presentation draft

4

 Research Misconduct Policy

 Equality and Diversity Policy

 Race Equality Policy

 Staff Complaints and Public Interest Disclosure Procedures

 Academic Policy and Regulations

 Environmental Policy Statement

 Equal Opportunities

 Equal Opportunities Statement

 Health and Safety Statement

The University is in the course of producing further legal guidelines for

researchers and consultants, especially for those who may become aware of

illegal activities during the course of their work. Until these legal guidelines

are available, if you think your research or consultancy may raise legal issues

you should refer to the University Secretary.

2. General Ethical Concerns

Ethics is a complex subject, but in professional contexts its four

central concerns are:

 to treat people fairly

 to respect the autonomy of individuals

 to act with integrity

 to seek the best results - by avoiding or minimising harm and by using resources as beneficially as possible

Mnemonic: f a i r

Sometimes more than one of these ethical concerns may be relevant to

a situation. Dilemmas occur when they conflict and when this

happens their different demands have to be weighed against each

other. Only then can we decide whether to aim for a compromise

between them or to give priority to one over the others. In some

situations, for instance, it may be impossible to achieve beneficial

outcomes without causing some harm.

For example, research into pain management may not be able

to achieve its objectives without first causing pain which can

then be controlled by experimental means. Causing such harm

may be ethically justified, but only if certain conditions are

met, such as individuals volunteering to undergo the pain and

making an informed choice not only to enter the project but

also to continue with it. Moreover, the beneficial outcomes of

the research must be expected to be considerable.

5

There are, then, situations in which we may be justified in not

acceding totally to the demands of all the ethical concerns, or in not

regarding the demand of any one of them as absolute. But we can only

decide to which concern to give priority, or how to balance the

demands of the concerns, after considering what they each require in

particular circumstances. In such situations there may be no

objectively ‘correct’ decision, only the one we decide is ethically

appropriate and defensible. In this way staff and students are asked to

exercise their discretion in the spirit of these guidelines and to be

accountable for the way they exercise that discretion.

While all research and consultancy must be considered in relation to

the four concerns, especial care must be given when research and

consultancy may involve:

- deception - intrusive interventions - working with vulnerable groups - sensitive topics - groups whose members can only be accessed through a gatekeeper - access to records of personal or confidential information

The following paragraphs indicate how the four concerns relate to research

and consultancy.

2.1 Treat everyone fairly

The basic principle of fairness can be summed up as:

- treat alike people who are alike in relevant respects - treat differently people who are different in relevant respects.

We treat people fairly by treating them alike unless there is a sound

reason for treating them differently. There is a sound reason for

treating people differently only when there is a difference between

them or their situations which is relevant to the way we might treat

them. Differences which are irrelevant to the way they might be

treated do not justify treating them differently.

For example, if a research project affects people of different

cultural traditions their various sensitivities should be given

equal consideration by the researchers. Greater sensitivity

should not be shown to those whose cultural background

happens to be the same as that of the researchers, since the

fact that some participants share their background is

irrelevant to the appropriate treatment of participants by

researchers.

6

Generally speaking, we treat people fairly if we:

 provide everyone with the same consideration and respect

 do not allow any personal views or sympathies we may have to affect the quality of our treatment of each individual

 treat individuals differently from each other only when there are differences between them which are relevant to our

treatment of them

 when there are relevant differences between individuals, treat

them in ways which are appropriate to those differences

2.1.1 To be fair we should meet the needs of everyone involved in or affected by a project

Researchers and consultants should ensure that the needs of everyone

who is involved in, or may be affected by, their work are met as far as

possible.

“Needs” include sufficient information, guidance, equipment, support

and other resources to:

 participate fully in the project

 deal with the effects of the project. These effects may occur while the project is in operation, after it has been completed,

and after the dissemination of its findings.

Communities as well as individuals may be affected by projects and so

have needs arising from their execution and consequences.

2.1.2 To be fair we should protect the interests of everyone affected

Researchers and consultants should protect the interests of everyone

affected by their work. It is easy to regard the interests of people

peripheral to a project – eg the relatives and friends of participants - as

of little concern. If people could be affected - however minimally – by

your work you should take steps to protect their interests.

Some questions to consider:

Do all researchers have equal access to resources necessary to carry out the

research?

Do research subjects and people affected by the research have equal access

to whatever support is provided to help them deal with its effects?

Do arrangements ensure that students have equal access to research

supervisors with appropriate specialisms?

Do arrangements ensure research supervisors are available for at least an

agreed minimum for all students?

7

Do supervisors take care not to incorrectly pass on legal/ethical

responsibilities to their research students?

2.2 Respect the autonomy of all individuals

We respect autonomy when we:

 equip individuals – participants, subjects, researchers and clients - to make informed decisions about what they do and how they wish

to be treated

 provide individuals with opportunities for making informed decisions

 do not prevent individuals from acting in accord with their informed decisions.

Respecting autonomy does not mean, however, allowing everyone to

do whatever they wish, for two main reasons:

 sometimes individuals do not have sufficient understanding to make informed choices

 sometimes if an individual were to carry out his/her wishes it would infringe the autonomy of others. It might also raise other

ethical issues.

It is the responsibility of researchers and consultants to respect the autonomy

of everyone involved in a project, including clients, researchers, subjects and

those who may not be actively involved in the project but about whom data is

used.

Respecting autonomy normally requires:

obtaining informed consent

avoiding practices and methodologies which involve:

- deceit - dishonesty - invasion of privacy - breaking confidentiality - using data for purposes not clearly explained to participants.

If researchers or consultants wish to deviate from these norms, the onus is on

them to justify doing so and to specify what safeguards they will put in place

to prevent harm to people’s interests..

8

2.2.1 Informed consent

The Data Protection Act is based on the idea that “informed consent” is

“Any freely given, specific and informed indication of wishes by

which the data subject signifies his/her agreement to personal data

relating to him/her being processed.” This general definition is

appropriate when taking account of the following ethical points:

a) Research should be based on the freely given informed consent

of those under study.

b) It is the responsibility of researchers and consultants to explain as fully

as possible, and in terms meaningful to those being asked to be

participants:

i. the aims and the nature of the project ii. who is undertaking it

iii. who is funding it iv. its likely duration v. the possible consequences of it

vi. all likely disclosures of personal data vii. how the results are to be disseminated.

viii. If participants are unlikely to receive any benefits as a result of the project this should be made clear to them

ix. Procedures by which participants may make complaints about the conduct and nature of the work should also be made clear

x. It should be made clear how far participants will be afforded anonymity and confidentiality.

c) If there is a likelihood of data being shared with or divulged to

researchers or other people involved in the project, this must be

explained and the reasons for it given. The potential uses of the data

should also be discussed with the participants and their agreement to

such uses obtained.

d) While a researcher or consultant should take every practicable measure

to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, s/he should

also take care not to give unrealistic assurances or guarantees of

confidentiality. Participants with easily identifiable characteristics or

positions within an organisation should be reminded that it may be

difficult to disguise their identity without distorting the data.

e) Participants should be given the option of rejecting the use of data-

gathering devices which make sound and vision recordings.

f) Where participants are young children or other vulnerable groups such

as older, disabled or sick people or people with learning difficulties,

whose understanding is impaired in some way so that they are unable

to give full informed consent, it may be necessary to use a proxy in

order to gather data. In this case great care must be taken not to intrude

9

upon the privacy of the vulnerable participants. Researchers and

consultants should discuss the issue with relevant professionals,

parents/guardians, relatives, partners or significant others as

appropriate. They should attempt to obtain the informed consent of

children and their parents and, in relation to school children, of those in

loco parentis.

g) The power imbalance between researcher and researched, consultant

and others, should be addressed.

i. Care should be taken to ensure that the latter are not pressured or coerced into participation

ii. Participants should be made aware that they have a right to refuse participation whenever and for whatever

reason and should not be given the impression that they

are required to participate.

iii. It should be recognised that a project may involve a lengthy data-gathering period and that it may be

necessary to regard consent not as obtained once and for

all, but subject to renegotiations over time

2.2.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity

a) The anonymity and privacy of research participants should be respected and personal information relating to participants should be

kept confidential and secure. Researchers and consultants must

comply with the provision of the Data Protection Act and should

consider whether it is proper or appropriate even to record certain

kinds of sensitive information.

b) Please note that in certain circumstances researchers may have a legal obligation to break confidentiality.

If there is a possibility that a proposed project may reveal knowledge

of illegalities you should consult the University’s Data Protection

Officer or the Secretary of the University before submitting the

proposal for ethical approval to your FRPC or R&SC..

c) Researchers and consultants should anticipate any likely threats to the confidentiality and anonymity of data and should normally keep

confidential the identities and research records of participants, whether

or not an explicit pledge of confidentiality has been given.

d) Where possible researchers and consultants should anonymise personal data such that it would not be possible for the University, its staff,

students or researchers, to identify an individual from that data and any

other data held or likely to be obtained.

e) Studies which involve data about non-volunteers based upon observation or records (whether or nor explicitly confidential) must

respect the privacy and well-being of the subjects

10

2.2.3 Covert Methods in Research and Consultancy

With the exception of medical research, or other research for which

there is a substantial public interest, it is difficult to see whether any

research or consultancy involving covert methods could be legal under

the Data Protection Act. The Act specifies that for personal data

obtained on the data subject to be fair, it is necessary to take account of

whether any person from whom the data is obtained has been misled or

deceived as to the purpose of the processing.

a) It is recognised that there is a continuum of covert-overt methods and

therefore difficulty in defining a project as entirely covert or overt.

Researchers and consultants should, however, endeavour to avoid the

use of deception since this violates the principle of informed consent

and may invade the privacy of those under study, particularly in non-

public places. If it seems to researchers and consultants that the

employment of covert methods is the only means to obtain data

required, they should consult the University’s Data Protection Officer.

Covert research in non-public places or experimental manipulation of

research participants without their knowledge should be a last resort

when it is impossible to use other methods to obtain the required data.

In such cases it is particularly important to safeguard the anonymity of

participants and to consult the University’s Data Protection Officer.

b) In all cases in which it is considered necessary to use covert methods

researchers and consultants should consider whether the likely benefits

of the project justify the ethical unacceptability of doing so. One

justification might be that the research is in the substantial public

interest.

Some questions to consider:

Do the objectives or methodology of a research project respect the

autonomy of human subjects, researchers and respondents?

Do the objectives or methodology of a research project fail to respect the

autonomy of others because they involve deceit, dishonesty, invasion of

privacy or breaking confidentiality?

Are all likely participants - subjects and researchers - fully informed of the

nature of the research before deciding whether to participate or to allow

information about themselves to be used?

Is the situation in which people are invited to take part in research such that

they will not feel pressured or coerced to do so?

Will the consent of participants be gained before research proceeds?

Is written consent to take part in research ethically appropriate?

11

If it is not intended to obtain written consent, are there reasons which

justify not obtaining it?

Are appropriate arrangements made for obtaining consent of vulnerable

adults and children or their representatives when relevant?

You may wish to refer to the guidance for researchers produced by the

National Children’s Bureau which can be found in the “research” section

of the NCB website: www.ncb.org.uk

Can participants withdraw from the project at any time without feeling

they might be penalised?

Are procedures for complaint easily accessible and made clear to

participants?

Are research data to be used in ways not clearly stated to researchers and

subjects? (‘Subjects’ may include people who are not actively involved in

the research but about whom data is used)

Do supervisors enable students to choose their topics for research as far as

possible?

These questions on research are not only concerned with respecting

autonomy but with requirements of the Data Protection Act, which should

be referred to.the appropriate member of staff in LCSS

2.3 Carry out research and consultancy with integrity

We have integrity when our actions are integrated with our stated

values and objectives such that there is no discrepancy between them

– ie when we are honest, and try to do what we say we will do.

Research and consultancies are carried out with integrity when

researchers and consultants genuinely strive to achieve the objectives

of sound research by ensuring valid methodology, availability of all

necessary resources, objective research processes and well-grounded

findings. Research which lacks integrity is ethically unacceptable as it

not only misrepresents what it claims to be but also mis-uses

resources

The objectivity and impartiality of research can be threatened if it is in

any way dependent on a sponsor, institution or participants who have

particular interests or values. Researchers should therefore ensure that

the objectives of all parties are clearly articulated at the outset, that

any potential conflicts of interest are made clear and that the project is

set up in such a way that it is independent of any special interests. It

will then avoid being invalidated by “hidden agendas”. Consultants

should make clear to participants who is paying for the project and the

objectives of all parties involved.

12

2.3.1 Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest is a conflict between the private interests and the official

responsibilities of a person in a position of trust. The initial responsibility for

managing a conflict of interest rests with the researcher who is experiencing

the conflict. It is important that any conflicts of interest, whether potential or

valid, are identified, declared, resolved, and in some cases reported to satisfy

internal and external requirements. These may include legal, financial, moral,

ethical, personal or academic issues and should be disclosed in a timely

manner that does not undermine the time required to consider it appropriately.

The University expects all staff and students engaged in research to

acknowledge and report conflicts of interest as soon as they are suspected or

realised.

Some questions to consider:

Will up-to-date resources be available during the course of this research or

consultancy?

Will the methodology achieve its stated objectives?

Is the impartiality of the project at risk of being compromised by

dependence on a sponsor or an institution with particular interests?

Is it clear that the research is not a “cover” for commercial activity?

Are the contacts gained through the project likely to be used at a later date

for commercial activity?

Do staff, researchers and participants get promised facilities and support to

carry out the project and cope with its impact, not merely during its

execution, but after its completion?

2.4 Seek the best results - (1) minimise harm

Whether students or staff, we are ethically obliged to anticipate as far

as possible any harm which research and consultancy activities could

cause and should then take every reasonable step to ensure they do not

do so. If there are unavoidable risks to participants these should be

clearly stated in advance.

What counts as harm may be a matter of debate, but most frequently it

is seen as whatever damages the interests of individuals – students,

staff, subjects, researchers etc, and the interests of universities,

professions and communities in which projects takes place.

2.4.1 Avoid harm

13

a) A primary ethical responsibility of researchers and consultants is to avoid causing harm. This consideration should be an over-riding factor

at all stages in a project, such as the formulation of objectives, design

and development of methodology, conduct of research, and

presentation, dissemination and use of findings.

b) Harmful effects may occur some time after cessation of the project and publication of results. The possible consequences of every stage should

be assessed and every measure taken to ensure safety and prevent

adverse effects on researchers, clients, subjects, individuals about

whom data is used, others in the community in which the work occurs

and those who could be affected by its results.

c) Harm to individuals includes physical harm, psychological harm - such as unreasonable stress - invasion of their privacy, damage to their self-

esteem, damage to the social fabric of their community and

commercial harm of those involved in business or entrepreneurial

activity.

d) Distress can be caused to research subjects when physiological or psychological data is collected about them which could indicate an

aberration from the norm. If this is possible it is ethically important to

make individuals aware of this and give them an opportunity to

withdraw from the activity in question.

e) Harm may also include damage to the reputation of the research discipline and University and damage to the interests of future research

and consultancy. Such damage can be caused by a project which is ill-

conceived, carelessly executed or irresponsibly used.

f) If the objectives of a project cannot be achieved without risk of harm researchers and consultants should consider abandoning the project.

They should only apply for approval to continue if they can provide an

overwhelming justification for doing so. Should approval be granted,

they must make clear to all who may be involved in or affected by the

project that the risk exists, and must ensure every effort is made to

reduce it. This may include providing counselling, if subjects may

become distressed by the project, and providing information about

services or help which people affected by the project may seek if they

have unmet needs or expectations.

g) If a project becomes more stressful than anticipated, researchers and consultants should stop the process and consult colleagues.

h) There are helpful suggestions for identifying risk in the Economic and Social Science Research Council’s (ESRC) Research Ethics

Framework, Section 2

i) N.B 1 If you think there is a possibility of harm occurring during the

course of a project you should consult the University’s Data

Protection Officer. If harm occurs the research exemptions

under the Data Protection Act cannot be used.

2 If there is a possibility that a proposed project may reveal

knowledge of illegalities you should consult the University’s

Data Protection Officer or the Secretary of the University

before submitting the proposal for ethical approval to your

FRPC or other appropriate body.

14

Some questions you might find useful when considering the

importance of minimising harm

Has sufficient care been given to anticipating any physical or

psychological harm or unreasonable stress which research and consultancy

activities might cause to students, human or animal subjects, staff and

clients?

Have all measures been taken to eliminate possible harm or to reduce it as

far as possible?

Has research methodology been designed to eliminate as far as possible

any adverse effects on subjects, researchers, institutions or communities

from the conduct of research or publication of its findings?

Is research supervision designed to minimise harm to all concerned as

much as possible?

In research will measures be in place to protect the confidentiality of

research participants?

If some adverse effects may be caused by proposed research or

consultancy, are they ethically justified?

Should a research or consultancy project be rejected or discontinued if its

objectives cannot be achieved without the risk of harm? What is the

justification for continuing it?

If risk of harm is foreseeable, is this clearly stated to participants as soon as

possible?

2.4.2 Seeking the best results – (2) use resources as beneficially

as possible

We have an ethical obligation is to use available resources –

including the time, expertise and energy of ourselves and

others, and the facilities, budget and reputation of the

University, to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Researchers and consultants should consider how to produce

the most valuable outcomes they can from the resources at

their disposal.

For example, opportunities for sociological or anthropological

research in a remote community may be strictly limited. For,

once such a community has been the focus of a research

project, it may be changed by contact with people from outside

and so lose some of its value as a resource. Researchers should

therefore consider whether their proposed project is the best

15

use of the resources that community affords, as well as taking

into account the possible impact of their research on the

community.

There may be other limits on resources: access to an archive

may be restricted, people involved in research may experience

‘research fatigue’ and there may be few grants for projects in a

particular area. It is therefore important to ask of any research

whether it is focused on the most valuable aspects of the

available material, and whether it is likely to make the best use

of the opportunity for research in that area. It may be that

identifying different objectives or redesigning the project

could produce greater benefits

The best outcomes are those which as far as possible meet the

needs of individuals, the University and society at large. Since

these needs often conflict, decisions have to be taken about

which to prioritise, or about how best to achieve a compromise

between them. The obligation to use resources beneficially

may itself also have to be balanced against the ethical

concerns to avoid harm, respect autonomy, treat people fairly

and act with professional integrity.

2.4.2.1 Use resources as beneficially as possible

(a) Resources include funding, institutional and client facilities, the

input of researchers and subjects and sources of material – such

as archives, experimentation and data about individuals and

communities. Resources also include opportunities for research

and consultancy: funding may be available for only a limited

number of projects in a particular area and there may be a limit

to how many times projects can be carried out in a particular

locus.

(b) It is the responsibility of researchers and consultants to obtain

the greatest benefits they can from the resources they use. In

general terms benefits may be seen as whatever promotes the

welfare of living beings. In practical terms most projects

contribute to this by aiming for more limited objectives.

Projects should be designed to achieve the most beneficial use

of resources. If it becomes clear that a particular project will

not do this consideration should be given to using fewer

resources or putting forward an alternative project.

Some questions to consider

16

Is the project the most beneficial use of resources - the potential research

data, budgets, facilities and participant's input and sponsor's resources?

If not, should an alternative project be put forward, or fewer resources

used?

Do research supervision practices make the best use of students’

opportunity for research and the time given to it by staff?

3. What should you do next?

Postgraduate Research level proposals

If you have a proposal for research which involves a postgraduate

research student undertaking the research you are asked to participate

in the following:

Proposals for research must be considered by a Faculty Research Programmes

Committee (FRPC) before the project begins. Evidence that ethical aspects of

the research have been addressed will be required by FRPC for

registration/transfer purposes. As Faculties have different arrangements for

facilitating this, your Faculty Ethics Champion will inform you what these

are. It may be that your research proposals must be first considered by a

Subject/Division, research group or centre, Faculty Ethics Sub Group (or

appropriate Committee) or Faculty Ethics Champion before being sent to

your FRPC.

An FRPC may give staged approval for a research project, or may make

approval conditional upon further approval by outside professional bodies.

Once a research proposal has been approved by FRPC, research supervisors

and their research students are responsible for identifying and addressing

ethical issues in the continuing project and returning to the faculty provision

for advice where required, and approval where also required.

3.1 Research Proposals

If you have a proposal for research (including research being carried out

by undergraduate students) you should consider whether your research

meets the criteria below to be considered as low risk. If your research

proposal is considered low risk, consideration by you and/or your

Faculty Ethics Champion may be sufficient.

Staff research – Faculty Ethics Champions should be approached in the first

instance who will advise on the requirements of your project against faculty

arrangements. In some faculties standard ethics review may involve the

completion of an ethics application form and review at a committee meeting.

3.2 Types of review

It is likely that a Standard Ethics Review of your proposal will be required

and this will apply to most research projects where human subjects are

involved.

17

In order for an application to qualify for ‘light touch’ scrutiny, the research

must not fall into any of the following categories (which replicate research

described in the ESRC Research Governance Framework as involving more

than minimal risk):

 Research involving vulnerable groups – for example, children and young people, those with a learning disability or cognitive impairment or

individuals in a dependent or unequal relationship.

 Research involving sensitive topics – for example, participants’ sexual behaviour, their illegal or political behaviour, their experience of

violence, their abuse or exploitation, their mental health or their gender or

ethnic status.

 Research involving groups where permission of a gatekeeper is normally required for initial access to members – for example, ethnic or

cultural groups, native peoples or indigenous communities.

 Research involving deception or which is conducted without participants’ full and informed consent at the time the study is carried out.

 Research involving access to records of personal or confidential information, including genetic or other biological information concerning

identifiable individuals.

 Research which would induce psychological stress, anxiety or humiliation or cause more than minimal pain.

 Research involving intrusive interventions – for example, the administration of drugs or other substances, vigorous physical exercise or

techniques such as hypnotherapy. Participants would not encounter such

interventions, which may cause them to reveal information which causes

concern, in the course of their everyday life.

Low risk research should, therefore, be characterised by the absence of all of

the above components. It should be noted than no category of research (e.g.

undergraduate research dissertations) will always meet the low risk criteria.

N.B. The ESRC guidance adopted above is consistent with other recognised

UK funding bodies/councils or societies. You should, however, check with

your Faculty Ethics Champion or relevant Faculty Committee to ensure that

there are no further subject specific guidance that you should be aware of and

which may affect your research proposal.

3.3 Consultancy

Consultancy contracts will be noted as low risk if they do not fall into any of

the categories listed in section 6.2 above. Faculty representatives will be

made aware of all consultancy projects, whether low risk or not. All contracts

with a value of more than £3,000 will have a full contract review as part of

the contract acceptance procedures, which will check contract terms and

conditions, resourcing, insurance issues, authorization procedures and areas

18

of concern/ambiguity. A more detailed risk assessment is carried out for high

value projects.

Projects which are deemed to be higher risk will be escalated to senior

management within both the Faculty and to the Director of Business

Development, and where appropriate to the University insurers. High risk

projects will be regularly monitored at the Innovation and Commercial

Engagement Executive Group and USW Commercial Services Ltd. It is likely

that a Standard Ethics Review of high risk consultancy projects will be

required where human subjects are involved.

Ethical issues relating to the reputation and activities of the funding

organisation (client) also need to be examined. Ethical concerns about clients

and potential clients should be raised at the earliest possible stage in project

development, so that the necessary company or funder checks can be carried

out.

These concerns should be raised with the Research and Business

Development Department.

3.4 Teaching and lecturing

Lecturers are asked to follow the following procedures:

 All teaching proposals – whether for new work or work that is to be revalidated - must be approved by a Faculty Quality Assurance Committee

(FQAC). Subject/Divisions must consider the ethical aspects of proposals

when developing the work and if possible design courses/modules which do

not cause ethical concerns.

 When courses or module descriptors are sent for approval to FQAC, or a validation panel acting on a FQAC’s behalf, they must explicitly state if

the courses/modules have ethical issues and if such issues have been

identified how the team intend to address them. Your Faculty Ethics

Champion can advise you of more detailed procedures.

 Once a teaching proposal has been approved by an FQAC the current module/course leader is responsible for reviewing and monitoring the ethical

aspects of its operation and contacting the Faculty Ethics Champion if there

are concerns.

 If you are involved in learning and teaching procedures which includes research on human or animal subjects, or with supervising or

conducting research projects at undergraduate/ postgraduate or postdoctoral

level, or your own staff research, you should read the USW General

Guidelines for Research and Consultancy and the guidelines of relevant

professional bodies.

Forms and advice are available from your Faculty Ethics Champion and

the Research Office. All ethics related documents published by the

University are also available on the USW research web pages.

19

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further reading: If you are interested in considering more fully how these four principles relate to professional

practice, please refer to: Working Ethics – how to be fair in a culturally complex world

by R Rowson, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, 2006, copies of which are in University

library.

20

Appendix 1

Flowchart outlining ethical approval processes for research