Abstract
The third AREC Regional Workshop was held in Bournemouth, UK, on 11 October 2011. Entitled ‘Poor Supervision’, the focus was more accurately ‘Improving Supervision’. Interactive presentations with a practical emphasis were given to an audience of university researchers, supervisors, R&D/Governance staff and NHS REC members from as far away as Leeds and Swansea.
The day began with Dr Bridget Egan, Senior Lecturer in Education, University of Winchester: ‘Training Research Supervisors’ described the implementation of a robust framework for accreditation of supervisors, and for research students. She set out examples of good practice: new supervisors have an accredited programme which includes ethics, and all are expected to attend regular supervisor training and to complete self-test modules.
Particular interest was sparked by the second talk, ‘Ethics and Research Governance Online (ERGO)’, given by Southampton University’s Head of Research Governance Dr Martina Prude and IT specialist Business Relationship Manager Nick Watts. ERGO is a centralized online system to facilitate gaining ethical, governance and insurance approval for research studies. This has unified the University’s submissions process and is providing benefits of efficiency through standardized practice. It also provides indirect training of staff, supervisors and students, thereby aiding ethical review.
Dr Mark Sheehan, BRC Ethics Fellow Oxford, took a different approach in ‘Research Ethics Governance for Students Overseas’. He explored the challenge of supervising UK HE students carrying out research in a foreign country with a cooperating local institution. He approached from the angle of balancing absolute ethical principles against the societal expectations of very different cultures. Issues included written vs. verbal PIS and consent, confidentiality and disclosure policy, and individual vs. familial or community group consent. This talk raised UK supervisors’ awareness of potential problems in ‘distant supervision’ and offered alternative approaches rather than definitive solutions.
The morning finished with two complementary sessions. David Carpenter, University Research Adviser, Portsmouth, gave an overview of ‘Problems Encountered by Students Applying to NHS RECs’, especially those ‘abandoned’ under the ‘it’s good experience’ excuse. He emphasized embedding general research principles rather than ‘ticking boxes’, and advocated a ‘virtue approach’ in which rules were secondary to character and trustworthiness of the researchers, where research ethics is defined in terms of good conduct as opposed to misconduct. Alan Lamont, Chair of Essex (NHS) REC, then tackled the REC perspective in reviewing student research. He set out how delays and problems could be minimized by appropriate choice of study aim, protocol production, preparation and attention to detail. Both speakers and delegates agreed on the need for and benefits arising from supervisor attendance at REC meetings.
The afternoon was devoted to simulated case discussions. The first concerned supervisor fraud and plagiarism and the second involved culturally sensitive research on adolescents overseas. The examples were somewhat exaggerated to highlight the ethical issue but nevertheless stimulated lively debate. Overall this was felt to have been a highly successful workshop, with very positive feedback returned.