Skip to main content

Ethical review guidelines

Much of the work we do, through our teaching, research and ‘third mission’ activities, has the potential to raise ethical questions. Whilst researchers who undertake research in fields which routinely consider ethical questions and teachers who teach in ethically sensitive subject domains are largely aware of these issues and their responsibilities in terms of reporting and approvals as a part of “business as usual”, other areas of work can be equally ethically challenging; for example (and in some cases), public engagement and impact work with external stakeholders, writing for the media, consultancies, and work done by our professional services departments. 

This page is designed to help individual members of the College to consider and reflect upon the potential ethical components of their work and decide if dedicated ethical review is required - in many cases ethical issues which are not immediately apparent may be brought into focus following a period of reflection about these questions. 

It should be noted that the Colleges ethical review processes were established to provide an avenue for ethical review for all activity undertaken by the College and not just to review the ethical components of individual research projects. In addition, pastoral work with students, visitors to the College (especially visitors to the College who are below the age of 18) and vulnerable staff members can also raise significant ethical questions. The College has a safeguarding policy and procedure which provides specific information and ethical guidance in these situations.

Context

Ethical requirements arise from an evolving understanding of the rights and duties of human beings. Ethics are broader than law, though the law can both reflect and clarify ethical duties. Our funders expect us to behave in an ethical way in all our duties, and to exercise ethical principles of honesty, rigour, transparency, openness, care and respect in relation to all our activities (including teaching, research and ‘third mission’ activities). 

The spectrum of inappropriate ethical behaviour is wide, ranging from minor misdemeanours which may happen occasionally and inadvertently to deliberate acts.  Inappropriate ethical behaviours tend to arise from a failure to consider and observe the duty of care implicit in the ethical principles listed above – i.e. inappropriate ethical behaviour arises from a deliberate, careless or unintentional lack of consideration, honesty, rigour, transparency, care or respect.

The key principle underpinning the ethical standards which apply to academic activities is the avoidance of harm. This principle spans a broad range of considerations, including:

  • the welfare and interests of human participants (whether participating actively or through observation)
  • the welfare and interests of those carrying out the activity
  • animals
  • cultural heritage
  • the natural environment
  • the reputation of the individual, the department, the College and academia as a whole
  • the welfare and interests of the wider community.

The following list describes and contextualises the most common ethical issues identified within the College. If you answer yes (or cannot answer) any of the questions below, you should obtain ethical review by the College for the activity, as described in the College's responsibilities and procedures for ethical review document. 

Ethical review is not necessary if the questions below are not really relevant to your activity. Members of the College can seek advice about anything they perceive to be a potential ethical issue - and please note that this list is not comprehensive. 

Informal advice can be sought at any time from the Deputy Director of Research (Strategy) or from your School Ethics Lead(s). 

Ethical review is based on the principles of competence, facilitation, independence, and openness and can be obtained before or during a project as appropriate (in some instances both will be necessary). 

When considering the questions below, if may be helpful to consider them from different perspectives, for example:  

  • could you happily justify your answer to your manager or a colleague or friend? 
  • what would your actions look like if publicised in the media? 
  • what could go wrong as a result of your decision for you, your colleagues (staff and students), other stakeholders or the wider College? 
  • is it your decision to make?

1) intervention or interaction with human participants 

  • Please note, additional guidance for this is given at the bottom of this page. 
  • Will you be working with any people outside the academy? 
    • Have you fully informed everyone what you are doing and why? 
    • Will you be collecting any information or data from or after the event? (if so, do you need to obtain informed consent?) 
    • Can you identify in advance who everyone in your audience will be? 
    • Will there be vulnerable people present? 
    • Are you working online? (how do you know who your correspondents are?)
    • Is there any risk the members of the College or your participants will be harmed in any way by this activity? (NB in this context harm includes unreasonable distress).
  • Will you be working with international partners? 
    • Do they operate within a different legal or ethical framework? 
    • Will members of the College be working remotely? 
      • How can you be sure they will be safe? 
  • Will you be working with archival material which has not been published?
    • Material in some archives is not in the public domain and as such could constitute sensitive personal data and must be handled with appropriate care.
    • Due consideration must also be given to the descendants of an individual you are researching – they should not be caused distress by your work.
  •  Will your activities involve deception, or working with sources which are not attributable? 

2) the collection and/or study of data derived from human participants

  • Are you working with human tissue? 
    • If yes, then you need to seek ethical permission from the relevant regulatory body
  • Are you working with material which has been derived from human tissue? 
    • As an example, if you are working with a moiety taken directly from cells taken from an individual then this constitutes human tissue and needs regulatory approval; If, however, you are working with extracts from daughter cells from the same sample then you do not need ethical approval from the regulatory body but you would require it from the College. In these cases, the ethical issues are closely related to the health and safety issues and it would be appropriate (on occasions) for the health and safety assessor to be the individual seeking ethical review (or for ethical review to be delegated to the health and safety assessor in routine cases).
  • Are you working with genomic data? Can this be traced back to the individual? 
    • The genomics field have well established practices to ensure participant confidentiality; however, your approach should still be reviewed by the College periodically to ensure we are still working to the expected standards. You should also be ware of your obligations under the Nagoya Protocol.
  • Will you (or could you be) be working with/encountering human remains? (e.g. in an archaeological dig) 

3) a potential impact on animals or the environment

  • Whilst point one covers the potential areas of harm for an individual from our work, analogous considerations should be made about the welfare of any animals involved in, or impacted by, the work.
  • There are legal frameworks which define what can be done when research may be predicted to have an impact on the environment; ethical review should be obtained for this work to allow the College to make sure the member of the College has received all the necessary advice.
    • If it is unclear whether or not the work you are doing will have an impact on the environment then you should still seek ethical review.

4) a potential risk of significant reputational damage to the College

  • This is a case where the ethical review process is orientated towards the protection of the individual undertaking the research. 

5) requiring an individual to step outside accepted regulatory or legal norms

  • In this case, the College would ask the individual concerned to submit the work for ethical review so that the College is fully informed about the work and can support the member of the College should an external investigation be instigated. 

It might also be helpful to consider the following generic ethical guidelines, taken and edited from the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication website (accessed 08/07/16 but no longer available).

Guidelines based on consequences: weighing benefits and harms

  • Is the 'good' brought about by your action outweighed by the potential harm that might be done to anyone? 
  • Is any of the harm brought about by anyone other than yourself? 
  • Will anyone be harmed who could be said to be defenceless? 
  • To what degree is your choice of alternatives based on your own or your organisation’s best interests?
  • Which of the alternatives will generate the greatest benefit (or the least amount of harm) for the greatest number of people? 
  • if by privileging the majority is any injustice has been done to the minority? 
  • does this alternative recognise the interrelationships of the parties involved?
  • does it help anyone to recognise legitimate needs?

Guidelines based on the action itself

  • Are you willing to make your decision a rule or policy that you and others in your situation can follow in similar situations in the future? 
  • Does your decision show a basic respect for the integrity and dignity of those affected by your actions? 
  • Have you or will you be using any person(s) as a means to an end without consideration for his/her basic right to respect?
  • Is the intent of this action free from vested interested interest or ulterior motive? 
  • Does this action promote the development of character within myself, my organization/ profession, and my community?

March 2024 (date of next review March 2026)