An Introduction to Research
Ethics at Western
Ethics Considerations for
Teachers’ Research with
Students in their own Classroom
Grace Kelly
Ethics Officer
Office of Research Ethics
The University of Western Ontario
grace.kelly@uwo.ca x84692
Guiding Principles of
Research Ethics
Policy Framework
Nuremberg Code, 1949 (end of 2nd world
war)
Declaration of Helsinki, 1964 –
cornerstone document of human
research ethics.
Belmont Report, 1979
PHIPA section 44 -disclosure for
research/REB
TCPS
**Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS):
Ethical Conduct for Research
Involving Humans, 1998
-Federal Granting Agencies – SSHRC;
CIHR; NSERC
-Funding is only given to individuals at
institutions that comply with this policy
TCPS
Core Principles
Welfare (assess risks and benefits)
Autonomy and Decision Making
(informed consent and voluntary
participation)
Equal Moral Status of All (inclusive,
everyone treated the same)
How does the TCPS fit into the ORE?
• Based on the Core Principles of the
TCPS the ORE’s main goals are as
follows:
– Protection of human subjects
– Assess risks and benefits
– Assess research design to ensure minimal
risk and meet objectives
– Review subject recruitment to ensure
informed consent
– Protect vulnerable groups of individuals
What Research Goes Where?
Research Ethics at Western
UW O
Office of Research
Ethics
HSREB
Full Board
(high risk)
HSREB
Delegated Board
(lower risk)
Level 1 & Level 2
NMREB
Non-Medical
Higher and
Lower Risk
UWO Faculty, Staff and Students & institutions
UWO is the Board of Record for all London Hospitals
Assessment of Risk
• Greater scrutiny and expertise required for
research that is potentially more invasive
or harmful
• REB is responsible for assessing
magnitude and probability of potential
harms and benefits
When Do You
Need to Apply?
ALL research involving human subjects and
their data must be reviewed by a UWO
REB.
This includes all research conducted on
campus by UWO Faculty, Staff and
Students Research conducted on campus.
Determining if REB Review is
Necessary can be Tricky!
• You wish to conduct a study of the ways in
which space and resources are used in
the Library
– Goal #1: to improve service, see what areas
are used, how could physical space be
improved?
– Goal #2: to interview students and staff to
understand their perceptions of the library,
how important access to materials is to their
work, what their demographics are, etc.
If you’re not sure,
please ask.
Everyone’s research is
different and unique.
• If my research requires REB approval
• Factor time in as part of research
process
– Back and forth process with the ORE
and REB.
• Are you the PI of a study? Using UWO
staff, faculty, students or facilities.
How does the Board Review
my Research Proposal?
(From the Guiding Principles)
What the REB Reviews
• UWO Research Submission (HSREB
or NMREB)
– Objectives, rationale, hypotheses
– Methods, including surveys/instruments
– Participants
– Confidentiality
• Letter of Information & Consent
• Scripts & Advertisements
The REB also Reviews…
• Any ‘item’ used to solicit participation in a
study including:
– Telephone scripts
– Recruitment scripts (for on-the-spot surveys)
– Cover letters
– Email messages
– Follow-up/reminder notices (a la Dillman
Method)
Additionally…The REB Reviews
• All Revisions to already approved
research
• FYIs
• Adverse Events
• Updated Approvals
• Protocol Violations
• Protocol Deviations
Sound Methodology
• Have you provided support, in the form of
references for your current research
question?
• Sample size? Does it work?
• Are human participants really necessary to
answer the question?
• Clear explanation of steps – also to letter of
information
• Do the benefits of the research outweigh the
risks?
Coercion or Inducements
to Participate
• overwhelmed by institutional approval
• fear of loss of health benefits,
employment or educational status
• obligation to participate
• financial gain
Privacy & Confidentiality Issues
• Privacy and confidentiality are
recognized as fundamental human
rights.
• What counts as loss of privacy may
vary from individual to individual and
society to society.
What Constitutes “Identifiers”?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Name, initials
Date of birth or death (partial)
Initials and DOB together
PINs, OHIP numbers, SIN, others
Postal code
Mapping of data
Assessing Identifiability & Risk
• Identifying information: identifies a specific research
participant directly (e.g., name, address, SIN or PIN)
• Identifiable information: could be used to re-identify a
participant through a combination of indirect
• De-identified/coded information: Identifiers are
removed/replaced with a code. Those with access to the
code and the data (or those working directly with those
with the code) have identifiable information.
• Anonymized information: Information is irrevocably
stripped of identifiers, and a code is not kept
• Anonymous information: Information never had
identifiers
If I need REB Review, do I
also always need to obtain
consent?
Waiver of Consent
•
•
•
•
Principle of Beneficence
Sheer size
Proportion of individuals relocated or died
Creation of privacy risk by linking ID to deidentified data
• Risk of psychological, social or other harm
• Difficulty in contacting individuals
• Identifiability
Waiver of Consent
• Not to be confused with other forms of
consent.
– Explicit Consent (eg. Completion of Survey)
– Explicit Verbal Consent (eg. Telephone
Survey)
– Passive Consent (Opt-Out)
– Previous Consent
You still need a Letter of Information or script
for these forms of consent.
Informed Consent
• Subjects must be told exactly what is
going to happen to them
• Subjects must agree to participate
• Letter of Information
• Consent Form
• Assent Form
Informed Consent Guidance
HSREB & NMREB GUIDELINES
http://www.uwo.ca/research/ethics/
•Required Wording
•Letter explains clearly the study methods
•What will be done with the data
•Participant confidentiality/anonymity
•Participant contact information
•Grammar & Spelling
Teachers’ Research with Students
in their own Classroom
The main issue that exists when a
teacher wants to conduct research in
their own classroom is the power
relationship that exists between a
teacher and her/his own students and
even further – the issue of coercion.
However…..
Teachers’ Research with Students
in their own Classroom
• …with proper planning and
consideration a teacher may be able to
use the students within his/her own
class as study participants provided
(s)he is able to avoid both the reality
and appearance of coercion and
coercion itself.
Step 1
• When thinking about your research,
distinguish between activities that
constitute ‘research’ and those that fall
under ‘professional development’.
– Look back at our examples of whether or not
ethics is needed.
• If not publishing and only examining the teacher’s
pedagogical practices then no ethics is needed.
• If publishing best to get ethics approval
Step 2
• Decide how you will avoid both the reality
and perception of coercion
– A potential ‘risk’ in these studies is being
coerced into participating in a study in which
one does not want to participate.
• (eg. Parents or students feel obligated to
participate to avoid offending teacher or so that the
child’s marks are not affected).
Step 3
• Create a plausible plan for avoiding
coercion in your submissions.
– Alternatives forms of data collection should be
made to avoid coercion.
• Anonymous online questionnaire
• Study students in a different classroom
• Use another researcher to do the research for you
(3rd party) – they collect consent and keep results
until final grades submitted, therefore teacher
doesn’t know who participated and can’t base
grades on that
Summary
• Careful consideration must be taken to
avoid any undue influence on the
participant which will undermine the
voluntary character of the consent.
• Where possible, the approach to the
participant inviting to participation in a
research project should be made by
someone not in a position of authority
over the subject.
Summary
• Students must be assured that withdrawal
will not result in any academic penalty.
• Similarly students should not be promised
academic reward.