Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

Samaritans UK: Developing ‘fit for purpose’ research ethics processes within a large third sector organisation

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Global Ethics,Human Research Ethics
on March 11, 2022
0 Comments
Keywords Ethical review,Good practice,Institutional Responsibilities,International,Research Ethics Committees
The words, "3RD SECTOR" stamped over the words, "RESEARCH ETHICS".

Simon Anderson (Simon Anderson Consulting/AHRECS associate)
Liz Scowcroft (Head of Research & Evaluation, Samaritans UK)

How can third sector organisations develop research ethics processes and practices that are genuinely fit for purpose and not simply ‘transplanted’ from approaches developed elsewhere? A recent project conducted within Samaritans UK provides some potential pointers and, indeed, suggests that some of the challenges and possibilities of research ethics in the third sector may have wider relevance.

Samaritans’ vision is that fewer people die by suicide. It is best known for its telephone helpline, providing emotional support to anyone in emotional distress, struggling to cope, or at risk of suicide throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland (though it also provides support through a range of other channels).  But the organisation also has a large research function, and undertakes, commissions and collaborates on research to inform its services, other activities, and policy and influencing work (with the ultimate aim of helping to save more lives). Not surprisingly, given the nature of the support the organisation provides and the populations it serves, there has long been a concern to ensure that such work is conducted ethically and, in particular, that the rights, dignity, welfare and wellbeing of participants are respected.

To that end, Samaritans has had a formal Research Ethics Policy in place since around 2009. The policy has been reviewed and updated several times, to reflect both changes in the external research environment (e.g. the increasing use of online methods) and in the volume and character of projects involving the organisation (e.g. a shift from largely student projects to ones directly commissioned by the organisation). It was not until 2018, however, that the organisation put in place an independent Samaritans Research Ethics Board (SREB) and associated processes. Prior to that, external research projects were reviewed for ethical issues by members of the research team but there was no independent scrutiny of projects conducted internally. When the new processes were established, a commitment was also made to review how they were working within three years. In 2021, Samaritans appointed Simon Anderson Consulting and AHRECS (who are now collaborating to offer human research ethics consultancy in the UK) to conduct that review.

The review found that Samaritans had put in place a set of arrangements that looked very like those one might find within academia. Indeed, much of the input into the SREB came from external academic experts, together with Samaritans volunteers. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, the system seemed to be working well for ‘traditional’ research projects which looked and behaved like those typically conducted within the higher education sector – for example, projects with well-defined methods, reasonably lengthy timescales and clear start and end points.

But as Samaritans has evolved, it has found itself increasingly involved in other kinds of ‘research-like’ activities – for example, user experience (‘Ux’) research aimed at understanding the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of the people who use a specific product or service, wider processes aimed at introducing a ‘lived experience’ perspective into the design or delivery of services, or work to inform campaigning or fundraising activity.

These projects often involved relatively short timelines, iterative, open-ended and dynamic ways of working, and staff and partner organisations (such as digital agencies) without previous experience of ethics review processes. The result? Widespread uncertainty about whether ethics approval was required or not, problems relating to timescales, and a sense that members of the research ethics board and applicants were talking different languages. There was also a concern about overly risk-averse decision-making, and especially the possibility that some groups (especially those of the more vulnerable) were effectively being prevented from participating in research – for example, by exclusion criteria based on experience of suicidal thoughts. As a result, the already hard-pressed Samaritans research team found itself in a difficult position – both in terms of workload/capacity (as everything had to flow through them), and because of the risk that ethics scrutiny became seen as something that they were imposing on the rest of the organisation.

Working closely with the research team and staff from elsewhere within the organisation, the review team developed and agreed a blueprint loosely based on AHRECS ‘resourcing reflective practice approach’. The main elements of that blueprint are outlined below.

Graphic of the work to support the Samaritans.

Two key features were the commitment to a whole organisation approach and to proportional review.

By a whole organisation approach, we mean ensuring that research ethics is not seen as ‘owned by’ or the sole responsibility of the research team but (potentially) as part of everyone’s work. The definition of research was expanded to include ‘research-like’ activities of the kind carried out within digital and service development, marketing and communications, and staff from those teams were included in workshops to develop the new ethics approaches and subsequent training.

By proportional review, we mean an approach which:

  1. clearly determines whether a project requires formal ethics scrutiny in the first place;
  2. involves an agreed set of review pathways that are appropriate to the complexity and risk of the project involved; and
  3. uses a risk assessment approach to guide decision-making.

Some of those pathways are ‘lighter-touch’, especially where it can be demonstrated that a project is using already-agreed guidelines and approaches – for example, in relation to user testing of new digital resources.

But this is not a watering down of the commitment to research ethics; quite the opposite. By emphasising the relevance of research ethics even when it does not say research ‘on the tin’, the experience of Samaritans (and the third sector more generally) may have important lessons for other organisations, such as those health and higher education, who accord special ethical status to particular kinds of activities (typically those that meet the Frascati definition of research). The same organisations are frequently also engaged in ‘research-like’ activities (such as staff surveys, user experience research or service evaluation) which attract no ethics scrutiny, even if the experience of participants might, in other respects, be similar. In all organisational settings, research ethics needs to be fit for purpose. In other words, it needs to work for the specific types of work conducted in those settings. But above all, it needs to work for the people whose rights, interests and wellbeing need to be protected in the first place.

This post may be cited as:
Anderson, S. & Scowcroft, E  (11 March 2022) Samaritans UK: Developing ‘fit for purpose’ research ethics processes within a large third sector organisation. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/samaritans-uk-developing-fit-for-purpose-research-ethics-processes-within-a-large-third-sector-organisation/

Related reading

An ethics argument for data sharing

Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research?

A poor call and two missed opportunities, but otherwise not a bad proposed revision to NS s5

A checklist to assist a supervisor to check a candidate’s research ethics review application

Can I use your answers anyway?

A users perspective on the ethics application process in Australia-room for improvement

A preliminary geneaology of research ethics review and Māori

“More what you’d call guidelines”

Disaster Research and its Ethical Review

‘Don’t mention the c word: Covert research and the stifling ethics regime in the social sciences’

Building beneficial relationships when conducting research with migrant communities

‘Except as required by law’: Australian researchers’ legal rights and obligations regarding participant confidentiality

Applying Place to Research Ethics and Cultural Competence Training

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Simon Anderson

Sp-user Link
I help organisations to design, commission, conduct and use social research ethically and effectively, drawing on 30 years’ experience as a research practitioner, commissioner, strategist and senior manager across a range of settings, including academia, central government, the private and voluntary sectors.
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

Other Authors

Liz Scowcroft

Head of Research & Evaluation, Samaritans UK

Twitter
Sp-mail

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in