Management School Ethics Policy and Procedures

The lead researcher at Sheffield University should complete electronically the appropriate ethics application form at the University´s central ethics web site – the form can be found at:
Research Ethics website

The lead researcher should submit an electronic copy of the form along with any accompanying documents (information sheet, consent form, IWP additional statements etc.) to:
Email: mgt.research@sheffield.ac.uk
They should submit a hard copy of the signature page to the school´s ethics administrator: Harriet Godfrey (Rm D42 – Double Turret)

It should be noted that some funding organizations, e.g. the ESPRC, have additional ethics processes.

IWP applications are required to provide additional information on 2 points:

•  List all measures to be used in the study (e.g., specify performance measures, attitude scales, affective states, behavioural measures. Please append copies of interview schedules, questionnaires)
•  What will be done about individuals whose scores signify potential hazards for them or for others (e.g., maximum score on GHQ, Impaired peripheral vision in a driver, observation of poor care or neglect in a care setting)

A postgraduate research student should complete electronically the appropriate ethics application form at the University´s central ethics web site – the form can be found at:
Research Ethics website

IWP students should also make sure that they provide additional information on 2 points:

• List all measures to be used in the study (e.g., specify performance measures, attitude scales, affective states, behavioural measures. Please append copies of interview schedules, questionnaires)
• What will be done about individuals whose scores signify potential hazards for them or for others (e.g., maximum score on GHQ, Impaired peripheral vision in a driver, observation of poor care or neglect in a care setting)

The supervisor should check the form and submit an electronic copy of the form along with any accompanying documents (information sheet, consent form, IWP additional statements etc.) to:
Email: mgt.research@sheffield.ac.uk
They should submit a hard copy of the signature page to the school´s ethics administrator: Harriet Godfrey (Rm D42 – Double Turret)

If the supervisor decides that research ethics approval is not needed by the project, then a documen explaining why Research Ethics Review is not needed needs to be submitted to the Research Office prior to confirmation review.

Please note, PGR Students should submit their ethics form at least one month prior to their confirmation review or prior to fieldwork being carried out (as collecting any data from human participants needs to be ethically approved) whichever happens first. Passing of the confirmation review will not be processed without the student gaining ethical approval for their research or explaining why ethics approval is not necessary. 

Students who expect to require research ethics approval for their research must make an application at confirmation review stage. If research plans then change and amendment to the research ethics review will need to be made and a new or updated application made.

The student and the supervisor should jointly complete the appropriate electronic ethics application form at the University´s central ethics web site:
 Research Ethics website

We expect most of these applications to be low risk and can therefore be approved by the supervisor. If the supervisor or student has queries as to the nature of the risk of the project or the completion of the forms, they should contact the School’s Research Ethics Chair in the first instance – A.Brint@sheffield.ac.uk

If the application is low risk then once approved by the supervisor this form should be submitted to the appropriate member of the Student Experience Office an electronic copy of the form along with any accompanying documents (see the section on form completion below) will then be sent to:
email : mgt.research@sheffield.ac.uk

If the supervisor deems the project high risk as it involves `vulnerable persons´ and / or `highly sensitive topics´, then the supervisor should complete the School´s ethics reviewer form which can be found in the Downloads section of this page, and send an electronic copy to the School´s ethics administrator, in addition to the standard PGT ethics submission. Decisions on High risk applications cannot be made by the Supervisor alone and will be referred to the Ethics Review Panel for consideration

Examples of `vulnerable persons´ include children under 18, people who lack mental capacity and those who feel that they have no real choice on whether to participate. Examples of `highly sensitive topics´ include race, religious beliefs, sexuality and political opinion.

For the MSC Occ Psy course they should submit a hard copy of the whole form including the signature page and any accompanying documents to the school´s postgraduate office. They must also provide additional information on 2 points:

• List all measures to be used in the study (e.g., specify performance measures, attitude scales, affective states, behavioural measures. Please append copies of interview schedules, questionnaires.
•  What will be done about individuals whose scores signify potential hazards for them or for others (e.g., maximum score on GHQ, Impaired peripheral vision in a driver, observation of poor care or neglect in a care setting)

These documents should have a school coversheet with a bar code of the students registration number on along with the module code and coursework number.

A minimum of 3 ethics reviewers are required to ethically review either a staff-led or a supervised postgraduate researcher project proposal. The reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the applicants or the applications.

Further for ESRC projects (including studentships these must be reviewed by a panel that includes a gender mix, and a lay person)If the applicant is unhappy with the outcome of the review, then they can appeal to the school who will convene an ethics review panel comprising staff who were not involved in the original decision, who will reconsider the application