procedures, who is part of a departmental research ethics committee within a department that comprises several areas including sports studies. Some university sports studies departments are involved in laboratory-based studies with serious ethical issues, more so than other university sports studies departments. This is also true of other areas within sports studies that have issues to be addressed.
Scrutinising research proposals
Research is undertaken by academic members of staff, postgraduate research students, Master’s degree students and undergraduate degree students. All research that is done within a university, whether it involves ethical issues or not, must obtain ethical clearance by the university before participants are recruited and certainly before data collection can commence. The way in which the research of academic staff is scrutinised by research ethics com- mittees varies between universities. There are fewer members of academic staff than students and, therefore, there is a possibility of all staff research being submitted to the departmental research ethics committee. This has the advantage of familiarising all research-active staff with the ethics policies and procedures, which in turn helps those staff when dealing with student research proposals. Some universities may choose to use similar processes to approve staff research and student research. A necessary difference is that instead of staff research proposals initially being considered by a supervisor, they can initially be considered by the appropriate member of the depart- ment’s research ethics committee. This member of the department’s research ethics committee acts as a gatekeeper to the ethics process for staff.
Postgraduate research students may also use a gatekeeper such as the chair of the department’s research committee.
The purpose of the initial submission of research proposals is to deter- mine whether they need to be considered by the department’s research ethics committee, the university’s research ethics committee, or if they can be rec- ommended for approval by a supervisor or gatekeeper. Proposals would be sent to the university’s research ethics committee if they have serious ethical concerns such as:
Analysis of blood samples or human tissue.
•
Invasive testing or measurement.
•
Repetitive testing requiring a greater volume or intensity of exercise
•
than the participants would normally experience.
Administration of drugs or other substances in dosages that are not
•
normal for the participants or drugs or other substances that are not commercially available.
Studies that could cause greater physical or psychological stress and
•
anxiety than participants would normally experience. Some interview
studies have the potential to cause stress to participants (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009: 63).
Investigating vulnerable populations or participants who are unable to
•
give voluntary informed consent.
Covert research.
•
Investigations involving health service patients, staff or facilities.
•
Proposed research involving any of these serious ethical concerns can be done at universities, provided the university’s research ethics committee is satisfi ed that such research will be undertaken in an ethical manner, by suit- ably qualifi ed and experienced researchers, minimising potential risks to the participants, the researcher, the university and wider community. Research proposals with any of these serious ethical concerns must be specifi ed in detail so that the university’s research ethics committee will be able to make a decision based on the proposed methods. Where a proposal is vague or incomplete, it will not be possible to make a decision on the research. For this reason, departmental research committees often check such proposals to ensure that only competently written proposals are submitted to the uni- versity’s research ethics committee.
Different countries have different laws relating to the use of blood and human tissue in research. University research ethics committees will reject any proposed research that potentially involves illegal gathering or storage of blood or human tissue. Any proposal to use deception will only be approved if the research question is very important and the researcher has justifi ed that there is no alternative way of obtaining the necessary data. University research ethics committees will typically encourage researchers to use role playing or other alternatives to deception for investigating the research question.
Deception violates the principles of informed consent and may also be illegal if participants’ privacy is violated in non-public places. Where ethical approval is granted for covert methods, the university research ethics committee may impose strict conditions that consent is obtained retrospectively. Where health service premises, facilities, patients or staff are involved in research studies, the university will also require researchers to have obtained ethical approval from the appropriate health authority.
Departmental research ethics committees will scrutinise any research proposals with other ethical concerns that do not need to be sent to the university’s research ethics committee. These include:
investigations involving children in school or other public places;
•
testing that involves similar volumes, intensities and exercise protocols
•
that would normally be experienced by participants;
investigations of sensitive aspects of participant behaviour.
•
Schools often have their own procedures for approving the involvement of school children in research projects. This may cause problems if schools
refuse to operate within the procedures used by the university. In such cases, the approval processes operated by the school may be used and may be suffi cient to satisfy the ethics committees within universities.
Projects with very minor ethical concerns or projects that follow stand- ard protocols may be recommended for approval by potential supervisors when the proposals are assessed as part of a dissertation module or research methods module. The recommended decision is formally approved at departmental level, which means that the recommendations of members of staff are trusted. Therefore, members of academic staff must be acquainted with ethical issues and policies in their research areas.
One issue that needs to be considered in this process is the level of detail included in the research proposal. There are research projects that cannot be approved if insuffi cient detail is provided. In cases where a research proposal is vague but the assessor is confi dent that whatever is done will not involve data gathering or analysis methods that would raise ethical concerns, there is still a way in which the project can be recommended for ethical approval. The assessor can recommend the project for approval under stated conditions that must not be breached during the research project. For example, a vague research proposal might indicate that the project will analyse performance indicators relating to the tactics of winning and losing teams within UEFA European Champions League matches, but there may be little detail of the matches to be used, the per- formance indicators involved, whether the data is coming from public sources or how the data will be analysed. There is a balance that needs to be achieved between the need to assess the student’s ability to write a research proposal, assisting the student in producing a research proposal so that a decision can be made on it, and allowing research projects to commence without undue delay. In the case described, the assessor awards the mark merited by the research proposal based on the assessment criteria for that piece of coursework. This should be a separate issue to the ethical approval process. A research proposal could fail as a piece of research methods coursework and be approved as a potential dissertation.
Alternatively, the research proposal could pass but the project described might not be immediately granted ethical approval. The desirable situation for the student and staff is that the research proposal is of a high enough standard to pass as a piece of coursework and be a research project for which ethical approval can be granted. In the case described, the assessor could recommend ethical approval on the condition that the proposed research uses publicly available broadcast footage only.
Where fi lming by the researcher is indicated in the research proposal but the proposal is vague, the assessor can recommend ethical approval on the condition that letters requesting permission to fi lm are produced and used, the study does not involve any under-18-year old participants and the video material gathered will only be used for the purpose of the investigation.
Challenges for research policies and procedures
There are many occasions where the need for ethical approval can cause diffi culties for the normal teaching, learning and assessment activities of university sports studies departments. One such challenge is where research proposals are submitted as part of a level 2 research methods module but where the university also accepts students directly entering the degree programme in level 3 who may have done levels 1 and 2 at other academic institutions where a level 2 research proposal was not required. These direct entry students need to be provided with an opportunity to have a dissertation proposal approved early during their level 3 academic year. These students will need to submit a research proposal as part of the dissertation module that will satisfy the requirements of research ethics committees and not necessarily include all of the theoretical aspects covered within research proposals normally submitted in a level 2 research methods module. Essentially, the purpose of the research proposal in level 2 is primarily to assess learning outcomes for research methods, with the secondary objective of preparing the students to commence a research project in level 3. The students who enter the university directly into level 3 of a degree programme will have already satisfi ed the prerequisite learning outcomes for research methods using other forms of assessment. Therefore, a more effi cient research proposal should be produced by direct entry students for the purposes of determining a dissertation topic, identifying a supervisor and seeking ethical approval.
A related challenge to that posed by direct entry students is where stu- dents change their minds about what they wish to do within their research projects between levels 2 and 3 of their degree programmes. Some students may genuinely not be certain about what they wish to do by the end of level 2 of their programme of study but may have to submit a research proposal as part of the assessment of their research methods module. Students should be encouraged to identify their level 3 research area during level 2, but it is also necessary to provide support for those students who wish to investigate a different area to that described in their level 2 research proposals. Often students change their minds for sound academic or career reasons. In such cases, the opportunities provided for direct entry students to submit research proposals at the beginning of level 3 should also be provided to students who submitted a level 2 research proposal but who have decided to do an alternative research project.
A further challenge arises from the confl ict between assessing student ability and ensuring research proposals are written satisfactorily to be sub- mitted to research ethics committees. A research question that is not a worthwhile or important research question can potentially waste partici- pants’ time if the research project goes ahead. Where there are no ethical concerns with the proposed project other than wasting participants’ time within a poorly designed or unimportant research project, assessors experi- ence a dilemma between wanting to assess the student’s ability and award-
ing a fair grade, and wanting to avoid an ill-advised research project being undertaken. Assessing a student’s proposal fairly and providing feedback to assist the student’s learning is a normal educational process. This allows the student to revise the proposal in line with the feedback given.
Occasionally research ethics committees question the data analysis pro- cedures described in research proposals. Some sports studies departments may be happy for students to gather data in an ethical manner minimising any risks, but making errors when data are analysed. The analysis of data and the reporting of results seldom involve additional risks to participants or the researcher. Where a research ethics committee forces a student to alter the data analysis procedures before the project is approved on ethical grounds, the student is essentially being given advice about data analysis that is not provided to other students. This advice could come from a super- visor who is keen for the research project to commence or from a research ethics committee where detailed feedback is provided. This confl ict between the need to assess student performance fairly and the desire not to waste participant’s time in poor research is something that needs to be managed by programme committees and research ethics committees.
SUMMARY
Ethics has been covered from two perspectives in this chapter. First, scien- tifi c dishonesty has been discussed with specifi c reference to the types of dishonest practices that could potentially occur in performance analysis investigations. Misleading authorship and plagiarism are wrong because they result in people gaining credit for research that is not their own.
Fabrication of data, omission of data, using data with known reliability problems or where the storage of data may have corrupted values is wrong because readers may make decisions based on the results of the study, believ- ing the data are real and reliable. A further source of scientifi c dishonesty is publishing non-original research in outlets where it is clearly stated that contributions should be original.
The second part of the chapter described the research ethics policies and procedures operated by universities to ensure that research is undertaken in a way that minimises risks to participants, the researchers, the university, col- laborating bodies, the wider community and the research area. All research carried out by staff, postgraduate research students and students on taught programmes must be granted ethical approval before participants can be recruited. The main ethical issues in performance analysis research relate to confi dentiality, fi lming, vulnerable populations and reporting results that could cause social, psychological or fi nancial harm to participants.