Research Governance Policy

1 V2.1JCR2016

SI Network Research Governance Policy 2016

Research Governance Policy

2 V2.1JCR2016

Contents Page

Introduction 2

What is Research Governance? 2

What are the SI Network’s responsibilities for Research Governance? 2

Use of Personal Information 3

Does the SI Network Sponsor Research? 3

Eligibility for SI Network Support 3

The process for gaining approvals for a research study (flowchart) 4

Appendix 1: SI Network Recruitment Support Award Terms and Conditions 5

Appendix 2: SI Network Award Sponsor Agreement 9

Appendix 3: Selection Criteria 12

Research Governance Policy

3 V2.1JCR2016

Introduction

The SI Network is committed to fostering and supporting high quality research into the

development, delivery and practice of Ayres SI and other sensory-based interventions.

In order to do so, we recognise the need for simple but robust research governance

procedures to be put in place to protect our organisation and our members.

What is Research Governance?

Governance of research is defined as setting standards; defining mechanisms to deliver

standards; monitoring and assessing arrangements; improving research quality and

safeguarding the public (by enhancing ethical and scientific quality, promoting good practice,

reducing adverse incidents, ensuring that lessons are learned and preventing poor

performance and misconduct). (DoH, March 2001, pp.2).

What are the SI Network’s responsibilities for Research Governance?

- Ensuring our members have a clear choice as to whether or not they wish to receive

information about research studies seeking participants, or not

- Arranging for an appropriate person/s to grant permission for research involving our

members, students and staff before the research starts (see Appendix 1)

- Ensuring appropriate sponsorship arrangements are in place (see Appendix 2)

- Conducting our own independent review to assure ourselves that any such research

is conducted to the quality standards set out in the research governance framework

which governs the study. We use the ethics review checklist, produced by the Open

University, to ensure that the necessary ethical considerations have been taken into

account by the researcher (Iphofen, R. (2009) Ethical decision making in social

research. A practical guide, London: Palgrave Macmillan – pages 185-199).

- Retaining responsibility for the care of any participants to whom we have a duty

- Ensuring that any research we fund provides value for money.

We recognise that any research being conducted in collaboration with the NHS is required to

comply with the Research Governance Framework for Health & Social Care and also with

various NHS and HSC trust research management procedures.

Use of Personal information

Research Governance Policy

4 V2.1JCR2016

The SI Network ensures that at all times we are compliant with the Data Protection Act and

our members are given the option to ‘opt in’ to receiving information about opportunities to

participate in research studies.

As an organisation committed to furthering research in the field, our membership terms and

conditions include an invitation to participate in research. We are clear this is optional and that

members may choose to change their mind and withdraw consent at any time. This decision

will not jeopardise their membership or access to any of our other services.

Does the SI Network Sponsor research?

No. A sponsor is responsible for ensuring that arrangements are in place to indemnify the

Investigator(s) against claims for harm arising from negligence. The employer of the

Investigator(s) may also be liable for non-negligent harm to study participants. Any

organisation that is a legal entity may declare itself as a sponsor. Institutions are expected to

review candidate studies for sponsorship on a case-by-case basis and should only accept the

role of sponsor for studies that lie within their range of competence.

We do not have indemnity insurance to act as a sponsor.

According to the Research Governance Framework, the supervisor of a student may act as the sponsor for research where the primary objective of the research is educational. However, most institutions insist on institutional sponsorship and do not permit individual sponsorship by supervisors. The SI Network does not advocate sponsorship by individuals or Directors because of the risks and liabilities involved.

SI Network logo should only appear where the research sponsors’ logo is also present to avoid

any misunderstandings or assumed sponsorship of the research.

Eligibility for SI Network Support

The SI Network does not support research activity where primary objective of a particular

study is educational e.g. 3rd year student surveys. This is to ensure that research we facilitate

is of the highest quality and will contribute to new knowledge.

It is not always obvious whether an individual should be regarded as a ‘student’ e.g. post-

graduate students. Support should be reviewed on a case by case basis by a panel of experts.

Post-graduate students MUST have obtained and submitted Ethics

Approval obtained from their University. A clear dissemination plan should be in place as a

pre-requisite.

Independent contractors should be strongly discouraged from becoming sponsors because of

the scope of responsibility involved. The SIN is unable to support requests for research

facilitation where there is no sponsor (University or NHS for example) involved.

The process for gaining approvals for a research study

Research Governance Policy

5 V2.1JCR2016

Research Governance Policy

6 V2.1JCR2016

SI Network Recruitment Support Award

Terms and Conditions

The SI Network research grants are to support development of the evidence relating to Sen-sory Integration across the Lifespan: The Art and Science. All grant applications must demon-strate contribution to one or more of the following themes:

Evidence from within the field of Neuroscience

Assessment and Measures of SI and Sensory Processing Difficulties

Evidence for the treatment of Sensory Processing Difficulties: o Ayres Sensory Integration Therapy o Sensory Strategies.

: The grants will be available as per calendar year, from January 1st. When the financial enve-lope for each grant has been allocated applications will close. However, grants awards may be re-launched prior to the end of the financial year if all research funds have not been allo-cated.

PhD Research Projects Up to £5000

MSc Research Projects Up to £5000

Small Projects/Studies Up to £7000

Dissemination of Research Up to £3000

Recruitment Support N/A

Applications for Grant awards will be subject to a robust and objective review using the fol-lowing criteria. Timeline for Review:

Initial enquiry sent to the Chair of the Researcher Support Committee

Formal acknowledgement letter sent (within 2 weeks of receipt)

Proposal and review paperwork sent to reviewers

Responses from reviewers returned (within 1 month)

Confirmation letter sent

Aim and Scope

Grant Awards

available

Review Process

Research Governance Policy

7 V2.1JCR2016

Each application is subject to independent expert review to assess:

The quality of the research

The experience and expertise of the Chief Investigator and other key researchers

Compliance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice.

1. The award will provide access to members of the SI Network for the purpose of recruiting

to research, which is relevant to one or more of the research themes stated above. This access will be provided via the SI Network’s online forums and via their administration team. Recruitment to relevant studies may also be advertised via the SI Network publica-tions (e.g. SensorNet and/or EmphaSIze). The SI Network will provide forums whereby participants may choose to approach the researchers/recruiters.

2. The study must be conducted in the UK or Ireland and at least one of the applicants must be based in the UK or Ireland at the time of applying.

3. The study must be applicable to one of the research themes noted above. 4. The applicant must be playing a major part and take a leading role in the research pro-

ject/team 5. Applications must have been reviewed and signed off by the host institution/employer

and/or sponsor by completing the Sponsors agreement document and Research Ethics must be clearly articulated in the research proposal. Research Ethics Checklist can be used to confirm this.

6. Proof of any funding of the research must be provided by applicant. 7. If the research includes children, young people and/or vulnerable adults, researchers will

need to provide evidence of up to date Data and Barring Checks. 8. Applicants must provide a statement stating that there is no conflict of interest

1. No individual member information will be given by the SI Network.

2. No costs of sponsorship will be met by the SI Network, therefore any subsequent costs such as printing/posting will be incurred by the applicant.

Not Included

Criteria for Applicant

Recruitment Support

Award

Responsibility of the SI

Network

Research Governance Policy

8 V2.1JCR2016

1. Lead researchers must be members of the SI Network and paying current subscription.

1. Applicants and co-applicants must ensure SI Network’s support with recruitment is

acknowledged in any presentation or publication. 2. Grant applicants must submit a final report to SI Network within two months of the end of

the research project. 3. All applicants will be expected to submit a report for SensorNet and for the SI Network

Website detailing the results of their research/study and /or contribution to the evidence base for Ayres SI.

SI Network (UK & Ireland) and be sent to the Business Manager at Sensory Integration Network (UK & Ireland) 27a High Street Theale Reading RG7 5AH, United Kingdom

Acknowledgement of

the SI Network

Research Governance Policy

9 V2.1JCR2016

Appendix 2

Title of Study/Research:

Level of Programme: MSc/PhD

Name of Lead Researcher:

Name of Sponsor:

Affiliation with Researcher (e.g. Lecturer, Supervisor, Employer):

Name of Sponsoring University/Employer/Institute:

As Sponsor please confirm the following:

1. The proposed study/Research has adequate arrangements to initiate, manage

and monitor, and finance a study.

Yes/No

Comments:

2. The chief investigator, and other key researchers, including those at collaborating

sites, have the necessary expertise and experience and have access to the re-

sources needed to conduct the proposed research successfully.

Yes/No

Comments:

SI Network Grant Award

Sponsor Agreement

Research Governance Policy

10 V2.1JCR2016

3. The arrangements and resources proposed will allow the collection of high qual-

ity, accurate data, and the systems and resources proposed are those required to

allow appropriate data analysis and data protection.

Yes/No

Comments:

4. Arrangements proposed for the work are consistent with the Research Govern-

ance Framework.

Yes/No

Comments:

5. Organisations and/or individuals involved in the research agree the division of re-

sponsibilities between them.

Yes/No

Comments:

6. There is written agreement about the arrangements for the management and

monitoring of the study.

Yes/No

Comments:

7. Arrangements are in place for the sponsor and other stakeholder organisations to

be alerted to significant developments during the study, whether in relation to the

safety of individuals or to scientific direction.

Yes/No

Comments:

Research Governance Policy

11 V2.1JCR2016

I confirm that the research study detailed above complies with the Research

Governance Framework for the sponsoring Employer/ University and or Insti-

tution

Name:

Designation:

Signature:

I agree to inform my sponsor of any changes in the research that may alter the

agreed terms and conditions:

Name:

Signature:

Research Governance Policy

12 V2.1JCR2016

Appendix 3

Selection Criteria

Clear re-fusal 1/5

Acceptance 2/5 Good ac-ceptance 3/5

Very good pro-posal 4/5

Excellent pro-posal 5/5

Research question and An-swer

Substan-tially fails to answer the ques-tion or to address the topic

Relevant mate-rial but is some-times poorly presented

Evidence of un-derstanding of most of the is-sues

The question is answered with appropriate em-phasis on the analytical, syn-thesis and eval-uation compo-nents

The question is answered fully, including excel-lent analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The quality, original-ity and criticality of evidence may warrant publica-tion

Coherence of pro-posal

There are few clear links be-tween statements or sections

Relationships between sec-tions and state-ments are rea-sonably coher-ent

Relationships between state-ments and sec-tions are not al-ways fully artic-ulated but are coherent

Relationships between state-ments and sec-tions follow and there is sound structure

The entire pro-posal/applica-tion is clearly linked, struc-tured and suc-cinct

Argument presented

Little con-vincing ar-gument presented and is mostly de-scriptive

Some coherent arguments are produced, though there is limited analysis in places

There is some demonstration of the ability to provide clear and structured arguments

There is a clear and convincing line of argu-ment

A clear and con-vincing line of argument is demonstrated throughout

Evidence grounded in the base of Sensory Integra-tion the-ory

Minimal reference is made to supportive evidence

Use of evidence is sometimes descriptive ra-ther than ana-lytical

Answers are supported by evidence, though not all sources are con-temporary and only some of the evidence provided is criti-cally appraised

The evidence selected is of high quality, and mot claims are supported by relevant evi-dence that has been critically appraised

Demonstrate creativity and originality in the selection of evi-dence, provides thorough critical analysis of evi-dential support, and critical knowledge of theoretical posi-tions

The scien-tific value and valid-ity of the proposal

Proposal lacks rig-our, lim-ited value

Justifies some aspects of value to the evidence base.

Provides evi-dence of value and validity to evidence base

Provides critical appraisal of value/validity of proposal ap-

Demonstrates a clear proposal of the value and validity of the

Research Governance Policy

13 V2.1JCR2016

to evi-dence base and/or not valid.

and some justi-fication for the study

praising poten-tial contribution to evidence base.

study to SI evi-dence base. Crit-ical appraisal of principles of va-lidity and com-prehensive justi-fication for the study

Study de-sign and methodol-ogy

Lays out study’s de-sign with-out detail. Methodol-ogy lacks organisa-tion, no considera-tion of sample se-lection, data col-lection, data analy-sis.

Study design presented with basic justifica-tion and out line to answer re-search ques-tion. Methodology justified

Study design is clear showing appropriate methodology o answer research question. Sam-ple selection, data collection included

Study design and methodol-ogy justified and clearly or-ganised consid-ering sample se-lection, data collection, data analysis

Study design is clear, succinct and clearly con-siders all aspects of methodology and design with clear and well thought out pro-cedures.

Ethics

limited considera-tion of fun-damental ethical principles, acknowl-edges but no attempt to apply to study

Ethical princi-ples stated with limited detail in-cluding

Autonomy,

Consent,

communica-tion,

equity,

discrimination,

beneficence

confidentiality

Ethical princi-ples stated with detail including

Autonomy,

Consent,

communica-tion,

equity,

discrimina-tion,

beneficence

confidentiality

Trust R & D

Ethical ap-proval re-quired

Ethical princi-ples stated with detailed consid-eration and in-cluding

Autonomy,

Consent,

communica-tion,

equity,

discrimination

beneficence

confidentiality

Trust R & D

Ethical ap-proval re-quired

All aspects of ethical princi-ples clearly laid out and applied to the study. Mitigation of risk and ethical limitations pro-vided.

If you have any queries, please get in touch: support@sensoryintegration.org.uk