Perceptions of the REC

As pointed out in Chapter 2, several authors have considered the perceptions that social researchers may have of an REC. This section reports on the extent to which the respondents in this study held some of these perceptions, measured by presenting respondents with statements reflecting these perceptions, together with five-point, Likert-type response options that indicate level of agreement or disagreement with a particular statement, as well as the neutral position, “neither agree nor disagree”.

4.2.6.1

The REC as an impediment to research

Table 10 below shows that slightly less than a third (31%) of respondents agreed (to varying degrees) that the REC impedes social research. A notably large proportion – a quarter of respondents – was neutral in this regard, while the largest percentage (44%) of the respondents disagreed with the view that the REC impedes social research.

Table 10: Perception of the REC as an impediment to social research

Frequency Percentage

Strongly disagree 7 8.5

Disagree 29 35.4

Neither agree nor disagree 21 25.6

Agree 19 23.2

Strongly agree 6 7.3

Total 82 100.0

Below, Figure 6 depicts the dispersion of respondents’ perception that the REC impedes current research efforts. The median is 3 (neither agree nor disagree) and the data are equally distributed above and below the median. The mean level of agreement is slightly lower, at 2.85, but on average, respondents seem to take a neutral position on whether the REC impedes research efforts or not.

Figure 6: Boxplot of level of agreement that the REC impedes research efforts

1= Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3= Neither agree nor disagree; 4= Agree; 5= Strongly agree

N=82; mean=2.85; std. deviation=1.101; median=3

The results of another, more indirect, measure of whether the REC is perceived as impeding social research is presented in Figure 7 below. The majority of the respondents (approximately 60 per cent) disagreed (to varying degrees) with the statement that social researchers would conduct more research if there were no REC to obtain ethical clearance from. Furthermore, approximately 20 per cent of respondents indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement, while the remaining 20 per cent either agreed or strongly agreed that more social research would be done if there were no REC.

Figure 7: Perception that more research would be done if there were no REC

N=82

To conclude, nearly a third of respondents perceive the REC as an impediment to their research efforts, while one in five are of the view that social researchers would conduct more research if there were no REC. The results presented in this section also revealed that respondents showed a considerably high level of neutrality, which may be interpreted as uncertainty, on the matter of whether the REC is an impediment to social researchers.

20.7% 37.8% 20.7% 14.6% 6.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree

4.2.6.2

The REC’s principles and their execution

As Table 11 below indicates, a very high percentage (approximately 95 per cent) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with what the REC represents in principle. Only two respondents disagreed, and both of them held this view strongly.

Table 11: Level of agreement, in principle, with what the REC represents

Frequency Percentage

Strongly disagree 2 2.4

Neither agree nor disagree 2 2.4

Agree 50 61.0

Strongly agree 28 34.1

Total 82 100.0

Due to the resulting lack of variability across the categories of this variable, the relationship between it and others, such as ethical position, will not be tested.

When respondents assessed not the principles themselves, but the manner in which the REC executes them, close to half (48%) of them did not consider such execution as problematic.

Table 12: Perception on whether the manner in which the REC executes its principles is

problematic

Frequency Percentage

Strongly agree 5 6.2

Agree 15 18.5

Neither agree nor disagree 22 27.2

Disagree 27 33.3

Strongly disagree 12 14.8

Total 81 100.0

However, 25% of respondents held the negative perception that the way in which the REC executes its principles is problematic, while nearly 30 per cent of respondents were undecided on the matter.

Figure 8 below shows the result of another, related assessment, i.e. whether respondents perceived the REC to be biased in favour of quantitative research. Close to one in five of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the REC is biased in favour of quantitative research, while approximately a quarter disagreed, to varying degrees, with this view. Strikingly, the majority, more than half (57%) of the respondents, were undecided on the matter.

Figure 8: Perception that the REC is biased in favour of quantitative research

N=81

4.2.6.3

The importance of ethics review

The next set of respondents’ perceptions that will be described, relate to the importance of ethics review. When asked directly about the level of importance of ethics review, only one of the respondents took a neutral stance, while another five respondents either disagreed or (again in the case of only one respondent) strongly disagreed that ethics review is important (see Table 13 below). The remaining respondents, an overwhelming majority of more than 90 per cent, agreed (36%) or strongly agreed (57%) that ethics review is important.

Table 13: Perception that ethics review is important

Frequency Percentage

Strongly disagree 1 1.2

Disagree 4 4.8

Neither agree nor disagree 1 1.2

Agree 30 36.1

Strongly agree 47 56.6

Total 83 100.0

These results are further supported by measures of central tendency and dispersion: a mean of 4.42 and a median of 5 shows that respondents tend to strongly agree, on average, that ethics review is important. A small standard deviation of 0.843 indicates that there is very little variability among respondents’ (high) level of agreement with regard to the importance of ethics review. Of all the perceptions measured, this one produced the highest level of agreement among

13.6% 12.3% 56.8% 11.1% 6.2% Strongly disagree Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree Agree

respondents, and because of this lack of variability, this variable will not be used for bivariate analyses.

Further as to the importance of ethics review, two-thirds of respondents held the perception that the protection offered to research participants justifies the effort involved in the review process. The remaining third was approximately equally divided between those who take a neutral position and those who disagreed to varying degrees with the view. Table 14 presents these results in more detail:

Table 14: Perception that protection offered to research participants by ethics review justifies

the effort involved in the review process

Frequency Percentage

Strongly disagree 3 3.7

Disagree 11 13.4

Neither agree nor disagree 14 17.1

Agree 35 42.7

Strongly agree 19 23.2

Total 82 100.0

Finally, as Table 15 below depicts, slightly more than 60 per cent of the respondents believe that the REC facilitates research that is of a higher ethical standard. It should be noted that nearly half of those held a strong view in this regard. A similar percentage, nearly 30 per cent of the respondents, neither agreed nor disagreed with this view, while the minority (slightly more than 12 per cent) of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the REC facilitates research that is of a higher ethical standard.

Table 15: Perception that the REC facilitates research that is of a higher ethical standard

Frequency Percentage

Strongly disagree 4 4.9

Disagree 6 7.3

Neither agree nor disagree 22 26.8

Agree 27 32.9

Strongly agree 23 28.0

Total 82 100.0