Ethical Standards and Ethics Response Form Order Instructions: Dear Admin,

Please inform the writer to:

1. Read the instructions at the beginning of the ethic response form before answering the questions.

2. Answer the question number: 20 in the column: Researcher’s ethics self-check

3. Answer all 35 the question in the column: Researcher’s response to Ethics Reviewer.

Regards,

Ethical Standards and Ethics Response Form Sample Answer

ETHICS RESPONSE FORM

 

Researcher name (student): Mona Arafa	Faculty reviewer: Manh Hao Quach	Date of Review:16th FEB 2017
Working Title of Proposal or summary of study scope: Impact of training and development on performance
Proposal attached?___ Yes	Academic Honesty Declaration signed?___Yes

Each of the ethical standards below must be adequately addressed by the researcher in order to obtain ethics approval.

In the blue column, the RESEARCHER (student) should perform a self-check using these 35 questions before submitting the ethics form to the faculty member supervising the study.  In each row of the blue column, the RESEARCHER should enter YES, NO, or NA as well as a very brief explanation. The Academic Honesty Declaration must be attached and should be signed and dated. In the yellow columnthe ETHICS REVIEWER (supervising faculty member) will enter YES, NO, or NA to confirm or challenge the RESEARCHER’S self-check on each standard. With each NO, the ETHICS REVIEWER will indicate what revisions are required for ethics approval. The faculty reviewer will also render a decision at the end of this form and return the form to the RESEARCHER. If the ETHICS REVIEWER (supervising faculty member) is able to approve “as is” then the orange column is left blank. In the orange column, the RESEARCHER (student) will respond to each of the ETHICS REVIEWER’S concerns to explain where/how each of the reviewer’s concerns was met in the resubmitted materials.

	Researcher’s ethics self-check   In each row, the researcher should confirm compliance with the ethical standard by entering “Yes,”“No,” or “N/A,”along with a brief defense of the response (i.e., stating keywords that point to how the ethical standard has been met).	Ethics Reviewer’s assessment:   After the researcher has presented the evidence for compliance with each ethical standard, the Ethics Reviewer should either confirm by entering “Yes” or challenge with “No.” With each “No,” the reviewer must specify what revisions are neededto obtain ethics approval.	Researcher’s response to Ethics Reviewer   Researcher must use this column to explain how and where each of the Ethics Reviewer’s concerns (in the yellow column) has been addressed.
Example: Will data be stored securely?	Yes. Data files will be kept on a password protected computer.	No. Please also address how the paper surveys will be secured prior to being entered as electronic files.	Paper surveys will be in a locked file cabinet. Proposal has been updated.
The first 11 questions apply to all studies (even when the researcher is not interacting with participants to collect new data). Hover the mouse over the blue footnoted words to view extra tips and definitions.
1. Are participant recruitment and data collection steps[i]adequately described, such that the study’s risks and burdens can be discerned?	Yes. The proposal has defined how data will be collected using interviews and questionnaires.	Yes
2. Will the research procedures ensure privacy[ii] during data collection?	Yes. Respondents will not be required to reveal details like their actual names.	Yes
3. Will data be stored securely[iii] with adequate provisions to maintain the confidentiality of the data?	Yes. Data will be encrypted and stored secured from exposure using Kaspersky antivirus.	Yes
4. Will the data be stored for at least 5 years?	No. the data will be discarded after the reasrch conclusions.	No – Explained	Since the data contains confidential information, sponsors to the research may require short periods of retention of the data.
5. If participants’ names or contact info will be recorded in the research records, are they absolutely necessary[iv]?	No. that is why the researchers will not ask for this type of information.	No – Explained	In order to observe ethical conduct in research, the research intends to observe confidentiality of participants through anonymity.
6. Do the research procedures and analysis/write-up plans include all possible measures to ensure that participant identities are not directly or indirectly[v] disclosed? For secondary data analyses, the proposal must clearly state when/how de-identification will occur.	No. The research will ensure respondents identity are not disclosed but not with a write-up.	No – Explained	The research will ensure that the ethical duty of maintaining confidentiality of participants is observed. Hence, for analysis of secondary data, anonymization will be used in preventing de-identification.
7. Have all potential psychological[vi],relationship[vii], legal[viii], economic/professional[ix], physical[x], and other risks been fully acknowledged[xi] and described?	No. The research has only described legal, economic risks.	No – Explained	The research has only described economic and legal risks because participants will be debriefed before participating in the research. Hence, there would be no psychological, relationship or physical risk involved.
8. Have the above risks been minimized[xii]as much as possible?		Please answer this question	Through debriefing of participants all the risks have been entirely minimized.
9. Has the researcher proactively managed any potential conflicts of interest[xiii]? Note that student researchers may not utilize research assistants to recruit participants or collect research data on behalf of the researcher.	No. the research will not utilize assistant to recruit participants.	No – Explained	The research is not willing to utilize assistants in the recruitment of participants since external forces influence the willingness of people in enrolling to participate in research.
10. Are the research risks and burdens[xiv] reasonable, in consideration of the new knowledge[xv] that this research design can offer?	Yes. The knwledge expected to be gained can have huge economic and social benefits.	Yes
11. Is the research site willing to provide an Authorisation Letter (or email) granting permission[xvi]for all relevant data[xvii] access, access to participants, facility use, and/or use of personnel time for research purposes?	Yes. The research will get legal authorization from Qatar authority.	Yes
The remaining questions only apply to studies that involve recruiting participants to collect new data (such as surveys, interviews, observations).  ____Please place an X on this line if NONE of the questions in the next section are applicable to the proposed study.
12. Applicable for student researchers: Will this researcher be appropriately qualified[xviii] and supervised[xix] in all data collection procedures?	Yes. The researcher will be under supervisison from the learning institution invilveed in the study.	Yes
13. Is participant recruitment coordinated in a manner that is non-coercive[xx]? Coercive elements include: leveraging an existing relationship to “encourage” participation, recruiting in a group[xxi] setting, extravagant compensation, recruiting individuals in a context of their treatment or evaluation[xxii], etc. A researcher must disclose here whether/how the researcher may already be known to the participants and explain how perceptions of coerced research participation will be minimized[xxiii].	Yes. The participants will be redruited in a sound and ethical manner that dioes not include coercion. Tominmimize coerced study, the researcher will avoid unnecessary compensation and persuasive recruitment.	Yes
14. If anyone would be excluded from participating, is their exclusion justified? Is their exclusion handled respectfully and without stigma[xxiv]?	Yes. The exclusion criteria will include senior managers, non-employees, andemplyees who have worked for less than one year.	Yes
15. Where the researcher proposes to use an interpreter, has adequate consideration been given to the interpreter’s training regarding confidentiality and principles of informed consent, etc.?	Yes. The study will use a trained interpreter who understands the culture of the respondents and has mastered the art of communication.	Yes
16. Do the informed consent[xxv] procedures provide adequate time to review the study information and ask questions before giving consent?	Yes. Respondents will be given as much time as they want to understand the questions. Clarifications will be given when the need arises.	Yes
17. Will informed consent be appropriately[xxvi]documented?	Yes. Respondents will sign an agreement before taking part in thestudy.	Yes
18. Is the participant information sheet (PIS) written using language that will be understandable[xxvii] to the potential participants?	Yes. The information will be encoded using simple language that takes care of the respondent’s language skills.	Yes
19. Does the PIS include an understandable[xxviii] explanation of the research purpose?	Yes. The PIS will be presented such that the respondent understand the purpose and objectives of the research clearly.	Yes
20. Does the PIS explainthe sample’s inclusion criteria in such a way[xxix]that the participants can understand how/why THEY are being asked to participate?	X YES. The PIS will be written in simple language with guides being given for answering the questions. Hence, making prospective participants understand that their participation is voluntary.	X
21. Does the PIS clearly state that participation is voluntary?	Yes. Respondents will ndertsand that taking part in the study is voluntary.	Yes
22. Does the PIS convey that the participant has the right[xxx]to decline or discontinue participation at any time?	No. The researcher finds no need for presenting this information to the respondents.	No – Explained	The researcher has illustrated in the PIS that participants will be involved in the research voluntarily, furthermore, the PIS is written in simple language with guidelines being given for answering questions. Thus participants will automatically understand that they can discontinue participation or even decline participation.
23. Does the PIS include an understandable description of the data collection procedures?	Yes. The PIS entails a well formulatedexplanation of data collection procedures.	Yes
24. Does the PIS include an estimate of the time commitment[xxxi] for participation?	No. It is difficult to predict the time respondents will take to answer all the questions.	No – Explained	The research may involve repeated measures of collection of data hence it is difficult to generalize the time all participants will take in answering questions.
25. Does the PIS describe any thank you gifts, compensation, or reimbursement to participants (for travel costs, etc.) or lack thereof?	No. The research is vlunatary and therefore no gifts. Only a word of thank you will be used after data collection.	No – Explained	Since the PIS is written in simple language with guidelines being given for answering questions, then before getting involved in the research participants will understand that their involvement is voluntary hence they will not expect any form of compensation.
26. Does the PIS include a description of reasonably foreseeable risks[xxxii]or discomforts?	No. The researcher finds no foreseeable risk.	No – Explained	Since the researcher has debriefed participants, then the possibility of occurrence of risks is unforeseeable.
27. Does the PIS include a description of anticipated benefits to participants[xxxiii]and/or others?	No. There are no immediate and direct benefits to the participants.	No – Explained	Based on the view that participants understand that they are voluntarily involved in the research, there are no anticipated benefits for the participants.
28. Does the PIS explain how the participant can contact the researcher and the university’s Research Participant Advocate? (USA number 001-612-312-1210 or email address liverpoolethics@ohecampus.com)	Yes. The researchers’ contact information will be presented after dtata collection.	Yes
29. Does the PIS describe how privacy will be maintained[xxxiv]?	Yes. The PIS will guarantee that the information collected will be treated with utmost confidentiality.	Yes
30. Does the PIS disclose all potential conflicts of interest (specifying that this study is separate from the researcher’s other professional role)?	No. The stuidy has not predicted any potential conflict.	No – Explained	Since all participants will be debriefed before getting involved in the research then there would be no chance for occurrence of conflict.
31. Do the consent documents preserve the participant’s legal[xxxv]rights?	Yes. The participants have the right to refuse taking part in the study.	Yes
The remaining questions regarding sensitive content and vulnerable populations should be reviewed and addressed by the researcher (student) and faculty reviewer, but must also be confirmed by the International Online Research Ethics Committee before the study may go ahead. ____Please place an X on this line if NONE of the questions in the next section are applicable to the proposed study.
32. If vulnerable[xxxvi] individuals will be specifically sought out as participants, is such targeted recruitment justified[xxxvii]by a research design that will specifically benefit that vulnerable group at large?	No. the study will exclude vulnerable participants.	No – Explained	In the process of recruiting participants, one of the points to focus on is the recruitment of nonvulnerable participants in order to increase the efficiency of the research.
33. If the researcher happens to also serve in a trusted or authoritative[xxxviii]role to the participant (e.g., health care provider, teacher etc.), do the recruitment procedures ensure voluntary participation?	No. there wil be no recruitment procedures.	No – Explained	Since the recruitment exercise will not utilize assistants then no recruitment procedures will be required.
34. If the research procedures might reveal or create an acute psychological state that necessitates referral, are there suitable procedures in place to manage this?	No. the research will be limited to the goals and objectives of the study.	No – Explained	Due to the debriefing of participants, the possibility of occurrence of the state of acute psychology is erased, hence ensuring that the research only focuses on goals of the study, along with its objectives.
35. If the research procedures might reveal criminal activity, child/elder abuse, or employer policy non-compliance that necessitates[xxxix] reporting, are there suitable procedures in place for managing this? Are limits to confidentiality (i.e., duty to report) appropriately mentioned in the Participant Information Sheet?	No. however the researchers will infrom the law incase of criminal activity revelation.	No – Explained	Since the research intends to maintain anonymity of participants then levels of confidentiality are not mentioned in the PIS. However, in case that there is a revelation of any criminal activity from the research, then the researcher is mandated to inform the law authorities.

 

ETHICS APPROVAL DECISION
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE POSTED IN THE GRADEBOOK AFTER THE SUPERVISING FACULTY MEMBER HAS RENDERED A DECISION.  THE APPROPRIATE ETHICS PATHWAY(S) MUST ALSO BE ENTERED INTO THE MiTSA , eMiTSA,, EXPEDITED OR IOREC APPROVAL(S)  The supervising Faculty Member will mark an X next to box A, B, or C. If box A or B is marked, then the supervising faculty member will also mark an X next to the applicable subcategory (1, 2, 3, etc.):
	A.    APPROVED VIA EXPEDITED (LIGHT TOUCH) ETHICS REVIEW: ·         As the supervising faculty member, I confirm that all applicable criteria 1-35 above are met with either a “Yes” or “N/A.” ·         I understand my responsibilities as a supervisor, and will ensure to the best of my abilities that the student investigator abides by the University’s policy on Research Ethics at all times. ·         I affirm that the research activities fall entirely within the parameters of the design indicated with an X below (1,2 or 3) that the International Online  Research Ethics Committee has authorized faculty members to approve via the expedited (light touch) review:
		1. analysis of publicdocuments, artifacts, behaviour or data;
		2. secondary analysis of existing data that is privately held but released for research purposes (with all identifiers removed);
		3. surveys or interviews ofnon-vulnerable adults on non-sensitive topics (i.e., no potential to participants of coercion, distress, loss of work/school time, damage to professional reputation). Vulnerable populations include children, clinic patients, prisoners, military personnel, facility residents, anyone over whom the researcher holds authority (e.g., students, subordinates), anyone who might feel undue pressure to participate in the study, and any individuals with severe enough mental disabilities to interfere with capacity to consent to the study.
	B.      REFERRED TO ETHICS COMMITTEE: ·         As the supervising faculty member, I am referring this study to the full ethics committee (IOREC) because [mark 1, 2, 3, 4 or Other below]. ·         I will email the student’s ethics application and all attachments as a single zip file to the ethics committee vialiverpoolethics@ohecampus.com, copying the DOS (or Programme Director where this exists).The ethics committee accepts applications until 5 pm Liverpool timezone on the 3rd  Thursday of every month.Decisions and feedback will be emailed to the student and DA within 5 business days after the 4th Thursday of the month.
		1. the researcher proposes to collect data from vulnerable individuals such as children, clinic patients, prisoners, military personnel, facility residents, anyone over whom the researcher holds authority (e.g., students, subordinates), anyone who might feel undue pressure to participate in the study, and any individuals with severe enough mental disabilities to interfere with capacity to consent to the study.
		2. some (potential) participants may find the research topic or premise sensitive
		3. participants’ jobs or livelihoods may be placed at any risk by the study activities
		4. the participants’ culture and/or international location suggest that extra participant protections may be necessary
		Other: _____
	c. C.       REVISIONS REQUIRED: The student needs to revise the proposal and ethics materials to address the concerns in the yellow column and resubmit to me before I can select A or B above.

Footnotes

[i] In order to weigh potential risks against benefits, the researcher first needs to plan and clearly articulate all of the following that apply:

how existing data or contact information of potential participants will be obtained,

format and context of the initial contact with potential participants,

informed consent procedures,

assignment to groups (if applicable),

description of any pilot activities,

data collection steps,

transcript review and/or membercheck (if applicable), and

how results will be shared with stakeholders.

[ii] Privacy risks might include unintended breach of confidential information (such as educational or medical records); being observed/overheard by others while meeting researcher or providing data; or intrusion on the privacy of others who are not involved in the study (e.g. participant’s family).

[iii] Secure data storage requires password protection on electronic files and locks for physical data.

[iv] Note that consent forms do not require signatures if the participant can indicate consent by some action such as clicking on a link, returning a completed survey, etc.

[v] Participant identities might be “indirectly” and unintentionally disclosed if a researcher’s final research report fails to withold demographic details or site descriptions that might permit a reader to deduce the identity of a participant. So the researcher needs to think about which demographic descriptors are most important to collect and report, while ensuring that the identity of individual participants is protected. Also, the name of the site/organization is typically masked in scholarly research though in some cases, the organization can elect to publicize their name along with the research results.

[vi] Psychological risks include stress greater than what one would experience in daily life (e.g., materials or topics that could be considered sensitive, offensive, threatening, degrading).

[vii] Relationship risks are present if the recruitment or data collection process are likely to alter the existing dynamics between the researcher and participant (who may be coworkers or have some professional relationship), among participants (if they know one another), or between the participant and the participant’s friends, coworkers, or family members.

[viii] Legal risks are present if data collection might result in a participant’s disclosure of a violation of laws.

[ix] Economic/professional risks are present if data collection could result in the participant disclosing a violation of workplace policies, disagreement with leadership decisions, poor work performance, or anything else that could be damaging to theparticipant’s  position, professional reputation, promotability, or employability. Risks are acceptable but participants need to be made aware of professional risks during the consent process so they can make an informed decision.

[x]Physical risks are not common in social science research but would involve risk of serious physical injury to the participant or the researcher.

[xi]Minimal risks are acceptable but must be identified upfront. Minimal risk is defined as when: “the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life.”

[xii] The researcher is responsible for planning measures that will provide participants with reasonable protection from privacy loss, distress, psychological harm, economic loss, damage to professional reputation, and other possible harms.

[xiii] A conflict of interest is caused when the researcher has some sort of dual role in the research context, such as being a teacher, therapist, investor, business-owner, manager, etc. Conflict of interest must be managed to ensure that the research reveals “truth,” not just the outcome that the researcher might desire to see due to their other role.

[xiv] All research activities place some degree of burden on the participants by asking the participants to share personal information, volunteer time, and assume risks.

[xv] Examples of “new knowledge” include: effectively addressing a gap in the literature, generating new theory, enhancing understanding of a phenomenon, assessing the effectiveness of a particular professional practice, addressing a local practical problem via data analysis.

[xvi] No documentation of permission is required (a) if the researcher will simply be asking organizations to distribute research invitations on the researcher’s behalf, or (b) if the researcher is using only public means to identify/contact participants.

[xvii] Note that when medical, educational, or business records would be analyzed or used to identify potential research participants, the site needs to explicitly approve access to data for research purposes (even if the researcher normally has access to that data to perform his or her job).

[xviii]Researchers must be able to document their training in the data collection techniques and the ethics committee might require the researcher to obtain additional training prior to ethics approval. For most student researchers, the research course sequence is sufficient but some research procedures (such as interviewing people with mental disabilities) may require additional training. For psychological assessments, the manual indicates specific qualifications required. Data collection from children requires a background check/clearance through a local agency.

[xix] Remote supervision is suitable for most studies but onsite supervision may be required for certain types of sensitive data collection (e.g., interviews or assessment regarding emotional topics).

[xx] For example, anonymous surveys and/or low-pressure communications such as email invitations permit potential participants to opt out with minimal fear of retaliation or other negative consequences.

[xxi] It is not ethically acceptable to invite a “captive audience” to participate in research on the spot (i.e., to ask an entire class or a group of meeting attendees to complete a survey during their session). Such a dynamic would not provide sufficient privacy or respect for their right to decline research participation. However, a researcher may use the last few minutes of a meeting to introduce a study and distribute materials, such that the potential participants can then take their time to decide later about participation.

[xxii] Generally, data collection cannot be approved during work hours or school hours unless a “free period” has been identified (e.g., lunch) so the research activities can be separated from the participants’ regular activities. It is important to maintain an “opt in” dynamic rather than implying that employees/students/group members are expected to participate.

[xxiii]Completion of the study directly benefits the student (allowing him or her to obtain a degree), and so the researcher should minimize the potential for either (a) conflict of interest or (b) perceived coercion to participate. Researchers who are in positions of authority or familiarity must take extra precautions to ensure that potential participants are not pressured to take part in their study. Examples: an instructor researcher may recruit her students AFTER grades have been assigned; a psychologist researcher may recruit clients from ANOTHER psychologist’s practice;  a manager researcher may conduct ANONYMOUS data collection so that subordinates do not perceive their responses or [non]participation as being associated with their job standing.

[xxiv] When applicable, the exclusion criteria should be listed on the recruitment material (flyer, invitation email,etc.) or participant information sheet (PIS) to prevent situations in which the researcher rejects volunteers in a stigmatizing manner.

[xxv]Informed consent is not just a form; it is a process of explaining the study to the participant and encouraging questions before the participant makes a decision about participation.

[xxvi] While documenting consent via signature is common, note that anonymous surveys can obtain “implied consent” by informing the participant, “To protect your privacy, no consent signature is requested. Instead, you may indicate your consent by clicking here/returning this survey in the enclosed envelope.”) It is also acceptable to audiorecord verbal consent for interviews, in order to not have any record of the interviewee’s name.

[xxvii]The ethics committee encourages tailoring the language to the readers as long as a professional tone is maintained.

[xxviii] Minimal jargon should be used during the informed consent process. Everyday layperson language is most appropriate to help a participant make an informed decision about participation.

[xxix] People receiving the PIS should not be left wondering, “How did the researcher get my name?” or “Why am I being invited and not others?” or “Does the researcher already know private information about me?” The means by which the researcher has identified and contacted the potential participant needs to be made clear, if it is not already clear from the context. Sample explanations of inclusion criteria in PIS: (a) The human resources department has forwarded this invitation to all employees who meet the researcher’s study criteria (i.e., have been with the organization at least 2 years and have transitioned into a managerial role within the past year); or (b) The researcher is inviting all attendees of the past year’s XYZ professional conference to be in the study; or (c) The researcher will be randomly selecting possible participants by approaching the residents of every 5^th home in this neighborhood until 100 responses are obtained.

[xxx] When the researcher is already known to the participant, the PIS must include written assurance that declining or discontinuing will not negatively impact the participant’s relationship with the researcher or (if applicable) the invitee’s access to services.

[xxxi] Provide an estimate (in minutes or hours) of each component of data collection (e.g., survey, interview, memberchecking. etc. )

[xxxii] Describe only the possible harms that go beyond the risks of daily life.

[xxxiii] For most social science studies, it is appropriate to state that there are no particular direct benefits to the individual. In this case, just present the benefits to society.

[xxxiv]The PIS shouldexplain that the research report will not include names and that the data will not be used for any purposes other than research. It is not always clear to participants how a research interview is different from a journalistic interview, in which informants might be named.So the PIS should also describe any coding system that will permit the researcher to not use names.  For sensitive interviews, the researcher might also want to assure participants that recordings will be destroyed immediately after transcription.

[xxxv]The consent forms/process should not ask a participant to waive any legal rights.

[xxxvi] Vulnerable participants include children, clinic patients, prisoners, military personnel, facility residents, anyone over whom the researcher holds authority (e.g., students, subordinates), anyone who might feel undue pressure to participate in the study, and any individuals with severe enough mental disabilities to interfere with capacity to consent to the study. Pregnant women (and their unborn children) are only considered a vulnerable population when a study involves physically risky data collection.

[xxxvii]Targeted recruitment of vulnerable participants can only be approved when the ethics committee determines that the study’s benefits justify its risks/costs.

[xxxviii] A researcher with a dual role must use anonymous surveys or some other method that permits potential participants to opt out without fear of negative consequences. Patients, students, and subordinates of the researcher need explicit assurance that their decision about participation will in no way impact their ongoing relationship with the researcher.

[xxxix] Any limits to confidentiality (i.e., duty to report) must be mentioned in the participant information sheet (PIS).