Co-Produced Research and Community Engagement
Guidelines for Ethical Review
1. Introduction
Engagement with external partners with an active interest in research (Community Members) is encouraged by funders and regulators. Engaging Community Members in research can take many forms with differing levels of involvement, from consulting Community Members on specific issues to active partnership between Community Members and researchers that influences and shapes research (including Patient and Participant Involvement and Engagement - PPIE) or Co-Produced research, whereby research is co-created, conducted and delivered with members of the community.
These Guidelines establish the University of Manchester’s ethical framework for research projects and the conduct of researchers engaging with Community Members.
2. Definitions
Community Member: A person who is not a University of Manchester member of staff or student. This would not include academics from other HEIs being engaged in their professional capacity.
Research Participant: A person who participates in a research project as the subject of the research by, for example, completing a questionnaire, being interviewed and providing data about themselves that will be analysed and included as part of the research outputs.
Research Team: A group of individuals, including UoM staff, students and Community Members, who work collaboratively to perform the activities for a research project (e.g. design, recruitment, data collection, analysis and output activities). All members of the Research Team should be familiar with and adhere to the University of Manchester’s Code of Good Research Conduct.
Community Engagement: This term covers all forms of engagement with Community Members, including PPIE, and refers to the involvement of Community Members in the research. Community Members may provide their thoughts, opinions and/or suggestions for how to create or refine elements of a research project and may be involved in collecting and/or analysing data for the project that will be included as part of the research outputs.
Formal Ethical Review: This is the requirement to gain independent ethical review by an ethics committee constituted under University policy or recognised as equivalent to the approval granted by the University (e.g., by the Health Research Authority, NHS REC or MODREC).
Formal Ethical Considerations: These are the Formal Ethical Considerations that all members of the University are expected to make in their professional capacity before and while embarking on a research project which would include the assessment of risk and safeguarding of all those involved in the research project. These are outlined as part of an application for Formal Ethical Review.
Ethics Best Practice Expectations: These are the best practice ethical and integrity considerations that all members of the University are expected to reflect on and implement before and throughout undertaking research activities. These apply to all pieces of University research (including those that are classed as ethically exempt) as well as non-research activities (e.g. PPIE).
3. Community Member Roles in Research
A Research Team may engage with Community Members in many ways, whereby they may perform different roles from Advisors and Data Collectors through to Co-Investigators (see table below). The different roles the Community Member plays in a research project can raise different ethical considerations, and as research evolves, these ethical considerations can change over time.
If the role of the Community Member is limited to Community Engagement activities only, Formal Ethical Review for their engagement will not be required, although Ethics Best Practice Expectations will still apply. Also, the project, as a whole, may still require Formal Ethical Review under University Policy (determined by the Ethics Decision Tool) if the project involves Research Participants or activities that raise Formal Ethical Considerations.
If the role of the Community Member is that of a Research Participant, Formal Ethical Review may be required, and researchers should verify this by using the Ethics Decision Tool.
Below summarises the different Community Member roles in research.
Co-Investigator / Research Team member: The Community Member is engaged from the outset in the design of the research, the funding application and the delivery of the research.
Ethics Best Practice Expectations for consideration:
Ethical: consent
Other: insurance, training, risk, authorship
Ethical review requirements: No Formal Ethical Review required for this role.
Advisor: Input is sought from the Community Members – this can be at any stage of the research process.
Ethics Best Practice Expectations for consideration:
Ethical: Consent, Sensitive subjects, Distress
Other: Authorship, Risk, Training
Ethical review requirements: No Formal Ethical Review is required for this role.
Recruiter / data collector: The Community Member supports the identification and recruitment of Research Participants and/or has direct contact with Research Participants.
Ethics Best Practice Expectations for consideration:
Ethical: Sensitive subjects, Consent, Distress
Other: Safeguarding, Training, Risk, Insurance, Oversight, Data protection, Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, Coercion
Ethical review requirements: If the project is subject to Formal Ethical Review according to the Ethics Decision Tool, the Formal Ethical Considerations relating to the Recruiter/Data Collector role should be included.
Data Analyst: Supports the analysis of data, but not the data collection.
Ethics Best Practice Expectations for consideration:
Ethical: Sensitive subjects, Distress
Other: Data protection, Confidentiality
Ethical review requirements: No Formal Ethical Review required for this role.
Dual role: Research Participant and one of the roles listed above: Is the subject of the research and also involved in the research project in another capacity
Ethics Best Practice Expectations for consideration:
Ethical: Usual ethical principles would apply
Other: Safeguarding, Training, Risk, Insurance, Oversight, Data protection, Confidentiality
Ethical review requirements: If the project is subject to Formal Ethical Review according to the Ethics Decision Tool, the Formal Ethical Considerations relating to their role as Research Participant and their role as Recruiter/Data Collector (if applicable) should be included.
4. Framework for ethical review
Every university requires a framework for Formal Ethical Review: this is to protect the dignity and rights of all Research Participants and to keep them from harm. The University’s Formal Ethical Review processes are proportionate to the level of risk posed by a research project to the Research Participants. The University’s Ethics Decision Tool helps researchers to decide when Formal Ethical Review is and is not required. The involvement of Community Members in a research project, other than as a Research Participant, will not impact whether a project requires Formal Ethical Review (as determined by the University’s Ethics Decision Tool).
Community Engagement (including Co-produced research and PPIE), in itself, is exempt from Formal Ethical Review. However, Ethical Best Practice Expectations will still apply. Ethical and integrity-related considerations should be adequately considered and mitigated by the Research Team. The Research Team is responsible for using the Ethics Decision Tool to ensure their project is exempt and continues to make sure is exempt.
The scope of Formal Ethical Review for research co-produced with Community Members should be limited to the Formal Ethical Considerations relating to the research project itself and the engagement with Research Participants and should not extend to how Community Members were recruited to be Co-Investigators/Advisor and roles other than Research Participant. Similarly, it is common practice for Research Teams to collect demographic information on Community Members and use it to report to funders on balanced representation. Such data collection is separate from the data collected as part of the research project and therefore does not fall within the scope of Formal Ethical Review.
