18th February 2015
Procedure for the Ethical Review of Research Projects
SOAS, University of London
1. Aim and Scope of the Procedure
SOAS anticipates the highest ethical standards of its researchers. The School’s
Research Ethics Policy, which is aligned with The Concordat to Support Research
Integrity, sets out the commitments expected of SOAS and its researchers to
maintain a research environment in which best research practice is developed and a
culture of research integrity nurtured.
Ethical review of SOAS research projects constitutes one of the mechanisms by
which SOAS and its researchers meet this commitment to research integrity. An
ethical review is an approval process to ensure that SOAS research projects, whether
funded or not, meet the requirements of the Research Ethics Policy and associated
guidance such as the School’s document on Using Personal Data in Research: A Code
of Practice for Staff and Students. The review ensures that rigorous ethical
consideration has been undertaken by the researcher and will identify any potential
ethical problems before the research project starts. Research organisations in
receipt of research grants from the Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE) are required to provide assurance of their compliance with the Concordat to
Support Research Integrity through routine audit.
Ethical review is a multi-stage, and potentially iterative, process. It is not a substitute
for the proper consideration of ethical issues by the researcher. When drafting a
research proposal, ethical considerations should be taken into account from the
outset, using the SOAS Research Ethics Policy and other SOAS documents, as well as
any ethical guidance and codes of practice which are specific to the researcher’s
discipline. Research funders will often require that ethical issues, as well as steps to
mitigate risks, are addressed explicitly on grant applications. Where necessary,
researchers should initially seek advice on ethical concerns from their Head of
Department or their Research Tutor as appropriate.
Please note that research which is not captured by this procedure must still meet the
requirements of SOAS Research Ethics Policy.
2. Status
This procedure was approved by the Research & Enterprise Committee on
18/02/2015. It supersedes its previous version, dated 30 April 2009, and will be
updated as necessary to take account of developments in ethical standards across
the Higher Education sector.
1
18th February 2015
3. Who Needs Ethical Review?
Any SOAS researcher might need ethical review:
It “applies equally to SOAS staff and SOAS students conducting primary
research* at any level, and to any other person, regardless of their
status, engaged in research under the auspices of SOAS, or on behalf of,
or in association with, SOAS (for example, independent contractors,
consultants, visiting members of staff, staff from other institutions,
emeritus staff, and staff on honorary appointments)” (SOAS Ethics Policy
(2015), pp. 1-2).
4. When Is Ethical Review Required?
Ethical review is required:


After a research proposal has been drafted and ethical consideration has
taken place, but
Before the start of the research project
Researchers must complete an ethical review application form and submit it to the
appropriate reviewer together with a copy of the research proposal. If the reviewer
recommends changes, it is the applicant’s responsibility to make these changes and
resubmit a revised ethical review application form. Ethical approval is not granted
until the changes recommended by the review process have been incorporated, and
a revised application has been approved.
The research phase of the project must not start until ethical approval has been
confirmed.
4a. You are staff researcher
You will need to undertake an ethical review if you plan to carry out primary
research1; or if you were given ethical clearance previously but your research
methodology has substantially changed; or if you are conducting longitudinal
research that may require separate ethical reviews at different stages of the project.
You will also need to comply with any funder’s requirements.
4b. You are a student
1
Research is considered to be ‘primary’ unless it deals only with materials that
are clearly in the public domain already. In case of any doubt, researchers
should err on the side of caution and complete a review.
2
18th February 2015
You will need ethical review if:



You are a research student undergoing MPhil upgrade or whose research
plans have changed materially since then.
You are an undergraduate or taught postgraduate student and plan to do
primary research
In any other circumstances where you or your tutor/supervisor believes that
ethical clearance would be necessary or beneficial, given the issues involved:
for example, if you were given ethical clearance previously but your research
methodology has substantially changed; or if you are conducting longitudinal
research that may require separate ethical reviews at different stages of the
project.
3
18th February 2015
5. What do you need to do?
A) Procedure for Staff Researcher
You are planning for…
Externally-funded Projects
Research Project (excluding Other circumstances
externally funded projects)
1) Form to complete
First-stage Ethical Review, also First-stage Ethical Review
First-stage Ethical Review
annexed to the Institutional
Approval Form given by the
Research Office as you apply for
external funding
Send your form to
The Research Office
Your Faculty Office
The Research Office
Reviewer
Your Funding Officer
Your Faculty Officer
Your Associate Dean for Research
Delay for response
1 week
1 week
1 week
2) If clearance is not granted, Second-stage Ethical Review
Second-stage Ethical Review
Second-stage Ethical Review
form to complete
Send your form to
Your Associate Dean for Research Your Associate Dean for Research Your Associate Dean for Research
Reviewer
Associate Dean for Research and Associate Dean for Research and Associate Dean for Research and
possibly the Research Ethics possibly the Research Ethics possibly the Research Ethics
Panel depending on complexity. If Panel depending on complexity. If Panel depending on complexity. If
necessary, the ADR may consult necessary, the ADR may consult necessary, the ADR may consult
with
any
other academic with
any
other academic with
any
other academic
colleagues inside or outside SOAS colleagues inside or outside SOAS colleagues inside or outside SOAS
whose views are considered by whose views are considered by whose views are considered by
the ADR to be relevant.
the ADR to be relevant.
the ADR to be relevant.
Delay for response
2 weeks; longer if the Research 2 weeks; longer if the Research 2 weeks; longer if the Research
Ethics Panel needs to grant the Ethics Panel needs to grant the Ethics Panel needs to grant the
approval
approval
approval
4
18th February 2015
Approval form to be sent to
ADR and Research Office
ADR and Research Office
ADR and Research Office
Records of the outcome of the ethical review will be retained by the Research Office in the case of externally funded grant proposals and
applications made in other circumstances. The Faculty Office will keep a record for all other types of leave. Researchers should ensure that
they retain their own copy of ethical approvals as part of their project’s key documentation.
B) Procedure for Research Student
You are…
1) Form to complete
About to upgrade
Research Ethics Checklist (within MPhil upgrade form: https://www.soas.ac.uk/doctoralschool/forms/)
Send your form to
Research Tutor with upgrade form
Reviewer
Research Tutor
Delay for response
1 month
2) If clearance is not granted, Second-stage Ethical Review
form to complete
Send your form to
Research Tutor. Those that require further referral should be sent to the ADR by the Research Tutor.
Reviewer
Research Tutor then Associate Dean for Research if required. If the Associate Dean refers the application,
possibly also the Research Ethics Panel depending on complexity. If necessary, the ADR may consult with
any other academic colleagues inside or outside SOAS whose views are considered by the ADR to be
relevant.
Delay for response
2 weeks; longer if the Research Ethics Panel needs to grant the approval
The outcome of this process for Staff and Research Students is:
 Ethical clearance is granted
5
18th February 2015



Ethical clearance is not granted and the research proposal is rejected on ethical grounds. This would normally occur only where the
research is fundamentally incompatible with the School’s Research Ethics Policy or the research otherwise raises ethical concerns which
are impossible to resolve.
Ethical clearance is not granted and the proposal is referred back to the researcher: in this case, make the researcher should make the
recommended changes and re-submit following the procedure from 2).
Provisional ethical clearance is granted, subject to a final ethical review by the Research Ethics Panel once external research funding
has been awarded. The ESRC recognises that, as most grant applications are not successful, it is wasteful for institutions to submit
research proposals to ethical review prior to the award.
Decisions of the Associate Dean of Research, or the Research Ethics Panel should the Associate Dean refer the application, are final and are not
subject to appeal.
Records of the outcome of the ethical review for research students will be retained by the Doctoral School Registry. Research students should
ensure that they retain their own copy of ethical approvals as part of their project’s key documentation. Records of the outcome of the ethical
review for research staff will be retained by the Faculty and the Research Office. Research staff should ensure that they retain their own copy
of ethical approvals as part of their project’s key documentation.
Procedure for taught Students
You are…
An undergraduate conducting primary research A PGT conducting primary research
1) Form to complete with Complete the Taught Student Ethical Review Complete the Taught Student Ethical Review form
tutor/supervisor’s guidance
form
Send your form to
Course convenor
Course convenor or tutor as advised by the
Department
Reviewer
Course convenor
Course convenor or tutor as advised by the
Department
Delay for response
3 weeks after the departmental deadline
3 weeks after the departmental deadline
6
18th February 2015
2) If clearance is not granted,
One resubmission permitted
One resubmission permitted
Research ethics applications will be retained until 6 years after the end date of the externally funded research project (as per the retention
schedule2) or if longer as per the funder’s terms and conditions. Other types of research ethics applications will be held on record until
informed that the research has ended.
6. What if the Research Involves Another Institution?
Where the proposed research involves SOAS staff collaborating with staff in other institutions, it may be more appropriate for the research
proposal to be evaluated under the ethical review procedures of one of the other partner institutions. In such cases, SOAS would accept the
outcome of the other institution’s review, rather than conducting its own ethical review. The ESRC recognises that in collaborative projects, it
is undesirable for ethical review to be duplicated.
Researchers should indicate on the First-stage Ethical Review form whether a proposal has been or is to be evaluated according to another
institution’s ethical review procedures. If the proposed partner institution is not a UK Higher Education institution, the Associate Dean for
Research must verify that the ethical approval procedure used is consistent with SOAS’s ethical review procedure. Final SOAS approval of the
research project will not be granted until the staff member has demonstrated that ethical clearance has been gained from the partner
institution.
2
https://www.soas.ac.uk/infocomp/recordsmanagement/retention/
7
18th February 2015
7. What Is the Role of the Research Ethics Panel?
SOAS maintains a Research Ethics Panel to:
(a) consider ethical matters relating to externally and internally funded research,
and all research involving human participants.
(b) provide advice to academics and students on ethical matters relating to
research in order to ensure that such work complies with recognised ethical
standards, that the public, staff and students are protected from harm, and
that the reputation of the School is safeguarded.
(c) consider research proposals, publications and other outputs which are
referred to the Panel and to assess the ethical issues raised by projects
submitted to it for consideration, and to grant or withhold approval.
(d) consider requests to embargo hard and soft copies of PhD theses.
(e) review and revise the Ethics policy and Research governance policy (including
procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct) as necessary
with a remit to conduct the final ethical review of research proposals by its
Staff and Research Students which are referred to it by an Associate Dean for
Research. In this respect, the panel performs the role assigned to a research
ethics committee in the ESRC’s Research Ethics Framework.
The panel is chaired by the Pro-Director Research & Enterprise. The Head of the
Doctoral School, the Associate Deans for Research, and the Research Manager are
members ex officio; one additional senior member of academic staff is nominated by
each faculty; an external academic member from outside SOAS is appointed by the
Pro-Director. The panel meets once a term, but may also choose to conduct its
business ‘virtually’. Decisions on applications will be made by majority voting. It may
seek advice from appropriate academic colleagues inside and outside SOAS.
Decisions of the Research Ethics Panel are final and are not subjected to appeal. The
Research Ethics Panel does not consider appeals on behalf of Undergraduate or PostGraduate taught students.
Contacts
For Staff and PGRs:
Associate Dean for Research, Arts & Humanities
Associate Dean for Research, Languages & Cultures
Associate Dean for Research, Law & Social Sciences
Research Office
For Taught Students
Couse convenor or Departmental Research Coordinator
8
18th February 2015
f:\research\research integrity\final documents\2. procedure for the ethical review of
research projects - 18_02_2015.docx
9