# data[].attributes.headline
Ethics approval as independent researcher.

# data[].attributes.subject
Ethics approval as independent researcher.

# data[].attributes.body
Here is an example of an ethics committee that independent researchers and organisations can apply to. This is New Zealand context. I have not found anything like this in the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The New Zealand Ethics Committee is an ethics advisory committee serving any social researcher not eligible for ethics review from the standing ethics committees for tertiary institutions or the health and disability sector. Many research projects from professional, community and government researchers fall outside this narrow realm of university or health research.

Members of the New Zealand Ethics Committee are volunteers with significant research and ethical review experience. The Committee meets monthly using Zoom conferencing and email. Applications are received by the 15 th of any month, and the review meetings are held on the last Sunday of the month. Applicants can expect to receive comments on their applications within one week of the review meeting .

Submit all queries and applications to the NZEC Manager, Keely Blanch manager@nzethics.com

The application form may be found here: NZEC application form.

NZEC is operated by New Zealand Ethics Limited, a non-profit charity, founded in 2008 by former Health and Disability Ethics Committee chairs. NZ Ethics Ltd is committed to using their collective experience to build an ethics infrastructure in NZ complementary to the university and health sector ethics review systems. NZEC is one example of their planned activities. Others are facilitating interactive conferences, workshops and meetings designed to engender a greater level of dialogue between researchers and ethics committees in New Zealand. NZEC holds an MOU with Queenstown Resort College to provide ethics instruction for their students and oversight of their students research projects. NZEC continues to provide ethics review for ethics review and support for international researchers researching in New Zealand.

Please note: No researcher is mandated to submit his or her application to NZEC: it is a voluntary practice, and an application may be withdrawn at any time. The New Zealand Ethics Committee is a registered Charity entity #CC50073. It received initial sponsorship from a grant from the Ministry of Social Development and more recently from a generous grant from the Tindall Foundation. Currently, NZEC receives no external funding.

NZEC growth has been exponential and a fee to review ethics applications has become necessary for most applications. The Committee reviewed 22 applications in 2014 and 58 in 2017. To accommodate this growth and until a sustainable funding source can be set in place, NZEC has implemented a new procedure. To ensure the effective running of our services, we will invoice professional and government organisations $500 per application. However, this amount is negotiable. For community and other non-profit organisations, we respectfully request a koha of up to $500 per application.
Bank details for payment: Kiwibank 38-9014-0176382-00.

NZEC Code of Ethics

The New Zealand Ethics Committee adheres to the Royal Society of New Zealand Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/about/code (see especially "Part 2: Principles").

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Zealand Ethics Committee - Te Roopu Rapu i te Tika.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The New Zealand Ethics Committee is an ethics advisory committee serving any social researcher not eligible for ethics review from the standing ethics committees for tertiary institutions or the health and disability sector. Many research projects from professional, community and government researchers fall outside this narrow realm of university or health research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This post was requested by people in the Facebook group of the National Coalition of Independent Scholars (NCIS - actually an international organisation despite its name). You don't have to be an NCIS member to join the Facebook group, and if you're an indie researcher or scholar I would recommend joining one or the other, both if you can. NCIS offers a range of benefits to members including an open access peer reviewed journal, networking opportunities, and grants.

Independent researchers often don't have access to research ethics committees (aka institutional review boards in the US). These committees and boards are set up by institutions such as universities and health authorities. I studied this as background for my book on research ethics, and found that a minority do try to help researchers work more ethically, but the majority are focused on institutional protection. This post is not about the rights and wrongs of institutional protectionism, so I will just say that I think committees or boards that focus on institutional protection should be called 'institutional protection committee/board' not 'research ethics committee' or 'institutional review board'.

I am interested to see that some communities and some organisations are setting up their own systems of ethical review, such that researchers who want to work with them have to satisfy the community or organisation's ethical requirements. Indeed, I'm delighted to be advising some organisations on how to do this in a way that meets their needs. There is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to research ethics, and each community and organisation is best placed to figure out what constitutes ethical research practice for them.

There is also, interestingly, an independent research ethics committee: the New Zealand Ethics Committee (NZEC), set up in 2014. NZEC is run by volunteers to provide expert ethical advice for community-based researchers and others without access to an institutional ethics committee or board. Initially it offered its services free of charge, but it proved unexpectedly popular, so it is now charging a negotiable rate while it seeks sustainable funding.

Many professional bodies have their own codes of ethics that independent researchers can follow. I belong to the UK and Ireland Social Research Association (SRA), and my clients often feel reassured when I tell them I follow the SRA's ethical guidelines. In fact there are loads of free open access research ethics resources online and new ones appear from time to time. I've been working on the EU's PRO-RES project, to create an ethics resource for all non-medical researchers. This is still in development but the website already contains a lot of useful information.

If you're an independent researcher, you already know your work involves a lot of thinking for yourself. If you want policies and procedures to follow, you either have to find ones you like or write some of your own. The same applies with research ethics. OK, we rarely get the chance to spend days filling in a massive form to be challenged or approved by a committee. It might be showing by now that I'm not fond of the current research governance system, and I think its absence offers an important opportunity for independent researchers: we can do research that is more ethical than research done by institutions. If we choose, we can attend to the ethical aspects of research that research ethics committees rarely consider. These begin with the generation of a potential research question. Is it ethical to ask that question? Can the research to investigate be done ethically? And they span right through to aftercare for participants, data, findings, and researchers ourselves. Of course being independent also means we can operate scams, cheat, defraud people and be as unethical as we like. Which means it is vital for every independent researcher to think and act as ethically as possible, to uphold and improve our collective reputation.

There are no absolutes with research ethics. In fact there isn't even an agreed definition; research ethics is a collection of diverse theories and practices. This is partly because context is a factor: what is ethical in one context may not be ethical in another. Slicing open someone's belly with a knife? Definitely not ethical - unless you're an accredited surgeon in an operating theatre, in which case it may be life-saving and therefore highly ethical. Context is crucial, and that is why we all need to learn to think and act ethically throughout our research practice. And that learning is never finished, because every research project is different and the world is always changing. So independent researchers need to be ethical ninjas: knowledgeable, skilled, responsive, and good at solving ethical problems.
This blog, and the monthly #CRMethodsChat on Twitter, is funded by my beloved patrons. It takes me at least one working day per month to post here each week and run the Twitterchat. At the time of writing I'm receiving funding from Patrons of $54 per month. If you think a day of my time is worth more than $54 - you can help! Ongoing support would be fantastic but you can also make a one-time donation through the PayPal button on this blog if that works better for you. Support from Patrons and donors also enables me to keep this blog ad-free. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider reviewing any of my books you have read - even a single-line review on Amazon or Goodreads is a huge help - or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Ethics for Independent Researchers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This post was requested by people in the Facebook group of the National Coalition of Independent Scholars (NCIS - actually an international organisation despite its name). You don't have to be an NCIS member to join the Facebook group, and if you're an indie researcher or scholar I would recommend joining one or the other,...

# data[].attributes.body
The guidelines may only need to state which ethical behaviours are recommended, but there could be a link to an area of the BERA website, where then additional information, sources, advice and case studies are stored. That section is then more dynamic and can respond more quickly to day-to-day changes.

# data[].attributes.body
p.1: "educational institutions of any kind"

This list should include as examples libraries, museums, out-of-school clubs for more inclusivity.

# data[].attributes.body
p.3: "committees should consider how to foster opportunities for follow-up dialogue"
Could there be a working example as a case study that the guidelines link to?

# data[].attributes.body
p.22 item 43: "renegotiation of consent…seek updated clearance"

Should this be a guiding principle? Some institutions may not have this process in place at the moment.

Recommend institutional practices and processes?

# data[].attributes.body
Include guidance on how to be inclusive – as researchers and for researchers.

# data[].attributes.body
p.7 item 3: "take account of the rights and interests of those indirectly affected"

Should this list as examples anonymity, confidentiality, ownership, contribution?

# data[].attributes.body
p.9 item 8: "prior to the research"

This ought to read "prior to and during". In participatory work ethics needs to be a process throughout rather than merely a tick-box at the beginning.

# data[].attributes.body
p.10 item 10: "in these situations, researchers and participants should negotiate consent"

Delete "in these situations". It is about all situations and always. Who would make the call if "this" is one such of "these situations"?

# data[].attributes.body
p.11 item 14: "ownership of the datasets"
p.17 item 28: "if data are to be reused"
p.22 item 44: "kinds of data (if any) are later to be shared"

# data[].attributes.body
p.12 item 18: "institutional leaders may agree to take part acting as gatekeepers on behalf of members"

I think there still needs to be an opt-in for individuals. Example from my son's school.

# data[].attributes.body
p.14 item 21: "consent may need to be sought"

Should that be "should be sought"

# data[].attributes.body
p.14 item 23: "researchers may make different decisions as they deem appropriate"

According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children should be choosing for themselves. Otherwise, who would make the call?

# data[].attributes.body
p.15 item 26. "opt-in or opt-out procedures"

I think there should be a statement saying that opt-in is the preferred option.

# data[].attributes.body
p.17 item 27: "researchers should seek consent on a post-hoc basis"

This is where the PAR work needs to come in. This should apply to PAR research.

# data[].attributes.body
p.18 item 31: "participant's decision to withdraw"

Could there be a recommendation about how to deal with the data collected until then?

# data[].attributes.body
p.19 item 34: "put participants at their ease and avoid making excessive demands"

This should ideally include offering responsibility and ownership and partial anonymity.

# data[].attributes.body
p.20 item 36: "emerging as effect can typically offered"

"should"?

# data[].attributes.body
p.21 item 40: "waive their right…should recognise"

Can this be more emphatically phrased? Offering partial anonymity should also be an option.

# data[].attributes.body
p.23 item 46: "inform the community concerned about how the data will be used"

I think this needs clarification. Does that mean you should not do covert research in an online community? Or does that mean that it is still ok to do covert research? But then what about the data collection in relation to the privacy settings of the groups?

# data[].attributes.body
p. 23 item 47: "researchers need to use their judgment"

There should be an addition here about negotiating with participants.

# data[].attributes.body
p.24 items 48 and 49; p.25 item 50:

Where are independent researchers in this? How can independent researchers have/access training, the latest guidelines etc.? Supporting resources are needed here and should be linked.

# data[].attributes.headline
Accessing training and guidance about software etc (GDPR legislation, data protection, data storage) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Accessing training and guidance about software etc (GDPR legislation, data protection, data storage) 

# data[].attributes.body
p.25 item 51:

Does this need clarification in relation to data collection in international contexts and where these are stored and under which jurisdiction?

# data[].attributes.body
p.31 item 69: "make shareable anonymised versions of data available for secondary analysis"

Does this contradict the participants' consent section? It may not do, but I am not too sure.

# data[].attributes.body
p.34 item 78: "significant" and "significantly" and "contributing to data collection"

Does this need to be defined? Who decides what is "significant"? How can you say "no" to your supervisor? What about the handing over of data? This is about power dynamics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guidance on payment/compensation esp. in context of long-term engagement.

# data[].attributes.subject
Guidance on payment/compensation esp. in context of long-term engagement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Payment guidance for researchers and professionals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guidance is for researchers nad professionals who are considering the cost of public involvement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Review whether should should be included in the guidelines and hence whether p1/2 to be reviewed, related to the views for practitioner and independent researchers, as otherwise difficult/impossible for these researchers to follow 

# data[].attributes.subject
Review whether should should be included in the guidelines and hence whether p1/2 to be reviewed, related to the views for practitioner and independent researchers, as otherwise difficult/impossible for these researchers to follow 

# data[].attributes.body
Roles and responsibilities as well as employment situations have changed such that hardly anyone has a full-time job in academia. Instead, many are on zero-hours and precarious contracts. As a consequence, many people are now doing "freelance".

# data[].attributes.headline
Guidelines need to link to case studies as these were written later than the guidelines were launched

# data[].attributes.subject
Guidelines need to link to case studies as these were written later than the guidelines were launched

# data[].attributes.headline
Need to be linked and easily findable related to the ethical guidelines. Members are very likely to be unaware of these

# data[].attributes.subject
Need to be linked and easily findable related to the ethical guidelines. Members are very likely to be unaware of these

# data[].attributes.headline
Could these be added to between editions of the guidelines and hence be on a webpage which is editable and responsive on a half yearly basis for example

# data[].attributes.subject
Could these be added to between editions of the guidelines and hence be on a webpage which is editable and responsive on a half yearly basis for example

# data[].attributes.headline
Would be benefit for an additional case study which includes ownership of data sets

# data[].attributes.subject
Would be benefit for an additional case study which includes ownership of data sets

# data[].attributes.headline
Responsibilities for researchers' wellbeing and development

# data[].attributes.subject
Responsibilities for researchers' wellbeing and development

# data[].attributes.body
Suggest amend title to Responsibilities for researchers to better match the other sections

Seems less developed as a section

Research and academic identity as well as ethics as UKRIO help unpack (BPS also link to this)

Link back to responsibilities to authorship and apply to responsibilities to researchers

Cover power, coercion etc issues re: publications, data ownership

Extend safeguarding points

Need to give researchers the confidence to say no and consider researcher consent

# data[].attributes.headline
Link guidelines to one webpage which could be an updatable space 

# data[].attributes.subject
Link guidelines to one webpage which could be an updatable space 

# data[].attributes.headline
Deborah Lupton COVID crowdsourced document an example 

# data[].attributes.subject
Deborah Lupton COVID crowdsourced document an example 

# data[].attributes.body
Not peer reviewed but responsive and collaborative

# data[].attributes.headline
Introduction Para 1 pg1 Guidelines are for anyone undertaking educational research

# data[].attributes.subject
Introduction Para 1 pg1 Guidelines are for anyone undertaking educational research

# data[].attributes.body
I

# data[].attributes.body
Introduction Para 1 pg3 need to vet applications and encourage follow up to see how researcher have acted in consideration of BERA and or local ethical principles (regardless of employer/ status)

# data[].attributes.headline
Guidelines para 7 pg 8. Researcher should be competent to undertake research 

# data[].attributes.subject
Guidelines para 7 pg 8. Researcher should be competent to undertake research 

# data[].attributes.headline
Guidelines, Consent para 9 pg9 researchers declare membership of BERA in study materials

# data[].attributes.subject
Guidelines, Consent para 9 pg9 researchers declare membership of BERA in study materials

# data[].attributes.headline
Responsibilities to the community of educational researches Para 61 p28 Community of educational researchers includes students, independent researchers staff

# data[].attributes.subject
Responsibilities to the community of educational researches Para 61 p28 Community of educational researchers includes students, independent researchers staff

# data[].attributes.headline
Authorship  para 79 pg 34 1st Author is not dependent on contract/ status

# data[].attributes.subject
Authorship  para 79 pg 34 1st Author is not dependent on contract/ status

# data[].attributes.headline
Responsibilities for researchers well being and development para 84, p35 Researcher undertake risk assessment (specifies indep researchers)

# data[].attributes.subject
Responsibilities for researchers well being and development para 84, p35 Researcher undertake risk assessment (specifies indep researchers)

# data[].attributes.headline
Responsibilities  for researchers well being and development para 85 pg 36 employers/ sponsors to avoid exploiting differences in contracts and roles of team members.  Also employers should support career development - BERA Charter for Research staff in Education exists and UK Concordat to Support the career development of researchers

# data[].attributes.subject
Responsibilities  for researchers well being and development para 85 pg 36 employers/ sponsors to avoid exploiting differences in contracts and roles of team members.  Also employers should support career development - BERA Charter for Research staff in Education exists and UK Concordat to Support the career development of researchers

# data[].attributes.headline
Issues related to accessing ethical approval for independent researchers

# data[].attributes.subject
Issues related to accessing ethical approval for independent researchers

# data[].attributes.headline
could say more about independent research - to say cover self-funded, not necessarily linked to a particular organisation - needs to be sufficient information to provide confidence that will be protected from liability and culpability

# data[].attributes.subject
could say more about independent research - to say cover self-funded, not necessarily linked to a particular organisation - needs to be sufficient information to provide confidence that will be protected from liability and culpability

# data[].attributes.body
Also important to acknowledge of the advantages eg apolitical of being independent so not seem as a negative view of independence

# data[].attributes.headline
Might need to signpost independent researchers to sources of support or BERA Blogs 

# data[].attributes.subject
Might need to signpost independent researchers to sources of support or BERA Blogs 

# data[].attributes.headline
Is there a definition of an independent researcher?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is there a definition of an independent researcher?

# data[].attributes.body
Processes of obtaining consent, as outlined in the Guidelines, seem to consistently underplay the importance of children's voices. There are frequent references to parental and gatekeeper consents, but very little about including children in this process. Children who are able to provide individual consent should always be asked to do so (in response to information about the research that is understandable and suitably tailored to their age / language competence). This arguably needs to be more obviously articulated throughout the consent section in the Guidelines document.

# data[].attributes.body
'Data' seem to be presented (grammatically) in both singular and plural forms. A more consistent approach, rather than interchangeable usage, would look more refined.

# data[].attributes.body
Para. 11, p. 10: Considering the 'effects of translation' also apply to the data generated by the research process. Translating from one language to another must be done carefully (to maintain the original, intended meaning), because the process can have a significant impact on understanding, representation (of participants), and interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
Relates to broader (seismic!) structural shifts within academia over the last 15 years, and an increasing obsession with / concern about accountability and audit culture. This may be a particular issue when undertaking collaborative research across different HEIs / settings that operate subtly different processes and procedures re. ethical approval for projects. For example, one HEI might not accept the procedures followed by another HEI if these are not directly aligned with their own protocols. This can create obstacles to undertaking research and may even reflect 'hierarchical perceptions' between HEIs. There are no simple solutions to this, because HEIs are not obliged to operate identical ethics processes, but it is an emerging point of tension!

# data[].attributes.body
The last two years has seen a lot of data-gathering move online, in the form of questionnaires and recorded interviews. I wonder if some additional notes are needed re. processes for obtaining consent, and considerations relating to GDPR / data-retention, when gathering original data using online platforms? For example: Survey sites vary in quality (Survey Monkey vs Qualtrics) and not all comply with GDPR. Some advice on the factors to consider when selecting and utilising online platforms for research would be useful.

# data[].attributes.body
Para. 30, p. 18: Again, recent shifts in the types of research work make this a point of tension, especially in terms of the unequivocal 'should not undertake' instruction. HEIs are increasingly under pressure to demonstrate research impact. This, in part, will involve initiatives such as Knowledge Transfer Partnership projects (often strongly shaped by commercial / industry partners who have a monetary stake in the work) and consultancy work that often has embedded 'commercial gain' (giving the client an 'edge'). The REF Impact Agenda also references 'economic impact' as a factor. Perhaps this paragraph needs to be unpacked to account for the commercial and economic imperatives that underpin particular types of funded research, outlining how these might be ethically navigated to maintain integrity?

# data[].attributes.headline
From student perspective need to pick up guidelines without much knowledge of what they are about and so the introduction is important - some more scope and appreciation of meaning would be helpful for this

# data[].attributes.subject
From student perspective need to pick up guidelines without much knowledge of what they are about and so the introduction is important - some more scope and appreciation of meaning would be helpful for this

# data[].attributes.headline
Potential Researcher Wellbeing and Development enhancement ideas 

# data[].attributes.subject
Potential Researcher Wellbeing and Development enhancement ideas 

# data[].attributes.body
Change title to Researcher Wellbeing and Professional Recognition/Regard/Respect/Acknowledgmeent of Professionalism or Professional Etiquette

To cover:
* ensuring feel confident to avoid liability and culpability and will embed this into researcher behaviours throughout studies (external 'approval' is insufficient alone) - need to know what don't know to avoid that
* recognising that negotiation can turn into manipulation (at individual or organisation level) so that research remains authentic avoiding partiality
* relationships between researchers in support of one another to be allowed to conduct research independently, albeit with ethical and methodological guidance