As researchers, we recognise the fundamental importance of being able to conduct legitimate research into sensitive and controversial topics. This is integral to healthy academic debate and potential sensitivity or controversy are not reasons per se to proscribe certain topics. We nonetheless have a duty to ensure that all research is conducted to the highest ethical standards to ensure the appropriate protection of research participants and to minimise risks of reputational harm either to the individual and/or to the University. We also need to ensure that all PhD projects can feasibly be conducted within the expected timeframe of a PhD. Therefore, where ethical approval is required, projects must be realistically likely to gain approval from the University Research Ethics Committee by the end of their first year of study (subject to the usual process of initial review and resubmission following any amendments that may be required) and, if not, that a workable alternative plan can quickly be put into place.

These guidelines outline the approach that should be taken to reviewing PGR applications, with particular attention to those involving research into potentially sensitive topics. Of course, even seemingly innocuous topics have the potential to generate controversy or reputational harm if researched insensitively or without due regard to ethical considerations. Nonetheless, there are certain broad topic areas that are more likely than others to have the potential to be classified as sensitive and thus require closer scrutiny as part of the application process

Whilst acknowledging that some of the measures below are already in place and deemed good practice across the Faculty, the following additional measures will now be mandatory:

Initial recruitment (applies to all applications submitted by an applicant)

• All research proposals submitted by applicants must address the implications of potentially sensitive or ethically challenging issues raised by the research.
• All applicants are required to submit a short CV, which should be considered alongside the research proposal. The Supervisory team must flag all potentially sensitive or ethically challenging issues to the relevant PGR tutor/programme lead prior to formal candidate interview.
• All PGR recruitment interviews must address the implications of potentially sensitive or ethically challenging issues that were identified in the initial review of the proposal, and how this may impact feasibility of the project’s proposed research design.
• If after the interview there are any doubts regarding the likelihood of the project gaining UREC approval in a timely manner, the interviewers must refer the application upwards to School PGRD and Research Director.

Once recruited: the following applies to PGRs who are accepted onto our programmes and are working in potentially sensitive or ethically challenging areas

• Supervisory meetings must address the issues raised by the proposal as an early priority in the first semester of study.
• An outline of the proposed research design should be submitted to the Chair of the School Research Ethics Committee by the time of the mid-year review in the first year of study, or shortly thereafter. The REC Chair will provide guidance on any potential concerns. If these cannot be addressed easily, such that the proposed research design is deemed to be unlikely to get through UREC review without either significant delay or refusal, the PGR will be required to amend their research design as a matter of urgency.
• Once UREC approval is gained, any potential additions or changes must be discussed fully with supervisors and, if approved by supervisors, will require the usual UREC approval

University Research Ethics Committee application process and initial supervisor review