Research Misconduct Policy (draft April 2010)
[Paper 09/RC/22 for CRC 5 May 2010]
1.
Policy Statement
The University is responsible for ensuring that the research it supports is carried out legally, in
the public interest and in accordance with best practice. This document sets out the principles
and procedures for making, managing and investigating allegations of research misconduct.
This policy applies to anyone involved in research in the University, whether as an employee,
student, research manager or in some other capacity, such as a visitor or external research
collaborator.
All employees of the University and individuals permitted to work in the University have the
responsibility to report any cases of suspected research misconduct. All those individuals
undertaking research at the University are obliged to comply with this procedure.
2.
Principles

The University will take seriously all allegations of research misconduct relating to the
work of any employee, student, research manager or anyone else involved in research
within the University.

No detrimental action of any kind will be taken against any person making an allegation
through this policy in good faith, in line with the University’s Whistleblowing Policy and
Public Interest Disclosure Legislation.

Any allegations made will be investigated thoroughly, and in accordance with the highest
standards of integrity, accuracy and fairness.

Investigations will be carried out in such a way as to safeguard the confidentiality of the
interested parties.

Bearing in mind the confidentiality of personal matters, the outcome of the investigation
will be made known as quickly as possible to all parties with a legitimate interest in the
case.
3.
Definition of Research Misconduct
For the purposes of this policy, research misconduct includes (but is not restricted to) doing,
planning or attempting to do any of the following:


Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting
the results of research
Deliberate, dangerous or negligent deviation from accepted practice or agreed protocols
in carrying out research, and failure to avoid unreasonable risk or harm to humans,
animals used in research, and the environment
D:\265327071.doc


Facilitating misconduct in research or collusion in, or concealment of, such actions by
others
Intentional and unauthorised use, disclosure of, removal of or damage to research
related property of another researcher, including:
o Intellectual property
o Writings
o Data
o Apparatus
o Materials
o Hardware
o Software
o Any other substances or devices used in or produced whilst conducting research
o Infringement or data protection requirements or the confidentiality of research
subjects
o Misquoting or misappropriation of the work of others and, for example, the
unethical use of material provided in a privileged way for review or assessment
For the avoidance of doubt, misconduct in research can include acts of omission as well as acts
of commission.
It excludes genuine errors or differences in interpretation or judgement in evaluating research
methods or results, or misconduct unrelated to research processes.
4.
Procedure for Reporting Misconduct
Any individual who suspects research misconduct should report it to the Head of School with
overall line management responsibility for the research concerned. Allegations should,
wherever possible, be made in writing.
If the matter concerns the Head of School, or if there is a potential conflict of interest, the matter
should be referred to the Head of College. If the person making the allegation is uncertain how
to proceed or who to make their allegation to, they can seek support from their manager or from
an HR Advisor.
In the case of a person or organisation external to the University wishing to report allegations of
research misconduct, they should report it to the University Secretary and the allegation will be
referred on to the relevant Head of School or College.
The Head of School or College or their nominee will, throughout this document, be referred to
as the ‘Responsible Person’.
5.
Initial Screening
The Responsible Person will make an initial assessment of the allegation, in consultation with
an HR Advisor. They will consider the scope of the allegation and identify those individuals who
may be implicated in the alleged misconduct. These individuals will be treated as ‘respondents’.
The initial screening of the allegations by the Responsible Person may require a meeting with
the person making the allegations, or the respondent(s) to ascertain simple factual information.
However, this is not part of a formal investigation, and all parties should be reminded of this.
During this part of the process, the Responsible Person will consider whether the allegations
are mistaken, frivolous, vexatious and / or malicious. They will then take one of the following
actions:
D:\265327071.doc




Dismiss the allegation if it is clearly frivolous or mistaken
Arrange for the matter to be resolved informally if the misconduct is of a minor nature
Arrange for the matter to be taken forward using the Disciplinary Procedure, if sufficient
evidence is available such that no formal investigation is required, or
Arrange for a formal investigation as outlined below
The outcome of this part of the process should be confirmed in writing to the complainant, and
the respondent(s) if they are aware of the allegations at this stage.
6.
Arrangements for Investigation
If the Responsible Person decides to proceed to a formal investigation under this procedure,
they should take the following steps, in consultation with an HR Advisor:
6.1
Decide if the respondent(s) should be suspended during part or all of the investigation.
This is likely to be appropriate where the investigation may be inhibited or there is a risk
to other employees, students, University property, working relationships or the
continuation of other research.
If suspension is considered necessary, it must be carried out in line with the University’s
disciplinary procedure, with the support of an HR Advisor. The continued need for
suspension should be reviewed throughout its duration.
6.2
If the research concerned is funded by an external body, then the Responsible Person
should ensure that the funding body’s requirements are met in terms of communication
about allegations of research misconduct. For example, several research councils and
charities have clauses stating that they should be notified of cases of suspected
misconduct and kept informed of developments.
Where funding bodies wish to conduct their own investigation, it should be done in
partnership with the University, and the University will retain its responsibilities as
employer.
6.3
Consideration should be given as to whether any other collaborators need to be informed
or consulted. The Responsible Person should always bear in mind the requirements of
the Data Protection Act when considering what information to release, and should always
remember that they need to protect the identity of the potentially innocent respondent(s)
where possible.
6.4
If the alleged misconduct could constitute a criminal offence, then the police should be
informed at the appropriate time. The Responsible Person should inform the Head of
School and their Head of HR prior to notifying the police. If the police become involved in
the matter, their advice should be sought as to whether to suspend the internal
investigation while they carry out their own enquiries.
6.5
The Responsible Person should appoint an Investigation Team to gather and evaluate
the facts in an expeditious manner. This team should consist of at least two people at an
appropriately senior level, who have the relevant expertise in the appropriate field if
necessary, and who are not (and have not been) directly involved in the specific piece of
research which is subject to the investigation. In addition, the Responsible Manager must
ensure that there could be no conflict of interest. Team members must be given a copy
of this policy at the time they are appointed.
D:\265327071.doc
6.6
The Responsible Person should confirm to the respondent(s), (verbally and in writing) the
following:






The nature of the allegation
The decision to carry out an investigation
The likely duration of the investigation
The members of the investigation team
Sources of support, e.g. Staff Counselling
The right to representation during the process, i.e. by Trade Union or workplace
colleagues
The respondent(s) should also be given a copy of this policy.
7
The Formal Investigation
The remit of the investigation team is to establish, examine and evaluate all relevant facts to
assess whether there is evidence that research misconduct has been committed, and if so, the
nature of the misconduct.
The investigation will be carried out as quickly as possible so as not to prolong the matter.
The investigation team will interview the complainant, the respondent(s) and any other
witnesses as they see fit, in addition to examining the relevant research records and materials
where necessary. When arranging interviews, the investigation team will confirm to the
interviewees their rights to representation where appropriate.
The investigation panel should arrange to interview the respondent(s) after all other witnesses.
They should allow the respondent(s) to:




Ask questions
Present evidence in their defence
Request further witness statements if necessary
Raise points about any information given by any witness
A written record of each interview will be produced and the interviewee will be asked to sign to
confirm its accuracy.
Once the investigation team have completed their interviews and examined any other records or
materials as appropriate, they will prepare a report setting out the evidence, the accounts of the
interviews and a summary of their findings.
8
Outcome of the Formal Investigation
The Investigation Team will submit their final report to the Responsible Person, who will
determine what action to take, following consultation with an HR Advisor. Possible actions are
as follows:




Further investigations may be undertaken if evidence is unclear, or further evidence
needs to be sought
The matter may be dismissed, if there appears to be no case to answer
The matter may be resolved informally through training or counselling if there only
appears to be misconduct of a minor nature
The matter may be taken forward under the appropriate stage of the University’s
Disciplinary Procedure (remembering that further investigation is not necessary).
D:\265327071.doc
In all cases the respondent should be informed of the decision taken both in person, and in
writing by the Responsible Person.
If the matter has been dismissed, the Responsible Person should take appropriate steps to
preserve the good reputation of the respondent and protect the complainant from any
victimisation.
If the allegation is found to have been vexatious or frivolous, then action may be initiated
against the complainant under the relevant University policy (e.g. disciplinary or harassment),
subject to the provisions of the University’s Whistleblowing policy.
9.
Action following Final outcome
Once the matter has been resolved, the Responsible Person should inform those parties who
have a legitimate interest in the matter. This could include the funding body, a relevant
professional body, or the editor of journals in which articles have been published relating to the
research in question.
Where an allegation has been upheld, the Responsible Person should check the conditions of
the relevant funding body in relation to the specific funding for the research in question, and
take any action as appropriate. This could involve returning funds or correcting research
papers.
If the respondent(s) has obtained any qualification through proven misconduct, then the
Responsible Person should consider making a recommendation to the University that the
qualification is revoked.
10.
Other literature
When involved in any cases involving Research Misconduct, it is advisable to become familiar
with the University’s Disciplinary Policy and the Whistleblowing Policy.
This Research Misconduct policy follows the main procedural steps and guidance provided by
the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) in their document ‘Procedure for the Investigation of
Misconduct in Research’ published in August 2008. Their document provides further detailed
guidance and advice, and may be referred to throughout this process. IT can be accessed
through the following link:
http://www.ukrio.org/sites/ukrio2/the_programme_of_work/procedure.cfm
D:\265327071.doc
05.05.10
Paper 09/RC/19
RESEARCH CENTRES
IN THE COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
Interim Paper for College Research Committee May 2010
Introduction and work so far
At the behest of the then Head of College, the College Research Committee established a Research
Centres Working Party (RCWP) in 2009 (for membership see Annex 1). To some extent the work was
structured by earlier work done by the then Dean of Research and the College Research Officer in 2005
on Research Centres, although this work had not been completed. After initial discussions in the Working
Party, the College Research Officer conducted a survey of the 80 research centres (whether formally
called ‘centres’ or given another title such as ‘institute’) which we were able to identify at that time. The
survey questions are set out below in Annex 3. It is hard to summarise the responses themselves, but they
have proved useful for three purposes. The first is identifying the key facets of Research Centres, and
summarising and collating into a usable format for all centres is ongoing work. The second is to reinforce,
as the working party in fact had surmised, very few centres had been through regular review processes (or
indeed any at all) and it does not seem clear that they are central to School planning processes in most
cases (this point was reinforced by the failure of most School/UoA responses to the CRC RAE to REF
paper in November 2009 to refer to the role of centres in achieving strategic research objectives. The third
is these responses have been useful in the formulation of a typology of ‘centres’ and ‘networks’ set out
below.
In terms of process, although the RCWP met on three occasions in the first half of 2009 to discuss the
survey and the material which was generated by the survey, the work was not taken forward to a
conclusion partly because of staff changes at the level of Head of College. It was felt appropriate to wait
until the new permanent incumbent was in post. A meeting was held between Dorothy Miell, Jo Shaw
and Jean Grier in April 2010, which looked at an earlier version of this paper and reviewed the work so
far undertaken and the likely future pathways. Professor Miell recommended reconvening the RCWP in
summer 2010 to undertake further work, but endorsed the key points made below at the need for a
College Strategy.
What has also become clear in the meantime is that this is not a settled landscape. Since the work of the
RCWP started, quite a few new centres have been established and these have been, or in the case of very
recent additions, are being incorporated into the survey. Even now, it is not totally clear that all centres
have been ‘captured’ within the survey. Moreover, whatever its current relevance, many people seemed
unaware of a College Checklist (Annex 2) which was made available to us during the course of our work
and many centres were being established within Schools without reference to approval processes within
the College and the University.
The need for a College strategy
The most important task now remains to identify how best research centres, in all their manifestations,
can contribute to the research goals and strategies of the College and its Schools. This means having a
clear strategy for research centres/institutes which should have five key elements:


A clear statement of the purposes of research centre/institute type entities for the College and its
Schools.
An established typology of research centres/institutes which incorporates within it the main
opportunities and risks which each type of centre/institute is likely to face/enjoy which will help
individuals and groups involved in Centres or thinking of establishing one to work out where they
are in relation to the shifting landscape (and also understand where on the landscape they might
want to find themselves if they meet their underlying aims and objectives).
D:\265327071.doc



A set of processes at the College and School level covering all the aspects of the lifecycle of
centres/institutes, but taking into account the very substantial differences which exist between
them, e.g. in relation to scale, resources, budgetary autonomy, academic purposes, etc.. Some
Centres should only be addressed at the School level. Others clearly require a College level/crossSchool process. As a minimum these processes will include:
o Procedures for establishing ‘centres’ and ‘institutes’, which establish their aims and
objectives, governance arrangements, and resource/budgetary issues.
o Procedures for reviewing centres and institutes.
o Procedures for ‘sunsetting’ (i.e. closing) centres and institutes.
An informal register of centres and institutes, which is kept up to date by the College Research
Officer which includes an indicative categorisation (primary and secondary) of centres and
institutes within the agreed typology.
College level visibility for the work of the centres and institutes by giving them a clear presence
on the website (not least because they often represent the best of world class research across
disciplinary boundaries and across School and College boundaries, and/or because they have
attracted significant external research income, which we would wish to draw attention to, as
means of attracting staff and research students to the University of Edinburgh). This is in addition,
of course, to supporting centres wherever necessary to ensure they have good visibility for their
own websites within or across Schools.
A typology of Centres
What follows is a first attempt to create a useful typology for centres and institutes.
‘Pigeonholing’ centres in this way is not meant to undermine the validity of centres and institutes as they
exist currently, but to give a better picture of the range of ‘research centres’ which the College hosts. One
outcome of this exercise is to develop a better definition of ‘centre’, ‘institute’, ‘network’ or ‘group’
which will make it clearer to external users and colleagues in the University what expectations there are
for types of centre, and how they contribute to the development of research within and beyond the
College. One message which undoubtedly came out of the survey outcomes was that all centres need to
be more self-aware of what they do and why they do it, and whether they should identify themselves in a
different way. In fact, it may be better overall to think about centres and institutes not as ‘things’ or
objects/subjects, but rather as processes and vehicles for achieving other research or knowledge-exchange
related objectives.
Centres with portfolio of grants (P)
These centres have generally been in existence for many years, and enjoy reasonable financial and
academic sustainability. They may have emerged out of one core grant but now have their own
momentum, or out of an earlier network. Indeed, such centres often still combine networking functions.
Sometimes such centres ‘morph’ into (quasi) subject areas within Schools, with a substantial portfolio of
identified teaching ‘responsibilities’ (especially at the postgraduate level) devolving to members of the
centre (e.g. Centre for African Studies).
The main risks to such centres flourishing are:
 changes to the funding landscape resulting in the loss of the usual sources of ongoing external
funding or the end of existing ‘core’ funding arrangements;
 staff changes, especially to core staff whose primary salary costs are charged to a school, or a
subject area/department within it;
 the absence of financial transparency/agreed outcomes relating to the returns on external research
funding and/or postgraduate teaching.
D:\265327071.doc
Centre with core project(s) (C)
These are externally funded centres with one or more core projects; often these ‘core projects’ including
the building of capacity to create longer term sustainability.
The main risks to such centres flourishing are:
 failure to achieve long term sustainability at the conclusion of the core grant, with a consequent
uncertainty about what to do with the centre – i.e. should it be ‘sunsetted’?
 staff changes
‘True’ networks (N)
These networks (usually termed institutes or centres) operate across boundaries, whether between
‘disciplines’ or subject areas within Schools, between Schools or between Colleges. They need to be
embedded in schools’ plans, and they often assist the College to signal to external users and stakeholders
interdisciplinary clusters of world-class research or areas with real development capacity. Often ‘true’
networks are very important for postgraduate research student development. Arguably the status of ‘true’
network in this sense is rather unstable because of the various risks which they face and the fact that it
may be hard to judge when the core purpose of such a network has been met, or is no longer being met:
 in the absence of a core project, participants may lack a core objective and/or lose sight of an
existing objective;
 true networks often attempt to be (over)inclusive, potentially leading to a loss of focus;
 staff changes may lead to a loss of focus, but there may be no one person or group of persons with
the requisite authority to lead a process of change or ‘sunsetting’;
 networks are hard to ‘review’ and thus to benchmark against a stable set of objectives.
Smaller networks or centres (S)
These are to be found primarily within single disciplines, subject groups or schools; smaller networks or
centres can be good vehicles for individuals or groups to achieve external funding, and they may also
provide an excellent ‘identity base’ for postgraduate research students which is more focused than ‘true’
networks. They also provide an external signalling capacity, as with the broader ‘true’ networks. Smaller
networks/centres may sometimes have originated with one large grant to an individual. As with true
networks, smaller networks and centres may not be very stable over the longer term, because they face
many of the same risks. Unless such networks and centres develop a capacity for self-reflection and
regular reinvention, they may be difficult to sustain at an effective level over the longer term. Arguable,
such centres and networks need the ambition to develop into ‘true’ centres with a portfolio or grants or a
core project, or into true networks with a wider base and a strong capacity for self-reflection. These
smaller centres can be over-exclusive, and some have an element of personal ‘fiefdom’ about them.
KE delivery (K)
Knowledge exchange delivery is a secondary characteristic of many centres, but the primary or sole
characteristic of some, especially those working directly with external partners such as charities.
Teaching delivery mechanism (T)
This is a secondary characteristic of some centres, especially those under P.
Redundant or dormant centres (X)
In a few cases, we identified centres which had outlived their function and which should be regarded as
closed; in some of these cases, the [ex-]director of the centre volunteered the centre for removal from our
lists.
D:\265327071.doc
Note on the differing approaches of Schools:
Within PPLS, Psychology follows the science model of research groups where centres are limited to
groups with high external funding and individuals pay a high entry fee. Some other schools have research
clusters or groups within or across disciplines, especially in SPS and in the non-Psychology disciplines in
PPLS (Linguistics and Philosophy). As examples, below the Institute of Governance there are the
Territorial Politics Group and the Public Opinion Parties and Elections Group; and below the Just World
Institute there is the Migration and Citizenship Group.
Next steps
1. Discussion at College Research Committee (5 May 2010)
2. Further reflection by RCWP (after 5 May 2010)
3. Finalisation of paper at CRC in September 2010
4. Presentation of paper to College P&R (Autumn 2010)
5. Implementation of decisions (Autumn/Winter 2010)
D:\265327071.doc
Annex 1
Research Centres Working Party
Membership:
Prof Jo Shaw (Dean of Research) (Chair)
Prof Iain Boyd Whyte (Director of Visual Arts Research Institute Edinburgh: VARIE) (ACE)
Prof Ian Deary (Director of the Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology) (PPLS)
Prof Susan Manning (Director of Institute of Advanced Studies in the Humanities)
Dr Anne-Sofie Laegran/Mr Alex Ogilvie (Edinburgh Research and Innovation)
Prof Lyn Tett (Director of Research, School of Education)
Dr Heather Wilkinson (Co-Director of Centre for Research on Families and Relationships) (Director of
Research, School of Health)
Prof Robin Williams (Research Centre for Social Science/ISSTI) (Director of Research, School of Social
and Political Science)
Ms Jean Grier (College Research Officer, Secretary)
D:\265327071.doc
Annex 2
COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
Check List for the creation of new Centres and approval of existing Centres
1.
Head of the Centre








2.
Staff in the Centre






3.

what resources are to be allocated, in terms of space, including whether or not this is time-limited
what equipment will be transferred, and what amount of equipment budget, if any, will be made
available – by which School/College.
what will happen to the equipment once the Centre closes.
Financial Aspects of the Centre’s Management




5.
where authority lies for determining how many staff may be recruited, and for how long a period
the method by which staff may be identified for secondment or invited to apply for appointment
the period of secondment/appointment and whether – and if so by whom – this may be extended
the terms of secondments from Schools, including financial, teaching or other credit from the
staffs’ Schools
whether full or part time secretarial or other support staff may be allocated or appointed, and if
so by whom and on whose authority
the processes for annual review of staff: including how advice will be sought from other parts of
the academic and budgetary structures, and who is responsible for any appraisal arrangements
relating to part-time activity in the Centre.
Physical Aspects of the Centre


4.
the person’s title (e.g. director, head, convener, secretary, etc.)
the appointment process for the head, including a decision on where authority lies for appointing
the head
the period of appointment
the manner of identification/appointment of a successor
the person to whom the head of the Centre reports and the frequency of reporting
the duties and responsibilities of the head of the Centre
the terms of the secondment of the head, if appropriate, including financial, teaching or other
credit from the head’s own School
whether, exceptionally, the head should be remunerated during his/her period of office.
what budget will be given to the head of the Centre, and what financial responsibility and duties
to which parts of the University’s budgetary structure the Centre should report and the
frequency; responsibility for monitoring etc
the processes for financial continuation or enhancement of the Centre
the terms on which the Centre may apply for and receive external funds and how (if at all) these
are to be credited to it and accounted for by it.
Teaching and Research Aspects of the Centre’s Management
D:\265327071.doc
 where a Centre has responsibility for teaching, issues of student teaching load credit and how it is
to be divided between or obtained from participating Schools
 how (if at all) staff will be granted personal teaching load credit by departments to take account
of teaching contributed to the Centre
 how (if at all) staff research will be credited to the Centre by the departments whose staff are on
secondment
 the Schools/Colleges which will be responsible for approving and resourcing the courses and for
admitting or allocating (where relevant) the students to them.
6.
Quality Management of the Centre
 agreement on whether/how the Centre should be included in a College’s Quality Assurance &
Enhancement Committee and structures, regular Teaching Programme Review etc
 production of a brief annual report; agreement on where it should be presented by the Centre’s
head [e.g. to the School and then to the relevant College(s) in which the Centre resides]
 preparation of the Centre for periodic review, about once every five years, covering the previous
five years’ activity and proposals for the next five. Agreement on the reporting route to the
School(s), College(s), and thence to Academic Policy Committee.
7.
Life Cycle of the Centre
 when proposing the establishment of a Centre, proposals should be prepared for its fixed or
open-ended operation. If the latter, criteria should be proposed for judging whether the
College(s), following a periodic review, should formally agree either to continue the Centre (on
the same or modified terms) or to wind up its activities.
Mrs. J. P. Rennie
23 November 1998 – prepared for the former Educational Policy Committee.
revised 20 February 2003 – adapted for use in the College of Humanities and Social Science.
D:\265327071.doc
Annex 3
RCWP Survey Questions to Centres
1. What was the original rationale for the establishment of the centre (or other group – the term ‘centre’
is used for the rest of the email) you currently direct? When, approximately, was your Centre
established?
2. What is the current rationale?
3. What ‘additionality’ does your centre provide, over and above the normal teaching/research functions
of the subject areas/schools or other units in which the staff and students engaged within the centre are
involved? Which RAE returns did it feature in, as an aspect of research environment?
4. How does your Centre seek to ‘promote’ itself and to create visibility? Through publications or other
outputs? Through its website or other promotional material? How successful do you judge such
efforts at achieving visibility to be?
5. What is the scale of your centre (numbers and type of staff employed/otherwise involved, budget,
publications/symposia/seminar series etc), and what regular income or funding streams, if any, do you
have?
6. What is the main type of activities which your Centre engages in (e.g. research grant applications,
support for PGRs, public events, KT activities, etc.), and what is the current level of activity? Has this
grown or decreased over the last five years?
7. What infrastructure supports the centre (premises, support staff, facilities, etc)?
8. What are the main governance structures for your centre? E.g. do you have a Management Committee
and/or an Advisory Board? To whom within the University, or elsewhere, do you report, and how
frequently?
9. Has your Centre ever been involved in a review process, e.g. quinquennial review or similar? If so,
when and with what outcomes?
D:\265327071.doc