Abstract
In recent years, Research Ethics Committees in academic colleges of education have constituted to review research proposals in the field of education. Yet, little is known about their work, composition, challenges, and relationships with external partners. This study explores the views and attitudes of 13 members and chairpersons of Research Ethics Committees in colleges of education in Israel, and two policy makers at the Ministry of Education about their roles, responsibilities, challenges, and limitations. Findings revealed an instrumental attitude towards the ethics committee. Committees are perceived as supportive rather than enforcing. Interviews shed light on the complex relationships between committee members, college lecturers/researchers, ethics regulators, and academic management. Moreover, the findings emphasized the lack of formal training and broad discussion on ethics. The study calls for strengthening committees’ raison d'être and the internalization of ethics among committee members, researchers, and lecturers in the field of education.
Keywords
Introduction
Research communities strive to ensure ethical research conduct and ethical citizenship among researchers (Thompson, 2014). This requires in-depth knowledge of relevant procedures and rules aimed at enhancing integrity, as well as reflexivity and participation at all levels of discourse regarding research ethics and ethical principles—in order to manage conflicts and tension that stem from the requirement to engage in proper research (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004).
Although there are various definitions of ethical misconduct in research (Macfarlane, 2009; Mertens & Ginsberg, 2009; Miller et al., 2012), there is a consensus that this concept relates to how researchers collect information, manage scientific research and report findings, as well as how they protect the rights of the research participants (Mertens & Ginsberg, 2009). It is also agreed that the role of ethics in research and science is becoming larger and more significant over the years (Hammersley & Traianou, 2011).
A principal institution for ensuring research ethics, with an emphasis on the ethical treatment of research participants, is the organization's Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is often the Research Ethics Committee (REC). By providing a link between the general public and research professionals, these institutions promote rules of ethical conduct through initiatives such as organization of faculty workshops in research ethics or providing ethical counseling to researchers and discussion of specific dilemmas and cases by REC members, researchers, and academic staff within an institution. In the research context, RECs review and approve research proposals while protecting the rights of the research participants and cautioning them about any potential and incidental harm as a result of the study, by ensuring, for example that adequate information to this effect is included in the informed consent documents and delivered to them (Wolf et al., 2008).
The importance of RECs is increasing as more studies address unethical research conduct. These include inadequate preservation of research data, or changes made to the research design, for example shortening or revising parts of a survey or adding another research population which was not included in the original proposal. It may also include changes in the research methodology, or findings in response to pressure from funding organizations and others, data falsification, plagiarism, and removing data from the analysis (Al-Marzouki et al., 2005; Bouter et al., 2016; Fanelli, 2009; Fang et al., 2012; Matrinson et al., 2005). High rates of unethical behaviors and noncompliance with human subjects’ protection requirements are the reason for the recent increase in rejected articles and submission withdrawals (Almeida et al., 2015; Bar-Ilan & Halevi, 2017; Inoue & Muto, 2016; Steen et al., 2013), along with arguments of institutional corruption concerning the fact that scientific self-regulation has not resulted in adequate quality control (Redman, 2015).
Today, these ethical violations occupy not only editors and researchers in the Medical and Exact Sciences, but also in disciplines such as Education (Bruton & Rachal, 2015) and Economics (Necker, 2014). They stem from the requirement to publish a large number of research papers each year, in order to progress in academia (Le Maux et al., 2014) and also from varied other reasons, such as funding pressures, institutional failures of oversight, commercial conflicts of interests, lack of or inadequate training, erosion of mentoring standards, and constituting part of a larger phenomenon of social deviance (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017).
In academia, the significant role of IRBs in general and of RECs in particular is indisputable (Grady, 2015; Resnik, 2018). Different institutions establish different means for institutionalizing their ethics committee, and apply different rules for determining the required background and training of its members and procedures. Both the regulating of RECs and the regulating work that they conduct symbolize the climax of ethics governance—a social and institutional process that is characterized by increased bureaucratization, auditing, and rigidity that also applies to higher education (Pels et al., 2018). However, despite their importance, they may create a misconception whereby researchers are free of moral and social responsibility—as committees provide a safeguard from legal claims or personal responsibility (Sikes, 2006; Sperling, 2016).
The literature also refers to tension between researchers and committee members regarding the implementation of the “ethics industry” in academic life. Such a phenomenon is characterized by, for example, the frequent evaluation of researchers’ behavior as reflected in the research program and interaction with the REC, alienation, and withholding participation in the process due to possible violations. Moreover, it is unsure whether actions taken by RECs actually reduce possible harm to the institution, as they cause frustration among researchers in their demand for blind compliance with their rules (Gary, 2008; McAreavey & Muir, 2011). Other claims refer to the committees’ arbitrary decisions, lack of accountability, actions taken without formal authority (Malouff & Schutte, 2005; Uys, 2006), and a regime of a demanding oversight to protect research participants from harm even without proper evidence (Scott & Fonseca, 2010).
Haggerty (2004) coined the term “ethics creep” in relation to ethical bureaucratization that attempts to govern social research through ethical tools. While this process may set out to be a positive one, it harms research integrity and results in injustice (Dyck & Allen, 2012). This raises questions regarding the role of ethical regulation in research institutions—the former limiting the innate freedom of discussion and pluralistic debate of the latter (Moore, 2006). As such, RECs find themselves at an intersection of neo-liberal values and discourse pertaining to the accumulation of knowledge, ethics, and the role of science (Guta et al., 2013).
Furthermore, while committee members are expected to have a rich background in research ethics, their knowledge centers mainly on their professional experience (Guillemin et al., 2010)—which is not always in line with current ethics guidelines. Research also reveals that committee members with little experience in ethical dilemmas tend to make personal decisions rather than document-based ones (Egan et al., 2016). These findings are especially worrying as some academic institutions only offer committee members up to 4 h training in research ethics, if at all (Abbott & Grady, 2011; Hayes et al., 1995; Klitzman, 2015).
In Israel, education has only been an academic field since the mid-1980s (Hofman & Niederland, 2012; Shagrir & Altman, 2014), after which teachers were required to hold a bachelor's degree, not just a teaching diploma. Moreover, in the past, teacher training colleges prioritized the practical side of teaching. Over time, however, they began to introduce academic standards relating to pedagogy and research. Today, teacher training colleges in Israel even offer master's programs (Zuzovsky et al., 2019). Criteria for appointing staff members have also changed, requiring advanced academic degrees, specialization, and reputation. These developments were made in relation to larger policy decisions, whereby the supervision of teacher training colleges is to be transferred from the Ministry of Education to the Council for Higher Education (Gutman, 2020).
In 2015, the Israeli Ministry of Education issued guidelines for regulating educational activities, including recommendations for establishing RECs in all academic colleges of education. Faculty researchers will have to submit proposals to these committees, whose discussions and decisions will be open to review by the Chief Scientist Office (CSO) of the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education, 2015). According to the guidelines, all educational research studies are subject to the ethical approval of both the relevant REC and the CSO, except for research that does not entail participants who are pupils, or is about them. Other exceptions for the additional approval by CSO include research that involves no more than 15 educational institutions that are supervised by the Ministry of Education. This is correct, providing the research plan does not involve pupils as participants or as direct or indirect subjects of inquiry, or case studies from a single educational institution that does not involve pupils or is not about them (i.e., research programs that do not involve pupils as direct or indirect subjects of inquiry). In addition, all research types require the approval of the institution managers. Hence, all research proposals initiated by college faculty researchers are usually discussed first by the REC. Once approved, they are then submitted to the CSO for additional approval. In cases where the CSO does not provide ethical approval, the researcher must revise the research proposal and resubmit it to the CSO for approval. Moreover, proposals can be submitted directly to the CSO, thereby bypassing the REC. Finally, the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education include some instructions as to the constitution and the work of RECs, yet they do not refer to the ethical principles or criteria that these committees should apply when reviewing proposals.
In light of the importance of RECs in higher education in Israel in general, and their evolving significance in education in particular, and given the lack of knowledge pertaining to their activities and the challenges they face, this research is, to the best of the author’s knowledge, the first to focus on RECs in academic colleges of education.
Method
This study examines two central research questions:
What are the attitudes, views, and perceptions of REC members in academic colleges of education regarding the committee's status, roles, and authority, actions, and suitability to performing their roles? Which main challenges and difficulties do REC members face while filling their roles?
The research standpoint is that encounters with RECs in academic colleges of education will uncover the complexity of their relationships with peers, researchers, and regulators, expose challenges resulting from exercising their role, and reveal their contribution to promoting ethical research conduct (Dyck & Allen, 2012). These encounters may further reveal an ambivalent perspective as to the confidence that committee members show regarding their knowledge and expertise in ethics, and the diversity of their ethical attitudes that guide their discretion (Klitzman, 2015).
This qualitative research follows the grounded theory tradition (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and includes in-depth semistructured interviews held during 2017–2018. Based on social anthropology, the study focuses on the conceptual meaning of culture (Wolcott, 1988, 2001). This perspective regards the constitution of RECs in academic colleges of education as a process of cultural change, reflected in the revision of rules, practices, ceremonies, way of living, and world views of researchers in these colleges (McAreavey & Muir, 2011).
The study population consists of 21 academic colleges of education in Israel (Council for Higher Education, 2020), yet during the research period, only 16 of these colleges had RECs. The researcher approached the chairperson of each REC in these colleges. Five either declined participation or simply did not reply to the participation requests. In one college, the ethics committee had just been established and the chairperson was not ready to participate. The research participants included 13 REC members from 10 academic colleges that vary in size, homogeneity, religiousness (secular/orthodox), and religion (Jewish/Arab). Nine participants were committee chairpersons and four participants were committee members in three different colleges. All had extensive professional experience as researchers (at least 10 years) and as committee members (most frequently 2–4 years). The participants also included two senior professionals from the CSO, who served as regulators and were exclusively in charge of research approvals within the education system.
Participants were recruited following direct calls for participation. They were then provided with thorough explanations about the research study and gave their informed written consent. Initially, only REC chairpersons from the potential colleges were interviewed. Following this stage, REC members who agreed to participate in the study were also interviewed, until data saturation was reached with no new and significant information or theme being observed. As is common in qualitative research, this was the point when research participants were no longer recruited. During and following meetings with the participants, data and materials were collected and analyzed.
The interview guide was developed especially for this research based on the relevant literature. It contains six parts. The first part includes biographical questions regarding the interviewees. The second part relates to the way the interviewees describe and understand the structure of the REC and its functions. Examples of questions from this part include “how and when was the REC established in the college?”; “do you work according to formal guidelines?”; “please provide two examples of difficult cases which the research committee discussed and refer to the way they were resolved.” The third part of the interview guide relates to attitudes and perceptions regarding the REC. Questions from this section include, for example, “how would you justify the existence of RECs?”; “how would you regard the contribution of the REC?”; and “what are the difficulties pertaining to the existence or work of the REC?” The fourth part concerns relationships between the REC and external bodies/entities. Included in this section are the following questions: “is the college management involved in the REC's decision or work?” and “how is the research ethics perceived by researchers in the college?” The fifth part relates to training of REC members. Examples of questions in this section include “what in your biography makes you competent as a REC member?” and “do you think research ethics members should be trained? If so, how and by whom?” The last part of the interview guide refers to issues that have not been raised by the researcher and that interviewees have thought about during the interview or that questions that the interviewees would like to ask the researcher following the interview.
The interviews explored and described the complex attitudes and views of committee members and regulators regarding research conducted in the education system. Participants exposed difficulties in fulfilling their roles due to dilemmas and challenges.
The researcher was the only person to conduct the interviews. Interviews were in Hebrew. Each interview lasted 55–122 min and was recorded and transcribed. Identifying data was disregarded wherever possible, to maintain anonymity. The major themes identified from the interviews were developed and reorganized into a scheme of codes and central themes (Seidman, 1998; Unrau & Coleman, 1997). Through a focused and data-based process, these themes received interpretation and were then reorganized again (Feldman, 1995), using grounded theory principles (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Findings were arranged into final categories and themes, with a hierarchy being determined and justified, and major and core categories identified.
Prior to the interviews, the participants were informed about the research process, objectives, expected benefits, and possible risks to the participants. Following this information, each participant declined or consented to participate. When signing the consent form, participants were able to add specific requests regarding their agreement, such as whether they would like to review transcripts, to be informed of research findings or publication, and so on. The research program was preapproved by the Ethics Committee of the MOFET Institute, which provided funding for this research (Approval # RBO21IC, dated November 15, 2017).
Results
The results of this study are based on an analysis of in-depth interviews that were conducted with 13 REC chairpersons and members from 10 academic colleges, as well as two senior professionals from the CSO. Nine interviewees were male and six were women. Participants were aged late 30–60s. Eight were full or associate professors while others were mostly senior lecturers. Their academic backgrounds were very diverse, including disciplines of education, psychology, management, and sociology. The research sample included one Arab college, one ultra-orthodox Jewish college, and a number of colleges with heterogeneous Jewish and Arab student populations and fields of expertise, including physical education, science education, and many other fields of teacher education. Most of the colleges had been established more than 50 years prior to the research and were located in northern, central, and mid-southern regions of Israel and in the Jerusalem area.
The findings present nine main themes that stem from the analysis and interpretation process, including: (1) general attitudes regarding research ethics; (2) establishment of RECs; (3) composition of RECs; (4) how RECs work; (5) attitudes and views regarding RECs; (6) the relationship between RECs and researchers; (7) involvement of college management; (8) the relationship between RECs and the CSO; and (9) training of REC members.
General Attitudes Regarding Research Ethics
Most participants regarded research ethics as reflecting the researcher's duty to ensure fair guidelines and participants’ rights. They referred to protecting participants’ anonymity, having a real understanding of each proposed research program, and applying ethical safeguards to the publishing of research data and results. One interviewee characterized the ethical reasoning as implementing common sense, that is, how the researcher articulates and criticizes organizations and policies, and addresses inefficient mechanisms. In this participants’ view, ethics also relates to “how to sincerely write about a specific phenomenon, without distorting the facts but in a way that serves the said field.” Another interviewee commented that researchers’ awareness of ethical limitations when conducting research in education is important, as such limitations may affect the research plan and procedure when ensuring compliance with the required ethical standards.
Establishment of RECs
Except for one college, all RECs whose members participated in the research were established within the past 5 years of the time this research was conducted. Most were established by the college's Research Authority, as a result of researchers being required to present ethical approval when submitting papers for publication or requesting research grants. In some colleges, the committees were set up following requests from external researchers to conduct a study within the college, or to approve the research theses of graduate students in the colleges. Some were established following the CSO's inability to process and approve all research proposals with the necessary speed and efficiency—because of their sheer volume: Our ethics committee was established following contradictory messages from the Ministry of Education, saying ‘We know we’re slow. That's why we encourage you to establish a local committee.’ Slowly but surely we began to realize that the Chief Scientist gives us more and more freedom. Without any formal document. We realized that… in fact, we don't need to bother them with this… I saw people submitting proposals with ethical mistakes, obvious unethical conduct… invasive questions, lack of professionalism, not telling the whole truth… lots of manipulations… Students’ research that involved their teachers or that involved school children, all misconducted. Concealing the truth, concealing the research objectives… When a person asked not to be cited, this was not respected. Very, very difficult things started to surface. It was all broken. The place was broken. Students, teachers, researchers. Everyone was involved. This may not be politically correct, but this was mainly evident in the Arab sector, where, if you’re a relative, you can do whatever you want… Working with 5-years old children without parental permission, without the teacher's permission… Just the school principal's approval. At times, the research took place thanks to close relationships with the teacher. The teacher would say: ‘come on in.’ With no supervision.
Composition of RECs
According to the Israeli Ministry of Education guidelines, the composition of the RECs will be determined by the academic institutions. However, the guidelines stipulate that the number of RECs’ members should not fall under six, and that these committees will include senior faculty representing various disciplines relevant to educational research including a jurist, a psychologist specializing in emotional aspects of the lives of children and adolescents, and a prominent education person with reputation and experience in the educational field. However, this research finds that RECs in academic colleges in Israel are not strictly organized according to these guidelines. All RECs included a chairperson and a number of members—usually five. In one college, the chairperson was not a permanent faculty member. In some colleges, the chairperson served as the college's Research Authority, which strives for its college members to publish as many academic papers as possible. Some interviewees, mostly regular members and not chairpersons, expressed concern about holding these dual and perhaps conflicting appointments when they replied to a direct question on this subject.
The chairperson's academic background was very diverse, including disciplines of Psychology and Sociology of Education. Unexpectedly, excluding one college, the chairpersons had a little formal background in ethics. Not all RECs include a psychologist. In two colleges, there was a call to include a lawyer on the committee to ensure the legality of all proposed research papers. One ethics committee included a lawyer who was also an expert in education; another included a librarian who specialized in ethics and plagiarism.
How RECs Work
Committee members are usually appointed for short periods, mostly 2 years, with an option to be reappointed. In some colleges, the members have not been replaced for more than 5 years.
In rare cases when ethics committee members cannot reach an agreement about a research proposal, either a third party or the chairperson is given the right to decide. Most committees operate according to self-regulating guidelines which are published on their websites, and in some colleges—they are also delivered to researchers through workshops or emails. However, the general impression is that colleges act insufficiently to actively inform researchers of RECs and its guidelines.
With most committees, the application for research approval is submitted through an electronic form, where researchers must reflect on possible ethical problems that may derive from their research and how they can be resolved. In one college, researchers were required to specifically determine the probability of ethical risks.
In general, the committee chairperson receives and reads the proposal, and then consults with at least one other committee member—often someone from the relevant research discipline. In one college, the chairperson writes her comments on the proposal and forwards it to other members. In most colleges, committee members discuss proposals prior to receiving the chairperson's input. Rarely is a proposal reviewed by all committee members. Finally, the chairperson has broad discretion for managing proposals. In some colleges, the chairperson's decision outweighs that of other committee members.
The number of applications submitted to the committees varied extensively, ranging from 4.5 to 70 per year between 2016 and 2018, with an annual average of 27 requests (SD = 20). This large variance can be explained by the age of each committee, with some being much newer than others. Nevertheless, in all colleges there has been a gradual increase in the number of proposals submitted in recent years. Additionally, as a result of these committees being established, combined with the growing awareness regarding the importance of ethical reviews, there was an increasing number of informal consultations with committee members relating to potential ethical problems of a given research.
The impression is that the vast majority of cases submitted to the committees are approved. In a significant portion of cases, researchers are asked to supply additional information, and only then their requests are approved. Even though the members discuss values and ethics, there are few disagreements between them. This is probably explained by the relatively clear guidelines issued and by a claim, raised by participants, that in education, manipulation, or ethical violations are rare.
Generally, members’ discretion is guided by principles. According to one interviewee: At the end of the day, every research seeks to generate knowledge. A body of knowledge needs to be created but under sterile conditions, namely with no negative influences on the researcher or the participants… As long as we stay in this range, there is no problem… In our discussions, we ask about its impact, how dangerous it is… What things the researcher needs to consider… to make sure that things go ahead as planned.
Proposals that are not approved or that require additional discussion include long surveys that take a long time to complete, proposals with increased risk to participants, or research programs that are sensitive. For example, research about exercise lessons in retirement homes, comparing between Jewish and Arab college graduates, sexual behaviors, women's status, male authority, infidelity, or obesity in the Arab community.
In a few colleges, three or four in-person meetings are held each year for reviewing proposals. Most committees, however, review proposals via the computer rather than meeting in person. Most interviewees did not feel that such meetings were lacking, because as one interviewee explained, “We don't encounter research studies with special ethical problems. Most research proposals involve adults, teachers, with informed consent, and interviews.”
Regardless, the interviews did reveal some issues that raise ethical questions. One such issue refers to cases where teaching students participate in a faculty-conducted research. For example, when lecturers collect nonanonymous information from their students, through interviews, for example, analyze their coursework or learning products, or video the lessons. This ethical issue is intensified when the requirement to participate in the research is mandatory. In such situations, the person who conducts study is also the students’ lecturer who gives them their course grade. This places the lecturer at a point of conflict of interest. Even if the lecturer makes every attempt to not let the students’ participation/nonparticipation/input influence her grading, she may do so without being aware of this, or the student may feel that she did so.
The study shows that in some of colleges, the ethics committee does not approve this type of research, or only approves it if the participants are not from the researcher's course, or after grading the students course work. Alternatively, such research may be conducted anonymously—whereby the students are not informed of the name of the researcher when completing the questionnaire, and no identifying data about the participants is forwarded to the researcher.
Another issue concerns small research assignments prepared by undergraduate or graduate students that include interviews, questionnaire, ethnographic observations, and so on. At all of the colleges, such assignments are not submitted to the ethics committee, as this would lead to a heavy workload for the committee, given the large number of students and such assignments, and which in turn could even possibly delay their graduation. According to one chairperson, this is “a real catastrophe,” with a lawsuit recently being filed against a student who interviewed someone after ensuring anonymity, but then published the interview with identifying information.
A third group of sensitive proposals involve activities that apply to participants’ bodies. Although these are physical tests, they are not considered medical experiments. Examples include testing for specific hormones among physical education students, taking blood tests, or examining the physical effort among the elderly. The findings show that even in risk-free cases, research proposals that entail physical tests are forwarded to Helsinki Committees in hospitals, namely committees that review medical research involving human beings with stricter rules and regulation. When proposals receive approval from these Helsinki Committees, their review by the college ethics committee is merely technical, and they are then approved.
Attitudes and Views Regarding RECs
The relatively small number of applications submitted to the committees was explained in various ways. In most colleges, it was argued that not all faculty members apply for permission. This has to do with the slow and gradual development of a research culture among people whose main occupation is not research. As one interviewee—a well-established researcher with numerous publications—admitted: Even myself, a researcher who has dealt a lot in research… When I’m asked about my professional identity, I don't say that I’m a researcher. I say that I’m a person who deals in Education, training, entrepreneurship, and that I also research and write… Most of these people deal mainly in teaching. They conduct research because they want to progress and they understand that it's important to their promotion. I think that after they conduct the research, they also understand this is important for their profession.
Hence, the committee's image that surfaced from the interviews was one of a facilitator, providing researchers with necessary permissions. Many interviews expressed that the committee is not the “police.” Instead, the committee is an institution that provides services to researchers; that acts “in a counseling capacity and provides a safeguard in extreme cases.”
The interviews also reflected the committees as providing ethical mirroring for the researchers, cautioning them, raising awareness, attempting to prevent harm, and so on. One committee chairperson emphasized that the committees’ major function is to bestow a mindset of academic research, where researchers must meet methodological, behavioral, and ethical standards.
As mentioned, the interviews revealed an approach whereby most research in education is not ethically problematic: Research in education is very ‘intermediate’… Don't draw blood from anyone, don't electrocute anyone, see if they scream ‘ow’ or not… 90% of studies are surveys or interviews, which are usually anonymous, not linked to other databases, where you have to crosscheck or access someone's personal file… There are not too many difficult ethical problems… In most cases, I feel like a doctor in a healthcare clinic, in a village. I mainly prescribe Paracetamol. I do things rather easily. One in a million there is a complex event or challenging research proposal, or something debatable. That's very rare.
Despite these attitudes, the interviewees justified having ethics committee, whereby even if they fail to “catch the criminals,” it is their job to deter them: Tell me: A sheriff in a small town in the USA, where there is no violence – does that mean that there’ s no need for a sheriff? For the one time when something bad happens, you need him to maintain the current situation. You know, sometimes, the fact that the sheriff makes a round of the village, with his gun in his halter – he reminds people that there is law and order, so don't break the law.
The Relationship Between RECs and Researchers
Most interviewees described the relationship between their committee and the researchers as positive and constructive. While some admitted that faculty members would prefer not to have an ethics committee or the burden of having to submit their research proposal, this research revealed little tension or clashes between the two. According to one chairperson: Our teacher educators truly believe that we are doing the maximum we can for them and they understand we are not against them… We try to support them: First, so they won't encounter trouble, second, so the institutions won't encounter trouble, and third, so they can publish their article. I think they understand there's reciprocity here. I haven't encountered any difficult problems… In colleges, you have different kinds of doctorates… D.Ed., Ed.D. …with less research… If you don't fully understand research, you have to learn this field. Ethics is still not grasped. It has a more remote place… You first have to learn how to collect data, ask research questions… analyze the data, etc. Where is ethics here? It's only an interfering factor… Lecturers have told us…: ‘Journals don't require this, why should I?’
Another case where the committee did not approve the research proposal included a possible conflict of interest. The questionnaire was to be delivered to students (i.e., the participants) by the research team—comprised of their course lecturer and other lecturers. While the researcher insisted on the research team approaching the participants and explaining how to complete the questionnaire, the committee asked that a research assistant delivers the questionnaire instead. The researcher refused, approached the college Dean, and appealed the decision. This was the fifth time that this lecturer had fought the committee's decisions. (To the best of the chairperson's knowledge, the said research has not yet been conducted.)
Involvement of College Management
Most committees do not include representatives from the college management staff. In one college, the rector serves as a member but does not review proposals.
Some interviewees mentioned a complex relationship between the ethics committee and the college management. When external researchers request to conduct a study in the college, the college must decide on the degree to which it agrees to disturb its students for research that serves others, or to have information about the college published. At times, such a decision can conflict with the ethics committee decision.
In one case, the ethics committee reviewed a research proposal submitted by a group of researchers from several colleges. The research sought to examine the frequency in which students in that college use Ritalin and its purpose. The department head refused to approve the research, as publishing the results could harm the college's reputation. As such, the ethics committee was instructed to reject the proposal, explaining that the students are too busy and are already participating in other research projects. Both the committee chairperson and the Research Authority chairperson tried to alter the management's objection, but to no avail.
Another sensitive issue concerns research on work relations in the college, as this could have implications on the college's reputation. In one such case, the college management was involved and prevented the proposal from even being submitted to the ethics committee. Interestingly, the interviewee justified this: I think it's legitimate to say there are issues where in some situations, the institution can say ‘Wait!’ This doesn't mean that this research won't take place. It means it can't take place at this moment in time… We always have to look beyond the research participants… Even when the research is approved [by the ethics committee] … the institution… the head of school can also say ‘I don't agree…’ There is managerial discretion beyond the need for research… At that moment in time, it is the managerial voice that matters.
The Relationship Between RECs and the CSO
The research revealed that receiving ethics approval from the CSO could take up to 6 months. This long time period could harm the research and the researcher, especially master's students who must complete their studies within a given timeframe and who wish to conduct their research in the school where they teach.
Some interviewees criticized the CSO. First, the long delays result in not all research proposals being submitted to the CSO when they should have under the Ministry of Education guidelines (according to one interview, up to 50% of proposals in his college!), changing the research focus to escape review by the CSO, or submitting a broadly written proposal that is more likely to be accepted. Other techniques for bypassing the need for approval from the CSO included approaching research participants outside their work or school, or approaching teachers through social media as permission from the CSO is only required if the study is conducted within a formal framework.
Some interviewees criticized the restrictions posed by the CSO on teachers’ research that involves school students. However, while such restrictions may curtail research opportunities among teaching graduate students, research that is also reviewed by the CSO makes it easier for the ethics committee.
Interviews with two senior employees of the CSO presented two contradicting approaches. The first, reflective of the Ministry of Education guidelines, holds that in some cases, colleges have the authority to approve research proposals. The second approach, however, holds that only the CSO can approve such proposals—especially regarding young participants or cases where members of RECs at teacher training colleges may have a conflict of interest.
Both interviewees denied there being long waiting times for ethical approval and discussed the recently introduced procedure for approving research proposals. The “Green Path” procedure requires an initial review of the proposal by the CSO, to verify that the research proposal does not require extensive review. This accounts for about 75% of research topics. The proposal is then exempt from the CSO's approval and is instead reviewed by the head of the educational organization where the research is to take place, usually the head of school. Research topics must be approved by the CSO related to illegal behavior, violence, risk-associated behavior, suicidal behavior, sexual orientation or sexuality, trauma, mental disturbance, stereotype attitudes, religious beliefs or way of living, research in kindergartens, and so on. Certain methodologies are also subject to the CSO's approval, including videotaping, audiotaping, or the misleading of research participants.
The interviewees referred to the Green Path policy as a business licensing policy: Just as new clothing stores and new pharmacies pose different possible risks to the public, and as such are subject to different licensing policies, so do different types of research. As such, ethical review and approval of research must consider the specific possible risks of each individual proposal. The guiding principle must be that the greater the research sensitivity and potential risk, the more comprehensive the regulations.
The Green Path policy was justified by the CSO interviewees, not only as it shortens the waiting times, but also because of their inability to effectively monitor research proposals that are submitted for review. Authorizing school principals to ethically approve studies that are to be conducted within their schools also reflects an idea of localized governability of research ethics. From this perspective, it is concerned with the expanding role that parents play in their children's education: In the [past]…, the general saying was: ‘The State is wise, the State will protect its children.’ Today, in many areas… parents have more and more say. Parents… play more central roles in decision making regarding their children. And, for better or for worse, the State withdraws slightly… I don't have a choice. I have difficulty with this, because when you say I’m subject to a zero-risk policy, then you can't be innovative. Research stems from innovation and entrepreneurship… where you take risks, you do what someone has never done before. On the one hand, you don't want to use children as laboratory rats…, but on the other hand, you do want to rejuvenate in science. Ninety-eight percent of research cases do not entail ethical problems… So two percent need to be dealt with. You need to establish mechanisms for identifying these two percent, because there's no point in taking care of one hundred percent… I think that part of the role of ethics committee is so that as a routine, things will flow, and you have to see how the mechanisms identify those that really need to be stopped. I think schools are becoming incubators. It's not just a matter of teaching… school students. It's a kind of incubator that represents bodies of knowledge so that the school… can be a learning organization. I think teacher's research won't just affect the researcher or teacher, but also the school as a whole.
The CSO's broad authority was also justified by the possible conflict of interest of the members of college RECs, given the anticipated reputational and monetary benefit following research publications. Finally, it was argued that the CSO holds an “oral bible,” namely the nondocumented accumulated knowledge that is not shared with colleges and RECs and is greatly connected to the application of ethical principles to the education system.
Training of REC Members
Most committee members and chairpersons had no professional background in ethics in general, and in research ethics in particular. They mostly implemented self-learning and learning from their experience to gain more knowledge and expertise in the field. Other than at one college, where researchers were obligated to take a Good Clinical Practice course, there were no training requirements. Moreover, some interviews conveyed that training was not necessary—an attitude justified by the existence of coherent rules and intuitive understanding, that cannot necessarily be solidified through seminars or courses. Moreover, as all committee members hold doctoral degrees, they have a certain degree of experience in ethics.
On the other hand, some interviewees referred to the need for training, such as committee chairpersons being trained by the CSO, holding meetings to discuss ethical issues, and providing one-on-one consultations with research ethics experts. Some interviewees preferred training sessions in the form of podcasting, videos, or webinars. Holding an annual meeting for committee members from all academic institutions was suggested, where colleagues could meet to discuss ethical issues in detail.
Discussion
This research analyzed the evolving institution of RECs in teaching colleges in Israel, and raised questions regarding their structure, personnel, how they work, and their relationships with other institutions.
Following a social anthropological view of the findings pertaining to the submission of research proposals for ethical review, it is possible to argue that an established culture of research is yet to exist and internalize among faculty members in academic colleges of education in Israel. REC members’ perceptions in this regard uncover a slow and gradual development of a research culture among people whose main occupation—and perhaps also professional identity—is not research. RECs are perceived as supporting and facilitating—not as judgmental or criticizing. This finding may also be shaped by the fact that educational research is in itself an evolving field (Tangen, 2014) that has yet to be fully established in colleges in Israel (Hofman & Niederland, 2012). As Ametller (2020) argues, science education research has not generated a theoretical framework that brings together the theoretical sources of teaching and learning science. From this perspective, this research study is not in line with the consensus that correct research management involves the exercising of ethical responsibility and citizenship of researchers (Thompson, 2014), which may assume a more active and critical role to institutions such as RECs. Faculty members in these colleges struggle to redefine their roles, professional responsibilities, and relationship to research.
In general, it is rare to find objections to the existence of RECs relating to educational research (Vermeylen & Clark, 2017). Indeed, while this research focused only on the perspectives of REC members, it found little tension between committee members and researchers. Moreover, the findings of this study presented only rare cases in which committees limit the academic freedom of researchers by manifesting its institutional power as discussed elsewhere (Caleb, 2015; Musoba et al., 2014). This phenomenon seems to be more evident in universities than in academic colleges.
This study found that RECs in teacher training colleges are established following the external requirements of academic journals, research funds, or the Ministry of Education—not due to an inherent understanding or perception of the necessity of research ethics. This may be why committee members do not undergo comprehensive training in ethics, but rather rely on their intuition or personal research experience. This is also enhanced by the assumption that educational research rarely involves complex ethical dilemmas or possible harm to participants. As a result, these committees have not developed strategies and procedures needed for evaluating research proposals or engaging in moral reasoning (Resnik, 2017).
Many of the interviewees did not deem it necessary to undergo formal ethics trainings or hold discussion with members of other RECs, as they are not convinced of the necessity of such committees, beyond the formality of their establishment. In line with the literature, neither did they believe that becoming ethics experts could exist independently of their own personal research experience (Guillemin et al., 2010). In addition, these findings reflect that defining and evaluating risks in the field of education is inherently difficult (Wells, 2010). It is recommended that the CSO, which carries the general responsibility on research in the educational system in Israel, will regulate on the required education and ethical training for research ethics members and will provide funding for such training.
One reason why these RECs may be perceived as less important that one may have expected relates to the professional identity of teacher educators in academic colleges. Similar to the literature, researchers at most colleges regard themselves as involved, first and foremost, in instruction—not in research (MacPhail et al., 2018). As other studies show, this study also revealed that teacher educators are expected to conduct research and publish their findings, even though they lack research knowledge and experience (Lunenberg et al., 2014; Smith, 2015). Participants’ perceptions on research ethics may reflect that they perceive research as merely instrumental, as a means to an external end—mainly promotions and occupational security. The inherent value of research and its contribution to their professional quality is not recognized, and as such research ethics requirements are insufficiently internalized.
A central difficulty that came to light in this study concerns the involvement of students in research conducted by their lecturers (Ferguson et al., 2006). Although the committee members’ attitudes varied significantly on this topic, they did agree that this is ethically problematic, resulting in the researchers’ conflict of interest. While interviewees did not refer to the students’ needs in such cases, the literature emphasizes the importance of examining the views of students who participate in their instructors’ research and incorporating them into ethics rules and regulations (Cartmell, 2016).
The study also revealed tension between RECs and the Ministry of Education, specifically the CSO. The requirements for RECs to have research plans approved by the latter, on the one hand, and the delegation of heads of school of the authority to ethically approve research, on the other hand, were both criticized by ethics committee members. Interestingly, under the recent “Green Path” policy, proposals that were exempted from CSO's approval were not deemed to be sufficiently approved by RECs in the colleges. Instead, they were referred to the school principals for additional approval. This may be related to the CSO's lack of faith in the committees’ ability to conduct a proper field-related ethical review.
In light of this analysis, one should ask why an additional review of research proposals by an authoritarian central entity such as the CSO is really necessary, especially as the process may take a relatively long time. A fundamental reform of the current system of human subject protection may be considered in relation to the educational system in Israel. Such a reform could include the following principles: All research proposals involving human subjects should be reviewed and approved by RECs prior to their implementation. The CSO should set the policies and procedures for human subject protection within the educational system; and the CSO should provide oversight of the performance of RECs and research types that are subject only to the approval of school principals, not RECs.
These findings refer to long waiting times for ethical approval by the CSO, to various ways to bypass this difficulty and to its implication on educational research carried out in academic colleges of education. These findings are in line with previous studies, whereby the limited resources of the CSO cause long delays and even deter researchers from submitting research plans for ethical approval or encourage them to alter their research question (Hazzan et al., 2018). In other cases, researchers simply recruit teachers (i.e., participants) through social media, without considering the related ethical problems (Kantanen & Manninen, 2016). Although some policy changes have been introduced by the CSO, specifically delegating school principals to ethically approve studies, they have not yet received adequate support from researchers. It is also unclear whether these changes consider the inherent vulnerability of teachers as researchers at their schools deriving from their hierarchical relationship with the school management or their distinctive relationship with teacher educators at colleges regarding research that is performed at their school (White, 2011).
In principle, not only do RECs address ethical aspects and outcomes of the proposed research, but they also assess the quality of standards presented in the proposal and its overall scientific benefit (Klitzman, 2013). However, this research reflects the perception, demonstrated in other studies, that the mandate of RECs is to review ethics-related aspects, less the validity of the methodology and/or research tools (Suzuki & Sato, 2016). Some believe that reviewing the scientific rigor is an important and increasingly required element of IRB review of research proposals (Suter & Suter, 2017) holding that weak or flawed research design that cannot achieve research aim imposes risk and burdens to research participants with little or no knowledge or social benefit and as such represents unethical research (Selker et al., 2015). Yet, previous studies reveal a controversy among REC members as to whether the scientific merit of the proposals which they review should be good enough or that it should be as good as possible. Such a controversy has implications, for example, on the question of whether REC members should adopt a higher versus lower standard of evaluation of the science of protocols that have been reviewed by another institutional committee (Klitzman, 2013).
Another issue that came up from this research concerns the fact that RECs seek to achieve a balance between exercising their judgment-regulatory authority, maintaining researchers’ motivation to conduct studies (Morrison, 2015), and protecting the institution's interests (Guillemin et al., 2012). As such, they greatly contribute to the socialization of research—conducted by researchers within the institution, gradually leading to a shift from temporarily and coincidentally dealing in research, to a practice that researchers take seriously and initiate (Shore, 2009).
In addition to discussing the role of RECs in colleges of education, it is important to assess the role of the individual and all that is at stake—either as a researcher, who must behave according to accepted ethical principles, or as a research participant, whose participation or lack thereof is not always risk free. However, this topic is much broader than the scope of this study, extending to areas of deliberation and exchange between members of the research community (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2016) and other unknown situations that may arise during or after the research is conducted. Finally, the ethical conduct of research goes beyond the specific and limited authority of ethics committee and regulators—those who determine the “how to” rules (Blee & Currier, 2011). From this perspective, this research serves as a small and partial example of the research ethics enterprise, whose multiple facets require more elaborate research.
Best Practices
RECs and regulators should share their experiences, challenges, and difficulties in enforcing ethical conduct, and discuss their attitudes as key players in advancing a culture of research ethics within their institutions.
Research Agenda
Additional research on the structure and process of RECs and their relationship with other institutions will be of great value, especially within the Social Sciences and Humanities in fields that lack an internalization of the significance of research ethics. This study raises an important research question, that is, how should academic institutions increase awareness and significance of RECs among faculty and researchers, so that the practice of research ethics becomes inherently motivated and embedded in them? This question is particularly pertinent regarding faculties that do not primarily define themselves as researchers, but rather as professionals, training staff, or instructors in higher education. Qualitative research including interviews with such position holders, managers, and regulators could benefit from exploring relevant insights and narratives. In turn, this could determine optimal structures and processes for RECs when reviewing research proposals, and training directions for the committee members. This will promote a culture of research ethics that is acceptable and desired by this unique academic community, and members who are responsible and accountable.
Educational Implications
REC members should receive adequate and applicable training linked to their needs and perception of their roles and responsibilities. Training formats should vary, to suit each member's field of research, type of academic institution, and the existing ethical reasoning of their institutions.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the financial support provided for this research by the MOFET Institute.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the MOFET Institute (grant number MOFET research grant [approval #RB021IC 15/11/2017]).
