1. Research review: what we ask you to do (and not to do)

2. What makes a good REC member?
How would you describe a
Good
problematic
REC member?

3. What we ask you to do
Practically, and most importantly we ask you to attend the requisite number of REC meetings, contribute to debate and in time help us with sub- committees and proportionate review.

4. What we ask you to do
We ask you to help your chair and committee manager.
Understand the chair’s job. He / she has to
Manage fair debate
Ensure all are heard
Facilitate positive, friendly discussion with researchers
Bring the committee to a decision
Understand the manager’s job and think how you can help. He / she has to
Capture discussion
Write a fair set of minutes
Draft a letter for the researcher
BOTH have to ensure legal running of the REC
Henry Fonda in “Twelve Angry Men” – a committee model? Click on the picture and watch good and bad behaviour!

5. What we ask you not to do
Attack people personally Keep to the idea rather than the person.
Agree with everything The purpose of the meeting is to look at the application from different points of view.
Be inconsistent/changing the subject without explanation It helps the chair and manager who have to write minutes if items are addressed in turn.
Chat
Impose your views on others
Criticize (in a hostile manner) Comment on the idea not the person!
Display anger
Display superiority/domination
Make a long-winded contribution Write down key points. If you’re brief, you’re is more likely to be listened to!

6. What we ask you to do
How should we work with researchers / applicants?
There is continuing debate about this. A simple model, with legal parallels, would be that the researcher presents his project and the REC decides, on the basis of the application and perhaps discussion, whether it meets the required ethical standards. Researcher and reviewer would have no other intercourse.
But such a model may not best serve the purposes of protecting research subjects and facilitating ethical research. Time has demonstrated that review works better when all parties understand each other’s aims, their roles and constraints, when they share ideas of what is fair research and work together to facilitate this.

7. “Ground Rules” for RECs?
If you wanted ground rules for your committee to help review and deliberation, what would you include?
What would be the advantages / disadvantages of drawing these up? Here are some ideas with thanks to Bromley REC
1. Values
2. “Groups and Teams”

8. Values and ground rules
Speak well of each other
Keep to our agreements
Value our strengths –develop our weaknesses
Lead not blame

9. Behaviours
Honesty - in our actions and communications and with ourselves
Integrity - in our dealings with colleagues, researchers and each other
Openness
Respect - for our colleagues, researchers and each other
Commitment - to the HRAs goals and values
Learning - to continuously learn and develop ourselves
Acceptance – others’ decision unless we know it is wrong (to stop negative comments / views decisions when ignorant of facts)
Politeness
Courtesy
Appropriateness

10. Personal Reflections on being on an REC
How do I carry out my role?
What do I share?
How do I solve problems?
How do I set my priorities?
Do I take appropriate responsibility ?
Do I deliver?
Do I produce and reflect quality?

11. Putting these into REC practice
TASK
SKILL
To read the studies
Commitment
To understand the content and context of the research
Critical appraisal and imagination,
To consider all involved
Empathy and respect
To identify and work out ethical problems
Clarity of thought
To express opinions and judgements
Clarity of thought and expression
To accommodate others’ opinions
Listening, respect and humility
To weigh up arguments to make a decision
Respect and humility
To accommodate disagreement
Humility and confidence
To reflect on your convictions and values
Insight

12. Working as a team Characteristics of successful teams:
Place considerable emphasis on selecting the right players
Have clearly defined roles and responsibilities
Play to individual strengths and support individual weaknesses
Have common goals and objectives
Work hard to ensure internal communication is effective- through informal and formal channels
Maintain effective discipline either informally or formally

13. Team Building Essential elements of effective teams
Positive Interdependence
Individual accountability
Face to face interaction
Collaborative skills
Team processing skills – assigning responsibility and using expertise

14. Working as a team When teams might fail
When talented teams fail, it is sometimes due to a lack of specific skills. More often, however, it is due to a failure to recognise these success criteria or to adopt behaviours which support them.
Remember a mistake is only a mistake if you do not learn from it.
Learn from disagreements

15. Working as a team Question to consider
How do we Deal with Changing priorities?
Assign teamwork?
Communicate?
Deal with our infrastructure?
Cope with difficulties?

16. Team Building: the differences between “groups” and “teams”
Members think they are grouped together for administrative purposes only Individuals work on their own; sometimes at cross purposes with others
Members tend to focus on themselves because they are not sufficiently involved in planning the unit’s objectives They approach their job simply as a hired hand
Teams
Members recognise their interdependence and understand both personal and team goals are best accomplished with mutual support. Time is not wasted struggling over “turf” or attempting personal gain at the expense of others
Members feel a sense of ownership for their jobs and unit because they are committed to goals they helped establish.

17. Team Building: the differences between “groups” and “teams”
Members are told what to do rather than being asked what the best approach would be. Suggestions are not encouraged
Members distrust the motives of colleagues because they do not understand the role of other members. Expressions of opinion or disagreement are considered divisive or non- supportive
Teams
Members contribute to the organisations success by applying their unique talent and knowledge to team objectives.
Members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to openly express ideas, opinions, disagreements and feelings. Questions are welcomed.

18. Team Building: the differences between “groups” and “teams”
Members are so cautious about what they say that real understanding is not possible. Game playing may occur and communication traps be set to catch the unwary.
Members may receive good training but are limited in applying it to the job by the supervisor or other group members.
Teams
Members practice open and honest communication. They make an effort to understand each other’s point of view.
Members are encouraged to develop skills and apply what they learn on the job. They receive the support of the team.

19. Team Building: the differences between “groups” and “teams”
Members find themselves in conflict which they do not know how to resolve. Their supervisor may put off intervention until serious damage is done.
Members may or may not participate in decisions affecting the team. Conformity often appears more important than positive results.
Teams
Members recognise that conflict is a normal aspect of interaction and an opportunity for new ideas and creativity. They try to resolve it quickly and constructively.
Members participate in decisions affecting the team but understand their leader may need on occasions to make a final ruling. Positive results, not conformity, are the goal

20. Being a (lead) reviewer
Be concise – assume committee members have read the study.
Start with a short descriptive title using the acronym I.P.C.O..
Define the research question.
Move on to the study as it would affect someone who might join, a short description of its burdens and consequences
Point out the key ethical issues as you see them, aligning them with the answer to A6(ii) the researcher's view on the ethical issues. (avoid minute detail at the beginning).
Present your ideas but try NOT to bind committee to their views
Use our ethical review sheet
IPCO - what are
a) The Interventions (what will happen to anyone who joins)?
b) The People being invited to join?
c) The Comparator(s) (if it is a comparative study)
d) The Outcome(s), purposes and value?
Use the researcher’s answer to A6(i) and A6(ii) to start (if they’re adequate!).