BPS Code of Human Research Ethics

Abstract

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.'Research' is defined as any form of disciplined enquiry that aims to contribute to a body of knowledge or theory.'Research ethics' refers to the moral principles guiding research from its inception through to completion and publication of results.'Research Ethics Committee (REC)' refers to a multidisciplinary, independent body responsible for reviewing research proposals involving human participants to ensure that their dignity, rights and welfare are protected. The independence and competence of a REC are based upon its membership, its rules regarding conflicts of interest and on regular monitoring of and accountability for its decisions.'Protocol' refers to a filed document which specifies for a research project the procedures for recruiting participants and gathering and managing data, with which all project staff agree to comply.'Human participant' is defined as including living human beings, human beings who have recently died (cadavers, human remains and body parts), embryos and foetuses, human tissue and bodily fluids and human data and records (such as but not restricted to medical, genetic, financial, personnel, criminal or administrative records and test results including scholastic achievements). In respect of data and records, current data protection legislation should be routinely consulted.

Tensions Between Autistic Sociality, Communication, and Social Skills Research: A Response to Bambara (2022) and Camarata (2022)

“…We indicate important considerations in relation to the APA discussion on justice, that researchers should take precautions to avoid poor practice. Moreover, in our context in the UK, this is the same with the British Psychological Society (BPS) (Oates et al, 2021) stating that researchers should '...maximise potential benefits and avoid potential risks to psychological well-being, mental health, personal values, privacy or dignity' (p. 9). Whilst it is understood that evidence bases should guide best practice, it is also the case that the quality of some evidence bases is ever more increasing -notably in the case of autistic people and people with intellectual disabilities (ID) through participatory and inclusive research (e.g., Nicolaidis & Raymaker, 2015;Pellicano, 2017).…”

Best practices and ethical considerations for crowd-sourced data in the behavioral sciences

“…Moreover, if you are vetting your data based on invalid attention checks, then you are potentially discarding otherwise useful data. Worse, if you are rejecting payment to participants based on invalid attention checks, then you are discarding potentially useful data, wasting another person's time in an avoidable way, and-potentiallyviolating of the standards set by your own Institutional Review Board (IRB; for example, it is important to consider whether you can deny a participant the agreed-upon incentive for participation, while maintaining their freedom to withdraw from, or refuse, certain questions within your research; Oates et al, 2021). Our experience is that many researchers perform attention checks poorly, both in terms of adherence to policy and research hygiene.…”

“…A large proportion of Reddit threads associated with these services are dedicated to discussions about payment. The British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Human Research Ethics (Oates et al, 2021) clearly indicates several issues associated in section 4.12 'Reimbursement, Payment, Incentives, and Coercion'. And while the language in the BPS code are clearly unprepared for high-volume platforms and click-workers, they are clear on one point: "If it is felt appropriate to pay for time, a standard across-the-board token level of payment (for example, at minimum wage level) is a good starting point for consideration", Oates et al, 2021, page 20).…”

Social worker decision‐making in court

“…Ethical approval was granted by the Plymouth University Faculty of Health Ethics committee prior to any data collection. All ethics guidelines for research as outlined by the British Psychological Society (BPS) were adhered to at all times (Oates et al, 2021). The research was conducted in a sensitive and empathetic way.…”