Essential Information for Students - ACADEMIC SESSION 2021/22

Tuition fees are payable for all programmes and are subject to review annually. Tuition fees for new and existing students are liable to increase each year as a result of review. For continuing students, any increase in the level of fee each year will be subject to a maximum percentage equivalent to the higher of the annual increase in the UK Retail Prices Index and 5%. Factors that will determine the need for, and extent of, any increase include any increase set or prescribed by regulatory bodies such as the Scottish Funding Council, Scottish Government, Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) and the UK Government, and/or increases in the costs of delivering and administering the programme. Tuition fees for the forthcoming academic session are published on the QMU website well in advance of the start of that academic year. Details on tuition fees and other charges can be found on our website under Tuition Fees and Charges. All students who are continuing with their studies should review their fee rates prior to starting their next academic session. No student will be deemed to be fully matriculated until his or her tuition fees have been paid in full, or satisfactory evidence is produced that such fees will be paid by a sponsoring authority. No student will be permitted to attend a graduation ceremony, or to proceed to the next year of their programme until tuition fees for all preceding years have been paid in full. Failure to settle tuition fees by the due date may lead to a student being excluded from attendance at classes. Ensuring tuition fees are paid is the responsibility of the student and, in the event of a student’s sponsoring authority refusing or failing to make payment in full or in part, the student will be held personally liable for payment. Students will also be liable for any travel and accommodation costs incurred whilst on placement. Such costs may be paid by a sponsoring authority but should a sponsoring authority refuse or fail to do so, the student will be personally liable for such costs.

• confirm the decision of the Board of Examiners, on the grounds that the evidence presented did not support the case;
• provide the appellant with an additional first or second diet of examination, as the case may be, provided that, in upholding the appeal and granting an additional diet, the terms of the University’s Assessment Regulations are taking into consideration; or
• should it not be possible to provide an additional diet for the appealed result, to provide a suitable alternative as the Dean thinks fit and is reasonable in all the circumstances.

5.5 If a reconsideration of the student’s case gives rise to a change in the student’s progression this must be ratified, depending on how material the changes are, by:

6.1  If the appellant is dissatisfied with the decision at Stage 1, they may resubmit the appeal in the original or in a revised form to the University Secretary within 21 days of receipt of the response from the Dean of School.

6.2  The University Secretary will pass the appeal to the Deputy Principal, who, having considered the substance of the appeal and the previous attempts at resolution, will decide whether or not a prima facie case is established. If such a case is established, then the appeal will be referred to an Academic Appeals hearing.

6.3  Normally, an academic appeals hearing will be convened only where the Deputy Principal judges that:

• there has been demonstrably an irregularity in the proceedings at Stage 1;
• evidence has become available that it was not reasonable for the appellant to provide at Stage 1.

6.4  If a prima facie case is judged not to have been established, the appeal shall fail and the student shall be duly informed in writing.

6.5  Exceptionally, where the Deputy Principal judges that the evidence provided at Stage 2 provides unequivocal evidence to support the academic appeal under the grounds set out in regulation 6.3, the Deputy Principal may uphold the appeal.

6.6  In determining under regulation 6.5 above, the Deputy Principal shall enjoy delegated powers to review a decision reached by a Board of Examiners equivalent to those provided to the Academic Appeals Committee under paragraph: 7.9 below.

7 Proceedings of the Academic Appeals Committee

7.1 In the event that an academic appeals hearing is judged appropriate, an Academic Appeals Panel will be convened. The Panel will be chaired by a Dean or Head of Division from outside the student's School. A Panel will consist of two other members of academic staff drawn from an academic or support area unrelated to the appeal, and a representative from the Students’ Union Executive Committee. Care will be taken to ensure an appropriate gender balance in the composition of the Panel. The University Secretary will act as technical adviser to the Panel and will nominate a clerk to the committee.

7.2  The Academic Appeals Panel shall conduct its proceedings according to the principles of natural justice in that it will it will seek to act fairly, no person may be a judge in their own case and all parties shall have access to all the evidence used by the Committee in reaching its decision.

7.3  The Appeals Panel shall meet, normally within one calendar month (excluding University vacations) of the referral from Part I, and communicate its conclusions to the student and the subject area/department concerned within one calendar month of its being convened. The University Secretary will keep all parties informed of progress and will advise of any necessary extension of the timescale, for example, if an adjournment in the proceedings is necessary.

7.4  The appellant shall have the right to appear before the Committee and to be accompanied by one other person of their choice. Representation external to the University will not be permitted in the context of this procedure.

7.5  The Academic Appeals Panel may interview staff and/or students relevant to the appeal. If the appeal is on the ground of the actions of an individual, that individual has the right to be informed of the substance of the appeal, and to attend the appeal hearing and be accompanied by a friend or supporter.

7.6  Any person called to give evidence to the Appeal hearing will be given at least 72 hours’ notice of the time and place of the hearing. Copies of written submissions will also be made available to all parties prior to the hearing.

7.7  In the event that the appellant is unable to attend the Academic Appeals Committee due to illness or other good cause, the meeting will be rescheduled.

7.8  The University Secretary will act as technical adviser to the Panel and will nominate a clerk to the committee.

7.9  The Committee may, acting under powers delegated to it by the Senate, review a decision reached by a Board of Examiners and determine:

•  to confirm the decision of the Board of Examiners, on the grounds that the evidence presented did not support the case;
• to require the Board of Examiners to reconsider the results of the assessment of the students on an entire programme or part of a programme; the reconsidered results will be referred to the Convener of the Committee to decide the appropriate course of action;
• to annul the relevant decision of the Board of Examiners and refer the case for decision back to the Board of Examiners (the subsequent decision of the Board of Examiners will be referred to the Convener of the Committee to decide the appropriate course of action);
• to annul the relevant decision of the Board of Examiners and assign a revised result to the student concerned;
• to make decisions on the student’s progress or award outside the University’s general assessment regulations.

7.10  The Panel will produce a report that documents fully the issues raised by the appellant, the facts established by the investigation, and the manner in which the facts were used to inform the judgement of the committee.

7.11  The Panel shall report all these cases to the Senate for information.

7.12  Consequent to the decision arising from the particular case, the Committee may ask the Senate or other senior committee to reconsider the wording of University’s academic regulations, and the Programme Committee to review its programme regulations and/or management.

7.13  The University has the right to levy a fee for appeals. If the process involves the re-marking of a number of examination papers, it may charge per paper re-marked. The fee will be reimbursed if the appeal is upheld.

7.14  The decision of the Academic Appeals Committee shall be final within the University.

8 INDEPENDENT REVIEW

8.1  The University’s internal procedures having been exhausted, a student may seek review of their complaint by an independent person, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman [SPSO].

8.2  The Ombudsman is independent and their staff will advise whether or not the complaint is one that they can investigate. Normally the student will have to tell the Ombudsman about their complaint within 12 months of first knowing about the problem about which they are complaining, although the Ombudsman may look at complaints outside this limit if they think there is good reason to do so.

8.3  There are some restrictions on what the Ombudsman can investigate. For example, they cannot consider the subject matter of complaints about personnel matters or matters of academic judgement. However, they may be able to investigate the manner in which the complaint was handled. If the complaint is appropriate to their office and is investigated, theOmbudsman’s staff will send details of how this will be done.

8.4  The complaint should be submitted in writing to the Ombudsman, and should include any relevant documents including correspondence with the University and the University’s response to the complaint. This can be sent to the Ombudsman without cost at the freepost address given below. A student may discuss the complaint with an Investigator at the SPSO before deciding to submit.

8.5  The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has an online complaint form accessible through the website, although papers in support of the complaint would still have to be supplied to the Ombudsman by post or other means. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman can also supply paper complaint forms direct to complainants.

8.6  Further information may be accessed through the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman website, or by calling their office for advice. Contact details are:

Freepost SPSO, SPSO, Bridgeside House, 99 McDonald Road, Edinburgh EH7 4NS

Opening hours: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday 9am–5pm, Tuesday 10am–5pm

SPSO freephone 0800 377 7330
Website: Scottish Public Services Ombudsman website

Fax 0800 377 7331

 

3. Scope

• ensure operational effectiveness of services
• prevent a breach of the law, this policy, or other University policy
• investigate a suspected breach of the law, this policy, or other University policy
• monitor standards

Access to staff files, including electronic mail files, will not normally be given to another member of staff unless authorised by the appropriate line manager, Head of IT Services, or nominee, who will use their discretion, in consultation with a senior officer of the University, if appropriate. In such circumstances the Head of Subject or Division, or more senior line manager, will be informed and will normally be consulted prior to action being taken. Such access will normally only be granted in the following circumstances:

• where a breach of the law or a serious breach of this or another University policy is suspected;
• when a documented and lawful request from a law enforcement agency such as the police or security services has been received;
• on request from the relevant Head of Subject or Division, where the managers or co- workers of the individual require access to e-mail messages or files, which are records of a University activity and the individual is unable, e.g. through absence, to provide them.

The University sees student privacy as desirable but not as an absolute right, hence students should not expect to hold or pass information, which they would not wish to be seen by members of staff responsible for their academic work. In addition to when a breach of the law or of this policy is suspected, or when a documented and lawful request from a law enforcement agency such as the police or security services has been received, systems staff are also authorised to release the contents of a student's files, including electronic mail files, when required to by any member of staff who has a direct academic work-based reason for requiring such access.

After a student or member of staff leaves the University, files which are left behind on any computer system owned by the University, including servers and including electronic mail files, will be considered to be the property of the University. When leaving the University, staff should make arrangements to transfer to colleagues any e-mail or other computer- based information held under their account, as this will be closed on their departure.

7. Acceptable Use of ICT

University ICT and electronic resources are provided to facilitate your work as a member of the University community, specifically for educational, training, research or administrative purposes. Any other uses are a privilege and not a right and must never take priority over the needs of those who require the facilities for directed academic work.

The University does not block or filter keywords or search terms, nor does it prevent you from accessing specific sites. That does not mean however, that you can access or download pornographic or other offensive or objectionable material.

You should bear the following in mind:

• You must not share your QMU username and password with anyone else. This will result in your account being disabled immediately. For students, if your account has been disabled then you must appeal for its reinstatement. This must be done in the first instance to your Dean of School. There is no automatic reinstatement. Staff should contact Assist helpdesk.
• You must never use University ICT systems to alarm or inconvenience others.
• You must not display anything on your screen which is likely to cause offence or upset other users. However, it is recognised that sometimes it is necessary to display material which is medical in nature, in relation to some courses/modules.
• You must respect other people’s electronic privacy. In particular, you may not use your QMU accounts to distribute spam and other chain emails.
• For your own security, you should be careful who you share your QMU email and other contact details with.
• You must never pass off other people’s work as your own. The University produces a guide to referencing, “Write and Cite” [ broken link] which is available online.
• You should not use data which is confidential or not already in the public domain in your work without first consulting the author; there may be copyright or data protection implications.
• You must not maliciously damage or interfere with any item of hardware.

Anyone found abusing QMU ICT systems will usually be cautioned in the first instance. Continued abuse will lead to your account being disabled. This means that you will be unable to access any of the networking and communications services. In cases of serious abuse, your account will be disabled immediately. Serious abuse includes the sharing of your username and password

All Users are advised that the University has a statutory obligation under the Counter- Terrorism and Security Act (2015) to have ‘due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism’.

The Terrorism Act (2000) makes it an offence for an individual to collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism; or to possess a document or record containing information of that kind (eg a terrorist training manual). The Terrorism Act (2006) makes it an offence to disseminate terrorist publications in order to encourage others to engage in terrorism.

The Terrorism Act (2000) defines terrorism in section 1 of the Act as set out in the following: The Terrorism Act (2000)

• You will ensure that all the requirements of the agreements, contracts and licences under which the Product is held by the Institution will be maintained. (Copies of the relevant agreements, contracts and licences may be seen by application to the School or Department which made the Product available).
• You will adhere to the regulations governing the use of any service involved in the provision of access to the product whether these services are controlled by this institution or by some other organisation.
• You will not remove or alter the Copyright Statement on any copies of the Product used by yourself.
• You will ensure the Security and Confidentiality of any copy released to yourself and will not make any further copies from it or knowingly permit others to do so, unless permitted to do so under the relevant licence.
• You will use the Product only for purposes defined and only on computer systems covered by the agreement, contract or licence.
• You will only incorporate the Product, or part thereof, in any work, program or article produced by yourself, where this is permitted by the licence or by "Fair Dealing".
• You will only incorporate some part or version of the Product in any work produced by yourself with the express permission of the Licensor or unless this is permitted under the Agreement.
• You will not reverse engineer or decompile the software products or attempt to do so unless this is explicitly permitted within the terms of the Agreement for the use of the Product.

You will return or destroy all copies of the Product at the end of the course/year/period of employment or when requested to do so.

11. Legal constraints

15.1  Know the rules

15.2  Keeping safe

15.3  What you should do if something unexpected happens

16. Recording of lectures

QMU recognises that from time to time students may wish to record lectures, seminars and tutorials for their own personal use to support their learning. As a matter of courtesy students should inform the lecturer prior to the commencement of the recording. If the student has not informed the lecturer, the lecturer may ask for the recording to be stopped.

However, students are reminded that:

• Distributing a recorded lecture/seminar/tutorial is an unacceptable activity. Students should always check with lecturers before distributing a recording; this includes distributing on the Internet.
• Editing a recorded lecture/seminar/tutorial is also an unacceptable activity. Students should always check with lecturers before changing a recording.

17. Publishing to the Web

The University provides the opportunity to publish web pages within the qmu.ac.uk domain to:

• support research activity
• enhance teaching
• provide means of disseminating information about the University to its members, to potential staff and students and to the general public.
• allow individual users to provide non-academic information as part of the general process of learning through our use of Google sites and wikis.

17.1 Guidelines

All information provided using our web facilities will be seen as having, in some way, the support of the University and will affect how people view the University. Therefore, no provider should publish any information in a way which could adversely affect the good name or reputation of the University, nor provide material which is inappropriate for dissemination by the University. Included in this is any material that could lead to legal action, such as alleged libel or a breach of copyright.

A disclaimer should also be included indicating that the University has no direct responsibility for the content and giving individual contact name and email address.

The information provided on this web page does not necessarily represent the views of Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh. The responsibility for all material in this page rests wholly on a personal basis with the owner of this page. The named owner of this page is responsible for liability for loss, liability for hypertext links, liability for defamation and for compliance with relevant acts of law.

The page is also subject to the University Acceptable Use Policy.

17.2 Google sites and wikis

All of the above Guidelines apply to the Google sites/wikis service except that contributions will in this case always be at the page level with automatic attribution made to the author such that no further use of the copyright symbol, linking to any Home Page, or disclaimer is necessary.

The service is offered to certain members of the University either as part of their learning, research or other use considered appropriate by the Head of Information and Learning Services.

All information published on our web pages is subject to our standard takedown policy whereby any report of issues with content will result in the page being removed immediately and subject to investigation.

18. Responsibilities

The University accepts that effective Information and data security is the responsibility of all within the University. The following bodies and individuals however have specific information security responsibilities:

The Senior Leadership Team, (SLT), has executive responsibility for information security within the University.

The Information Security Steering Group, (ISSG), has operational responsibility for all aspects of information security within the University. The ISSG is responsible for determining the system of internal controls operated by the University and for managing their delivery and effectiveness. The ISSG will:

• Analyse and manage institutional risks.
• Review and recommend policies, procedures, and standards.
• Ensure consistency in disciplinary processes for violation.

Heads of Division, Unit or Service are responsible for the oversight of information security arrangements within their area in order to ensure that they are functioning in accordance with this policy.

Users are required to complete information security awareness training and are responsible for making informed decisions to protect the information that they process.

19. Review and Development

This policy, and any supporting security sub-policies, will be reviewed and updated by the ISSG as necessary on a scheduled basis to ensure that the policy/policies

• remain operationally fit for purpose;
• reflect changes in technologies;
• are aligned to industry best practice; and
• support continued regulatory, contractual and legal compliance.

 

5.1  The Admissions Policy is approved by the Student Experience Committee and any changes or updates will be approved by that committee. A full review of the policy in its entirety is undertaken every 5 years. The Head of Admissions and Recruitment is responsible for the operation of the policy and for its regular monitoring and review. The policy will be checked annually to ensure accuracy and to reflect any changes.

The definition of harassment in the Equality Act 2010 is wide. It is ‘where a person (A) engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic and the conduct has the purpose or effect of:

(a)  violating another person's (B's) dignity, or

(b)  creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B’

It should be noted that 'unwanted' does not mean that express objection has to be made, and a serious one-off incident can amount to harassment.

It is important to note that differences of personality traits or culture and the misinterpretation of social signals can mean that what is perceived as harassment by one person may not seem so to another. The defining feature, however, is that the behaviour is offensive or intimidating to the recipient, and as such would be regarded as harassment by any reasonable person. It would need to be considered that, if the purpose of the conduct was to violate the individual’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, then this is sufficient to establish harassment. However if harassment was not the purpose, but an individual argues that this was the effect of the conduct, the Equality Act says that in deciding whether conduct has that effect, consideration must be given to:

• the perception of the claimant;
• the other circumstances of the case; and
• whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect.

Forms of harassment involve offensive conduct or behaviour directed at a person’s racial origin, religion and beliefs (including non-belief), gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, age, family status (including their role as a carer or as a part-time worker, fixed term worker), marital status, political opinion, socio-economic status, or because they are a member of a trade union or similar associations or some other personal characteristic. It can also include the inappropriate use, or threat of use, of physical and mental power, authority or through social media.

With regard to religion and belief, it should be noted that there may be cultural differences which make some forms of behaviour generally regarded as acceptable by one group and unacceptable to another because such behaviour does not form part of the normal social interaction of that particular group.

All persons within the University should demonstrate respect for local and international cultures as well as each person’s learning needs. This refers to maintaining appropriate conduct in learning environments such as the library, lecture/seminar rooms and IT facilities as well as in Halls of Residence.

2.1.4  Ensure that the University is not brought into disrepute.

All persons within the University have an individual and collective responsibility to uphold the range of policies within the institution which underpin the overarching criteria of the Code of Conduct and which are designed to ensure that everyone can work, study and live in an environment characterised by mutual respect.

3. Library Code of Conduct 

3.1 This Code of Conduct has been developed to support the general University Code of Conduct.

3.2 General Principles

3.3 All students at QMU shall:

3.3.1 Accept individual and collective responsibility for maintaining a healthy working and studying environment within the University Library, promoting appropriate conduct and respecting the right of others to a quiet study environment.

All persons within QMU have an individual and collective responsibility to contribute to a study environment in the Library which promotes scholarship and learning, and where these study areas are respected. All persons should be considerate of the needs of others for an appropriate study environment and share a common goal in learning.

• Silence in areas designated as Silent Study Areas must be observed.

3.3.2  Accept individual and collective responsibility for keeping a clean and safe working and studying environment.

All persons using the QMU Library have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure that safety is not compromised, that food and drink packaging is disposed of correctly and that respect for other people and property is maintained. In particular that no library materials are damaged or defaced and that none are removed from the Library unless they have been properly issued.

• All Library users should carry their matriculation card (smart card) with them at all times and be prepared to show it if asked.
• All Library materials removed from the Library, by an individual, should be issued to their own card.
• Any vandalised property should be reported immediately.

3.3.3  Have a mutual respect for others especially with regard to differing cultures.

All persons within QMU should demonstrate respect for the range of local and international cultures as well as each person's learning needs. This means maintaining appropriate conduct in learning environments such as the Library so that the needs of all users can be met.

3.3.4  Ensure that the University is not brought into disrepute.

All persons within QMU have an individual and collective responsibility to comply with the law, e.g. Copyright and Data Protection. This is to ensure that everyone can work and study in an environment characterised by mutual respect and free from the harassment and distress which the transmission of offensive or threatening material may cause.

3.4 Specific Codes

The Library Code of Conduct is underpinned by the Library Regulations and the Acceptable use policy for information and communication technology and electronic resources. The Library Code of Conduct should be read in conjunction with the following:

The University’s current Student and Academic Regulations, Disciplinary and Appeals Procedures outlined on the University’s Regulations, Policies and Procedures web page.

The University’s Equality Policy, which is to be read in conjunction with the Mainstreaming Report.

4.0 Accommodation Code of Conduct 

4.1 This Accommodation Code of Conduct has been developed to support the general University Code of Conduct.

4.2  General Principles

4.3  All students at QMU shall:

4.3.1  Accept individual and collective responsibility for maintaining a healthy working, studying and living environment within the University, respecting the institution’s policies on equal opportunities and harassment and ensuring that their conduct complies with these policies.

In particular all students should:

• maintain rooms and communal areas in a clean, tidy and hygienic condition.
• co-operate in fire evacuation practices.
• show consideration for others by minimising noise levels, in particular between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m.

4.3.2  Have a mutual respect for others especially with regard to differing cultures.

All persons within QMU Halls of Residence should demonstrate respect for the range of local and international cultures within the University. You must not harass, threaten, bully or victimise other residents, staff or visitors. This will include displaying sexually explicit or politically offensive notices.

• You are expected to show courtesy and consideration to those with whom you are sharing facilities, to your neighbours and to University staff and visitors.

4.3.3 Ensure that the University is not brought into disrepute.

• All persons within QMU Halls of Residence have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure that all students can live and study in an environment characterised by mutual respect.
• You are asked to consider the impact that unacceptable behaviour may have on local residents and to behave as an ambassador of Queen Margaret University.

Specific Codes

The Accommodation Code of Conduct is underpinned by the Halls of Residence Code of Conduct, which is applicable for all students in halls of residence and all persons entering halls as visitors.

5. Code of Conduct for Learning Environments 

e.g. Lecture, Seminars, Tutorial, Laboratories and Placements

5.1  This Code of Conduct for Learning Environments e.g. Lectures, Seminars, Tutorials, Laboratories and Placements has been developed to support the general University Code of Conduct.

5.2  General Principles

5.3  All students at QMU shall:

5.3.1  Accept individual and collective responsibility for maintaining a healthy working, studying and living environment within the University, respecting the institution’s policies on equal opportunities and harassment and ensuring that their conduct complies with these policies.

All persons within QMU have an individual and collective responsibility to contribute to a study environment which promotes scholarship and learning. All persons should be considerate of the needs of others for an appropriate study environment and share a common goal in learning.

• Attendance at lectures, seminars etc. is essential, in particular where students’ absence may be detrimental to the performance of fellow students and the quality of learning experience gained. In addition, lateness is a discourtesy to the whole group and the group itself should make clear that lateness or other disruptive behaviour is not acceptable.
• Students are expected to prepare for lectures, seminars etc. Students who attend tutorials or seminars without doing preparatory work or contributing to the discussion will be reminded of their obligations by the tutor and, when appropriate, by student members of the group. Suitable preparation enhances the overall learning experience.
• The use of mobile phones in lectures, seminars etc. is strictly prohibited. All phones should be switched off before entry into lectures, seminars etc.

5.3.2  Accept individual and collective responsibility for keeping a clean and safe working and studying environment.

• All persons attending QMU lectures, seminars etc. should ensure that the safety of themselves and others is not compromised.
• All persons attending QMU lectures, seminars etc. should ensure respect for other people and property is maintained.
• Smoking, eating and drinking are strictly prohibited within the learning environment.

5.3.3 Have a mutual respect for others especially with regard to differing cultures.

All persons within QMU should demonstrate respect for the range of local and international cultures as well as each person's learning needs. This means maintaining appropriate conduct in learning environments such as lectures and seminars so that the needs of all users can be met.

• The University will not tolerate antisocial behaviour: this includes the use of abusive language, physical abuse, obscene comments, verbal or physical harassment, and comments or remarks that discriminate on the basis of sex, race or any other irrelevant distinction.

5.3.4 Ensure that the University is not brought into disrepute.

• All persons within QMU have an individual and collective responsibility to comply with the law, this is to ensure that all students can work and study in an environment characterised by mutual respect and free from harassment and distress.
• You are asked to consider the impact that unacceptable behaviour may have on other people and to behave as an ambassador of Queen Margaret University.

5.4 Attendance Policy

This Code of Conduct must be read in conjunction with the University’s Attendance Policy, available from the University’s Regulations, Policies and Procedures web page.

For some programmes, a more detailed attendance policy will apply, details of which will normally be available within individual programme documentation.

6. IT Facilities Code of Conduct 

6.1  This IT Facilities Code of Conduct has been developed to support the general University Code of Conduct.

6.2  General Principles

6.3  All students at QMU shall:

6.3.1 Accept individual and collective responsibility for maintaining a healthy working, studying and living environment within the University, respecting the institution’s policies on equal opportunities and harassment and ensuring that their conduct complies with these policies.

All persons within QMU have an individual and collective responsibility to contribute to a study environment which promotes scholarship and learning. All persons should be considerate of the needs of others for an appropriate study environment and share a common goal in learning.

• Use of the computer systems and networks should always be legal and ethical, and reflect academic integrity and the standards of the University community. IT facilities must never be used to cause offence, worry or inconvenience to anyone.
• Users should accept the need to be restrained in the use of available resources. Electronic resources are provided to facilitate the work of students, specifically for educational, training, research or administrative purposes. Any other uses are a privilege and not a right, and must not take priority over the needs of those who require the facilities for directed academic work.

6.3.2  Accept individual and collective responsibility for keeping a clean and safe working and studying environment, ensuring personal guests act in an appropriate manner.

• All persons using QMU IT facilities have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure that the safety of themselves and others is not compromised.
• All persons using QMU IT facilities have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure respect for other people and property is maintained.

6.3.3  Have a mutual respect for others especially with regard to differing cultures.

• All persons using QMU IT facilities have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure that the study environment is characterised by mutual respect, which can help enhance the quality of learning experience.
• The University will not tolerate antisocial behaviour: this includes the use of abusive language, physical abuse, obscene comments, verbal or physical harassment, and comments or remarks that discriminate on the basis of sex, race or any other irrelevant distinction.

6.3.4  Ensure that the University is not brought into disrepute.

All persons using QMU IT facilities should adhere to appropriate statutory law eg: the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the Defamation Act 2013, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the provisions of the University’s licence with the Copyright Licensing Agency, Data Protection Act 2014 and licence agreements for software. All persons using QMU IT facilities should also respect the intellectual property rights, copyright and moral rights of authors.

• All persons within QMU have an individual and collective responsibility to comply with the law, this is to ensure that all students can work and study in an environment characterised by mutual respect and free from harassment and distress.
• You are asked to consider the impact that unacceptable behaviour may have on other people and to behave as an ambassador of Queen Margaret University.

6.4 Specific Codes

The IT Facilities Code of Conduct is underpinned by the JANET Acceptable Use Policy, published by JISC) which covers all UK academic and research network activity.

7. SCIENCE LABORATORY CODE OF CONDUCT

7.1  This Science Laboratory Code of Conduct has been developed to support the general University Code of Conduct.

7.2  General Principles

7.3  All students at QMU shall:

7.3.1  Accept individual and collective responsibility for maintaining a healthy working, studying and living environment with the University, respecting the institution’s policies on equal opportunities and harassment and ensuring that their conduct complies with these policies.

All persons within QMU have an individual and collective responsibility to contribute to a study environment, which promotes scholarship and learning. All persons should be considerate of the needs of others for an appropriate study environment and share a common goal in learning.

• The use of computer systems within laboratories is subject to the same code of conduct identified for IT laboratories in QMU.
• The use of mobile phones within laboratory environments is strictly prohibited. All phones should be switched off before entry into laboratories.

7.3.2  Accept individual and collective responsibility for keeping a clean and safe working and studying environment.

All persons using the QMU science laboratories have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure that safety is not compromised, that food is not consumed and that respect for other people and property is maintained. In particular that no laboratory equipment is damaged and that no item is removed from the library unless it has been properly issued.

• Smoking, eating and drinking are strictly prohibited within laboratories, with the following exceptions:
  Food or fluid intake specifically associated with experimental procedures and specified in laboratory schedules.
• Fluid intake following exercise testing regimes in which an individual may become dehydrated.

Individuals should:

• Read and observe any special safety instructions displayed in the laboratory, or which have been issued to them (e.g. Local rules for Radiation Safety, Safe use of Gas Cylinders).
• Ensure familiarity with equipment, including safety devices before beginning work
• Wear protective equipment as required and directed when working in the laboratory.
• Report all breakages and spills to a member of staff. Broken glass, needles and other sharps should be placed in appropriate bins or sharps boxes and not mixed with waste paper.
• Take responsibility for the safe storage of clothing, bags and personal items, so that they do not represent a hazard within the laboratory environment.
• Students should not work in laboratories outwith timetabled classes, unless appropriate arrangements have been made for supervised group or individual project work. This should include the completion of a Risk Assessment, which must be fully understood and signed by both student and supervisor. COSHH forms must be completed if required.
• Students should request equipment for project work using the appropriate form and should ensure its safe return to a member of staff.

7.3.3 Have a mutual respect for others especially with regard to differing cultures.

• The University will not tolerate antisocial behaviour: this includes the use of abusive language, physical abuse, obscene comments, verbal or physical harassment, and comments or remarks that discriminate on the basis of sex, race or any other irrelevant distinction.

7.3.4 Ensure that the University is not brought into disrepute.

7.4 Specific Codes

Students are expected to follow specific codes of conduct, regarding equipment, hazards or procedures where these are in force in specific laboratory areas.

5. Summary procedure

2.1.3 Who Should Consent?

Only persons able to freely understand, question and refuse without fear of sanction or reprisal can give informed consent. For research involving participants who may lack the capacity for understanding and questioning, such as children, people with mental or intellectual difficulties, or people severely ill or heavily medicated, consent should be obtained from a parent, carer or other person serving in a responsible capacity AND from the participant themselves, to the extent that they are capable of understanding and offering consent. Ingenuity needs to be exercised in providing satisfactory consent procedures in such cases. Consent from the parent or carer alone is rarely adequate.

The freedom to refuse to participate in research is potentially threatened where there is a power imbalance between the prospective participant and the researcher, along with their perceived allies. For example, students may believe that refusing to participate in staff research will not count well for them when they are being educationally assessed. This can occur even if the researcher is not directly one of the student’s teachers. The two key methods of ensuring true refusal are:

• to ensure whenever possible that the research team is completely independent of anybody in a position of power over the potential participants, and
• that the procedures to ensure independence are explicit during the informed consent process. For example, should the medical consultant be one of the research team (as is often the case), it should be clear that they will have no knowledge of whether an individual patient has participated or not. Where this is impossible, other means of enabling true refusal should be actively written into the research protocol.

It is also important to remember that research on groups, societies, organisations, institutions and their members also ‘involves human beings’ who ought to consent to it occurring. This does not necessarily mean obtaining consent from everybody, but appropriate procedures should be in place for collective consent, treating the organisation as the ‘participant’.

2.1.4 The Process of Informed Consent

All international declarations stipulate that, prior to consent, each participant in a research project should be clearly informed of its goals, its possible adverse events, and the possibility to refuse to enter or to retract at any time with no consequences. How to inform is a critical part of the process. Participants are rarely able to recall what they have agreed upon when signing an informed consent form. An example Information Sheet and Consent Form can be found in Appendix 2.

The following strategies may help to safeguard informed consent:

• Close attention to the language and readability of written material, which includes translation procedures for non-native language speakers.
• Honest explanation of the possible risks and benefits of participation. Particular caution should be exercised to avoid ‘lies of omission’; if the research procedure is boring, unpleasant or simply lengthy, it is best to make this clear.
• The opportunity for potential participants to discuss the project and ask questions with somebody sympathetic who understands the research: Ideally one of the research team.
• Use of alternative media, such as visual information.
• In complex or hazardous cases, the informed consent procedure should involve a detailed interview and discussion, rather than the mere signing of paperwork.

2.1.5 The Informed Consent Form

This usually includes an actual form to be signed, along with an information sheet and as much additional material as is appropriate. This entire pack constitutes ‘the consent form’.

Two general questions should be answered on the information sheet:

• What are the likely benefits of the research for science, for society and for the research participants? This should enable potential participants to make an informed choice to participate, even if there are risks. Researchers should avoid the temptation to exaggerate about benefits.
• How will participants and the data about them be protected? This should include explanation of how confidentiality will be ensured and what data will be retained where, in what format.

Other information that should be included in the information sheet includes:

• A clear explanation of who is involved in the research, what their roles are, and who to contact for further information or in case of concern.
• A clear and appropriately brief description of the research explaining its purposes, how long participation will take, what will happen and which, if any, parts of the research involve new or experimental procedures.
• An explanation of any screening procedures used to select participants.
• An accurate description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts. Notably, much research interviewing people poses some risk of participant distress, should the topics covered include ones sensitive to individual people.
• A modest description of any benefits that may reasonably be expected as a result of
• participating, to the participants and to others.
• In research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation of insurance and compensation procedures, should harm occur.
• An explanation of the procedures that will be followed should the research discover important information about the participant. Two common dilemmas are:

• • When research incidentally discovers signs of disease or abnormality. In most cases the appropriate procedure is to notify the participant and refer to appropriate health care professionals. In some cases it is appropriate for the participant to choose to not be informed, or be informed, as part of the consent procedure. Genetic screening research is one example.
  • When research incidentally discovers a significant risk of harm to the participant by others, or by the participant to others. With children under 16, researchers are legally obliged to disclose such risks to appropriate people and this is a limit on confidentiality.

• In research involving interventions or treatments, a clear explanation of alternative approaches that participants might use instead.

• An explanation of procedures used to preserve confidentiality and anonymity (see 2.4.1).

• A statement explaining that participation is entirely voluntary and that participants may withdraw at any time, for any reason, without explanation or obligation to the research team and without repercussions elsewhere.

2.2 Non-Maleficence; Do no harm

Researchers must not harm their study participants. But, even simple time-wasting can be harmful, so it is the research team’s duty to weigh up the potential for harm against the benefits of the study and to come to a justifiable conclusion. It is also the team’s duty to ensure that research which carries a risk of harm should only be conducted by competent research teams. Many potential ethical issues can be resolved by ensuring that the research team has sufficient competence to manage problems appropriately. For example, a badly designed survey by an undergraduate may waste participants’ time, where a well-designed one would not.

2.2.1 Competence

The normal model for a research team is that there are one or more researchers who directly interact with participants and one or more supervisors who oversee. Part of the ethics review process is to establish that the research team is competent to (a) minimise harm, (b) conduct research that is like to be of sufficient quality to be worth any risks of harm, which at the mildest level includes wasting participants’ time and effort, and (c) manage serious harm should it arise, even if it is very unlikely. Competence is a function of relevant skills, experience, training to be achieved during the research process and the devotion of appropriate time and effort to the research project. A good research team has an appropriate mix of competencies. When researchers are less competent, then supervisors need to be more competent and supervise more closely. Therefore, particular care should be exercised in decisions about what types of research can be conducted by undergraduates. Staff teaching loads can sometimes make close supervision difficult, so unless a student has special demonstrable competencies caution should be exercised in developing undergraduate research that raises major ethical issues. Conversely, a team with specialist expertise can conduct research that might be unethical conducted by a team without such competencies. Where appropriate, it is important to report on the team’s competence in the ethics application. A track record of publications in the area is not always sufficient. There are also specialised competencies that need to be considered. For instance, researchers working with young people or other vulnerable groups will need to be police checked according to current Disclosure Scotland guidelines (www.disclosurescotland.co.uk) Researchers who intend to work with children should consider this when planning the timescale of their research.

2.2.2 Risk Assessment and Risk Management

In order to address the issue of ‘risk of harm’, researchers must demonstrate that they have exercised a standard of due care. As well as being competent, this involves identifying the likely risks, assessing the probability that they will occur, evaluating the risk to determine its acceptability in relation to the objectives of the research and finally managing the risks which involves the steps that can be taken to minimise them (Beauchamp and Childress, 2001:199).

Common examples of managing risk include:

• Screening procedures that identify participants more likely to come to harm through the research.
• Competence to work with participants who become distressed, including being able to listen and communicate appropriately about the distress and being able to refer to further counselling should this be required
• Sufficient knowledge to provide advice about services or help as a result of discussing needs which are not being met
• Sufficient knowledge to discuss the benefits of appropriate interventions
• Adequate post-research debriefing, including offering explanations of any necessary deception or withholding of information.
• Appropriate research training on the proposed research techniques: For example, appropriate specialist interview skills; specific experimental methods; specialist biological sampling.
• Appropriate risk assessment for the conduct of the research, including any physical or biological risks faced by researchers and participants.
• Adequate supervisory procedures to address researchers’ difficult thoughts and feelings about the research and the participants, to reduce harm to researchers.

2.3 Beneficence: Do good

Will the research truly benefit the individual participants, or those like them? Will the research truly benefit some wider or more abstract entity such as science, knowledge, or society? Naturally, researchers generally hope the answer to at least some of these questions is ‘yes’. However, in justifying research it is important to reflect upon and respect conflicting notions of benefit. It is unethical to assume that benefit to participants, to science, or to society are an absolute good. Contemporary disagreements abound: For example, over animal rights, over the age at which the foetus becomes a person, or the appropriate balance between eroding individual liberties and promoting safety.

When research can genuinely indicate likely beneficence, then this is important ethically and may justify research that would otherwise seem excessively hazardous to participants.

However, this situation is relatively rare. Usually, ethical research involving human participants is about minimising harm, rather than increasing likely benefits.

2.4 Justice

It is important to treat people equally and fairly and ensure that they are accorded their full rights. In research practice, much of this occurs under issues of truly informed consent (see 2.4.2). It is also worth mentioning the need to consider issues of participant selection criteria. There are often legitimate reasons for restricting a study to a specific gender, or age group, or excluding non-native speakers of the predominant language, or excluding specific ethnicities. However, sometimes these choices are made mainly for convenience, which may be ethically debatable and can require justification. There are many instances where convenient sampling criteria have resulted in a consequent lack of knowledge of whether findings apply to excluded groups. Any inclusion or exclusion criteria to be employed in the research should be clearly outlined and justified in the ethical approval application. There are also issues, now widely recognised by research councils and the NHS, of the extent to which research participants are entitled to help form the research agenda. Participant involvement in research design is good practice.

2.4.1 Confidentiality

As well as being a basic rule of research ethics, confidentiality is also the subject of considerable literature and legislation including the Data Protection Act 2018. It is important to keep confidentiality distinct from anonymity.

Anonymity involves the protection of the participant so that even the research team cannot link them to the information provided. Nowadays, this not only requires the avoidance of names, but also other identifier information such as postcodes, or NHS CHI numbers. Moreover, particularly in small-scale more qualitative studies, some participants may be identifiable solely by the data they provide. Consequently, true anonymity from start to finish is relatively rare in research and should not be offered unless it is really provided.

Confidentiality in contrast involves the prevention of disclosure of identity other than to authorised people, for authorised purposes. For example in the NHS, patient records are confidential, but may be accessed by any NHS staff for appropriate purposes; but not for inappropriate ones. Using records for malicious gossip would be a serious breach of confidentiality.

In most research projects confidentiality is a process, rather than a condition. It is important to make clear to participants what confidentiality involves and what measures will be in place to protect participants from unwanted violations of confidentiality.

If the data are retained for further research researchers need to ensure that the informed consent form explains and justifies this. Applicants should describe the measures taken to encode or anonymise stored data. Generally, data sets should be anonymised as soon as it is reasonable to do so, even if this requires the loss of potentially useful information. Even where only anonymised data are used, adequate security for storage and handling of such data must be demonstrated. This includes avoiding the unnecessary duplication of electronic data sets, which increases the chances of their being misused.

2.4.2. Data Storage

The data protection act and confidentiality requirements (see above) pose a dilemma for data storage, which is another ethical requirement of research. If research is not going to be published in the public domain, but was conducted primarily for educational purposes, then raw data should be destroyed once the research work has been educationally assessed. Any data retained electronically should have all personal identifying information removed. QMU has electronic (eResearch, QMU Research Repository) and physical data repositories and has developed a thesis repository. Please contact Information Services for further details. For research that may be published in the public domain whether this is student or staff work, raw research data needs to be stored for a reasonable period of time so that it can be re-accessed and checked should issues or queries arise (for example from conflicting findings by other research teams). The QMU Retention Policy is that raw data, including interview tapes, completed questionnaires, and other material, generally should be retained for five years after the research programme is completed, although this can vary depending on funder and other requirements. Additionally, signed consent forms should be kept separately from the data for 12 months on campus and thereafter in remote secure storage for the duration of the retention of the physical data. It is the responsibility of the principal researcher/supervisor to comply with current data protection legislation and store data securely for the appropriate length of time and destroy the data at the end of this period. Storage will normally be in the Subject Area (locked secure storage for physical data) or in your QMU password protected cloud/online drives for electronic data).

2.5. Academic freedom and restrictions on publication

QMU policy is opposed to research that has restrictions placed on the publication of findings (see Appendix 4). These restrictions are usually placed by some funders, including some NHS, government and industry sources. Sometimes there are legitimate ethical reasons for restricting publication, for example to protect commercial interests. However, is becoming more common for funders to stipulate that they own the intellectual rights to research they have funded, simply to control the information and, potentially prevent or manage its release into the public domain. This is contrary to the spirit of academic inquiry and such research is arguably unethical because it colludes in the suppression of information. Research at QMU should not be contracted with strong clauses restricting publication. This should have been negotiated during the funding application process, but the Ethics Panel reserves the right to challenge the ethical probity of research where publication of findings has been restricted by the funding contract.

Section 2 - Procedures for Ethical Approval

1. SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR ETHICAL APPROVAL

Without recorded ethics approval, under no circumstances can a research project proceed at QMU. The process of applying for ethical approval at QMU is described in this section, and is outlined in the flowchart in Appendix 1. The research team are responsible for applying for approval in a timely manner.

Research should not collect any data from participants, or use other data that is not in the public domain until Ethical Approval has been granted. So doing potentially constitutes serious research misconduct. In some circumstances, the data collected may be inadmissible. In serious cases students or staff involved may be subject to disciplinary procedures. If anyone becomes aware that research data is being collected or used without Ethical Approval, then they should immediately notify their Head of Division/Research Centre and the Research Ethics Panel. At minimum, staff and students will be required to suspend data collection/use immediately until Ethical Approval is obtained. The Research Ethics Panel cannot guarantee that approval will be granted retrospectively for data already collected.

The first step in gaining ethical approval is to complete an ‘Application for Ethical Approval for a Research Project’. This form is available on QMU’s website.

Most questions on the form are self-explanatory. Section 1 of this document – Ethical Principles to guide research – should be read before the Application for Ethical Approval is completed.

It is the researcher’s responsibility to ensure that the Application for Ethical Approval form is fully completed, legible and literate, and has any supplementary material such as consent forms or information sheets attached as appropriate. Any form that deviates markedly from this standard will be returned to the applicant by the Divisional Ethics Committee, without review.

2.THE ROLE OF THE DIVISIONAL RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE

The completed application with information sheet and consent form included as appropriate, should be submitted to the relevant Divisional Research Ethics Committee (DivREC) for consideration. The DivREC will review the application and supplementary material, and will make a decision from four possible alternatives. External applicants wishing to conduct research using staff or students at QMU should apply directly to the University Research Ethics Panel, providing a copy of the approved ethics application obtained from their own organisation. If ethical approval has not been granted by their own organisation then they should complete the QMU standard form and submit it to the Secretary of the Research Ethics Panel.

2.1 If the application has been incorrectly completed, relevant information omitted or necessary supplementary material not included, the DivREC should tick ‘We refer this application back to the applicant because...’ The reason(s) for referring the form back should be given, and the form signed and returned to the applicant. No record of the application need be kept by the DivREC in this case.

2.2 If the application has been completed correctly and all relevant information included, there are three remaining alternatives, which should be considered in the order they are listed. The first, ‘We refer this application to the Research Ethics Panel’, should be chosen if any of the following circumstances apply:

• where any non-routine harm, physical or psychological discomfort, or physical, biological or psychological risk is involved;
• where participants are used who are under 16 or over 65 years of age or whose ability to give voluntary consent is limited, including cognitively impaired persons, prisoners, persons with a chronic physical or mental condition, or those who live in or are connected to an institutional environment;
• where any invasive technique is involved, DNA testing, or collection of bodily fluids or tissue;
• where a degree or duration of exercise or physical exertion is involved that might be painful, stressful or hazardous to some participants;
• where manipulation of cognitive or affective human responses are involved which could cause stress or anxiety;
• where drugs, including liquid and food additives or other substances, are administered for research purposes;
• where deception of participants is used of a nature which might cause distress or which might reasonably affect their willingness to participate in the research;
• where highly personal, intimate or other private or confidential information is sought;
• where payment is made to participants other than to cover expenses or time involved.
• Where restriction is intended on the publication of results (see Appendix 4)
• Where the research involves NHS employees only (this type of research would require QMU research ethics approval as well as NHS Research and Development approval).
• Where the research involves a ‘sensitive’ research topic. Researchers, in particular undergraduate students, should carefully consider the implications of conducting research in sensitive topic areas which may cause emotional distress to participants or the researcher themselves, for example:

 

• •  domestic abuse
  • rape or sexual assault
  • psychological disorders e.g. Self-harm, eating disorders
  • Illegal or unethical activities e.g., crime, drug abuse
  • acute or terminal illness

Please note this list is not exhaustive.

Unless there are established research procedures at QM to deal with a specific sensitive topic that have previously been agreed to be minor invasive, research involving sensitive topics should be referred to the REP.

2.3  The second option, ‘We find this application acceptable and an application for ethical approval should now be submitted to a relevant external committee’, should be chosen if any of the following apply:

• The proposed research includes use of NHS patients or employees as subjects, NHS data, or it will be carried out (wholly or partly) on NHS premises.
• The applicant has indicated that ethical approval from another body will be required.
• The DivREC knows that ethical approval from another body will be required.

Where a student is submitting to an external committee, the application should be seen and checked by the DivREC before it is submitted externally.

2.4  The third option, ‘We grant ethical approval for this research’, should be chosen if none of the above bullet points apply and the DivREC is satisfied that the research can proceed ethically.

2.5  In all three cases, once signed by the DivREC, the application form must be submitted to the Secretary to the Research Ethics Panel to be logged on a centrally-maintained record of applications. Applications referred to the Research Ethics Panel must be received before the submission deadline in order to be considered at the next review period. Submission deadlines will be published by the Secretary to the Panel at the start of the academic year, and reminders will be circulated throughout the year.

3. THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCH ETHICS PANEL

The Research Ethics Panel reviews applications on a monthly basis. The application submission deadline will be the second Friday of each month and the dates will be published online before the start of each academic year. The Panel’s membership and remit can be found in Appendix 3. External applicants wishing to conduct research using staff or students at QMU should apply directly to the University Research Ethics Panel (see 2. above).

3.1  Applications for ethical approval referred to the Panel by a DivREC are reviewed by up to three members of the Panel and a decision regarding approval is reached. The members’ comments are submitted to the Secretary who will communicate the Panel’s decision to the applicant in writing approximately two working days after the decision is reached.

3.2  There are three possible options available to the Panel when considering an application. The first, ‘The Panel agrees that full ethical approval could be granted for the research’, will be chosen when the Panel are satisfied that the researcher has taken all necessary steps to ensure that the research will be conducted ethically, and that any potential risk to applicants has been considered and minimised.

3.3  The second option is ‘The Panel agrees that amendments to the application are required before ethical approval can be granted for the research’. This will be chosen when the Panel supports the proposed research in principle, but agree that amendments to the application must be made before ethical approval can be granted. The amendments required by the Panel will be communicated to the applicant in writing by the Secretary. The amended application should be submitted to the Secretary in the first instance. It will then be reviewed by up to three members of the Panel and the Convener. If satisfied that the required amendments have been appropriately completed, ethical approval may be granted by Convener’s Action

3.4  The third option available to the Panel is ‘The Panel invites the applicant to resubmit a revised application to its next meeting’. This option will be chosen when the Panel agrees that the proposed research involves significant ethical issues that have not been adequately addressed by the applicant in the application for ethical approval. The issues raised by the Panel when considering the application will be notified to the applicant in writing by the Secretary, along with the submission deadline and date of the next meeting. The revised application should be submitted to the Secretary for review by the Panel members that reviewed the original application. If the applicant chooses to resubmit on another topic, an application should be submitted to the DivREC in the first instance and should be treated as a new application.

3.5  Where applicants require an urgent decision on their application, a special request for fast track approval should be lodged with the Secretary. Fast track involves the review process described above, but reviewers’ comments are returned directly to the Convener for decision. The Panel reserves the right to delay fast tracked applications to the next application cycle, should the Convener deem this necessary.

3.6  Please note that fast tracking should only be requested in exceptional circumstances. Researchers should allow sufficient time in the planning of their research for completing the ethical approval process, including, if necessary, revisions to the application or resubmission to the Panel.

4. ATTENDANCE OF THE APPLICANT AT A PANEL MEETING

If the application has been referred by the DivREC to the Research Ethics Panel, the applicant may be invited to attend a meeting of the Panel to answer further, verbal questions. The purpose of attendance would be to help Panel members gain a better understanding of the proposal. This could speed up the process of approval.

Staff applicants would normally attend the meeting on their own. Undergraduate and MSc students should be accompanied by the supervisor of the research project as named on the application form, or an alternate if the supervisor is not available. Professional doctorate candidates and PhD candidates have the option of attending alone or with their supervisor.

The Secretary of the Panel will inform applicants of the date of the relevant meeting and ask that this time is kept free. Applicants will be informed approximately three days in advance of the meeting whether attendance will be necessary.

5. CONTINUING RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RESEARCHER

Any changes to the programme of research which are made following the granting of ethical approval and which would result in different information being given in any section of the Application for Ethical Approval form, should be notified to the Secretary to the Research Ethics Panel, who will advise on any action required. A report is also required should there be any adverse occurrences or any results that raise questions about the safety of the research. Notification should be submitted to the Panel on completion of the research.

6. DEFINING DIFFERENT RESEARCH PROCEDURES – NON-INVASIVE, MINOR INVASIVE AND MAJOR INVASIVE RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES

These distinctions originated in medical research, where the distinctions are relatively obvious in terms of physical harm or disturbance. Invasive procedures involve the possibility of major harm, even if there may also be major benefits. Minor invasive procedures pose a risk of some harm and non-invasive procedures are unlikely to be harmful at all. These distinctions can also be applied to research with human participants that is not physically invasive.

6.1  A non-invasive procedure in humans would be one where it was unlikely that anybody would find participating at all stressful, upsetting, disturbing or psychologically or socially harmful. Usually, this requires a short procedure, a topic not controversial, stigmatising or distressing, no deception or discomfort during the procedure and highly confidential data handling procedures. Truly non-invasive procedures require only the addressing of standard ethical issues, clear demonstration that they are non-invasive, and should generally be approved by the relevant DivREC.

6.2  A minor invasive procedure, in contrast, might be stressful, upsetting, disturbing, or psychologically or socially harmful, but probable harm would be brief and limited in nature relative to the participants’ lives. For example, some participants will find somewhat invasive any procedure that involves any overt or implied element of personal appraisal, because they have concerns about doing things properly or appropriately. On the other hand, someone suffering from a serious illness might find an interview about it only mildly invasive, compared to the invasion and upset already associated with their clinical care. To judge research non- invasive it is important to make a positive case that upset is highly unlikely and/or worth the benefits to participants and research. Minor invasive procedures additionally require the addressing of procedures to recognise and minimise upset should it occur and clear demonstration that the procedure is not major invasive. When the same or similar procedures have been used before at QMU, then these may be approved by the relevant DivREC. Minor invasive procedures commonly used in the subject area should be referred to the University Ethics Panel on first use at QMU and part of the application should document their common use in the subject beyond QMU.

6.3  Major invasive procedures are those where some participants are likely to find participation stressful, disturbing, or psychologically or socially harmful, and probable harm could be protracted or severe. That only a small minority of participants may respond in this manner does not render the procedure minor invasive. In addition to requirements for minor and non- invasive procedures, applications for ethical approval for major invasive techniques should explain how risks are to be minimised and how the research team is collectively competent to minimise and manage harm, should it occur. Major invasive procedures should be referred to the University Ethics Panel by the relevant DivREC.

A research procedure being major invasive is a function of the nature of the participants, the research topic, the research procedures themselves and the competence of the research team. Vulnerable participants, intimate, illegal, stigmatised or controversial research topics, protracted, demanding, physically stressful or tedious research procedures and a less competent team make it more likely that the procedure will be major invasive.

6.4 The Panel delegates responsibility for approving non-invasive and established minor invasive research procedures to the Schools. As discussed above, these criteria are relative to (a) the participants, (b) the researchers and (c) the research topic. Significant changes in any of these should be referred to the Research Ethics Panel in the first instance. For example, that some staff commonly use a technique does not justify its use by a student not supervised by any staff member experienced in the technique. Another example is that the invasiveness of questionnaires or interviews is heavily topic-dependent.

A reasonable principle is often that research procedures approved for vulnerable participants, less experienced researchers and more sensitive topics can often be conducted unproblematically with less vulnerable participants, more experienced researchers and less sensitive topics.

It is the responsibility of the relevant DivREC if applicable to keep an updated list of approved methods in that school or subject area and to provide the University Ethics Panel with this list at least once a year. This list will include relevant information about any restrictions on this approval in terms of researchers, participants or topics.

Appendix 1

[flow chart ]

Appendix 2

Research Ethics Panel Remit and Membership

Remit

To ensure that the research conducted in the University complies with appropriate ethical standards and to make recommendations to the Research Strategy as set out below.

The Panel will have delegated authority to:

1. a)  determine the ethical propriety of such research projects as are referred to it;

2. b)  provide advice to researchers and supervisors on the ethical propriety of their research;

3. c)  review on a regular basis the University’s Guidelines on Ethics related to research;

Membership

Convener - Nominee of the Research Strategy Committee

Nominated - Three academic representatives nominated from the academic staff of each School, who are actively involved in research

Secretary - To be appointed by the University Secretary

Frequency - Business is conducted virtually. Applications are circulated to reviewers following

submission of all required documentation to researchethics@qmu.ac.uk

Appendix 3

[form]

 

5.0  INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES FOR EXAMINATIONS

The University normally disregards circumstances which students are expected to cope with as part of a properly managed workload, or as part of the normal issues and difficulties that arise as part of life. Circumstances which would not be acceptable are those where a student could reasonably have avoided the situation, or acted to limit the impact of the circumstances.

The following are examples of circumstances which would NOT fall within the University’s definition of "extenuating circumstances":

• completing coursework too late and missing deadlines because of computer; difficulties, or transport difficulties;
• general pressure of work;
• normal work commitments on behalf of an employer;
• having more than one examination on the same day or on consecutive days (unless the student was already suffering from illness or injury)
• missing an examination due to misreading the timetable or oversleeping;
• losing work not backed up on computer disk, or failure of a floppy disk/CD Rom;
• theft of home computer – students are expected to make a back up copy of all work on, which should be stored separately from the computer.
• failure to make alternative travel plans when disruptions were advised in advance;
• a short-term problem or illness which has occurred during the year and which is deemed not to have had an overall effect on the student’s performance; e.g common colds
• where extenuating circumstances have affected the student throughout their time at QMU [on the basis that it would be difficult to determine what her/his marks might have been like otherwise];
• Insufficient computers/printers to do the work [a claim submitted upon this basis would not be supported on the grounds that it indicated lack of advance planning].

Failure of IT would be accepted only in limited circumstances. There may be occasions when, due to unforeseen circumstances, the University’s own computer/IT equipment is unavailable for use. If this happens students may request confirmation from Information Services of this, including the time period and the date(s) of its unavailability. However, it would be reasonable to expect a student to submit the latest draft of their work from a few days prior to the deadline to support their claim.

3 WHEN SHOULD A CLAIM FOR EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES BE SUBMITTED?

2.1 The University will seek information about character, health and disability prior to admitting students. Clear information about this will be published in the prospectus.

1.1 This procedure is not an alternative to disciplinary action, or other relevant University procedures or policies such as the Regulations Governing Discipline or Assessment Regulations. The University reserves the right to initiate other procedures where appropriate.

1.2  A student’s fitness to study may be considered despite the fact that other University processes have been invoked. Examples of other relevant procedures include:

• Failure to make satisfactory progress in academic studies (dealt with under the appropriate Assessment Regulations).
• Misconduct as normally defined by the University (dealt with under the Regulations Governing Discipline).

The University may refer the treatment of a student’s case out of one procedure to another to secure an appropriate response on the facts of the case but will not normally consider parallel procedures about the same substantive matter. The determination of which procedure should apply shall be made by the University Secretary.

1.3  The identified serious concern(s) may relate to the presence of a diagnosed illness or disability but this procedure may also be used when there is no diagnosed illness or disability, or no notification of such a diagnosis.

1.4  The Fitness to Study Procedure consists of three levels. Depending on the individual circumstances, this procedure may be invoked at any of the three levels.

1.5  If the student has been given permission for deferral of studies (leave of absence), it will ordinarily be more appropriate for the Fitness to Study Procedure to be considered once the student returns to study.

1.6  The principles of this policy and procedure apply to all registered students in all locations on and off campus, both in the UK and overseas.

1.7  If a concern regarding fitness to study arises whilst the student is on placement, the University may discuss and consider alternative arrangements with the placement provider. If it is not possible for alternative arrangements to be made, the student’s placement may be withdrawn and deferral or other adjustments considered.

1.8  All matters dealt with under this Procedure will be dealt with according to the individual circumstances. Whilst the University anticipates that such cases will be exceptional, it reserves the right at any level of this Procedure to vary the process it follows in dealing with a matter in the interests of fairness and/or health and safety (for example, in crisis situations, or where it is concerned that a student’s attendance at a meeting would be unduly stressful, or where the student is in hospital).

Queen Margaret University will adopt the operating methodology recommended by the United KingdomHealth and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Universities Safety and Health Association (USHA) – Plan /Do / Check / Act, to ensure robust leadership and operational control.

In the following model highlighting leadership responsibility, it is likely that an individual may have multiple responsibilities participating at the strategic level and enabling at the operational level reflectingtheir particular role within the University. Each role descriptor has elements of Plan / Do / Check / Act and these have been aligned to allow a targeted, proportionate and efficient approach to robust, sensible, risk control.

[image]