SSRU HANDBOOK
FOR MEMBERS OF STAFF
September 1998
Prepared for Social Science Research Unit
by Ann Oakley, David Gough, and Sandra Stone
Table of Contents
Unit structure: The Unit & the Institute; funding; staff; research ........................................1
Unit management: Line management; Unit Policy Committee; all Unit meetings ...................2
Staff development: Advisers; appraisal; employment; equal opportunities ............................3
Publicity and publications: Publications; publicity; web pages ..............................................5
Research applications/new staff ..............................................................................6
Services: Answering machine; fax; post; computing; equipment; stationery;
Seminar room; libraries; cars and bicycles ..................................................................6
Housekeeping: Travel and other expenses; cleaning; tea and coffee; working
hours & annual leave; sickness leave; smoking ...........................................................8
Safety and Security: Access; front door; rooms; last to leave; data; first aid; fire.......9
The ethos of SSRU ..................................................................................................11
Appendix A Staff list .............................................................................................12
Appendix B Line managers for unit staff ...............................................................15
Appendix C Delegation of management responsibilities ........................................16
Appendix D Unit Policy Committee at July 98 ........................................................17
Appendix E Guidelines for the preparation of Research Proposals .......................18
Appendix F Ethics of social research ....................................................................24
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH UNIT HANDBOOK
This handbook provides a quick guide to the workings of the Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) and some aspects of working at the Institute of Education. All staff should be fully aware of the much fuller information about working at the Institute of Education in the Information for Staff Handbook (given to all new staff and also available on the Institute=s Web pages) and other more detailed papers and booklets. Further details about SSRU=s staff and programme of work can be found in the Unit Annual Report and on the Unit Web pages. The intention of this handbook is to outline the working procedures of the SSRU for new staff and for existing staff who may need to refresh their memories from time to time. The result may seem to be a rather long list of >do=s= and >don=ts=, but in a busy and expanding research Unit we have found it is helpful to have agreed procedures written down. The pace of life in the research world is often very pressured, and we want SSRU to run as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the researchers in it.
UNIT STRUCTURE
The Unit and the Institute: The SSRU was set up in October 1990 first within the department of Policy Studies and then as a separate Academic Group of the Institute of Education, housed in 18 Woburn Square. The house is leased from the University of London by the Institute of Education (main building in Bedford Way). The Institute of Education is a college of London University, and its main business is the postgraduate training of teachers (it has no undergraduates), though increasingly research is coming to occupy an important place, as it is in all universities these days. Aside from the SSRU, the Institute=s other main research enterprise is the Thomas Coram Research Unit. As a result of internal reorganisation in the Institute, there are four Deans responsible for different aspects of the Institute=s work. Professor Caroline Gipps is the Dean of Research until 31st August 1998; Professor Geoff Whitty will become Dean from September 1998. (Please refer to the Institute Staff Handbook for the names of other principal officers.)
The Research and Consultancy Administration Office deals with
all administrative and contractual aspects of externally funded research projects.
The Personnel Department deals with staffing issues. In order to ensure clear
communication and consistency of approach SSRU staff should liaise with the
Deputy Director about personnel and research administrative issues including
applications for Institute funds (e.g. study leave, bridging funding, conference
expenses).
Funding: Apart from some contribution from the Institute of Education to core salaries and services, the Unit=s main source of income is external research grants. Each funded research project has an internal financial code so that costs can be attributed directly.
Staff: Ann Oakley is the Director, Berry Mayall the Assistant Director, David Gough the Deputy Director, Sandra Stone the Administrator, James Thomas the Software Development and Computing Officer. A list of all other research and support staff and their offices and home contacts as of September 1998 is given in Appendix A and an up to date list of staff names and current work and interests can be found on the Unit Web pages.
Research: The Unit undertakes a broad range of research concerning the health, education, and welfare of children, parents and families. Much, although not all, of this work falls into three main areas. First is the sociology of childhood and the Childhood Research and Policy Centre (CRPC) which serves as a focus for childhood studies and the involvement of children in research. Second is the work of the Centre for the Evaluation of Health Promotion and Social Interventions (EPI Centre). The main focus of this is evidence based health promotion. Third are experimental studies that assess the efficacy of routine or special services in education, health and welfare. Most of these studies are listed in the latest annual report.
Postgraduate study: Berry Mayall is the Staff Tutor responsible for student issues for members of staff or others studying for postgraduate degrees in the Unit.
UNIT MANAGEMENT
Line management: The Unit
Director has line management responsibility for the whole Unit and reports to
the Director of the Institute of Education. The Director delegates the line
management of a number of members of staff (listed in Appendix B) and
various other management responsibilities (listed in Appendix C) to the
Assistant Director and Deputy Director. Staff should in the first instance refer
issues to their line manager. Only if the matter remains unresolved should it
be necessary to involve the Director. Most staff work on one or more research
projects and the management of those projects is the responsibility of the project
director. Day to day work on projects is therefore under the direction of the
project director, but within the broader context of Unit line management.
All-Unit meetings: provide a regular opportunity for everyone to report on or raise issues concerning research or other aspects of working in the Unit. There is a rotating Chair for each meeting (reverse alphabetical order of all Unit staff) and a standard agenda of: (i) Previous minutes; (ii) New research grants; (iii) Research proposals in progress; (iv) New staff or students; (v) Computing; (vi) Administrative and Secretarial issues; (vii) Rooms and housekeeping; (viii) Conferences; (ix) Unit seminars; (x) Staff Development; (xi) Report from Unit Policy Committee. The meetings are held in the afternoon of the first Wednesday of alternate months. There are also series of Unit seminars, usually held at lunchtime on the first Wednesday of each month (alternating with all-Unit meetings.)
Unit Policy Committee (UPC): The UPC provides a mechanism to discuss Unit issues in more detail than is possible in all-Unit meetings. The remit of the UPC is to (i) advise the Unit Director on matters pertaining to the working conditions and career development of Unit staff; (ii) discuss and advise on resource and support issues including computing and secretarial matters in the Unit; (iii) consider and advise on the present and future research programme of the Unit; (iv) act as a communication channel for members of the Unit to inform each other about current and planned research proposals; (v) discuss and advise on the representation of Unit staff on Institute committees; (vi) consider and advise on the operation of guidelines to be followed by Unit researchers, particularly in relation to the writing and costing of research proposals and research teamwork; (vii) consider and advise on a publications policy for the Unit; (viii) take up and discuss relevant issues as requested by any member of the Unit and report back to the all-Unit meeting.
The members of the UPC are the Unit Director, Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Unit Administrator, and 3 other members of staff elected to broadly represent the main different streams of work in the Unit. The current membership and method of representation of staff is listed in Appendix D. The meetings are chaired by the Unit Director. The Deputy Director is Vice Chair and reports back from the UPC to the all-Unit meetings. Meetings are held a minimum of 3 times per year with more frequent discussion as necessary by memo, telephone, or E-mail.
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
Staff Adviser Scheme: This is a method to guide and assist new staff on short term contracts. The role is different and additional to the support provided by the line manager (Unit Director, Assistant Director or Deputy Director) and the project directors responsible for individual projects. The Adviser offers advice and support and assists with career development over the first 2 years of employment (regardless of the number of research contracts), after which the appraisal scheme takes over. Advisers should keep in informal contact with the new staff member over the 2 years and provide a report (on workload, suitability of tasks to her/his skills, current strengths, areas where improvement and/or training would be helpful) to the Dean of Research at (a) 3 months after the starting date of the first contract, (b) the end of the first year of employment, and (c) after 2 years employment unless the staff member participates instead in the Appraisal Scheme.
Each Adviser is nominated by the Head of Group (the Unit Director), but the member of staff can request a change of Adviser (or raise other concerns about the scheme) by consulting the Unit Director or the Dean of Research. It is the right of all new research staff to be part of this scheme, so it is very important that other staff are prepared to act as Advisers.
Staff Appraisal Scheme: This is similar to the Adviser scheme but is designed to enable the review of, and provision of assistance to, the career development of staff employed for 2 years or more. The scheme only occurs every 2 years and the current sequence ends in Summer 1999. A set of forms is provided by the Institute. The process involves:
‑ Training session for all Unit staff re roles of Appraiser and Appraisee (given by one academic and one support staff member of Staff Development Unit)
‑ Selection of Appraiser for each member of staff
‑ Completion of forms Part 1 and Part 2 by the Appraisee
‑ Appraisal interview between Appraiser and Appraisee
‑ Appraiser completes Outcome Record and Action Sheets
‑ Distribution of records and forms (Action Sheets forwarded to Unit and to Staff Development, Part 1 to Unit Director, Part 2 returned to Appraisee, Outcome record to Unit Director and Personnel Office and to Appraisee)
The Appraisal Scheme papers suggest that
Appraisers should be senior members of the Academic Group, but in the case of
SSRU the only requirements are that Appraisers (a) know about the work of the
Appraisee, (b) know about the work of the Unit, (c) have undergone training,
and (d) are acceptable as Appraisers to the Appraisee. The SSRU scheme is thus
more of a peer appraisal system, where staff choose their Appraiser subject
to agreement by the Unit Director. There are various views about the purpose,
value, and time commitment of the Appraisal Scheme, but it is the right of all
staff to be appraised and it need not be a very time- consuming process if carried
out smoothly and efficiently. It is therefore very important that all staff
are committed to make the scheme work, participate in training, and agree to
be Appraisers for colleagues.
Continuity of employment: The Adviser and Appraisal schemes aim to enable staff development, but the nature of research funding means that many staff are on short term contracts with little security of employment. For staff wishing to continue work in the Unit beyond the current project, it is important that they consult with their line managers about possible future projects and sources of funding. The Institute has a scheme for providing bridging funding for up to 2 months between funded projects. Research staff can also apply for study leave after 5 years= continuous service.
Equal opportunities: SSRU is committed to the Institute of Education=s policy on Equal Opportunities. The Unit Director is responsible for equal opportunities issues in the Unit and staff are requested to refer to the relevant section of the Information for Staff handbook and associated special booklets.
PUBLICITY AND PUBLICATIONS
Staff publications and presentations: All publications and presentations by Unit staff should fully acknowledge funding sources (including any funds from the Unit or the Institute of Education) and fully refer to any assistance received from colleagues within or outside the Unit. It should also be clear that the author is a member of staff of SSRU and of the Institute of Education. It is important for both the Unit and for individual staff that all work should be of a high quality and well presented. Staff should always ask for the help and advice of their project director, line manager, adviser or other colleagues concerning writing and presentation. Assistance with the production of overhead transparencies should be available from the research secretary.
Staff members publish a large number of books and papers in academic and other journals. Staff are asked to provide a copy of all publications to the Unit Administrator. A full annual list of publications by staff can be found in the annual report. The Unit also publishes and sells reports which can have ISBN numbers and are counted as publications for the research assessment exercise and for staff promotion. Any member of staff interesting in producing a Unit publication should consult with the Deputy Director.
Unit publicity: It is important that all work of the Unit properly represents
the Unit and the Institute of Education and complies with the Institute=s policies
on representation. All forms of publicity or representation including leaflets,
logos, and letterheads, need to be checked by the Deputy Director before reproduction
or distribution.
Unit Web Pages: The Unit has a number of Web pages on the Institute of Education Web site. These pages describe the programme of work of the Unit as well as staff research and interests and publications. The pages are managed by the Deputy Director who should be contacted about any problems or suggestions.
RESEARCH APPLICATIONS/NEW STAFF
The development of research applications is an essential component of Unit work as it forms the basis of future research. Appendix E describes the processes involved in making research applications and Appendix F discusses some of the ethical issues that need to be considered in undertaking social research. All applications need to include costs for Institute overheads (currently 46% for research councils, and usually 40% for other funders; charities may not pay overheads but sometimes agree to 10-20%), and Unit overheads of ,360 per month (or ,16 per working day for consultancy). All research applications need to be seen first by the Unit Director, then by the Dean of Research and then again by the Unit Director before submission to funders. If funding is received, then advertisements for new staff or any offer of employment should only be made after prior consultation with the Deputy Director who liaises with the Personnel Department on these issues. On the first day of work, the project director should introduce the new member of staff to the Unit Director, Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Unit Administrator and Unit Secretary and advise other staff by e-mail.
SERVICES
Answering machine: There is an answering machine in the Unit Secretary=s room where messages can be left - 0171 612 6397. Individual phones can be set to transfer to this number automatically when people are not in (see >Operating your telephone= in the Institute telephone directory).
Fax machine: The Unit has a fax machine, number 0171 612 6400. Costs are attributed to projects and a form has to be completed when a fax is sent giving the project charge code. It is important to remember that e-mail can often be used instead of faxes or phone calls, and this is free. Everyone working in the Unit is entitled to their own e-mail address.
Post: Post is sent out and received via the trays in the front hall on the ground floor. As with everything else, all external post needs to be charged to particular budgets. Every research project has a post code which has to be written on the front of outgoing letters. There have been problems with the charges made to departments for postage, and because of this all outgoing mail should be left in the Unit Secretary=s room so that the charge per project can be recorded. Personal post can only be sent if the appropriate stamps are already attached. There is the possibility that letters will be opened at random and on no account should personal post be sent with a project code stamped on it.
Computing: The Unit has many computers and printers for research and word processing use, which are linked to the Institute and University mainframes and Internet and library systems. The Computing Officer can advise about computer software and hardware. The Institute runs computing courses for members of staff, and we also have manuals available if required.
Equipment: Every member of staff has the right to basic office resources including a desk, bookshelves, filing cabinet, adjustable chair (if using a VDU) and so forth. If you require a piece of equipment or furniture, please see the Unit Administrator. There is a variety of tape recorders and transcribers in varying states of working order available from the locked cupboard in the basement (keys from Unit Secretary). There is a folder in the cupboard which lists all items - please ensure that you sign for anything you take out on loan. Research projects should all be costed to provide any equipment they need.
Stationery: Stationery is ordered centrally and project stationery is ordered in the same way. The stationery cupboard is located in the basement. Please let the Unit Secretary know if you use the last of anything, or if there is something you particularly need.
The Seminar Room: This is used as a meeting room and a library for journals to which the Unit subscribes. These include the British Medical Journal, Social Science and Medicine, Sociology of Health and Illness, Women=s Studies International Forum, The European Journal of Public Health, and the Times Higher Education Supplement. Please do not remove these journals from the room. The seminar room can be used for meetings but it is necessary to book it in advance with the Unit Secretary.
Libraries: Everyone
is entitled to use the Institute of Education library which specializes in education
but also covers a large number of other areas. The nearest health library is
the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. A limited number of tickets
are available for Senate House Library from the Unit Administrator.
Cars and bicycles: The car parking in Woburn Square is controlled by the University of London. Free parking permits have to be obtained but space is available on a first-come-first-served-basis and the car park is usually very full all day during term time. It is possible to >buy= an annual parking space round the back of the Woburn Square buildings, but this costs between ,500 and ,800 per year according to salary level. Meters can usually be found, but at a price. Bicycles can be left in the bicycle parking area for SSRU staff at the back of the building or at the bicycle parking space outside The School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) at the North corner of Russell Square. Alternatively there is a locked space under the front steps (key from Unit Secretary), but there is a fairly steep flight of stairs to negotiate to get down there. Bicycles are not allowed in 18 Woburn Square unless you are prepared to carry them up to your room, and provided your room-mates, if any, agree.
HOUSEKEEPING
Claims for travel and other expenses: All claims have to be processed by the Institute, but the Unit Administrator first completes all the coding details and ensures that a copy is filed here. Completed forms have to be signed by the Unit Director, Assistant Director, Deputy Director or Administrator. Travel and other expenses can only be paid if agreed in advance by the person responsible for the budget, which is usually the project director. Travel, conference expenses, equipment and other costs must be incorporated into funding applications as there is only a small amount of Unit general funds available for such purposes. For international travel, application can be made to the Secretary of the Finance Officer of the Institute of Education, but please give the Unit Administrator a copy of any such application.
Cleaning services: A cleaner is in the Unit very early each week day morning. All rooms are cleaned on a regular basis, but if you have a problem about cleaning or bins not being emptied, please let the Unit Secretary know.
Tea and coffee: The Unit Secretary collects money from all staff for tea and
coffee (currently ,6 per month for full-time staff). You are expected
to wash up your own cup or use the disposable cups which are always available.
There is a kitchen in the basement and another on the top floor which are available
for anyone to use. Everyone is expected to wash, dry and put away any crockery/cutlery
that they or their visitors use.
Working hours and annual leave: The nature of research requires that working hours for research staff are flexible, but staff are expected to work the hours in their contract of employment. Full-time and part-time staff should write in the Unit diary (held by the Unit Secretary) the days that they are out of the Unit, the reasons for this (e.g. fieldwork, meetings, annual leave) where and how they can be contacted, and the date that they will return. Some people start early and others work late. There are generally at least one or two people in the building until about 7pm. Full-time support staff should work normal office hours. All periods of annual leave should be indicated on the calendar in the Unit Secretary=s room, as well as in the Unit diary.
Sickness leave: Please telephone the Unit Secretary or Administrator if you are not coming into work because of illness. The Unit Administrator is the Unit=s sickness representative and has to complete a form for each day of absence. Staff absent for four or more days must complete a Self-Certificate form (see Institute Staff Handbook for details about absence due to illness).
Smoking: The Institute of Education operates a no smoking policy (except for designated sections of the Students= Union in the main building). Please therefore do not smoke in the Unit or just outside the doors of the building as smoke can permeate the offices above the entrances.
SAFETY AND SECURITY (Please also read the Institute=s Good Practice Guide on Security)
Access: Access to the building is via codes which are changed from time to time. These codes should only be known and used by current members of staff (including Institute security and postal staff). Please do not on any account divulge these numbers to friends or colleagues or anyone else outside the Unit. Please also ensure that office windows and doors are securely locked. There are special security measures involved if you want to come into the Unit out of normal hours (8pm to 8am or at weekends). A different door code is in operation at these times. Also, most doors are wired to the Institute=s security system, so staff should let the Institute main desk know that they are in the building.
Front door: Please ensure that the door is always closed and ask all visitors to report to the Unit Secretary, and sign the visitors book on the table in the ground-floor hallway. In her absence, please establish who the visitor is and whom they have come to meet.
Individual rooms: Please keep rooms locked when not in use, except for the Unit Secretary=s office which is kept open so that the fax machine can be available after office hours.
Last to leave: The last person to leave should ensure that the building is
secure, lights and equipment are turned off, the shutters and door to the seminar
room are closed, and the door to the Unit Secretary=s office is closed.
Data: Valuable research information is highly vulnerable to loss from technical problems, fire, theft, and other disasters. It is therefore extremely important that up to date copies of important information are maintained outside of the Unit building. All staff must take responsibility for the information that they hold. One method is to copy information on to the Institute=s computing >P= drive. Another is to keep copies of floppy disks in other buildings.
First aid: There is a first aid box in the front hall on the ground floor. Jackie Lee (ground floor) is trained in first aid and Susan Charleston (basement) is a qualified nurse. A list of all First Aiders in the Institute is in the telephone book.
Fire: All staff should be aware of the relevant Institute policies concerning fire safety and should know the evacuation procedure in case of fire. Please also read the notices on evacuation of the building and in case of fire or other emergency, ring 555 or break the glass in the nearest call point. Each Monday morning the fire alarms are tested and once a term there is a fire drill practice. Unit Fire Marshals are Jackie Lee (ground floor) and Sandra Stone (1st floor), but all staff should be aware of the risk of fire and appropriate responses to fire. Fire extinguishers are on every floor. Be sure to only use the smaller CO2 extinguishers on computer or other electrical fires. The routes of escape from fire are through the front door on the ground floor, through the back door in the basement into the garden and then the Institute access road, or by the drop down ladder on the 3rd floor and across the roof to neighbouring buildings. Staff should be aware of who is working with them on their floor so that they can ensure that their colleagues are able to escape. The meeting place after a fire or a fire drill is outside the Policy Studies building at 55 Gordon Square (corner with Woburn Square).
THE ETHOS OF SSRU
We try to provide a positive and supportive atmosphere for research, which can be a lonely activity. This means that an important function of the Unit is to provide a context in which researchers are able to discuss and develop ideas, and can count on the support of colleagues with difficulties encountered. We very much hope you enjoy being a part of the Unit.
APPENDIX A STAFF LIST AND OFFICE, TELEPHONE, AND HOME ADDRESS
(Staff titles, current work and interests, recent publications, and e-mail addresses are available on the Unit Web pages)
ALDERSON, Priscilla Room 303 Ext 6396
20 Graces Road, London SE5 8PA
Tel. 0171 701 9206
AUSTERBERRY, Helen Room B2 Ext 6852
Flat 2, 44 Kensington Gardens Square, W2 4BQ
0171 221 4164
BARRY-CLARK, Hermine Room B1 Ext 6981
53 Rugby Avenue
Sudbury, Middx. HAO 3DJ
Tel: 0181 922 1274
BONELL, Chris Room 202 Ext 6613
21 Farleigh Road, London N16 7TB
Tel. 0171 241 0135
BRUNTON, Ginny
CLARKE-JONES, Lorna Ext 6644
59g Netherhall Gardens, London NW3 5RE
0207 435 6389
DAWSON, Carolyn Room B1 Ext 6981
14 Redbridge Lane, London E11 2JW
0181 925 8837
WIGGINS, Meg Room B2 Ext 6786
62 Barbauld Road, London N16 OST
0171 690 0302
GOUGH, David Room G2 Ext 6812
Top flat, 17 Arundel Gardens, London W11 2LN
Tel. 0171 229 6742
HARDEN, Angela Room 203 Ext 6246
92 Columbia Road, London E2 7QB
Tel. 0171 739 6926
HOOD, Suzanne Room 301 Ext 6095
92 Yoakley Road, London N16 OBB
Tel. 0181 800 9565
JONES, Carol Room B1 Ext 6981
13 Connaught Gardens, London N10 OBB
Tel: 0181 883 6341
KILLEN, Margaret Room B1 Ext 6981
18c Westbourne Terrace Road
Little Venice, London W2 6NF
Tel: 0171 289 1334
MAYALL, Berry Room 101 Ext 6392
6 Bramshill Gardens, London NW5 1JH
Tel. 0171 281 2359
NICHOLAS, Amanda Room 202 Ext 6816
223 Brixton Road, London SW9 6LW
Tel. 0171 582 2158
OAKLEY, Ann Room 102 Ext 6380
20 Boscastle Road, London NW5 1EG
Tel. 0171 485 0054
OLIVER, Sandy Room 201 Ext 6393
The White Cottage, Crampshaw Lane,
Ashtead, Surrey KT21 2UD
Tel. 01372 273323 (and fax)
PENN, Helen Room 302 Ext 6239
33 Mundania Road, London SE22 ONH
Tel. 0181 693 4741
RAJAN, Lyn Room B2 Ext 6852
2 Holly Hill, Vauxhall Lane, Southborough,
Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN4 OXD
Tel. 01892 549739; 01892 526757. Fax: 01892 542988
SAWTELL, Mary Room B1 Ext 6981
18 Trelawn Road, Brixton, London 0171 274 7344
SHARPE, Sue Room 53 Ext 6377
72a Thorpedale Road, London N4 3BW Gordon Sq
0171 281 3448
SHEPHERD, Jonathan
35 Berkeley Close, The Polygon, Southampton, Hants. Ext 6389
02380 908764
STONE, Sandra Room 103 Ext 6391
10 Laurier Road, London NW5 1SG
Tel. 0171 284 4856
STRANGE Vicki Room 301 Ext 6731
3A Burghley Road, London NW5 1UD
Tel. 0171 485 8063
THOMAS, James Room 203 Ext 6844
100 Sotheron Road, Watford,
Herts WD1 2QA
Tel. 01923 218484
TURNER, Helen Room B2 Ext 6852
19a Clarendon Drive, London SW15 1AW
Tel. 0181 788 3479
WILLIAMS, Clare Room 303 Ext 6396
12 Derwent Road, Twickenham, Middx. TW2 7HQ
Tel: 0181 898 6728
APPENDIX B LINE MANAGERS FOR UNIT STAFF
The Unit Director has line management responsibility for the whole Unit and delegates the line management of a number of members of staff to the Unit Assistant and Deputy Director as indicated below. Line management needs to be distinguished from day to day work directed by directors of research projects and from the staff development systems of Advisers and Appraisers.
Ann Oakley, Unit Director
David Gough; Berry Mayall; Helen Penn; Sue Sharpe
Berry Mayall, Assistant Director
Priscilla Alderson; Susan Charleston; Meg Gready; Angela Harden; Lyn Rajan; Vicki Strange
David Gough, Deputy Director
Chris Bonell; Suzanne Hood; Jackie Lee; Amanda Nicholas; Sandy Oliver; Sandra Stone; James Thomas; Helen Turner; Ros Weston
APPENDIX C DELEGATION OF MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Ann Oakley, Unit Director (Currently on 60% research leave)
Duties of head of Academic Group and liaison with Institute management
Unit budget management (with Unit Administrator and Deputy Director)
Chair of Unit Policy Committee
Line manager for some Unit staff
Head of EPI-Centre
Own programme of research
Berry Mayall, Assistant Director
Head of childhood work in the Unit
Assisting staff with research proposals
SSRU staff tutor
Line manager for some Unit staff
In charge of Unit in absence of Unit Director or Deputy Director
Own programme of research
David Gough, Deputy Director
Unit budget management (with Unit Director and Unit Administrator)
Assisting staff with research proposals
Line manager for some Unit staff
In charge of Unit in absence of Unit Director
Unit system of Staff Appraisal
Staff contract issues (with Unit Administrator)
Internal and external room resource issues
Unit publicity and representation including Unit web site
Own programme of research
APPENDIX D UNIT POLICY COMMITTEE AT JULY 98
Membership of the UPC is the Unit Director, Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Unit Administrator, and 3 other members of staff elected to broadly represent the different streams of work in the Unit. Elected members serve for one year. The current method of representation of staff is by floor of 18 Woburn Square as listed below.
Unit Director and Chair Ann Oakley
Deputy Director and Vice Chair David Gough
Assistant Director Berry Mayall
Unit Administrator Sandra Stone
Basement representative Susan Charleston
2nd floor representative Sandy Oliver
3rd floor representative Suzanne Hood
APPENDIX E GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF RESEARCH
PROPOSALS FOR SSRU RESEARCHERS
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Developing your research proposal
Preparing a budget
Institute overheads
Unit overheads
Who can be named researchers?
Getting proposals signed
MAKING A BUDGET
Staff (including all Payroll costs)
Non staff costs
Institute Indirect costs (overheads)
SSRU Indirect costs (overheads)
NAMING OF RESEARCH STAFF IN RESEARCH PROPOSALS
These guidelines are to help those for whom preparing a research proposal for submission to a funding body is a novel experience, and to remind those with more experience of some of the issues that need to be taken into account.
Developing your research proposal
It is generally a good idea to discuss your proposal with as many people as possible before finalizing it. It can be a good idea to ask interested people in the Unit to meet to discuss it at an early stage, as well as to send it to any outsiders you may wish to consult.
All proposals involving SSRU staff as applicants or members of research project teams which are intended to be carried out here (either solely or in conjunction with another department of the Institute or another institution) must be seen and agreed by the Unit Director, then by the Dean of Research and then again by the Unit Director before submission to funders. The Unit Director and Dean of Research need to see the proposal in sufficient time to read and comment on it. This does not mean the day before the proposal is due with the funder. Ideally, they should have at least a week to comment on it. In the case of proposals going to the ESRC, the Dean of research needs to see a draft one month before the submission deadline. The point of these procedures is not ritual gatekeeping, but to give all research proposals the best chance of success.
Preparing a budget
The next section >Making a Budget= contain a list of issues to consider when preparing a budget. This should be discussed with someone in the Research Administration office at an early stage. Aside from the salaries of researchers which need to be included in the budget, proposals for work which it is planned will be done at SSRU will also need to cover the costs to both the Institute and to the Unit of >housing= the research.
Institute overheads
Research grants and consultancy fees need to include funds to contribute to the general running costs of the Institute of Education. The Institute charges a standard 25% on all consultancy income. For research grants, most funding bodies expect to be charged and to pay institutional overheads. These are normally 40%, except for research councils (the ESRC, MRC etc.) where they are now set at 46%, and charities, which are usually exempt from paying overheads, though some are now willing to part with 10%-20%. The Unit does not benefit directly from these overhead payments, but the Institute takes into account the level of the overheads on our research grants when considering our financial viability, so it is important to include overheads in your budgets at the maximum level possible. Where a research grant is to be held jointly with one or more other departments in the Institute or other institutions, an equitable share of the overheads must be credited to SSRU. It is the responsibility of the member of staff putting in the application to negotiate this.
Unit overheads
Research grants also need to include funds to contribute to the running costs of the Unit. Like everyone these days, we are having to watch our costs very carefully. Our financial arrangements with the Institute mean that all research projects carried out here have to be self-financing. This means that sufficient money must be included in the budget not only to finance the research work, but also to cover these indirect costs of housing the project. Every member of staff uses a basic level of secretarial, administrative and computing support and office costs aside from the direct costs of the project on which s/he is working. These services include the Unit Secretary dealing with telephone calls, monitoring callers at the door, collecting money for coffee and tea, keeping post records and bookings for the seminar room, taking and circulating notes of meetings; the Unit Administrator and Deputy Director managing the administrative and financial side of all research projects, and the Computing Officer providing on-site computing support. You therefore need to include in your budgets the necessary sums for basic secretarial/administrative and computing support and for office costs (telephone, photocopying, stationery etc.), in addition to whatever the research project itself may require. The costs listed in >Making a Budget= (which are based on actual costs per researcher) should be used. Proposals which do not do this will be referred back to you!
Who can be named researchers?
There are Institute 'rules' about who can and cannot be named as researchers on proposals (see >Naming of Researchers= at the end of this appendix). If you know who in SSRU or the Institute will work on a project if funded, it is often good to name them in a proposal (so that the job does not have to be advertised).
Getting proposal signed
All proposals should be signed by the Unit Director and the Dean of Research. Time needs to be allowed for this. There is also the 'pink' form to be filled in (kept by the Unit Administrator), which is an internal Institute record accompanying each application. It is important to take this seriously, particularly with respect to the accommodation needs of the project, if funded. There is a box on the pink form now which inquires as to whether ethical questions about the research have been considered. SSRU has a set of ethics guidelines developed by Priscilla Alderson, (Appendix F).
Finally, copies of the finished proposal should be given to the Unit Administrator and to the Research Administration Office. Both need to be kept informed of the outcome (copy of letter from funder, granting or rejecting the application); also any revisions to the original proposal (eg start date, funding, % of researchers= time, personnel etc.).
MAKING A BUDGET
Layout will be determined by the funder=s application form. Certain costs may be disallowed, but the following are the most common expenditure items:
Staff (including all Payroll costs)
Academic staff (centrally funded) - % of time or number of days
Replacement for academic staff
Research Officer/Assistant
Interviewers/fieldworkers on >casual basis=
Clerical/secretarial/transcribing/computing staff
Non staff costs
Equipment such as tape recorder, transcriber etc.
Travel and subsistence including fieldwork, other visits, Steering Group meetings.
Conference fees
Office consumables including stationery, tapes, batteries
Post and telephone - general and for surveys.
Freepost costs - licence, printed envelopes etc.
Computing consumables including discs and any specialized software
Photocopying, printing including questionnaires, materials, reports etc.
Books/journals/other library access
Data entry and analysis (if not covered by staff costs above)
Transcription (if not covered by staff costs above). The current rate is ,8.50 per hour inclusive and a full tape can take between 5 and 6 hours.
Catering/room hire
Recruitment
Institute Indirect costs (overheads)
Indirect costs are those costs which cannot be directly calculated and charged to a project but which are incurred by the Institute in providing the necessary infrastructure and support for the project. These include accommodation and associated costs, equipment and furnishing, administrative and central services such as payroll, personnel, research administration. finance, library and central computing. These >overhead= costs are calculated as a percentage on the salaries included in a research grant application.
The level of the costs is calculated using the costing procedures recommended by the Higher Education Funding Council at 110% of payroll costs. However, depending on the nature of the research and the funding body, the Institute normally expects to receive 40-45%. For consultancy income by staff, the Institute overhead charge is fixed at 25%.
Institute
of Education overheads need to be costed into all research and consultancy applications.
SSRU indirect costs (overheads)
SSRU also needs overhead income in order to pay for the running of the Unit, administration of projects, computing advice and support and basic office costs. These overheads do NOT pay for specific administrative or secretarial work, computer hardware and software or any special office costs. Such specific requirements need to be separately costed into research proposals.
Currently the SSRU overhead fee is ,360 per full-time employed member of staff (FT) per month. This is made up of ,160 for administrative/secretarial costs, ,120 for computing and ,80 for office costs. For part-time appointments there should be a pro-rata reduction. For example, a half-time post would incur SSRU overheads of ,180 per month.
Overheads also need to be paid for all consultancy income. This should be calculated on the basis of ,16 per day=s consultancy. The Research and Consultancy Office has guide sheets to the costing of consultancy contracts, the fees that should be charged, and the cases in which VAT is payable.
These SSRU overheads of ,360 per full-time post per month or ,16 per day consultancy must be costed into all research proposals and consultancies.
NAMING OF RESEARCH STAFF IN RESEARCH PROPOSALS
(Information provided by the Dean of Research, 1997)
1. Occasionally those named are not employed at the Institute or, if they are, were not appointed following advertisement and interview. As such appointments do not comply with the Institute=s Recruitment Procedure, it is not automatic that agreement will be given to employ the named individual. There will be a delay while approval is obtained, and in some cases, an interview will be held.
2. When a research proposal includes a named research officer, her/his current employment position and the circumstances of her/his initial appointment will have to be clarified.
3. There will be no difficulty in naming a researcher provided that:
* the person concerned is currently employed by the Institute of Education.
* she/he was appointed following national advertisement and interview;
* she/he is to be included in
the research proposal on her/his current grade/salary.
If you are preparing a research proposal and wish to name a research officer, please check with Glynis Vercoe or Sue Wood in Personnel as to whether all the above criteria have been met.
4. Where one or both of the first two criteria is/are not met, the person concerned should not be named in the research proposal. If however, you particularly wish to do so, a request for an exception to the Recruitment Procedure should be made to Glynis Vercoe and a decision received before the research proposal is formally submitted. A formal interview might have to be held before the appointment can proceed.
Where the third criterion is not met, an application would have to be made for promotion or the award of an additional/discretionary increment under the terms of the Promotion Review. These arrangements apply to both teaching and research staff. They do not apply if the person is to be paid on a fee basis.
It is believed
that these revised arrangements will ensure that we reduce the uncertainty felt
by those who are named in a research proposal and then find that their appointment
is not automatic, while at the same time enabling the Institute to ensure that
we recruit the best quality staff and observe fair recruitment practice
APPENDIX F ETHICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH Agreed by members of SSRU, 1997
Background
Thinking about ethics in research tends to raise hard questions rather than to provide easy answers. Funders, research journal editors and referees, writers of research guidelines [1] and people asked to consent to research are increasingly concerned about ethics in research, and these notes are intended to help researchers while they are considering the kinds of questions that might be raised.
It is often said that >bad science is bad ethics'. Yet good science - good research design and practice - is not necessarily good ethics. Ethical research also takes account of the aims and effects of research, of the benefits it might bring and the harms it might inflict. Medical research has many guidelines and committees to help researchers to assess ethical aspects of their work, but social research has few such resources. Social research seldom raises serious physical risks, yet it can cause serious mental and social harm.
One purpose of ethical review is to assess the risks and the hoped-for benefits of the research; if the risks clearly exceed any likely benefits then the research is not justified. Yet the calculation is complicated. Researchers tend to overestimate possible benefits, and under-estimate risks. They may also compare the benefits which they hope their research will enable countless people to enjoy in future, against harm to a few they research. Yet their first duty is to those they research. During social research, any benefits to respondents are a bonus and cannot be assumed; the main people to benefit are the researchers who obtain the data.
Risks are hard to predict. Even if a project gains widely-shared approval, a few people may still be upset by it. The harms of coercion, shame or emotional intrusion cannot be measured, though these may be felt so intensely by some people that they are unable to express their feelings, and researchers remain unaware of their distress. Researchers need to respond sensitively to anxiety, distress or reticence. The main value in discussing risk is to consider which risks might be prevented or reduced, how possible distress can be avoided, and how to respond to people who do become distressed.
Dilemmas for researchers trying to balance the interests of research and of future potential beneficiaries, with those of research subjects, vary with each project. How can good practice and valuable new ideas be developed without exploiting people while doing so? How far it is right to probe for answers from seemingly reluctant subjects? How can researchers be rigorous but also respectful and sympathetic? How can we protect, especially >minority' groups from undue intrusion, yet involve them as fully as they wish, and ensure that they are not silenced or excluded from research which concerns them?
There are three main safeguards for research subjects.
1. The researchers' concern to conduct ethical research.
2. A vital safeguard in medical research, but scarcely used in social research is peer review, such as by an ethics committee.
3. Respect for the consent or refusal of research participants. Informed and willing consent helps to ensure that people are not coerced or tricked into taking part in research; it is a means of setting a contract between researchers and participants. Yet a contract assumes a relationship between equal partners, and when researchers have much more relevant knowledge and often more power, the relationship is seldom equal, however much researchers inform and defer to their respondents.
Many of the issues in research ethics are uncertain or contentious. They have therefore been phrased as questions to consider, rather than as standards to impose. Most of the points are summarised from published guidelines.
1. The purpose of the research
* What is the research for?
- to learn more about people's views or experiences?
- to develop or evaluate a service or product?
- some other positive purpose?
* Whose interests is the research designed to serve?
* If the research findings are meant to benefit certain groups, who are they and how might they benefit?
* What questions is the research intended to answer?
* Why are the questions worth
investigating and in whose view? Has earlier research answered these questions
and, if so why are the questions being re-examined?
* How is the chosen method (such as a survey, interviews, observations, writing of essays or diaries, test papers, a controlled trial, focus groups) best suited to the research purpose?
2. Costs and hoped-for benefits
* What contributions are respondents asked to make to the research such as activities or responses to be tested, observed or recorded?
* Might there be risks or costs - time, inconvenience, embarrassment, intrusion of privacy, sense of failure or coercion, fear of admitting anxiety?
* Might there be benefits for people who take part in the research -satisfaction, increased confidence or knowledge, time to talk to an attentive listener?
* Are their risks and costs if the research is not carried out?
* How can the researchers promote possible benefits of their work, and prevent or reduce any risks?
* How do researchers plan to explain techniques such as an experimental design or randomisation which some people might find disconcerting?
* How will they respond to people who wish to refuse or withdraw, or who become distressed?
* Are the research methods being tested with a pilot group to check the personal effects on subjects?
3. Privacy and confidentiality
* How will the people's names be obtained, and will they be told about the source?
* Will they be able to opt in to the research (such as by returning a card if they wish to volunteer)? Opt out methods (such as asking people to 'phone to cancel a visit) can be intrusive.
* Is it reasonable to send reminders, or can this seem coercive?
* Will research directly with individuals be conducted in a quiet, private place?
* Can a friend or relative be present or absent as the respondent prefers?
* In rare cases, if researchers think that they must report confidential replies, such as when they think someone is in danger, will they try to discuss this first with the respondent?
* Do they warn all respondents that this might happen?
* Will personal names be changed in records and in reports, and omitted on computer records, to hide the subjects' identity?
* What should researchers do if subjects prefer to be named in reports?
* Have data protection laws
been observed? Will the research records, notes, tapes, films or videos, be
kept in lockable storage space?
* Who will have access to these records, and be able to identify the subjects - using post codes only does not protect anonymity.
* When significant extracts from interviews are quoted in reports, should researchers first check the quotation and commentary with the person concerned?
* What should researchers do if respondents want the reports to be altered?
* Before researchers spend time alone with children, should their police records be checked?
* Should research records be destroyed when a project is completed, as market researchers are required to do?
* Is it acceptable to re-contact the same respondents and ask them to take part in another project?
4. Selection, inclusion and exclusion
* Why have the people concerned been selected to take part in the research?
* Do any of them belong to disadvantaged groups? If so, has allowance been made for any extra problems or anxieties they may have?
* Have some people been excluded because, for example, they have speech or learning difficulties?
* Can the exclusion be justified?
* If the research is about a certain social group, such as children or sick or disabled people, is it acceptable only to use the views of parents, carers or professionals working with them?
* Are the research findings intended to be representative or typical of a certain group? If so, have the subjects been sufficiently well selected to support these claims?
* When a minimum number of subjects is required, does the research design allow for refusals and withdrawals? If too many drop out, the research is wasted and unethical.
5. Funding
* Is it unacceptable to raise funds from certain agencies and, if so, which ones should be avoided - tobacco, alcohol, baby milk, arms firms?
* Does the funding allow for time and resources to enable researchers - to liaise adequately with the subjects? to collect, collate and analyse the data efficiently and accurately?
* Are the subjects' expenses repaid?
* Should they be paid or
given some reward after helping with research? Is it right to expect them to
give their time and ideas for no reward, yet might payments affect their responses
or become a form of over-inducement to join the project?
* Does the contract with funders cover potential problems of control over the process and reporting of the research? [2]
6. Review and revision of the research aims and methods
* Has anyone similar to the proposed subjects helped to plan or comment on the research?
* Has a committee, a small group or an individual reviewed the protocol specifically for its ethical aspects?
* Is the design in any way unhelpful or unkind to the subjects themselves or the group they belong to?
* Is there scope for taking account of comments and improving the research design?
* Are the researchers accountable to anyone, to justify their work?
* What is the agreed method of dealing with complaints?
7. Information for the respondents
* Are the respondents (and also parents or carers) given details about the purpose and nature of the research, the methods and timing, and the possible benefits, harms and outcomes?
* If the research is about testing two or more services or products are these explained as clearly and fully as possible?
* Are the research concepts, such as >consent' explained clearly?
* Are subjects given a clearly-written sheet or leaflet to keep, in their first language?
* Does a researcher also explain the project and encourage them to ask questions, working with an interpreter if necessary?
* Does the leaflet give the names and address of the research team?
* How can people contact a researcher if they wish to comment, question or complain?
* If potential participants are not clearly informed, how is this justified?
8. Consent
* Is it made clear to everyone that they can consent or refuse to take part in the research?
* Do they know that they can ask questions, perhaps talk to other people, and ask for time before they decide?
* Do they know that if they
refuse or withdraw from the research this will not be held against them in any
way?
* How do the researchers help potential respondents to know these things, and not to feel under pressure to give consent?
* How do they respect people who are too shy or upset to express their views freely?
* In research with children, are parents or guardians asked to give consent? If children, or any other group thought not to be competent, are not asked for their consent, how is this justified?
* What should researchers do if someone is keen to volunteer but the parents or other gate-keepers refuse?
* Is the consent written, oral or implied? Consent forms can give people a formal time to state their own views. If consent is given informally how do researchers check that each person is informed and willing to take part?
* If consent is given informally, how do the researchers ensure that each subject's views are expressed and respected?
9. Dissemination
* Does the research design allow enough time to report and publicise the research?
* How do the researchers plan to show the balance and range of evidence?
* Will the subjects be sent short reports of the main findings, or at least be asked if they would like to have a report?
* Will the research be reported in popular as well as academic and practitioner journals, so that the knowledge gained is shared more fairly through society?
* Can conferences or media reports also be arranged to increase public information, and so to encourage the public to believe that it is worthwhile to support research?
* Will the researchers discuss practical conclusions, and ideas on how to implement them, with practitioners?
10. Impact of the research findings
* Besides the effects of the research on the individuals involved, how might the conclusions affect the larger groups they represent, such as single mothers, gay people, each ethnic minority, and so on?
* What models are assumed
in the research? Are the group of respondents seen as weak, vulnerable and dependant?
As immature, irrational and unreliable? As capable of being mature moral agents?
As consumers?
* How do these models affect the methods of collecting and analysing data?
* Is the research reflexive, in that researchers critically discuss their own prejudices?
* Do they try to draw conclusions from the evidence, not use the data to support their views?
* Do they aim to use positive images in reports, and avoid stigmatising, discriminatory terms?
* Do they try to listen to participants and to report them on their own terms as far as possible within the constraints of formal research?
* Do they try to balance impartial research with respect for the respondents' worth and dignity?