Social Services Research Group
The workshop consisted of presentations by stakeholders in central and local government. General issues about how the Research Governance Framework (RGF) should be applied in social care were explored, and specific examples were given of how two Local Authorities are implementing it. In addition to an exploration of overarching principles, four themes emerged: scope; complexity of social care; application of ethical and governance principles; and the power of the RGF. Finally some general suggestions were made about the role of the SSRG/ ADSS in the implementation of research governance in social care.
Maureen Eby's introduction presented some underlying principles behind ethical review of research. Such reviews need to have references to general principles or frameworks, tempered by an awareness and analysis of individual contexts. Codes of ethics can therefore be seen as representing particular positions on basic philosophical disputes, and thus reflect the purposes of the authors, as Ian Butler points out in his introduction to the code of ethics (report in the conference pack).
As basic tenets, the ideas of the RGF, as explained by Jan Pahl and Carolyn Davies were fairly well received, although it was noted that the practical application could create problems in social care research. Some delegates dissented from the idea that this should be represented as 'governance'. Janet Lewis, in particular, feared that applying these ideas could result in a layer of bureaucracy and regulation, which would not change practice.
A number of speakers and delegates felt that the breadth and the depth of the application of the RGF needed clarifying and possibly changing. It was felt to be a disadvantage that the principles of the RGF were not being applied more broadly: Roger Sykes, in particular stressed other areas where these principles are important, e.g. housing or prison research. It was felt that an opportunity had been missed to make connections between issues covered by different central and government departments.
Several speakers referred to the huge diversity in scale of research and other activities. There clearly were unresolved issues about the definitions of research to be employed, and how to apply the Framework in some of the smaller research, especially student projects, consultation and Best Value reviews. Special mention was made from a delegate about the difficulties such processes may cause for User-led research.
As Carolyn Davies described, 'the landscape of social care research is complex: with a wide diversity of care groups, services, agencies and stakeholders, which was linked to problems applying the RGF guidance on the separation and clarity of roles. Mirroring this level of operational complexity are often conflictingphilosophical approaches, disciplines and methods. It was felt that LRECs tended to favour medical research approaches over research methods used in the social care field. This was reflected in the organisational systems, clearly designed for clinical drug trials. However, one or two people, in the final question-and-answer session felt that these divisions were over played, and in fact rested on something of a caricature of the ways that LRECs operate.
Carolyn Davies and Jan Pahl, presented a picture of how the basic principles would be applied in social care, and showed an awareness of the particular difficulties, ('social care is a different country') with respect to infrastructure and different approaches faced in this field. It emerged in the final session that Research Governance will have to be implemented without any new money from central government: a radical overhaul therefore seems unlikely. Shortage of funding, resources and capacity for research in social care, especially when compared with health, was seen as a key factor. Involving users in the process of research governance generally, was seen as essential, but the wording of the Framework, aimed so clearly a health model of research makes this difficult.
Janet Lewis, in her paper, advocated an approach which created no more bureaucracies, systems, or indeed regulation. Her argument centred on the belief that requiring more research to go through the bureaucratic process of a once- and-for-all review by some kind of ethics committee, however formulated, would not make for more ethical or better research.
What happens should authorities, researchers, or independent organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation not meet the requirements of the Framework, was a largely unanswered question. Janet Lewis was quite equivocal about the willingness of the JRF to enter into extended negotiations or make extensive alterations to its policies, in order to become an accredited research sponsor and funder. Clearly the role of independent researchers is even more complex, especially when they may be researching other non-statutory organisations.
Some concrete suggestions were made by delegates and speakers during the final, question-and-answer session:
Specific ways that SSRG/ADSS could be involved were also proposed:
Register for e-mail alerts here
Content copyright SSRG 2004-2011
Maintained and supported by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE).