Obtaining Ethics Approval For Research

Like most education researchers, I have had bad experiences trying to obtain Ethics approval for proposed research projects.  I’ve had a number of applications approved with only minor changes, some with major changes and a couple rejected entirely.  I’ve complained to colleagues about the need to jump through these irritating bureaucratic hoops and received some sympathy.

I became acutely aware of how many other researchers were struggling with the Ethics approval process when I was presenting a paper at ICER in 2008.  During question time, the topic of Ethics approval was raised and I mentioned that we had obtained “blanket” approval to look at exam scripts (and any other exam data, such as results) of any student within our department.  We could use this data to answer any interesting research question that might arise, without having to seek consent from individual students.  I explained that it was considered to be archival data that we (as teachers in the department) already had access to, so no special consent was required.

That got a round of applause.  Not for the research, but for the ethics approval we obtained.  I must admit to being somewhat surprised at the time, but having had numerous discussions about various Ethics Committees since, I am no longer surprised.  Feelings about the Ethics approval process run deep.  And they are not positive feelings.

I continued to complain to my colleagues about why the Ethics committee held up my research for petty, inconsequential reasons.  I lamented the fact that the committee obviously consisted of idiots!

Then I became one of them.  I joined the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee in the middle of 2012.

I still complain to my colleagues.  But now I complain about why researchers can’t follow simple instructions, and why they submit incomplete and inconsistent applications. I lament the fact that so many researchers are idiots!

That is not entirely true.  The statistics produced by the Ethics committee in my institution show approximately a third of applications are approved immediately, a third are approved on condition that minor changes are made, and a third have major issues that require resubmission.  The majority of applications have no major problems.  But there are also some very poorly thought out proposals.

I’ve come to think of the Ethics approval process as being essential.  It acts (in part) as a gatekeeper to make sure researchers are not likely to do something that has serious unanticipated consequences.  No doubt that doesn’t apply to your research – it certainly doesn’t apply to my research, which is always without risk to anyone involved.  But it does apply to some of the research.

I haven’t been on the committee very long, and I have already seen some applications that make me wonder.  For example, one researcher (from Fine Arts) wanted to take photographs of children for a photographic study on identity.  The photographs were to be taken in the researchers own home and required the children to undergo numerous costume changes.  Once taken, the photographs were to become the property of the researcher, to edit/modify as they desired and could be sold at a later date.  Another researcher wanted to interview workers that had been injured on building sites (and would assure the workers of confidentiality), but then intended to show the interview transcripts to the company health and safety officer for editing and approval before they were used in research.

Could anything go wrong in either of these projects?  Would you approve them?

Andrew Luxton-Reilly