There are many reasons why research ethics in a University setting are a good thing, the most important being that it ensures that all research work involving humans (and/or animals) is carried out in a way that follows best practice in terms of the rights and entitlements of subjects used in such research. Dublin City University has a well-established Research Ethics Committee which provides guidelines on best practice as well as an approval mechanism which can formally approve project proposals as being ethically sound, legal and conforming to that best practice.

The DCU Research Ethics Committee (REC) has identified 4 types of submissions for ethics approval, namely:

1. none needed
2. notification only
3. expediated review
4. full committee review.

An increasing number of undergraduate and taught masters practicum projects in the School of Computing now involve people being used as subjects for surveys, for evaluation of systems, etc. With an increasing emphasis on research for undergraduates as identified in the current DCU Strategic Plan "Transforming Lives and Societies" as well as the involvement of Masters practicums in research projects, this will increase further. 

Almost all of the research work at undergraduate and taught postgraduate levels which should have ethics approval within the school, falls into the category of "notification" only. The DCU Research Ethics Committee guidelines for this are here and there is an FAQ at the end of this page which illustrates cases which do, and do not, require this level of approval.

These involve writing a Plain Language Statement of what the project is and how it involves subjects and which is written in a language for easy comprehension, an Informed Consent Form which ensures the participants have read the plain language statement, and a Notification Form for Low Risk Projects gathering details of the research experiments (name, supervisor, dates, etc.).

Starting in the academic year 2012/2013, if your Final Year Project for either B.Sc. in Computer Applications or B.Sc. in Enterprise Computing, or your Masters Practicum for any of the taught Masters programs in the School of Computing, falls into the category of "notification" above, then you are obliged to carry out the project according to guidelines from the DCU Research Ethics Committee and complete the ethics notification process to the School of Computing (not the REC), as described below. You should consult with your project supervisor as to whether you need to do this or not. If you do, then the steps are as follows:

1. Download and complete the forms for the plain language statement, the informed consent form and the notification form for low risk projects, available here;
2. Compile these into a single PDF document and submit for approval via the School of Computing Website
   • Log into the School website: https://www.computing.dcu.ie/user/login
   • Under 'Create Content', click on 'Upload Ethics Document'
   • Fill in these details and attach your PDF to this page.
3. Shortly after submission you will receive email notification of your approval or otherwise;
4. Use the plain language statement and informed consent forms in your project work and keep the informed consent forms for presentation as part of your project assessment.

If your Final Year Project/Masters Practicum does involve work with human subjects then completing a School Research Ethics submission and obtaining approval will form part of the assessment criteria for your Project/Practicum. During the assessment of your Final Year Project or Masters Practicum you may be asked by your assessors to show evidence of ethical approval from the School of Computing and of having used the informed consent and plain language statements in your work. Failure to do so may lose you marks.

• Prof. Alan Smeaton
• Dr. Kevin Casey
• Dr. Darragh O'Brien
• Renaat Verbruggen
• Dr. Monica Ward

March 2013.

Frequently Asked Questions.

Q1. My Final Year Project involves me using surveymonkey to determine people's views on transport options to/from DCU. Do I need ethics approval ?
Answer: No. Subjects are anonymous in this case

Q2. My Final Year Project requires people to take part in a game-type environment so we can measure their reaction time to various lights and sounds and other stimulii … do we need ethics approval ?
Answer: Yes. Because your subjects are identified and you are gathering information specific to them, you need school-level ethics approval and your subjects should read your plain language statement and complete an informed consent forms which you should keep.

Q3. How long does it take to get approval once its submitted ?
Answer: If its all in order and there are no issues, should be done in a day or so.

Q4. I've already started my project and realise I may need ethics approval. Is it too late to apply ?
Answer: No, its not too late once you do this before you start to work with subjects. For projects in the academic year 2012/2013. because we are installing this in mid-year, we will accept submissions even if the projects have started and you've started to work with subjects. For subsequent years you need to apply before you start to work with subjects.

Q5. I've lost my informed consent forms, what should I do ?
Answer: You need to keep the completed informed consent forms because these are your evidence that you actually put the ethics good practice into place for your project, and you will probably need to produce these at your assessment. Its up to your project assessment panel to decide on how to handle a situation where there is no material evidence of actually implementing the ethics guidelines.

Q6. My MEC Practicum is about developing a computerised dashboard for people with diabetes which gives a graphical display of things like energy use, food intake, insulin injections, etc. Does our group need ethics approval ?
Answer: If you are trialling this on "real" people as part of a usability or acceptance test then yes, you need school ethics approval, not because its diabetes-based but because you are getting explicit feedback from people on their views, etc. on your system.

Q7. I've read the documentation on the DCU Research Ethics Committee website … what's the difference between submitting a notification-only request for ethics approval to the DCU committee, and submitting it to the School committee ? It seems the same to me !
Answer: It is the same, except the school-level approval will have a quicker turnaround than the DCU-level. At the end of the year we inform the DCU Committee of all the approvals we have granted.

Q8. Who approves the ethics submissions ?
Answer: There's a group of 5 from the School of Computing, and for each submission a sub-set of this group make the approvals.

The Transfer Process:
Transferring Postgraduate Research Students to the PhD Register
School of Computing, Dublin City University

Preliminaries
  1. The transfer process described herein both codifies existing practice, and institutes
     changes to existing practice with regard to the examining panel aimed to make the
     process more efficient with the large number of research students currently registered
     in the school.
  2. The transfer process applies to all postgraduate research students intending to complete
     a PhD, including those directly enrolled on the PhD register.
      (a) Registry form PGR3/11 (‘Application for Transfer to the PhD Register or Confirma-
          tion on the PhD Register’) will only be submitted after successful completion of the
          transfer process.
      (b) Research students registering for the award of the degree of PhD will generally be
          required to have successfully completed the transfer process by the end of their
          21st month of registration (pro rata for part-time students).
      (c) For students enrolled in graduate schools, further progression requirements may
          also apply.
  3. The purpose of the transfer process is:
        • to ensure quality of doctoral research by requiring research students to achieve a
          satisfactory level of maturity in presenting, evaluating and defining their research
          before allowing admission to the PhD register, and
        • to encourage quality by providing a forum in which research students obtain feed-
          back on their work from the broader research community roughly midway through
          their doctoral studies.
  4. The transfer process is managed by the school’s research convenor.
  5. The student’s supervisor is responsible for proposing examiners, for scheduling arrange-
     ments for the student’s transfer presentation and the completion of paperwork subse-
     quent to successful examination.
  6. The research convenor is responsible for approving examiners, and ensuring that the
     process outlined herein is operated effectively.
  7. Candidates must demonstrate their suitability to transfer to the PhD register through
     the submission of a written transfer report and the defence of their report at a transfer
     talk.
  8. To complete the process successfully, a candidate must demonstrate:
      (a) that they have developed a suitably-detailed research plan,
      (b) that that research plan, if executed successfully, is likely to produce research that
          would satisfy the university’s requirements for the award of the degree of PhD, and
      (c) that they have the ability to execute the proposed research plan.
  9. The outcome of the transfer process will be determined by two approved examiners.

Examiners

10. The two examiners will be proposed by the supervisor and must be approved by the
     research convenor in advance of the transfer examination process beginning. The role
     of the examiners will be as follows:
     Report examiner. One examiner will be appointed to read the candidate’s transfer re-
           port in detail, and report to the other examiner regarding the quality of the work
           described and any concerns raised by the report.
           The report examiner must be experienced in the candidate’s area of research. He
           or she will typically be an academic from the school, but may if necessary be an
           academic from another school within the university.
           If the report examiner is significantly dissatisfied with the report in any regard
           they can request revision and resubmission prior to the student being permitted
           to advance to the transfer presentation stage. Generally candidates will be asked
           to address minor problems in the transfer report as part of their oral presenta-
           tion. Note that it may be the case that issues raised during the oral presentation
           and questioning can mean that the examiners require the report to be revised and
           resubmitted following the oral examination.
     Second examiner. The second examiner will be a member of the school of computing
           from outside the student’s research grouping. This examiner must be either or both
           have supervised successful PhD candidate or acted as examiner for PhD disserta-
           tions.
           The objective in using a second examiner from outside the student’s grouping is
           to promote consistency in examining practice and standards across the different
           research groupings within the school.
           The second examiner should familiarize themself with the written transfer report
           prior to the transfer presentation with sufficient scrutiny to form a professional
           academic opinion on whether the work conducted to date appears to meet the crite-
           ria for transfer to the full PhD register. For example, whether clear hypotheses are
           stated, whether a careful literature review has been conducted, whether the candi-
           date shows evidence of independent work of an appropriate standard (e.g algorithm
           development, code development, experimental work and results), whether there is
           a technical plan for completion of the work.

Transfer Report

11. In the transfer report the candidate should:
      (a) identify their central hypothesis or hypotheses,
      (b) provide a concise critical review of existing related research, including if appropriate
           that of other researchers in DCU,
       (c) place their specific research topic within the context of this existing work,
      (d) describe their work and results to date, and clearly identify the current and expected
           contribution of their doctoral research, and
       (e) propose a research plan that has the potential to lead to a dissertation at the doc-
           toral level.
12. The transfer report must be scientific in style. It must be no more than thirty pages in
     length (including abstract, references, timeline, publication/presentation list) and use
     the type of single-column formatting that is typical of technical reports. In particular,
     the formatting should not render the report so dense as to make it difficult to read.
     Specifically it must be a in a minmum of 10pt font with page borders of reasonable
     width.
13. A candidate must submit their transfer report to the two examiners and the research
     convenor in electronic form. Hard copy should be provided to the examiners if requested.

Transfer Talk

14. The purpose of the transfer talk is to afford the candidate the opportunity to defend
     their hypothesis or hypotheses, their work and results to date, and their research plan
     as presented in their transfer report.
15. The transfer talk will be scheduled and announced by the supervisor or research con-
     venor. At least one week’s notice will be given to all interested parties of the candidate,
     title, abstract, date, time and place of a forthcoming transfer talk.
16. Transfer talks will be chaired by the research convenor or their nominee.
17. At least one of the examiners or the chair must be of the same gender as the candidate.
18. If requested by the candidate, the report examiner will provide informal, oral feedback
     to the candidate at least one week in advance of the transfer talk. This will allow the
     candidate to address the examiner’s concerns during the talk itself.
19. The audience for the transfer talk must include the two examiners and the candidate’s
     supervisor or supervisors, and additionally any other staff or postgraduate research
     students who choose to attend.
20. The candidate must deliver a transfer talk of approximately thirty minutes, and expect a
     five- or ten-minute public question-and-answer session. Subsequently, all but the can-
     didate, supervisor, chair and examiners will leave, and the candidate will be questioned
     in detail by the examiners. The entire defence will usually last approximately one hour.
21. The chair will manage proceedings of the oral examination. They may ask questions and
     comment on the candidate’s work, but do not contribute to determining the output of
     the examination.

Recording of Transfer Talks

22. It is school policy to make recordings of transfer talks. These recordings may be used by
     DCU for educational purposes. They may also be made available publicly on the DCU
     web site. The school will not sell, profit from or otherwise publish these recordings.
23. The work presented by a candidate may, in some cases, be sensitive. For example, it
     may not yet have been submitted or accepted for publication, or there may be intellectual
     property issues. In such cases, the candidate must draw the matter to the attention of
     the chair. The chair will then arrange recording of only those parts of the talk which the
     supervisor and the student agree may be published. All work which is recorded should
     be regarded as publicly disclosed.
24. A candidate may, at any time, withdraw their consent to DCU’s usage of their recording.

Outcome of the Transfer Process

25. Following the transfer talk, the outcome of the process will be determined by the ex-
      aminers through private deliberation. The supervisor will usually be present for the
      examiners’ deliberations, but should volunteer or may be asked to leave if the examin-
      ers feel that that would be helpful.
26. If the examiners are unable to reach consensus, the report examiner will have the cast-
      ing vote in determining the output of the examination.
27. The examiners must decide upon one of the following two outcomes.
      Pass. The candidate will be recommended for transfer to the PhD register.
      Resubmit. The candidate will not be recommended for transfer to the PhD register at
           this time. The examiners must identify the reasons for not recommending transfer
           and communicate these to the candidate and the supervisor.
28. The examiners will appoint one of their number to minute the decision of the panel,
      any reasons justifying or explaining that decision, and any appropriate guidance to the
      candidate going forward. In addition, in the case of resubmission, the minutes must
      also explain clearly what the candidate must demonstrate in order to be successful
      upon subsequent resubmission.

Resubmission

All unsuccessful candidates will be offered the opportunity for resubmission at most one.
    In the case of resubmission, the following guidelines apply.

29. The panel must decide whether the candidate:
         • must resubmit a revised transfer report, and/or
         • must re-present a revised transfer talk (re-presentation talks will generally be held
           in private).
      For any particular candidate, the actual process of resubmission and examination will
      depend upon the subset of these requirements demanded by the panel. The require-
      ments and process decided upon by the examiners must be made clear to the candidate.
30. The same examiners should generally evaluate the resubmission. If one or both exam-
      iners is unavoidably not available to examine the submission suitable replacement(s)
      should be agreed in advance with the supervisor and the research convenor.
31. For resubmissions, the examiners must decide on an outcome of either pass or fail.
      Candidates will be permitted only to resubmit once. In the case of pass the candidate
      is recommended for transfer of the full PhD register without penalty. In the case of
      fail the candidate will not be recommended for transfer to the PhD register, and will
      not be allowed to resubmit to the transfer process. In the case of failure very clear
      and unambiguous reasoning must be communicated in writing to the candidate and the
      supervisor. Candidates not recommended for transfer will generally be expected to write
      up for an MSc by the end of year 2, but should consider with their supervisor whether
      they wish to follow this path.

Appeals

32. Candidates who fail the transfer process will be entitled to appeal the outcome to the
     school research committee. Appeals should be submitted in writing to the school’s
     research convenor, and include any necessary substantiating documentation.
33. Valid grounds for appeal are:
      (a) that the candidate’s performance was adversely affected by illness or other factors
          which he or she was unable or for valid reasons unwilling to divulge before the
          transfer talk,
      (b) that the transfer talk or deliberations were not conducted in accordance with the
          current process as prescribed by this document, or
      (c) that there was a substantial error of judgement on the part of the examiners with
          the result that the outcome was totally at variance with previous performance.
34. As with any process governing student progression, candidates who remain dissatisfied
     may appeal to the university appeals board.
                     
The Transfer Process: Declarations

Declaration by student:
     I have read the guidelines on the transfer process in the School of Computing and
     am aware of the requirements for transfer to the PhD register.
     Student name:
     Student signature:                                         Date:
Declaration by student (videoing of transfer talk):
     I do/do not grant permission to the school to video my transfer talk and use the
     resulting recording, as described in these guidelines:
     Student signature:                                         Date:
Declaration by supervisors:
     The above named student is being presented for transfer to the PhD register in the
     School of Computing with my consent. I am satisfied that s/he is aware of the
     requirements for transfer.
     Examiner names:
     Chair name:
     Supervisors name:
     Supervisor signature:                                       Date:

This form must be completed prior to the transfer talk and submitted to the school’s research
convenor.

Approved by school: 6/6/2012