Ethics for social research: guidance

3. Governance arrangements

3.1. In addition to adhering to the six ethical principles set out in this guidance, this section outlines individual and Governmental responsibilities and provides guidance to ensures effective departmental governance arrangements are in place.

Scottish Government’s responsibilities

3.2. The Scottish Government is responsible for ensuring that project management and quality assurance arrangements enable individuals commissioning or undertaking social research to uphold the highest ethical standards. It must be able to satisfy its ministers or senior officials, the external research community, and the public that appropriate systems are in place for assessing:

• The appropriateness of proposed research methods, and the quality of research execution, analysis and reporting throughout the life of a project;
• The anticipated risk to researchers, participants, the wider community at the outset of the project;
• Unanticipated ethical problems which emerge during and after publication of the project.
• The Scottish Government will also:
• Regularly review or audit the systems and protocols in place to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose
• Set out the expected competencies for each grade in relation to the GSR ethical principles and identifying training/development needs for individual staff to ensure they meet these the competencies set out in the Government Social Research Technical Framework
• Ensure in-house research is appropriately scrutinised in line with Scottish Government’s quality assurance processes, to ensure the ethical principles listed in this document are upheld and that complaints for both internal and external social research projects are monitored and appropriately dealt with

Individuals’ responsibilities

3.3. Individual staff responsible for conducting or managing social research for the Scottish Government must ensure they are aware of their ethical responsibilities, and of any local (departmental) protocols on how to put these into practice.

3.4. Research project managers in the Scottish Government should confirm that all their stakeholders, including policy customers, are aware of ethical issues likely to arise during a project, and the proposed means of managing these.

3.5. All of the researchers engaged in the ethics checklist sign off process are supported in their roles by line management and their respective manager on the Social Research Leadership Group (SRLG).

3.6. The point of accountability is the Scottish Government Chief Researcher, in consultation with the Scottish Government Chief Statistician and Ethics Peer Review Panel where applicable.

Contractors’ responsibilities

3.7. Those commissioning research need to ensure that the potential ethical issues presented by a project are assessed at the outset and monitored throughout. They must ensure appropriate arrangements for ethical scrutiny are in place, and that the organisation undertaking the research has appropriate arrangements in place to ensure the day-to-day management of these risks. Adherence to Scottish Government standards of ethics should be mandated within tender documentation and agreed with suppliers contracted to support research work. The project manager on behalf of government should ensure this is the case and should also check whether all ethical issues identified in an initial risk assessment have been satisfactory resolved. Contravention of these standards could result in termination of work. Those conducting research (including secondary analysis) must additionally ensure they comply with the Scottish Government’s arrangements for management, quality assurance, the Public Sector Equality Duty and GDPR.

Assessing and Managing Ethical Risk

3.8. All social research projects conducted for government, whether internal or external, must be subject to an ethical risk assessment at the earliest possible stage of project development.

3.9. The following points outline the key steps that should be taken when completing an ethical risk assessment when commissioning, managing and/or undertaking social research:

• Produce a written record of the potential ethical risks and harms and how they will be mitigated in the ethical sensitivity checklist;
• Obtain agreement from senior researcher at unit level;
• Where research projects are deemed to be high risk, or where identified risks cannot be fully mitigated, either at the start of the project or at any point during the project, researchers should move to a formal Ethics Peer Review. Where sensitivities remain, this may be escalated further to the Chief Researcher. Beyond this, the Chief Researcher may seek independent ethical advice or approval from an external ethics committee or advisory board. Further details can be found in the following section. All ethical reviews and subsequent decision making should be clearly documented;
• Monitoring and continuing ethical review throughout the research process regardless of the level of anticipated risk or type of ethical review process, especially when any changes are made to research projects.

3.10. Proposals likely to require ethical review may include those that by virtue of the topic, vulnerability of the potential participants, or proposed methods, or a combination of these, present a greater challenge in upholding the stated ethical principles. These projects require greater vigilance with respect to ethical issues throughout their lifespan.

Assessing and Managing Ethical Risk

3.11. Should any individual or organisation have any complaints related to breaches of ethical procedures or principles, they can contact the Central Enquiry Unit.

3.12. We also require that contractors notify the relevant Scottish Government contract manager of complaints; and they too should have specific policies and procedures to help deal with them.

3.13. Details of all complaints, along with responses issued by the Scottish Government, should be collected and reviewed regularly so appropriate remedial action can be taken where necessary.

4. Scottish Government ethics procedures and checklist

4.1. To ensure Scottish Government social research practice is in accordance with our principles we have developed the following ethical assurance procedures. The key requirements are the completion of an ethical sensitivity checklist by project managers when commissioning, managing and/or undertaking social research and the Ethical Peer Review process for highly sensitive projects.

4.2. The Scottish Government procedures are designed to improve the governance and quality of social research. More specifically, they:

• Support project managers in assessing and managing ethical issues;
• Facilitate knowledge and expertise sharing, both within and across Directorates;
• Ensure a consistent approach to ethics is taken across social research;
• Improve quality of commissioned research by recording what is done to assess and manage ethical sensitivities.

Roles and responsibilities of Scottish Government researchers

4.3. The table sets out the roles and responsibilities of Scottish Government social researchers, in the ethical assurance process described in the following sections.

Role: Project Manager

SG banding: Usually B Band

• Complete ethics checklist and Data Protection Impact Assessment for all projects
• Use checklist to develop research brief and specification
• Ensure sign off is obtained at the appropriate level and stored in eRDM (the records management system)
• Ensure ethical issues are monitored throughout project and escalated if necessary
• Raise any proposed uses of generative AI with Ethical Adviser and ensure the Office of the Chief Researcher is notified when used

Role: Ethical Adviser

SG banding: C1(either the line manager, or another C1 researcher)

Responsibilities:

Help project managers address sensitive issues in checklist

• Assess overall rating of project
• Sign off checklists if overall rating is not highly sensitive. If project is highly sensitive, decide whether to refer to Ethical Sponsor for further scrutiny or advice.
• Review any proposed uses of Generative AI and seek advice if risks cannot be mitigated using existing guidance

Role: Ethical Sponsor

SG banding: C2

Responsibilities:

• Ultimately decide if highly sensitive projects should be submitted for Ethics Peer Review
• Ensure research ethics is included in appraisals and discussions of development needs
• To review projects involving AI pending updated guidance

Role: Senior Ethical Sponsor

SG banding: Chief Researcher

Responsibilities:

• Act as a ‘back stop’ for endorsement of recommendations or decisions on ethical practice
• In exceptional circumstances, liaise with Government Economic and Social Research Unit (GESR) if appropriate

Completing the ethical sensitivity checklist

4.4. The Scottish Government ethical sensitivity checklist must be completed at the outset of any research, and updated when new information requires it.

4.5. The checklist is structured under the six ethical principles that all staff commissioning or conducting social research for government must uphold. A description of the relevant ethical sensitivities and risks and the appropriate actions that will be taken to manage the identified issues should be provided by the project manager for each section. The checklist should be completed with as much detail as possible. If a component of a principle is not relevant to a project, it should be marked as ‘not applicable’.

4.6. The checklist is used to categorise the ethical sensitivity of a project using the traffic light system described in the following section. A project with an overall sensitivity rating of highly sensitive (red) must be referred to the Ethical Sponsor for sign off and a decision on whether an Ethical Peer Review process is needed.

4.7. The process of ethical assessment has been designed to link into project management procedures, sign off and tendering protocols. The ethical sensitivity checklist must be completed at the start of a project as part of the commissioning process, usually alongside the Commissioning/Procurement Strategy to ensure the project is ethically viable before the final decision to commission the research is made. The project manager must ensure ethical issues are monitored and ethical behaviour is maintained throughout a project. Any ethical issues arising in the course of a project must be immediately discussed with the Ethical Adviser, with escalation if needed to the Ethical Sponsor, and ultimately to the Office of the Chief Researcher if further resolution is necessary.

4.8. The checklist must be used for both commissioned and in-house research projects. The whole checklist can usually be completed for commissioned projects and in-house primary research. For in-house secondary research such as secondary data analysis and literature reviews which do not require fieldwork, a smaller subset of the principles will need to be considered, for example those covering FOI, data protection, dissemination and scoping out of existing research.

4.9. The expectation of external ethical procedures applying to a project does not replace the need to complete the ethics checklist, the checklist is needed to ensure the ethical viability of the project has been assessed before the research is commissioned.

External Communication

4.10. A blank version of the Scottish Government ethical sensitivity checklist is placed on the Scottish Government website to help contractors understand how to identify the key ethical issues in their tender. The project manager should usually share a copy of the completed checklist with the successful contractor, especially where sensitive issues have been identified. The checklist is a useful basis for discussion of ethics at RAG meetings and should aid management of ethical sensitivities throughout the project.

Assessing ethical sensitivity

4.11. The checklist requires you to make a judgement about the level of sensitivity for each issue. This should consider the inherent sensitivity of the issue itself and the steps to manage the issue appropriately. Each issue should initially be classified as follows:

• Highly Sensitive (Red): The issue will need to be closely monitored and managed with remedial action likely to evolve throughout the project;
• Sensitive (Amber): The issue will require management throughout the project but initial identification of remedial action should ensure sensitivities are appropriately managed;
• Not Sensitive (Green): The issue has been assessed adequately as not being sensitive and this has been documented in the checklist.

4.12. The following example illustrates the consideration of ethical sensitivities. When conducting fieldwork with children, there is a certain level of inherent sensitivity and risk in relation to consent, and avoidance of harm. However, these risks can be managed throughout the life of the research project to reduce the level of sensitivity. There is no one size fits all for assessing ethical issues and the level of sensitivity. Despite the inherent sensitivities and risk around interviewing children, different projects may have different ratings depending on the topic of the research and the experience of the project manager (and appointed contractor when assessing sensitivities during the project). Whilst research with children on a sensitive topic is likely to be rated as red, a research project on a non-sensitive topic with children might be rated amber or even green.

4.13. Finally, after rating each issue, the project must be assigned an ‘overall’ sensitivity rating. Generally this is the same as the most sensitively rated part of the project. However, this is a guide rather than a rule. Project managers and Ethical Advisers should exercise their judgement.

Scottish Government sign-off requirements

4.14. Projects rated as green or amber overall can be signed off by sharing the checklist with the Ethical Adviser.

4.15. Projects rated as red must be presented to the Ethical Sponsor for consideration. If the Ethical Sponsor decides the issues are sufficiently mitigated and managed they can sign off the checklist. If they have residual concerns, they can refer the project for an Ethics Peer Review, in which case the Ethics Peer Review panel will sign off the checklist. The Office of the Chief Researcher will assist setting up Ethics Peer Review panels.

Scottish Government Ethics Peer Review process

4.16. Ethics Peer Review is an internal Scottish Government process to bring a greater level of assessment and scrutiny to the most ethically sensitive projects, categorised as red. Ethics Peer Review should support project managers in managing ethically sensitive issues alongside improving the identification and management of the issues, and should be conducted with these two objectives in mind.

4.17. The remit of the Ethics Peer Review panel is to review the ethical sensitivity checklist and other key documentation passed on to the panel by the Ethical Sponsor.

Membership of the panel

4.18. An Ethics Peer Review panel should consist of 3 Ethical Advisers or Ethical Sponsors, drawn from the pool of peer reviewers maintained by the Office of the Chief Researcher. One of the three peer reviewers should be someone who has previously been a member of an Ethics Peer Review panel.

4.19. The Project Manager should be present at the start and the end of all meetings. The Ethical Adviser responsible for the reviewed project cannot sit on the Ethics Peer Review panel, but they or the Ethical Sponsor can attend to support the Project Manager.

Responsibilities for Ethics Peer Review

4.20. A request for Ethics Peer Review should be made to the Office of the Chief Researcher by the Ethical Sponsor. The Office of the Chief Researcher will co-ordinate the initial stages of requests for an Ethics Peer Review by seeking volunteers from the pool of peer reviewers and informing the Project Manager.

4.21. As soon as three Ethics Peer Review panel members are identified and communicated by Office of the Chief Researcher to the Project Manager, the Project Manager should organise the Ethics Peer Review and provide the panel with relevant documentation and correspondence including the ethics checklist and commissioning strategy. If the Ethics Peer Review has been called at a later stage, the documentation should include the research specification, winning tender proposal and any tender clarification correspondence. On some occasions an Ethics Peer Review might be carried out entirely over email and without convening a meeting - this would be a collective decision of the Ethics Peer Review panel.

4.22. In order to ensure the findings of the peer review are fully owned by projects and embedded within them at all levels, the Project Manager should chair the panel meeting with support if needed from the Ethical Adviser or Ethical Sponsor. The chair is responsible for feeding back the conclusions and learning from the Ethics Peer Review to the Office of the Chief Researcher, for inclusion in a repository for staff who may in future be presented with similar ethical issues. The Project Manager is responsible for attaching the notes and action points of the peer review (see below) to the ethics checklist. The first signed off version of the checklist should be saved into eRDM (documents management system).

4.23. The Ethics Peer Review panel is responsible for reviewing the submitted checklist and supporting information and recommending adequate remedial action. One panel member should take notes of the key issues, including points for action and points for monitoring. A template is available from the Office of the Chief Researcher for this purpose, which should be attached to the ethics checklist.

Example format of an Ethics Peer Review panel

4.24. Peer review meetings may take different forms. The following example is the suggested approach:

1. All - agree general understanding of project: Project Manager should summarise the project and key issues triggering the Ethics Peer Review;

2. All - seek clarification and questions: Any further information required from the Project Manager before starting the discussion. The Project Manager and any supporting Ethical Advisers or Ethical Sponsors leave the meeting at this point.

3. Panel - discusses concerns / issues: Each peer reviewer raises the main ethical issues from their perspective and any concerns.

4. Panel - reviews ethical checklist: consider each section of checklist, discussing and noting issues as they arise (there may be some overlap with initial issues raised).

5. Panel - agrees main issues: finalise list of the main issues and suggested remedial action in either the form of points for action or monitoring. The project manager and any supporting Ethical Advisers or Ethical Sponsors re-join the meeting.

6. Panel - communicates main issues and recommendations to project manager: Project Manager to record issues and any remedial actions resulting from them in the template and attach to Ethics Checklist.