Monthly Archives / June 2011

Sneaky and dishonest?: Covert research a much maligned, forgotten jewel in the crown

Guidance

Prof Jonathan Parker, School of Health and Social Care, reflects on covert reseach methods and their use in the social sciences…

There have been a wide range of important studies that have used covert methods, that have collected data from people who do not know they are being studied at the time, who would not give permission or, had permission been sought, where the data may have been dubious or biased. Researchers justify their actions by stating the need to gain access to inaccessible groups, to illuminate important social issues, and to uncover the unpalatable. Famous examples include, of course, Rosenhan’s[1] study of the ways in which mental illness may be attributed by location and situation (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/179/4070/250.short), Holdaway’s[2] insider research into the police, and Hunter S. Thompson’s[3] research into Hell’s Angel communities.

Covert methods have fallen out of vogue and are often difficult to get through postgraduate committees or, indeed, university and other research ethics committees, which increasingly promote a risk averse and pedestrian approach to scrutiny. The reasons for this include the important focus, within disciplinary ethical codes, academic and professional ethics committees, on informed consent, and promote a seemingly natural desire for excising duplicity and dishonesty from data collection in research. However, there are arguments that suggest covert methods may not always be dishonest or duplicitous and, indeed, not to use them in certain circumstances, may be, unwittingly, unethical (see Parker et al., forthcoming[4]).

The use of undercover reporting in investigative journalism, for example relating to NHS hospitals and patient treatment, and more recently non-NHS hospitals; whilst not research, illuminates many hidden and dubious practices in current society, representing some of the social good that can be drawn from such methods, and indeed ‘impact’ (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/226545.php).

Where do our research ideas come from in the social sciences? Often from lectures and dialogue within these with students, from supervision, and observations we make in everyday life. That we have collected initial soundings and thoughts from these settings and situations, which has not been scrutinised or completed without informed consent is not questioned: it would be ridiculous to assume we needed informed consent to undertake our daily practices!

There are inherent dangers in covert research which cannot be nor should not be ignored. We have a responsibility as a university to our research students and academic staff and their safety and there are, in some cases, dangers of physical violence or personal abuse in researching undercover. There are also potential reputational and relational issues for universities to consider. These risks must be assessed but we must also ask who shoulders the responsibility for the risk and whether it is important to support cover research because of its illuminative, social importance. We must acknowledge too that some unpalatable areas or risky areas can be negotiated, such as in Fielding’s[5] study of the National Front. However, permissions themselves may detract from the study quality, raise the potential for social desirability responses and selecting data collection methods requires careful thought for the best research and best practices.

As we strive for research excellence and relevance here at BU, we should grapple enthusiastically with the issues and challenges involved in covert research and back it wholeheartedly where its importance is clear. A flaccid response can lose the excitement and challenge involved in the production of new knowledge from in depth engagement with individuals, groups and societies. URECs need to highlight legal challenges, of course. Current mental capacity legislation (which my own research for the Social Care Institute for Excellence and Department of Health suggests transposes ethical scrutiny drawn from moves to protect the public from dangerous medical experimentation Parker et al. 2010[6]) demands ethical scrutiny by appropriate committees, but used well can promote and support ethically-driven knowledge creation and exploration of hidden issues that require methods that cannot and should not involve informed consent. To avoid or proscribe such research methods in all cases leads us down a safe but uninteresting and, potentially, unethical, track.

[1] Rosenhan, D.L. (1973) On being sane in insane places, Science, 179, 4070, 250-258.

[2] Holdaway, S. (1983) Inside the British Police: A force at work, Oxford: Blackwell.

[3] Thompson, H.S. (2003/1965) Hell’s Angels, London: Penguin.

[4] Parker, J., Penhale, B. and Stanley, D. (forthcoming) Research ethics review: social care and social science research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Ethics and Social Welfare

[5] Fielding, N. (1982) Observational research on the National Front, in M. Bulmer (ed.) Social Research Ethics: An examination of the merits of covert participant observation, London: Macmillan.

[6] Parker, J., Penhale, B. and Stanley, D. (2010) Problem or safeguard? Research ethics review in social care research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Social Care and Neurodisability 1, 2, 22-32.

Get your own business cards!

Last month I attended the GrantCraft: Research Workshop Day that Corrina arranged and which many of you attended. The session, facilitated by Dr Martin Pickard, was a huge success and we will definitely be inviting Martin back to run a similar workshop at BU again.

During the ‘Impact and Benefits’ session the importance of business cards in establishing academic networks was discussed, and I was surprised to note that less than 10% of the audience already have cards.

The Vitae website notes that business cards are essential in establishing academic networks, and that networks enable researchers to:

  • create a professional image
  • exchange information and keep up-to-date with new developments
  • identify potential areas for collaboration
  • establish disciplinary, cross-disciplinary, cross-institutional and cross-sector groups
  • get published

With this is mind the Research Development Unit has funding available to purchase some business cards for academics who need them. If you’d like some business cards then let us know and we’ll see what we can do! Email us at researchunit@bournemouth.ac.uk

Keywords for Research

Guidance

Matthew’s previous blog post (Research Ontology of Find an Expert!) introduced the concept of using the Science-Metrix ontology as the starting point for how BU will classify research in the future.

To date we have not received any responses from BU staff as to whether you think these keywords are suitable, or any suggestions for alternative keywords.

These keywords will be extremely important going forwards as they will be the words used to classify your research expertise in the future, both internally and externally.

The ontology is based on 176 discipline sub-fields which can be viewed here. We are aware these might not be a finished product for BU’s needs but we need your input to further refine them for our use.

Your comments and ideas are very welcome and should be added as comments to the blog post.

BU Research Themes – have your say!

The future BU Research Themes are starting to take shape but your input is still needed!

Several champions have already stepped forward to start defining the themes, and these can be read on a special part of the blog – BU Research Themes. Everyone is encouraged to read and comment on these emerging ideas. Once fleshed out these themes will shape the future BU research strategy and will inform how research is presented on the BU website.

No one has yet stepped forward to define the following potential Research Themes:

  • Recreation and Leisure
  • Creative and Digital Economies

If you have an interest in either of these themes then please do help us to flesh these themes out. See our previous Research Themes blog post for details of how to get involved. The completed templates were due back last week but the deadline has been extended until Friday 10 June.

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

Partner Search: Crowberry Consulting

Crowberry Consulting is a female run company based in the North West of England with over 11 years industry experience of delivering sustainability projects. We have previously bid for IEE projects, and have extensive contacts in UK based universities and Turkish Research Institutes. Our academic qualifications include: MBA Environmental Management, MSC Environmental Impact Assessment, BSC Ecology, MA Environmental Consulting, and BSC Biology.

Crowberry Energy is a not for profit social enterprise working with SMEs and large listed companies, to implement carbon management and carbon foot-printing, sustainable development policies, and specific standards such as ISO14001, BS EN 16001, BS8901, and the Carbon Action Standard for UK CRC compliance. We also provide specialist training in the areas of:

  • Carbon Foot printing and Carbon Management
  • How Green is Your Office
  • CSR – Corporate Social Responsibility

For more details about this SME, please click here.

Basic Research needs EU Funding Boost says Microsoft

The UK arm of Microsoft has backed UK universities in urging the EC to increase its support for basic research. As part of its submission to the Commission’s consultation Microsoft says that the private sector already funds its fair share of basic research and that the EU now need to take a lead. The submission states: “Universities and public research institutions are uniquely positioned to take on basic or pure research with no immediate commercial product in research that most companies would be unlikely to tackle but that has the potential to be transformative…Without greater investment in basic research, there is a danger that these fundamental game changing and important advances will happen outside Europe.” The consultation closed on 20 May and the Commission will announce its next move in November, based on its findings.

Cross BU themes – big but still narrow?

Outlines for the big themes are unfolding, or are they? Let me share some observations. Several weeks ago, the professoriate had an immensely fruitful brainstorming meeting to discuss, among other things, how we can take forward the promotion of cross-University research collaboration and which big research themes would be suitable given their current representation in the funding landscape and their contribution towards societal need. Of the impressive and broadly supported list that emerged, three themes have so far been tackled: Technology and Design, Ageing, and Health & Wellbeing. Their recent descriptions on the research blog, however, reveal what I think may turn out to be a fundamental dilemma. Those three themes, the way they are outlined, can still be run by their home Schools alone and look like the continuation of big themes that were in existence already before we started to brainstorm rather than the roadmap to a wider integration of thoughts and people. I hasten to add here that I hold up my hands for not having engaged enough myself with two of the themes that my area of expertise can contribute to, but my impression is that there may be more people like me out there who just need that little kick. Therefore, for the penny it is worth, here are my suggestions for broadening out the themes on ageing and health & wellbeing.

The ageing society is at the fore, and will continue to be so for generations to come. However, do we trace old age back in time – and by that I mean from prehistory well into post-medieval periods? Do we settle happily with the perpetuated notion that people in the past all died young? How would a better understanding of the size and importance of the elderly cohort in past societies change our perception of old age today? How can we interrogate the most immediate source material to learn about humans in the past – their skeletal remains? Biological Anthropology (or Bioarchaeology) is set up to make the contribution here. First of all, dying young was by no means everybody’s fate. Not infrequently, people lived to respectable high age, comparable with, say, that during the Victorian period (once they survived infancy and early childhood). Vastly improved methods of age assessment from human skeletal remains now provide an increasingly clearer picture of life and death in the past. This information can be most beneficially used to inform research on the life course, differential mortality and patterns of longevity for girls and boys, women and men, in the context of prevailing socio-cultural, political and economic circumstances. I am sure; this can strike a chord with the outline on the ageing theme as it stands.

In a similar vein, health & wellbeing has for a long time concerned biological anthropologists. Palaeopathology is one of the prominent and rapidly expanding sub-fields of the discipline. Using sound, clinically-informed diagnostic approaches, patterns of disease (infectious, metabolic, degenerative, dental, neoplastic etc.) and evidence for treatment and care of the infirm can be reconstructed that provide a fascinating insight into living conditions and ambient socio-ecology of times past.  Naturally, this also feeds back into the Ageing theme, as morbidity is one of the prime causative factors of differential mortality. Palaeopathological diagnosis extends into deep time as well and extends as far back as to include our hominin ancestors who were all but exempt from chronic disease that left traces of skeletal alterations.

I am aware that these two sketches may go too far for some, but I am at the same time convinced that a holistic approach, which explicitly includes the past and which embraces both biological and social sciences, will be able to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of two defining and prominent themes that have a strong pedigree at BU. All comments welcome.

Forthcoming FP7 environment focused conferences

Enterprise Europe Network South West European Funding for Environmental Projects: to promote the opportunities for European funding in the environmental sector.

EC FP7 Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy Info Day: an info day for anyone interested in the 2012 call, and the EC will present on the three work programme activities.

FP7 Environmental Brokerage Event & Conference: will focus on the work programme challenge ‘improving resource efficiency’ and coinciding with the Environmental (Bio) Technologies conference on 5th – 8th September.

1st European Gender Summit: will address issues related to new perspectives on research and innovation and has already attracted 45 high-level speakers.