What do ethical reviewers look for in an application ................................................................................... 9
When will I know the outcome? .................................................................................................................... 9
Possible outcomes ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Appeals ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Forms of misconduct ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Academic misconduct.................................................................................................................................. 11
Ethical misconduct....................................................................................................................................... 11
Notification of ethical misconduct .............................................................................................................. 11
Procedures for investigating ethical misconduct among students ......................................................... 12
Fitness to Practice status following academic or ethical misconduct ..................................................... 12
Procedures for investigating ethical misconduct among staff ................................................................ 12
Processing and assessing applications ............................................................................................................ 13
Role of the subject panels ........................................................................................................................... 13
Assessment of applications ......................................................................................................................... 13
Requests for additional information ........................................................................................................... 13
Outcomes and Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 14
1
March 2014
Approved ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Approved subject to conditions............................................................................................................... 14
Not Approved .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Feedback to applicant ................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A : Single response: University Ethics Form (SAMPLE) ............................................................ 15
Appendix B: Procedure for the Investigation of Academic Misconduct by Research Students .................. 18
Appendix C: Collecting applications forms from the on line Surveyor tool ................................................ 21
2
March 2014
Introduction
The procedures for ethical approval and practice in this handbook have been designed to assist in the
application and assessment of ethical approval requests, implementation of good conduct in research, and in
the prevention of misconduct. This is to ensure that researchers conduct research of the highest quality.
The handbook is written for staff and students of the University who are planning to carry out a research
project, and staff involved in assessing applications for ethical approval. It may be used as a reference in the
preparation of bid for grant funding. The handbook should be read in conjunction with the University Ethical
Principles available at Research Policy Unit’s Ethics Guidance webpages.
Ethical Principles
Research that involves systematic collection and / or storage of sensitive data taken from human participants
will require ethical approval and / or be subject to restrictions under the Data Protection Act (1998). In these
cases, ethical approval must be sought from your Faculty and, where appropriate external Ethics
Committee(s). Ethical approval applications should be prepared with reference to the University Ethical
Principles which underpin the University’s work.
Ethical Principles:
The University and researchers should adhere to the following principles, found in more detail on the
Research Policy Unit’s Ethics Guidance webpages:







Excellence
Honesty
Integrity
Cooperation
Accountability
Training and Skills
Care, Safety and Respect
The University Ethical Principles are applicable to all subject areas, have been drawn up through the
University Ethics Committee with reference to a range of existing authorities on Ethics such as the UK
Research Integrity Office. They are intended to complement existing and forthcoming guidance on research
conduct, such as that provided by Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust or the Council for Science and
Technology. They also drawn upon University policies, such as those for health and safety, and does not seek
to replace them.
The ethical implications of your research should be kept under review as the project progresses, and
additional ethical approval must be sought should this become necessary during the progress of the project.
You are expected to know and understand the ethical implications of the research and to obtain appropriate
ethical approval as necessary.
Why is Ethical Approval Needed?
Ethical approval is required to safeguard researchers conducting the study and also protects the rights, safety,
dignity and well-being of research participants. Obtaining ethical approval also facilitates and promotes
ethical research that is of potential benefit to participants, science and society. By obtaining ethical approval
from an impartial committee and having in place robust systems for the review of studies the University can
ensure that the research conducted is of high ethical standard, sound integrity and in accordance with good
research governance and legal requirements.
3
March 2014
Committees responsible for monitoring research integrity and ethical scrutiny
The University has introduced a comprehensive ethical scrutiny process to ensure that all research involving
participants, their data and/or tissue, addresses relevant ethical considerations and is subject to appropriate
ethical review. The University Ethics Committee and its sub-committees (FECs) will ensure appropriate ethical
review of research and continue to develop policies and guidance to facilitate the protection of the
University’s research participants.
The diagram below shows the key committees of the university that deal with matters associated with
Research. Those shaded in bold are the committees that consider Ethics. Their remit regarding ethics is
outlined below.
Academic Board
This committee oversees the work of all other committees of the University. Ethical issues that arise at
University Research Committee (URC) may be referred to Academic Board.
University Research Committee
University Research Committee receives reports from University Ethics Committee (UEC) as a standing item
on the agenda. Substantive matters such as changes to Ethical Principles may also be referred from UEC to
URC. The Chair of UEC is also a member of URC.
University Ethics Committee
The University Ethics Sub Committee monitors the work of the Faculty Ethics Committees and meets three
times per year. Its membership includes the Chairs of the Faculty Ethics Committees and or their nominees.
The role of UEC is to ensure that the decisions and recommendations that are made in the Faculties are in line
with University Ethical Procedures and Principles. It also keeps under review the University’s Ethical Principles
and Procedures and makes revisions to these in light of any changes in legislation, advice and guidance from
UK Office for Research Integrity, and amendments arising from the review of serious cases. To do this UEC
receives reports on serious cases. It also receives Annual Reports from the Faculty Ethics Committees that
provides statistics on the numbers of applications received, numbers of cases in each ethical category (see
below) and a summary of particular issues and cases of particular concern. It also reports on any breaches of
ethical conditions and the outcomes of investigations into such breaches.
The scope of this committee is limited to research activity undertaken by students and staff undertaking
research. It does not currently consider ethical conduct in other aspects of university work.
4
March 2014
Faculty Ethics Committee
Faculty Ethics Committees meets three times a year to monitor and quality assure the ethical practices of the
Faculty and reports to UEC. The Chair of this committee is also responsible for the management of the
applications for ethical approval received into the Faculty and ensures that decisions are made consistently
and timely. S/He may do so in conjunction with subject experts (see Subject Panels and Reviewers below).
Ethics Subject Panels and Reviewers
Ethics Subject Panels are specialists in the field of ethics within their subject areas and are able to make
judgements and offer advice on ethical applications according to the particular requirements of associated
learned societies and professional bodies. They will review applications on a monthly basis. They may only
convene a panel meeting where there is need for researchers to present their case or where a case requires
more discussion. In most cases they carry out their reviews as independent ‘peer reviewers’. They may do
this virtually, e.g. by e mail.
Subject reviewers / panels are led by a subject Panel Leader who will coordinate responses from reviewers in
coming to a final decision or recommendation. They will report to the Faculty Ethics Chair any cases that may
be considered high risk or any cases of unethical practice.
5
March 2014
Faculty Subject Panels
Faculty Chair
Subject Panel Leaders / Reviewers
FEHW
Education:
Neil Duncan ( N.Duncan@wlv.ac.uk )
Education Ethics Form:
http://survey.wlv.ac.uk/survey.asp?s=01155134178097081244
Andy Lane
Health:
Hilary Paniagua (H.Paniagua@wlv.ac.uk) Please contact by e mail
Psychology
Darren Chadwick (D.Chadwick@wlv.ac.uk ) Please contact by e mail
Sport
(Andy Lane): A.M.Lane2@wlv.ac.uk ]
Sport Ethics Form:
http://survey.wlv.ac.uk/survey.asp?s=01017028174039139024
FoA
Stephen Jacobs
Creative and Performing Arts:
Victoria Thoms (vickithoms@wlv.ac.uk )
Media and Humanities:
Stephen Jacobs S.Jacobs@wlv.ac.uk
Postgraduate Research Degrees and Staff Research:
Stephen Jacobs S.Jacobs@wlv.ac.uk
Faculty of Arts Ethics Form:
http://survey.wlv.ac.uk/survey.asp?s=01104025000168184018
FoSS
Stephen Peak
Wolverhampton Business School
Stuart Farquhar (S.S.Farquhar@wlv.ac.uk )
Wolverhampton Law School
Richard Glover (r.glover@wlv.ac.uk)
School of Social, Historical and Political Studies
Laura Ugolini ( l.ugolini@wlv.ac.uk)
Faculty of Social Sciences Ethics Form:
http://survey.wlv.ac.uk/survey.asp?s=01131068132185023144
FSE
Stephen Britland
Computing & Engineering
tbc
Life Sciences
Tracy Warr (T.Warr@wlv.ac.uk )
Faculty of Science and Engineering Ethics Form:
http://survey.wlv.ac.uk/survey.asp?s=01178035168058238022
6
March 2014
Applying for Ethical Approval
When to apply
Researchers can apply for ethical approval at any time. Ideally, this should be done at the time of submission
of the Research Proposal, but occasionally the ethical dimensions of a project may only become clear as it
develops. In any case, ethical approval MUST be granted BEFORE the research is begun, so it is necessary to
complete the appropriate forms and submit them as soon as possible to avoid delays in the research
programme.
It is often a requirement of the conditions of a research grant that ethical approval is sought prior to the
submission of the grant application. This is particularly the case for European funding where there is no
contract negotiation.
Even after initial approval, researchers may need to renew or amend their ethical approval. This may be
where the original approvals out of date and or where the research project has changed with ethical
implications. The procedures for renewal or change are the same as for new applications. When renewing
your application, you should refer to the original approval in your application.
How to apply
The Ethical Guidance pages on the Research Policy Unit website contains the names of the Subject Panel
Leaders in the Faculties and a link to an on line Ethics Application form. Where the link is not available from
this website, you should contact the Subject Panel leader by e mail requesting the link and or paper based
form (see Appendix A for a copy of the ethical application form).
Once you open the link the start of the on line form will appear in your browser. It will look like the following:
The on line form will take you through the form one question per screen. Some questions require a response
before you can proceed to the next question. Some of the questions shown in Appendix A may not appear on
your screen. This is because they are not applicable to you based on your previous responses. (For example,
questions 8-13 only appear on your screen if the responses to question 7 require them).
7
March 2014
Note that the on line form has no spell checker. We strongly recommend that you word process your
responses to the questions before you fill in the on line form. You can copy and paste your word processed
text into the on line form. Please also note that you will not be able to access this on line form again once you
have submitted it.
In crafting your responses to the questions, please refer to the University Ethical Principles and Guidance
pages. These pages define terms and concepts that are commonly used in Ethics such as Informed Consent,
Vulnerable Adults, Confidentiality, etc. They also offer advice, links to specialist resources, examples of how
you might address these issues in your research, etc. If you still require help with understanding the ethical
issues in your research and or finding the measures you need to take to address the ethical concerns it raises,
it is your responsibility to seek the advice of your project supervisor or your ethics Subject Panel Leader. It is
expected the final submission is the product of a series of discussions. For single authored staff work, it is
expected that a member of staff has discussed the work with a colleague or research cluster leader or similar.
The aim of this aspect of the process is to encourage collegiately.
To which Subject Panel should I submit my application?
If your work is interdisciplinary you need to decide in which subject most of the ethical issue are likely to arise.
For example, if you are working in the uses of art therapy in mental health services, your ethical approval may
best be considered by the Health subject panel in FEHW. If you are not sure contact the Subject Panel Leader
in your Faculty for advice.
Ethical Approval from Partners and or Collaborating Organisations
If you wish to conduct research within the NHS you must obtain NHS or HSC management permission (also
referred to as R&D approval) for each NHS research site. If your research is to be undertaken on the premises
of an NHS organisation, with NHS patients or with NHS staff then the local NHS R&D office should be
contacted. It is important that you plan and prepare your application well ahead of time; otherwise you may
encounter unnecessary delays and complexity. There is a standard process for applying to undertake research
within the NHS and proposals are required to be sent to a research ethics committee (RECs). Applications to
RECs should be made in accordance with a process set out in standard operating procedures for RECs and in
written guidance for applicants. To apply for approval you need to streamline your research application
process with IRAS [Integrated Research Application System]. To view IRAS and for further information visit
www.myresearchproject.org.uk
Should you wish to conduct research in prison, probation or young offenders' institutions you will need to
gain permission from the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), this can also be accessed via the
IRAS process. More information about NOMS can be found by visiting http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/noms
8
March 2014
What do ethical reviewers look for in an application
Reviewers of applications for ethical approval draw upon the Ethical Principles and their knowledge and
experience of ethics in research and practice to come to a judgement about each application. The following
points are considered carefully in making their decision:









Scientific /Academic Merit
Competency
Social value
Risks and benefits
Harm: Likelihood of occurrence and severity
Informed Consent
Confidentiality
Conflict of interest
Honest reporting of results
The ethics review process is designed to be supportive. Whilst the reviewers will ultimately make a
judgement on the ethics of the research project presented, they do so with a view to improving the quality of
the research and developing the ethical sensitivities of the researcher. It should not be seen as a barrier.
When will I know the outcome?
The Subject Panel Leaders will normally collect applications on the 1st Monday of every month or the first
Tuesday of the month if the 1st Monday of the month falls on a public holiday in England. No ethical
applications will be reviewed during the month of August.
The process following submission can take up to 4 weeks. Decisions are normally communicated by e mail
(with read receipt notification) to the applicant on or before the last Friday of the month in which the
application was reviewed. Should the last Friday of the month fall on a public holiday, the notification will be
sent to the applicant on or before the following Friday.
Example 1: if you submitted an application on Wednesday 28th May 2014, you should receive notification of
the outcome on or by Friday 27th June.
Example 2: if you submitted an application on Tuesday 2nd June 2014, the latest you should receive
notification of the outcome would be Friday 25th July.
Thus applications submitted toward the end of the month are likely to be dealt with quicker than those
submitted at the beginning of the month. If your application is urgent and needs to be reviewed before the
normal timescales outlined above, you will need to contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee and relevant
Subject Panel Leader making a case for urgent attention. Lack of planning, time management, and or
ignorance of the system are not considered reasonable justifications for urgent attention.
9
March 2014
Possible outcomes
All applications are categorised according to the University Ethical Categories. These give some indication as
to the level of risk involved in the project. (See www.wlv.ac.uk/rpu then follow link to Ethics Guidance /
Ethical Categories) for full details. To summarise:
Category 0 projects are non-hazardous; do not employ participants and use only existing material publicly and
legally available in the UK.
Category A projects usually involve the participation of people, rather than secondary data sources such as
published memoirs etc., but are not deemed hazardous to the physical or psychological welfare of the
participant or the investigator.
In category B proposals there is likely to be significant physical intervention between the researcher and the
subjects. This includes the use of any procedure (including administering of questionnaires or interviews on
sensitive issues) that could cause psychological harm or suffering to the subjects.
The judgement of the reviewers will take account of the category within which the project appears to fall. This
will inevitably influence the recommendations and feedback they give.
There are three recommendations that may be made following the review of each application:
1. Approved. Proceed according to proposed project plan
2. Approved subject to conditions.
3. Not approved.
Some feedback will be given to the applicant with the recommendation. In the case of 2 above, the applicant
may need to provide copies of questionnaires, informed consent forms, letters of approval from partners or
collaborators, etc. They may ask for amendments to the research project in some areas or that the project is
kept under close scrutiny of the project supervisor, steering group, or other individuals before or during the
project.
In a small number of cases the reviewers feel that a discussion with the applicant would help their decisionmaking. In such cases the applicant may be asked to attend a meeting of the review panel, following which
one of the above recommendations will be made.
Appeals
Appeals can only be accepted where there is a claim of procedural irregularity or failure. Such appeals should
be made in writing to the Chair of the University Ethics Committee. There is no appeal against the judgement
of the reviewers. If the claim for appeal is upheld, the Chair of the University Ethics Committee will instruct
two suitably qualified independent reviewers to re-assessment of the original application.
10
March 2014
Forms of misconduct
Academic misconduct
Academic misconduct includes:
Cheating: defined as any attempt by a candidate to gain unfair advantage in an assessment by dishonest
means, and includes e.g. all breaches of examination rules, falsifying data, commissioning of an assessment
from a third party.
Plagiarism: the act of taking someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating
either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others/or
yourself.
Collusion: occurs when two or more students (and/or researchers) collaborate to produce a piece of work to
be submitted (in whole or part) for assessment and the work is presented as the work of one student alone,
without due acknowledgement of the contribution of others.
The University’s procedure for investigating academic misconduct by research students is closely modelled on
that used for undergraduates and students on taught postgraduate programmes. This can be found in
Appendix B of this handbook. Staff found guilty of academic misconduct e.g. plagiarism, will be treated as for
the procedures for investigating ethical misconduct by staff (see below).
Ethical misconduct
Research students and staff are required to conduct their research to the same standards of honesty and
probity as outlined in the University Ethical Principles. Supervisors and Principle Investigators should remind
their researchers of the significance of the University Ethical Principles and ensure that the research they
carry out under their supervision is in accordance with these Principles, Procedures, and the conditions of
their ethical approval.
Types of ethical misconduct include:




Failure to observe the University Ethical Principles,
Failure to obtain ethical approval for an on-going project,
Breach of ethical approval conditions
Failure to renew or reapply for ethical approval when changes have occurred that have ethical
implications.
The University takes a very serious view of anyone who brings the Institution into disrepute. Students who
are found guilty of serious or repeated breaches of these ethical principles and or the Student Code of
Conduct may be excluded from their course of study.
Where there are concerns around potential ethical misconduct by a member of staff, or a member of staff has
failed in their duty to supervise the ethical conduct of their students and researchers, consideration may be
given to taking action under the University's Disciplinary Policy and Procedure.
Notification of ethical misconduct
Cases of ethical misconduct by staff or students should be referred to the Chair of the Faculty Ethics
Committee in the first instance. An initial investigation will be conducted with reference to the appropriate
University policies (e.g. University Data Protection Policy, Academic Misconduct Policy, Public Interest
Disclosure Policy, Freedom of Information policy). This guidance does not supersede established procedures
11
March 2014
such as the formal complaints procedures, the grievance procedure, or the policies on discrimination,
harassment or bullying.
Procedures for investigating ethical misconduct among students
If a prima facie case for further investigation is established the matter will be referred to the Conduct and
Appeals Unit for consideration within the University of Wolverhampton Student Code of Conduct and
Disciplinary Procedure. The Director/Head of the RI or RC, or Dean of Faculty, or nominee and the Head of
the Conduct and Appeals Unit will jointly determine on the evidence presented whether the matter shall be
dealt with under Stage One for minor offences or Stage Two for more serious or repeated offences.
A letter inviting the student to attend a Disciplinary Hearing meeting will be sent by the Research
Institute/Centre (RI/RC). The meeting will be conducted in accordance with the University Student Code of
Conduct and Disciplinary Procedure. Further information about this procedure can be found on the Conduct
and Appeals Website: www.wlv.ac.uk/conductandappeals.
Fitness to Practice status following academic or ethical misconduct
Research students who are required to comply with Professional Codes of Conduct whilst undertaking their
research degree course may have responsibilities over and above those of other research students at the
University. Examples include (but are not limited to) the following professions:







Nursing
Midwifery
Social Work
Pharmacy
Forensic Science
Teaching
Policing
A research student’s alleged misconduct may be considered to be contrary to behavioural expectations
required by the relevant professional code. In such circumstances consideration must be given to the
possibility that they could put patients/clients/the public or other students or staff at risk. A research
student’s Fitness to Practise is called into question when their conduct, health or competence raises a serious
or persistent cause for concern about their ability or suitability to continue on a course. Such cases will be
dealt with under the University of Wolverhampton Fitness to Practice Policy and Procedure, details of which
are available at: www.wlv.ac.uk/polsregs
Procedures for investigating ethical misconduct among staff
The University Public Interest Disclosure Policy (Whistle blowing) enables staff, students, Governors and
members of the University community to raise, in good faith, concerns of malpractice, impropriety or
wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. This policy details how such a disclosure can be made and how the
University will deal with the matter.
Where there are concerns around potential ethical misconduct by a member of staff, or a member of staff has
failed in their duty to supervise the ethical conduct of their students and researchers, consideration may be
given to taking action under the University's Disciplinary Policy and Procedure.
12
March 2014
Processing and assessing applications
Role of the subject panels
The leader of each subject panel (or where there is no subject panel, the chair of the Faculty Ethics
Committee) is responsible for collecting the on line applications for his/her subject on the first Monday of the
month or the nearest date to it if the Monday falls on a public holiday.
For step by step instructions on how to collect and distribute application forms from the on line Surveyor
package, please see Appendix C.
Once downloaded the Subject Panel Leader (or designated Administrator) sends each application to at least 2
reviewers per submission. An additional reviewer may be required for highly contentious issues (Category B
projects).
The Subject Panel Leader (or designated Administrator) will log the date each application is sent for review
and to which member of staff. S/He will set deadlines for the return of completed reviews and where
necessary chase reviewers for their decisions in order to meet the published response times.
Reviewers will be selected, where possible, on the basis of knowledge and experience of the field of enquiry,
the research methods proposed, and the understanding of the context of the proposed study. They may also
have experience of the particular ethical issues involved.
The Subject Panel Leader will compile quarterly reports to coincide with the dates of the Faculty Ethics
Committee.
Assessment of applications
Reviewers should carry out their review of each application independent of the other reviewers and return
their reports to the Subject Panel Leader by the due date. Where there is disagreement between reviewers,
Subject Leaders will moderate in discussion with the review team and, where necessary, with the Chair of the
Ethics Committee.
There may be cases where a meeting is convened to allow a deeper investigation of the issues within a high
risk application. In such cases the applicant may be invited to discuss the case with the subject panel and
possibly to the Faculty Ethics Committee. In this way, complex ethical issues and the discussion surrounding
them are shared and researchers hear the nature of discussion. The reviewers and chair of the ethics
committee would meet after to come to a decision and recommendation.
Requests for additional information
In some cases reviewers may require additional documentation to be able to make their decision. For
example, they may want to see copies of questionnaires or interview questions, letters of approval from other
organisations, etc. These cannot be attached to or uploaded with the on line application form. In such cases,
applicants may be asked to supply this information via e mail or other means.
13
March 2014
Outcomes and Conditions
Approved
If each reviewer approves the application, the Subject Leader will notify the applicant of the successful
application by e mail. It is good practice to attach a read receipt notification to the email to check the
applicant has received and read the contents. The notification should require success applicants to confirm
that they agree to the terms and conditions of the approval. This notification will also contain useful
feedback provided by the reviewers and any conditions that apply.
Approved subject to conditions
In some cases the reviewer will recommend a ‘conditional approval’. This means that they approve the
proposal in principle but they want to ensure that the researcher undertakes some other measures before or
during the project. Examples of the type of condition that might apply include: minor revision to a research
instrument e.g. questionnaire, submission of additional information as outlined above, setting up of a Project
Steering Group to monitor the implementation of the ethical measures, time-related approval. Applicants
would need to fulfil the conditions to the satisfaction of the Subject Panel Leader or his/her nominee in or to
proceed with the project.
Not Approved
Applications that are not successful maybe re-submit at any time. Applicants would re-submit the form as
outlined above. Resubmissions would normally be returned to the original reviewers for re assessment.
Feedback to applicant
The process of applying for ethical approval should be seen as a formative stage in the process of developing a
research proposal and in becoming an effective researcher. In order for the applicant to benefit from this
process, reviewers should provide short but helpful advice and feedback.
14
March 2014
Appendix
Appendix A : Single response: University Ethics Form (SAMPLE)
1. Please enter your surname and first name below. (SURNAME, FIRST NAME)
2. Please enter your University e mail address (e.g. M.Name@wlv.ac.uk)
3. Please enter the name of your Project Supervisor, Director of Studies, or Principal
Investigator.
4. Please enter date by which a decision is required below. (Note that decisions can
take up to 4 working weeks from date of submission)
5. Which subject area is your research / project located?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Science (including Pharmacy)
Engineering & the Built Environment
Computing
Health and Wellbeing (including Psychology)
Education
Business
Social Sciences & Humanities
Art
Sport
6. Please select your Faculty, Department or Research Centre
1. Faculty of Social Science
2. Faculty of the Arts
3. Faculty of Science and Engineering
4. Faculty of Education Health and Wellbeing
5. CADRE
6. CEDARE
7. Centre for Discourse and Cultural Studies
8. Engineering and Computer Science Research Centre
9. CHSCI
10. RIHS
11. Centre for Historical Research
12. RILLP
13. Centre for Research in Law
14. Centre for Transnational and Transcultural Research
15. Management Research Centre
16. RCSEP
17. Centre for Academic Practice
18. IT Services
19. Human Resources
20. Learning Information Services
21. Registry
22. Don't know
23. Other (please specify below)
15
March 2014
7. Does your research fit into any of the following security-sensitive categories? (For
definition of security sensitive categories see RPU webpages (www.wlv.ac.uk/rpu)
follow links to Ethical Guidance).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
commissioned by the military
commissioned under an EU security call
involve the acquisition of security clearances
concerns terrorist or extreme groups
not applicable
8. Does your research involve the storage on a computer of any records, statements or
other documents that can be interpreted as promoting or endorsing terrorist acts?
1. YES
2. NO
9. Might your research involve the electronic transmission (eg as an email attachment)
of any records or statements that can be interpreted as promoting or endorsing
terrorist acts?
1. YES
2. NO
10. Do you agree to store electronically on a secure University file store any records or
statements that can be interpreted as promoting or endorsing terrorist acts. Do you
also agree to scan and upload any paper documents with the same sort of content.
Access to this file store will be protected by a password unique to you. Please confirm
you understand and agree to these conditions?
1. YES I understand and agree to the conditions
2. NO (please explain below)
3. I do not understand the conditions
11. You agree NOT to transmit electronically to any third party documents in the
University secure document store?
1. YES I agree
2. NO I don't agree
12. Will your research involve visits to websites that might be associated with extreme,
or terrorist, organisations? (for definition of extreme or terrorist organisations see RPU
webpages (www.wlv.ac.uk/rpu) and follow links to Ethical Guidance.
1. YES (Please outline which websites and why you consider this necessary)
2. NO
13. You are advised that visits to websites that might be associated with extreme or
terrorist organisations may be subject to surveillance by the police. Accessing those
sites from university IP addresses might lead to police enquiries. Do you understand
this risk?
1. YES I understand
2. NO I don't understand
14. What is the title of your project?
15. Briefly outline your project, stating the rationale, aims, research question /
hypothesis, and expected outcomes. Max 300 words.
16
March 2014
16. How will your research be conducted?
Describe the methods so that it can be easily understood by the ethics committee.
Please ensure you clearly explain any acronyms and subject specific terminology. Max
300 words
17. Is ethical approval required by an external agency? (e.g. NHS, company, other
university, etc)
1. NO
2. YES - but ethical approval has not yet been obtained
3. YES - see contact details below of person who can verify that ethical approval has been obtained)
18. What in your view are the ethical considerations involved in this project? (e.g.
confidentiality, consent, risk, physical or psychological harm, etc.) Please explain in full
sentences. Do not simply list the issues. (Maximum 100) words)
19. Have participants been/will participants be, fully informed of the risks and benefits
of participating and of their right to refuse participation or withdraw from the research
at any time?
1. YES (Outline your procedures for informing participants in the space below.
2. NO (Use the space below to explain why)
3. Not applicable - There are no participants in this study
20. Are participants in your study going to be recruited from a potentially vulnerable
group? (See RPU website (www.wlv.ac.uk/rpu) and follow link to Ethical Guidance
pages for definition of vulnerable groups )
1. YES (Describe below which groups and what measures you will take to respect their rights and safeguard
them)
2. NO
21. How will you ensure that the identity of your participants is protected (See RPU
website (www.wlv.ac.uk/rpu) and follow link to Ethical Guidance pages for guidance on
anonymity)
22. How will you ensure that data remains confidential ((See RPU website
(www.wlv.ac.uk/rpu) and follow link to Ethical Guidance pages for definition of
confidentiality)
23. How will you store your data during and after the project? (See RPU website
(www.wlv.ac.uk/rpu) and follow link to Ethical Guidance pages for definition of and
guidance on data protection and storage).
17
March 2014
Appendix B: Procedure for the Investigation of Academic Misconduct by Research
Students
The University’s procedure for research students is closely modelled on that used for undergraduates and
students on taught postgraduate programmes.
A research student is defined as a student of the University who is enrolled on a research degree programme
leading to the degrees of Master of Philosophy (MPhil), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or a Masters degree by
research. Students studying for a professional doctorate who are in the thesis phase of their study
programme are also defined as research students for the purposes of this procedure.
Cheating
Cheating is defined as any attempt by a candidate to gain unfair advantage in an assessment by dishonest
means, and includes e.g. all breaches of examination rules, falsifying data, commissioning of an assessment
form a third party.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating
either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others/or
yourself.
Collusion
Collusion occurs when two or more students (and/or researchers) collaborate to produce a piece of work to
be submitted (in whole or part) for assessment and the work is presented as the work of one student alone,
without due acknowledgement of the contribution of others.
In the context of all three definitions: where research students are working in closely related fields to one
another, or are supported by technical staff, it is important that each student takes care not to claim
deliberately or inadvertently that a given piece of work carried out by someone else is their own work. Due
acknowledgement must always be made to the contributions of others, whether in work submitted for
assessment, presented at a conference or placed in the public domain through publication or any other
medium.
2.
Where a case of academic misconduct as defined above is suspected in a piece of work* contributing
to a research award of the University, the matter must be referred to the relevant Director/Head of the
Research Institute/Centre or Dean of Faculty (or nominee), who will determine whether a prima facie case
exists to investigate the matter further. The Director/Head/Dean or nominee may seek advice from the
Conduct and Appeals Unit in considering the matter. If the Director/Head/Dean or nominee then decides that
the matter should be investigated further he or she must inform the Head of the Conduct and Appeals Unit.
* For the purpose of this procedure a “piece of work contributing to a research award of the University” is any
written work or oral presentation submitted to the supervisors for assessment or submitted to a Faculty
Research Committee in support of the progression stage of a Research Degree Programme or as part of annual
monitoring.
3.
If a prima facie case for further investigation is established. A letter inviting the student to a meeting
will be sent by the Research Institute/Centre (RI/RC).
18
March 2014
Academic or administrative staff should not discuss the matter with students. Students who enquire about
their assessment should be told that they will be receiving a letter from the Research Institute/Centre (RI/RC)
inviting them to a meeting to discuss the work.
The meeting will have in attendance:



The Director/Head of the RI or RC, or Dean of Faculty, or nominee
The Head of the Conduct and Appeals Unit
Student (and friend)
Note taker (provided by the Conduct and Appeals Unit)
4.
The student will be given the opportunity to discuss with the panel the circumstances which have led
to the assessment which is at the centre of the allegation. The standard and burden of proof for the University
to prove the allegation(s) of misconduct is, if on the available evidence it is more likely than not that
misconduct has occurred then the burden and standard of proof is fulfilled and a penalty will be imposed as
appropriate.
If, as a result of this meeting, academic misconduct is admitted by the student or the evidence clearly shows
that academic misconduct has occurred, the relevant Faculty Research Committee will be informed and will
be requested to apply the appropriate penalty (see paragraph 7 below). The student will be informed in
writing within seven working days of the meeting.
5.
Penalties
Academic Board has agreed that the penalty for serious academic misconduct by any postgraduate research
student is exclusion from the University.
Note: Serious academic misconduct is defined as any case, which has either been admitted by a student, or
which a panel has judged to include:



deliberate, premeditated cheating,
premeditated attempt to deceive and gain unfair advantage,
a significant degree of Academic Misconduct affecting critical aspects˚ of an assignment.
˚ “Critical aspects” refers to key ideas central to the assignment.
6
Right of Appeal
A student will have the right to appeal against the decision reached by a Stage One hearing. The grounds for
appeal are:
That an administrative error or material irregularity has occurred in the conduct of the investigation.
That there were personal circumstances which they believe would have affected the decision taken by the
panel had they been made aware of them. The student must have a good reason not to have revealed the
circumstances to the Stage One hearing.
Appeals must be made within 20 working days of the receipt of the letter which informs the student of the
penalty imposed and should be made in writing to:
The Dean of Students
Gateway @ The George
19
March 2014
University of Wolverhampton
Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton
WV1 1LY
The Dean of Students will review the request for an appeal to determine whether or not the appellant has
demonstrated valid grounds for an appeal to proceed. If it is determined that the student has demonstrated a
valid case for an appeal to proceed then the case will be referred to a Stage Two Hearing. If the Dean of
Students does not find this to be the case a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued, in accordance with
the format prescribed by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education1.
An appeal review by the Dean of Students should normally be completed in no more than 30 working days.
6. Stage Two Hearing
The membership of a Stage Two Panel will be:



A Dean of Faculty other than that to which the student belongs.
A senior member of academic staff from another Faculty.
A Students’ Union representative nominated by the President of the Students’ Union.
An officer of the Conduct and Appeals Unit, will act as note taker to the panel
The appellant must be given written notice, at least 7 working days prior to the hearing, of the date and place
of the hearing, and a copy of the University’s misconduct procedure, drawing attention to the appellant’s
rights under the procedure. The standard and burden of proof applied will be the same as at stage one of this
procedure.
At least 5 working days before the hearing, members of the Stage Two Panel and the appellant will be
provided with the appropriate documentation. The appellant may also provide an additional written
statement to the panel.
The appellant has the right to appear before and be heard by the Stage Two Panel. They may be accompanied
by a friend. (The student shall be responsible for notifying the Conduct and Appeals Unit of the identity of the
friend and of any witnesses to be called not less than 2 working days prior to the interview meeting). The
student will normally be expected to attend a stage two hearing. If they fail to attend the meeting without a
valid reason then a decision will be taken in their absence.
If the Panel upholds an appeal it can decide to impose an alternative penalty or to rule that no penalty should
be imposed. The decision taken by this panel will be final. The Panel decision must be communicated to the
Chair of the Research Award Sub Committee.
At this stage a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued to the student, confirming the outcome, by the
Conduct and Appeals Unit in accordance with the format prescribed by the Office of the Independent
Adjudicator11. This should normally be within 7 working days.
Further information regarding the University of Wolverhampton Regulations and Procedure for the
Investigation of Academic Misconduct is available from the Conduct and Appeals Website:
www.wlv.ac.uk/conductandappeals.
Further details of the review scheme operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA)
are available at their website: www.oiahe.org.uk
1
20
March 2014
Appendix C: Collecting applications forms from the on line Surveyor tool
The Subject Panel Leader (or nominated research administrator) should log into Surveyor and select
University Ethics Committee from the list of Surveys groups available.
The next screen should list the Ethical Approval Forms per Subject Panel. Click on the relevant subject link
(see example below)
A screen similar to the one below should appear. Select the report type ‘Single Responses’ .
21
March 2014
A list of unique identifiers (Id) will appear on the next screen with the date submitted (see below)
Click on each Id reference to display a single completed application form. Copy and paste this into a Word
document and send the Word version of the on line form to your reviewers. An example of the Single
Response report can be found in appendix A.
22
March 2014