DATA PROTECTION, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND ETHICAL REVIEW COMMITTEES

Abstract

Effective interpretation of, and compliance with, data protection and freedom of information law across the range of administrative and educational activities undertaken in a UK higher educational institution are tasks which, over a decade after the passage of the legislation, remain fertile ground for disagreement, misunderstanding and poorly conceived institutional policymaking. For social science researchers, the issue is further complicated by the need to simultaneously interpret and implement research ethics guidelines promulgated by diverse external bodies: the Research Councils, subject-specific research associations and other cross-disciplinary special interest groups. The cascade of new information communication technologies (ICTs) available to the social science researcher completes a triangle of policy variables and uncertainties for both researchers and institutional research scrutiny bodies. The aim of this article is threefold: first, to examine some of the issues raised by the application of data protection and freedom of information law to research in the social sciences, with a particular eye to the impact of ICTs; second, to discuss how the interplay between legal rules, ethical guidelines, and institutional regulation is developing; and finally, to suggest some potential ways forward.

Keywords:

• ICTs
• social science
• empirical research
• ethics committees
• data privacy
• freedom of information

Notes

I use the term ‘institutional research scrutiny bodies’ (IRSBs), because such bodies are often not constrained to advising and educating staff and students on ethical matters, and providing pre-research ethical review, but increasingly have other functions, e.g. continuing ethical audit and/or guidance on, and review of, other aspects of research methodology.

In contrast, the UK Economic and Social Research Council's Research Ethics Framework (ESRC 2010) has been criticised for imposing a ‘medical and psychological model’ unsuited to many forms of social sciences qualitative research (Hammersley 2006).