![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/ethics2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The word \u201cethics\u201d strikes fear into the hearts of most early career researchers.<\/p>\n
Some of the reasons are beyond our control, but there\u2019s actually a lot we can do to make our own experiences of the ethics approval process less painful.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m writing this from two perspectives: as an early career researcher (I finished my PhD in 2019), and as a committee member (I\u2019ve sat on an ethics advisory group since the start of my PhD in 2014).<\/p>\n
The job of ethics committees is to identify the possible risks in a project, and then assess whether the research team:<\/p>\n
To do this, ethics committees need information. If you want your ethics application to get through the process as quickly as possible, you need to give the committee enough detail so that they understand your project and how you are managing any risks.<\/p>\n
Getting your application as right as possible the first time makes the whole process go more quickly. If you don\u2019t provide enough information, the committee will come back with questions. You may need to resubmit your application to the next meeting, which could be a month or two away.<\/p>\n
Spending more time on your application for the first meeting can save you months later on!<\/span><\/p>\n Here are the main questions ethics committees will ask themselves when they assess your project:<\/p>\n The only way for the ethics committee to assess this is from the information you put into your application. Carefully think through your project and ask yourself those questions. And then\u00a0put all of the answers into your application.<\/strong><\/p>\n I am planning a project at the moment that involves interviewing health care providers about vulnerable people that they work with.<\/p>\n What are the risks to me?\u00a0<\/strong>There aren\u2019t any physical safety risks \u2013 I\u2019ll be sitting in my office on the phone.<\/p>\n What about psychological risks?<\/strong>\u00a0Could I be distressed by the content of the interviews? It\u2019s possible. Some of the people I\u2019ll interview are working with clients who have experienced child abuse, and some of their stories about their work might be upsetting.<\/p>\n What am I doing about these risks?<\/strong>\u00a0I\u2019m conducting interviews on the phone, rather than travelling to other people\u2019s workplaces or homes. I won\u2019t ask specifically about any distressing topics (minimising the risk), although they might come up anyway. If I get upset about the content of the interviews, I will probably be okay: I\u2019ve worked in this area for many years, and I have strategies for dealing with it when my work upsets me (taking a break, talking to a colleague on the same project later on to help me process my feelings about it).<\/p>\n All of this goes into my application! I don\u2019t write \u201cI will conduct interviews with providers\u201d and then say there are no risks, or that I have managed the risks. I give the committee all the details about each of the foreseeable risks I\u2019ve identified, and exactly what I\u2019m doing about them.<\/p>\n What about the risks to my participants?<\/strong>\u00a0They could also find the content of the interviews upsetting. Again, my interview tool doesn\u2019t ask directly about any distressing topics (minimising the risk), but it may come up. What\u2019s my plan if my participants get upset? I\u2019ll offer to change the topic, take a break, or stop the interview entirely. I mention this risk in the consent form, and the form will tell participants that they will have these options if they feel distressed. I will repeat this to them verbally at the start of the interview, and remind them that they don\u2019t need to discuss anything with me that they don\u2019t want to. Again, all these details go into my application.<\/p>\n What about risks to other people?<\/strong>\u00a0Some health care providers might tell me private or sensitive information about their clients, by giving me specific examples instead of talking in general terms. To avoid this, I will ask them at the start of the interview not to talk about specific individuals, but to rather keep their answers general. If a participant does start to talk about an individual, I\u2019ll remind them that this isn\u2019t appropriate. I\u2019ll also erase that part of the recording later on, so that those information isn\u2019t transcribed. Again, all these details go into my application so that the ethics committee can see that I\u2019m aware of the risk and I have a plan to manage it if it occurs.<\/p>\n As a committee member, I see applications get into trouble for a few common reasons.<\/p>\n The first is a\u00a0lack of information<\/strong>, giving a very brief description of what will be done, without enough detail for the committee to understand the risks and what is being done about them.<\/p>\n The second is\u00a0inconsistency<\/strong>, when a researcher says one thing on their application form, and something else in their consent form. Check carefully for consistency across all your documents before you submit.<\/p>\n A third is when a researcher proposes to do something that directly\u00a0goes against the national ethical standards for research<\/strong>\u00a0(e.g. collecting data without consent when they could get consent, or storing sensitive data in an insecure manner). Do not do this.<\/p>\n Good luck!<\/p>\n\n
Here\u2019s an example:<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Some general tips:<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n