Don't give up

One of the  [possibly] unforeseen outcomes of the rigorous ethical approval processes and some may say the even more draconian research governance processes that we have in the UK is the fact that, increasingly, health and social care researchers are resorting to increasingly innovative ways to recruit participants for their research. This is partly, I fear because NHS governance systems are cumbersome , and in some cases expensive,and slow down research studies to pre-global warming glacial speed. A number of tech-savvy people are beginning to look to recruiting via cyber-communities through project specific websites often hosted by an appropriate support group or charity. This can be seen as a good thing since often participants are prevented from even hearing about their potential research involvement opportunities by over protective health care staff and this approach, at least gives them the chance to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be included

 However, a couple of my PhD colleagues had similar experiences the other day which made me ponder how much people outside of universities understand about what is meant by Doctoral level research. The assumption made when they approached  the website owners was that either they were undergraduates or that they were undergraduates doing some kind of media course. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were unlikely to get any form of support from the website owners, even though all they had asked for was that a link to their study be added to the site.

Both were understandably disappointed but I suggested that they go back to the people concerned and explain exactly what level of study they were at and how their research could conceivably affect the client groups the charities had been set up to serve; that this was not a small six week research project designed with no other reason but to to complete a research methods module, but something requiring commitment and deep thought and eye watering amounts of hard work. Pleasingly, on  having made clear to them that the doctoral candidates were engaged in high quality, long term studies that were rigorously conducted and reviewed they were happy to collaborate.

The point that I am making here is that it pays to go back and seek an explanation if someone turns down your request for help when doing doctoral data collection using online media. Sometimes, and I guess this is part of the it-isn't-good-enough paranoia that affects most people doing a PhD at some time, students can be a bit too deprecating about their work. If someone says 'no' have the courage of your conviction and don't give up!

Guest Blog : Reflections on an application for NHS ethical approval

Guest Blog post by Jennifer Watson

PhD Student Manchester Metropolitan University

The IRAS system:  The Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) is an ingenious device whereby a potential researcher can complete several application forms, all required in order to carry out research within the NHS, at one time.  “That’s wonderful, why did no one tell me this before” you may cry.  The reason nobody speaks about it is that the pathway through it is strewn with the hopes and aspirations of hapless researchers rather like Hansel and Gretel’s breadcrumbs.

 

Of course, the concept is a good one and, having never been unfortunate enough to apply for ethical approval in the pre-IRAS days, I can only assume that this is an improvement.  The problem is, that the more you delve into the process, the more complicated it becomes. The first challenge is to register with IRAS and to complete the on-line training.  Looking back, this could be where I went wrong in that I didn’t (complete the online training course, that is) but I took the “I’ll look back at it when I encounter a problem” attitude before throwing myself headlong into my application.

Completion of the forms: Firstly, there is the screening process, whereby you fill in 

some answers and IRAS tells you which forms you need to complete.  In my case I needed to satisfy the NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) and the Research and Development  (R&D)group covering the area in which I wanted to carry out the research.  So far so good.  IRAS then supplies you with the questions you need to cover both forms to avoid duplication and henceforth all should be plain sailing: answer the questions, click the submit button and everyone will receive the necessary information.  This is where I realised I should have completed the online tutorial.  “Submission” in IRAS-speak does not pass your well-considered replies to anyone, it merely saves them in a form which can then be sent to…… who?  We will return to this conundrum later.

Just in case you were planning to complete the IRAS forms on a quiet afternoon as a break from the literature review, I feel I should prepare you – there are a lot of questions.  Not only are there a lot, there are a lot of “But surely I have just answered that” type of questions.  This need not be viewed entirely negatively though as it does give plenty of opportunity to practice your cutting and pasting technique.  Another word of warning here, it may well be that your DOS/supervisor(s) wish to “look over” your answers before submission to the relevant bodies.  Prepare for several weeks of reminder emails followed by resulting amendments and more weeks of “looking over” the amendments.  Obviously, the more over-lookers you have, the greater the delay, but this must be regarded as part of the process and, if it can’t be enjoyed, at least you may learn something from it.  Which, can’t be all bad.

Submission:  I feel at this stage that I must confess to receiving insider information from a former colleague who worked on an ethics committee. I was therefore aware at least of the existence of Local RECs, i.e. the bodies who will review our applications and grant ethical approval to carry out research within the NHS.  That’s fine, the REC form is submitted to the local REC and I can sit back and wait for their approval.  However, pondering over the submission instructions on the IRAS form, I discover that I need to book an appointment to attend the REC in person for the review.  In addition the earliest appointment is six weeks ahead and 30 miles away. There is also the matter of the REC checklist of accompanying documents to be forwarded, which must be submitted within four days of the booking.  This begins with a straightforward request for relevant documents such as consent form, protocol, patient information sheet and so forth but gradually becomes more challenging:  CV (got that saved somewhere), CV of supervisor (ah, fire off an email), letter from sponsor (who?), evidence of sponsor’s insurance (whose what?).  None of these documents are unobtainable however and eventually can be tracked down with a little investigation.  Even the process of obtaining electronic authorisation instead of signatures can be strangely satisfying.

In the early stages of this process, I naively believed that REC approval would give me the green light to happily stroll into GP practices and recruit patients for my study.  That was before I discovered local R&D approval.  In other words, I need separate approval to work in a specific NHS area – hence the R&D form completed through IRAS.  We now return to the “submit to whom/where” dilemma.  Easy, a bit of Googling provides me of the name of the lead for R&D in the area in which I want to work.  This is fine, except the helpful reply to my email tells me that I need to get in touch with the Greater Manchester Comprehensive Local Research Network (GMCLRN) who will be able to approve my application for the area in which I plan to do my study.  Oh, and, by the way, I will need an NHS Research Passport form to enable me to work on NHS premises (in that case, what is everything else about?), copies of which, when completed and approved, need to be sent to the R&D person in every NHS area I may wish to use.  That brings me to another point, the very helpful person at the GMCLRN reminds me that I will need a Site –specific form (SSI) for any area I may wish to enter and that I will probably need to cover three areas just in case I cannot recruit sufficient participants from my first choice.  At least the SSIs can be completed as an add-on to the IRAS and can be submitted to the GMCLRN, with more additional documents, all in a nicely zipped folder attached to an email.

Nearly there now (six months on!).  There is, of course, the matter of the MMU ethics application form but, having weaved through the IRAS maze, the MMU ethics form is almost disappointingly challenge free.

Just the Research Passport application to deal with now and we’re off! Once I have my Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check and Occupational Health Clearance my passport will be granted and recruitment can commence!

Just the small matter of an ethics review and amendments to consider, but I will leave those for another day………….

What your supervisor will expect from you

Whilst, in previous blogs, I have outlined the things a doctoral student can expect from their supervisor it is important to remember that your supervisor has the right to expect certain things in return. For example;

• If you want your supervisor to review and comment on written work they will probably expect you to send it to them at least three weeks before your supervision session. It is pointless sending your supervisor the first 20,000 of your methods chapter the day before you are due to met and expecting them to have read it...or be happy about it.

• If you have an appointment with your supervisor - turn up! (pretty obvious I know but you would be surprised how often it happens)

• They will expect you to be prepared to present to peers, within and external to the university.

• If you are going to publish something with their name on it, make sure they see it before you submit. Academics are only as good as their last paper so it's important they have the opportunity to provide input.

• Some supervisors will expect you to be the one to keep in touch, so if you drift or drop off of the radar they won't chase you up. It is a good idea to find out at the beginning of the relationship if they are expecting you to instigate contact.
• 
  

Of course the easiest thing to find out what your supervisor expects from you is to simply ask them. Your relationship will, ideally be mutually supportive and most supervisors will be pleased and touched if you show them this level of consideration - it will probably be the first time any one has!

How to manage your supervisor 2- Entering the lion's den

Once you have found a supervisor that you feel is right for you, you face the challenge of the first supervision meeting. The important thing to remember here is to
start as you mean to go on.  One of the biggest mistakes that many new doctoral students make to is under estimate how much power they have in the doctoral candiate/supervisor relationship. They assume that the association will continue along the pedagogical lines of their previous studies in which the supervisor is all knowing and the student is the passive recipient of their knowledge. This should not be the case. The relationship between supervisor & PhD student is very different from other supervisory relationships, it should be a partnership of equals so negotiation is key. The expectations of both parties should be made clear at the start. If you have found yourself an excitable supervisor who is easily distracted by attractive avenues of discussion (yes, I know all my students are looking at me) take an agenda with you so that you can keep them on topic.


One of the first things to discuss is how often you plan to meet, for how long (two hours is a good start), whether those meeting will be face-to-face or via Skype or e-mail and where they will be (supervision doesn't necessarily have to be on-campus). The frequency of supervision changes across the course of the PhD so you may wish to see your supervisor every month in the early stages but less regularly during data collection or writing up phases. Regardless of frequency it is always a good idea to make your next supervision appointment before you leave. It is easier to cancel an appointment you suddenly find you don't need than to make one urgently.

It is a good idea if you have a broad idea of the focus you plan to take with your thesis but it's not a good idea if you are not open to debating or amending that plan. Many new doctoral students will start their PhD absolutely confident that they know exactly what they are going to be doing over the next 3-6 years. Equally as many complete a thesis which bears no resemblance to those original plans. So, be ready at your first meeting to have a long discussion about your chosen topic and all of the different ways you could explore it. Remember at this early stage nothing is carved in stone.

Most universities have set milestones that you will need to achieve and so it's a good idea, if you can to find out what they are ( they are usually outlined in the Post Graduate Research Regulations and the majority of universities have these available online) and discuss them with your supervisor. 

Even at your first meeting it doesn't hurt to be thinking about papers you will be publishing from your work and to discuss issues around what support your supervisor will be able to provide to help you, especially if you are a publishing virgin. Most supervisors will expect to have their names on papers you publish from you PhD, particularly if they have contributed in a more substantial way than just editing or proof reading but it is not inappropriate for you to expect to be first author.


So, for the first meeting;

1. Negotiate how your relationship is going to work. 
2. Negotiate what you expect from each other. 
3. Be ready to discuss what you want to do and to explore different ways of doing it.
4.  Be clear what the University set milestones are and how they fit into your project plan 
5. Be ready to discuss a publication plan and authorship.

The first supervision session is a bit like a first date - you will probably both be on your best behaviour and trying to impress but you will also get a sense early on as to whether this is a relationship that has potential. Unlike a first date it isn't necessary to buy your supervisor flowers but don't be afraid to take biscuits.