research committee purpose

• research and publications

Research Committee

Oversight and guidance for the Institute’s research activities are provided by the organization’s Research Committee, which meets monthly to set research priorities. Research, clinical and administrative leaders participate on the Committee.

The role of the Research Committee is to evaluate whether a proposed project is consistent with the Institute’s mission, whether the appropriate resources are in place to conduct the research, and whether the study outcomes are likely to be useful. The Research Committee also helps potential researchers collaborate with organizational mentors and identify partnerships and support.

All potential researchers must contact the Research Committee. To schedule a meeting or to request additional information, email or call the Research Committee Administrator, Nandini Shroff, at nshroff @institute.org.

Potential researchers must also complete the Research Committee questionnaire, which can be found on Mentor , the Institute’s Research Committee & IRB portal.

Note that there are two versions of the Research Committee questionnaire depending on whether the study will be reviewed by an external IRB or Institute’s IRB. Please submit the completed form via Mentor two weeks prior to the meeting date in order to ensure consideration of your proposal for review at the next meeting. If you do not have access to Mentor , please contact Elena Finver at [email protected].

The Research Committee meets on the first Monday of every month. After receiving approval from the Research Committee, an IRB application may be submitted.

Henley-Putnam's Dissertation or Thesis Committees

• Getting Started on Finding Your Research Committee
• Committee Members Roles and Responsibilities

Library Subject Guide

Dissertation and Thesis Committees

Introduction to the dissertation committee.

• What is purpose of a committee and why do I need one?
• How do I recruit a committee?
• What if I encounter problems with my committee?
• Quick Answers

The committee members will be responsible for overseeing the research and writing, and eventually, test the student’s knowledge of the subject. Choosing committee members who are qualified, both in subject expertise and the ability to support research with sound guidance and timely feedback, is vital to success. 

With the exception of choosing the dissertation topic, there is no single decision more important to success than the individuals selected to serve on the dissertation committee.

Notice that these individuals serve on, rather than lead or run, the committee. This is an important distinction. They are recognized experts and leaders in their fields and have as their goal successful completion of the dissertation. Thus, their work is more of a consultation and mentorship, although quite a bit of teaching and instruction is included. Their consultation and mentorship suggestions and direction should be heeded; however, the work is the candidate’s, and the student has the final determination in what will and what will not be included.

Always remember, these professionals have been through the same efforts and are included in the number of the few who succeed. They will be making the determination of the fitness of the work and success of the defense, so select them wisely.

Draft an email or prepare a phone call script to formally request someone to serve on your committee.  

Each member of the dissertation committee needs to fill out a Dissertation Committee Member Signup Form, a copy of which is located in Appendix A of the DSS Doctoral Program Handbook and Dissertation Guide.  A copy of which is located below.  

Changes to the Committee. A change in a dissertation committee can occur due to general circumstances such as illness, death, job change, etc. of a committee member or due to differences within the committee or between the student and the committee member in question.

1. In the event of the loss of a committee member due to general circumstances, the student may nominate a replacement member. Remaining members of the committee may also nominate a replacement. Nominations must be submitted to the associate dean of the Doctorate in Strategic Security in writing no more than 30 days following the loss of the committee member.

2. A committee may elect to remove one of its members by majority vote. A letter describing the reasons for the removal must be submitted to the associate dean of the student's program and signed by a majority of the committee members. If the removal is approved by the associate dean, the member may be replaced using the process described in point number one above.

3. In cases where a student has difficulty with a particular committee member, the student is advised to attempt to work out the difficulty via the chair of the committee. If this is not possible, the student should use the Grievance Procedure outlined in the National American University Catalog as a means to find an appropriate solution, which may include replacing the committee member in question.

• Dissertation Committee Signup Form
• Dissertation Committee Checklist
• Dissertation Committee Member Sign-Up Form This form is used for the dissertation committee members.

Does your Committee include:

• Next: Committee Members Roles and Responsibilities >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2024 11:48 AM
• URL: https://national.libguides.com/dissertations_Committee

• Patient Care

College of Public Health

Quick links, faculty affairs, research committee.

The purpose of the Research Committee is to ensure an ongoing, robust research portfolio within the College that represents the breadth and depth of public health; reflects faculty strengths, student interests and community needs; promotes faculty and student success; engages communities in translating research into action; enhances the reputation of the College; and advances the field in meaningful and impactful ways.

• The COPH Research Committee will be comprised of 9 voting members (5 faculty members from each department or discipline, and 4 at-large members). Each department will elect one ranked senior faculty member (Associate or Full Professor) who is actively engaged in research.
• The chair shall be elected by the committee from among the senior faculty members and serve in accordance with Article VII 1. above.
• In addition to the 9 voting members, the committee may also include 4 non-voting Ex- officio members such as post-docs, research associates and graduate students as determined by the committee chair in consultation with the department chairs.
• A representative from the administration staff, who is involved in research administration, shall also serve as an ex-officio non-voting member.

Functions and Duties

The Faculty Affairs Committee advises the Dean on matters related to the faculty in the College. Specific duties include, but are not limited to:

• Recommend procedures and programs for facilitating research at the college.
• Expedite and monitor research mentoring program for junior faculty.
• Coordinate research and award opportunities for faculty and students.
• Establish a system to encourage interdisciplinary research across departments/disciplines as well as student-faculty research opportunities. Review research policies and procedures from across USF that impact COPH researchers.
• Coordinate with USF Research Council regarding research policies, procedures and protocols that impact COPH researchers.

(From  Governance Manual  page 9)

Funding Opportunities and Support

USF College of Public Health Capacity Building FY 2024-2025 Funding Application. Due Date: April 15, 2024 (11:59pm)

This funding mechanism has been created to enhance research capacity, establish new interdisciplinary research collaborations (domestic and international) and/or support community engaged research. The purpose of this grant is to lay the foundation and build collaborative partnerships that will facilitate capacity for community-engaged public health research. These funds could also be used to support projects that build communities capacity for research and engagement and seek to better equip stakeholders/communities to engage as meaningful partners in public health research. Click  here  for the application. 

Application for COPH faculty to keep residual funds. Academic Year 2023/2024   

This is a request for an exemption to the current COPH policy of the Research Committee retaining 50% of the fixed price residuals at the time of closeout. Consideration will be given to how the PI plans to use the residual funds and timeline for doing so. Click  here  for the application. 

Application for COPH faculty support for external review of proposals prior to submission. Academic Year 2023/2024

Consideration will be given to faculty rank, funds available, funding source and research team (e.g., involvement of USF faculty/interdisciplinary faculty). As long as funds are available, the Research Committee will support a portion of the cost for external review if the application is approved. Click  here  for the application.

Faculty  Application for COPH support for publication/dissemination fees. Academic Year 2023/2024

Consideration will be given to faculty rank, funds available, journal quality and relevance to your field, and authorship (e.g., involvement of other COPH students and/or faculty). As long as funds are available, the Research Committee will support a portion of the publication/dissemination fees if the application is approved. Click  here  for the application.

Student Application for COPH support for publication/dissemination fees. Academic Year 2023/2024

Consideration will be given to funds available, journal quality and relevance to your field, trajectory, and authorship (e.g., involvement of other COPH students and/or faculty). As long as funds are available, the Research Committee will support a portion of the publication/dissemination fees if the application is approved. Click  here  for the application.

Meeting Agenda and Minutes

• January 18, 2024 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• November 30, 2023 ( Agenda / Minutes )
• October 26, 2023 ( Agenda / Minutes )
• September 28, 2023 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• August 24, 2023 (Agenda /  Minutes )
• May 31, 2023 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• May 4, 2023 ( Agenda  /  Minutes)
• April 4, 20023 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• February 23, 2023 (Agenda /  Minutes )
• January 25, 2023 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• November 17, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• October 20, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• September 15, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• August 18, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• July 21, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• May 19, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• April 21, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• March 22, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• February 17, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• January 20, 2022 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• November 18, 2021 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• October 21, 2021 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• September 16, 2021 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• August 19, 2021 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• July 13, 2021 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• April 15, 2021 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• February 18, 2021 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• December 1, 2020 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• October 22, 2020 ( Agenda  /  Minutes)
• September 25, 2020 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• July 27, 2020 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• June 17, 2020 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• May 7, 2020 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• April 7, 2020 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• March 4, 2020 ( Agenda  / Minutes)
• November 12, 2019 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• October 8, 2019 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• September 10, 2019 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• July 15, 2019 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• June 10, 2019 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• May 20, 2019 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• April 22, 2019 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• March 25, 2019 (Agenda /  Minutes )
• February 6, 2019 (Agenda /  Minutes )
• April 17, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• April 6, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes ) 
• April 3, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes ) 
• March 30, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes ) 
• March 20, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes ) 
• February 20, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• January 23, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• January 17, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• January 11, 2018 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• November 15, 2017 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• October 18, 2017 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• August 16, 2017 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• June 14, 2017 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• May 17, 2017 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• April 12, 2017 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• February 15, 2017 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• January 18, 2017 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• November 9, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• October 19, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• October 5, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• September 14, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• September 7, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• July 13, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• June 8, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• May 18, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• April 13, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• March 18, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )
• February 10, 2016 ( Agenda  /  Minutes )

Committees: Research Ethics Committees

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2022
• Cite this reference work entry

• Ana Borovecki 2  

238 Accesses

Research ethics committees have become a permanent fixture when it comes to ethics of research. They are essential part of quality control of research protocol, and their existence and work are thoroughly described in all important international documents dealing with research ethics issues. In this contribution history, development and different types of research ethics committees are discussed. The functions, structure, and locale of research ethics committees are also addressed. The global dimension of the work of research ethics committees is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Research: Human Subjects

Committees, Research Ethics Committees (See Research Ethics; Research Ethics Committees)

Borovecki, A., ten Have, H., & Oreskovic, S. (2009). Ethics committees in Croatia: Studies in bioethics . Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

Google Scholar  

Bouëssau, M. S., et al. (2009). Research ethics committees: Basic concepts for capacity building . Geneva: WHO.

Glasa, J. (Ed.). (2000). Ethics committees in central and Eastern Europe . Bratislava: Institute of Medical Ethics and Bioethics.

Huriet, C. (2009). Article 19: ethics committees. In H. A. M. J. ten Have & S. J. Michele (Eds.), The UNESCO universal declaration on bioethics and human rights background principles and application (pp. 265–270). Paris: UNESCO.

Jonsen, A. R., Veatch, R. M., & le Roy, W. (1998). Source book in bioethics. A documentary history . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Levine, R. J. (2004). Research ethics committees. In W. T. Reich (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of bioethics (Vol. IV, pp. 2311–2316). New York, NY: Macmillan Simon and Schuster.

ten Have, H. (2005). Establishing bioethics committees guide No. 1 (pp. 40–52). Paris: UNESCO.

Further Readings

Amdur, R., & Bankert, E. A. (2011). Institutional review board: Member handbook (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Emanuel, E. J., et al. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 541–588). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism. Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009 . Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Andrija Stampar School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

Ana Borovecki

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Borovecki .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for Healthcare Ethics, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Henk ten Have

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Borovecki, A. (2016). Committees: Research Ethics Committees. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_104

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_104

Published : 19 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-09482-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-09483-0

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Internal Organization

Aims and Requirements for Research Committees

• History of ISA 1948-1997
• ISA Past Presidents
• ISA Newsletters 1971-2001
• Books of the XX Century
• Executive Committee 2023-2027
• Past Executive Committees
• Code of Conduct
• Secretariat
• Past Boards
• Statement on the Israel / Palestine conflict
• Joint Statement by the French Sociological Association and the ISA in support of Prof. Pinar Selek
• Statement of Support of the ISA for Dr. Regev Nathanson
• ISA supports the call for the reinstatement of Professor Lesley Wood
• The Council of National Associations
• The Research Council
• Acting Globally
• Code of Ethics
• Previous financial statements
• Request for ISA financial details
• Policy Statements
• Foundation Mattei Dogan Prize

Approved by ISA Research Council in Montreal, Canada, August 1997. Amended in 2002, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2019. PDF

I. Research Committees Statutory Rights and Obligations

• Research Committees (RC) are expected to carry out the relevant policies of the ISA and to follow the ISA Statutes. Each member of each RC should have a copy of the Statutes of the ISA. The points below follow the spirit of the ISA Statutes. Where the Statutes do not cover relevant details, they have been supplemented to give guidance on practical interpretation.
• Rules on the election of a Steering Board with a definite term of office. Such an election must be carried out by democratic procedures as approved by the ISA Research Council, representing all of the RC members in good standing. The election rules must include Provisions on how to fill in vacancies arising between World Congresses (for example, vacancies may be filled by appoint­ment by the RC president).
• The Steering Board should consist of a president, a secretary, and at least 3 other members; all its members must be regular individual members in good standing of the ISA. i) President can serve maximum 2 terms; ii) Officers (Vice-Presidents, Secretary, and Treasurer) can serve no more than 3 consecutive terms; iii) Board Members: each RC sets its limit on how many terms Board Members can serve
• Provision for the payment of dues, without which no member will be in good standing in the ISA and in the RC.
• Clear regulations on the procedures to amend the RC Statutes.
• RC must distinguish between regular or affiliated members. All regular members are expected to be ISA individual members in good standing who have paid both their ISA and RC dues. Affiliated members in good standing are those who have paid RC dues but are not ISA members in good standing. RC may allow affiliated members to participate in the scientific activities of the group and to vote in its elections and business meetings, but affiliated members may not act as Board members except in the case covered in the below point 4.
• Scholars from other disciplines who are only affiliated members of a RC may act as Board members, as well as participating in the scientific activities of the group and voting in its elections or business meetings, if that group is organised jointly with another disciplinary association to which they belong, and the joint arrangement for double affiliation has been approved by both associations. See also point 9.
• To maintain its status as an RC of ISA, each RC must continue to meet the conditions laid down as necessary for eligibility to become a new RC. That is, the RC should have at least 50 individual ISA members in good standing with geographical diversity as determined by the Executive Committee: members from at least 10 countries in 2 continents or 7 countries in 3 continents.
• Each RC is expected to include within its activities a broad range of areas and approaches; where appropriate, this may be reflected in the creation of sub?committees with sufficient autonomy to pursue their more specialized research interests. Each RC is also expected to organise a programme of activities at each World Congress, and to arrange at least one independent meeting between one World Congress and the next. 
• Each RC should have a newsletter for communication among members covering the RC activities and other relevant types of material.
• The Research Council plays a vital role in the ISA's formal structure as it represents the entire constituency of individual ISA members organised in Research Committees (RCs), Working Groups (WGs) and Thematic Groups (TGs).
• The Research Council together with the Council of National Associations  which represents the collective members of ISA, form the highest decision-making body of the ISA, the Assembly of Councils.
• The Research Council elects half of the members of the ISA Executive Committee; oversees and promotes research activities among the RCs, WGs, and TGs; and makes decisions on the establishment, demotion and abolition of RCs, WGs, and TGs.
• The Research Council meets every two years: at each World Congress and at each Forum of Sociology.
• An agreement needs to be signed between the RC, ISA and other international associations.
•  At least 50% of Board Members have to be ISA members in good standing.
• Research Committee has to have a minimum of 50 ISA members in good standing.
• Allocation of grants and of slots at the World Congress/Forum of Sociology are based on the number of ISA members in good standing.

Beyond the points listed above, each RC is free to organise itself as it wishes, to administer its own funds, to engage in any activities it considers appropriate to its objectives, and to cooperate with other academic and non-academic bodies.

II. Services provided to Research Committees, Working Groups and Thematic Groups

The ISA secretariat provides a range of services to RCs, WGs and TGs which include

The grants will be allocated to the Research Committees to support activities, such as conferences, workshops and the production and distribution of their newsletter (printed and/or electronic).

Every Research Committee in good standing is entitled to apply for a grant once between the two World Congresses, which implies the following conditions:

• The Research Committee must send to its members and to the ISA Secretariat at least two newsletters every year (printed or electronic).
• The Research Committee must send a detailed report of its activities to the ISA Secretariat every two years: a mid-term report and a full-term report in Congress years.
• The Research Committee must organize an international conference where all its members can participate. The theme must be sufficiently general to attract most of the members and not related only to the interests of a small group of individuals.
• The Research Committee must hold regular elections of its board.
• The Research Committee must have its own membership dues. The current minimum fee set by the ISA Executive Committee is US$10 discount fee for a 4 year period.
• The Research Committee must submit a short proposal to support its grant application and must send a report at the end of the period for which the grant was allocated.

Grants will be allocated according to the following scale approved in 2013 and on the basis of RC membership as of October of the Congress/Forum year:

Grants will be paid in two installments: upon approval and upon receiving a final report.

Grant Application form

2. Collection of dues on behalf of RCs, WGs and TGs

Dues for RC/WG/TG affiliation can be paid through ISA membership portal. A payee's name and address are immediately forwarded to the secretary of the relevant RC, WG, and TG. The amounts collected on behalf of the RCs, WGs, TGs, are transferred on request, free of charge, to each RC, WG, and TG bank account (or, if preferred, sent by cheque). President and Secretary/Treasurer should sign requests for funds release from RC/WG/TG funds kept at the ISA Secretariat.

How does this service benefit Research Committees?

• Research Committees do not lose money on banking charges: they are absorbed by the ISA which processes all individual payments.
• Research Committees do not have to maintain any tedious membership administration and book-keeping: the ISA Secretariat does it for them.
• Although Research Committees officers change every four years a continuity of the membership administration is secured by the ISA Secretariat.

Note that the ISA only deals with the payment of RC dues by ISA members. Dues (if any) from RC's affiliated members, guests or special participants have to be dealt with by the RC.

3. Preparation of membership lists.

RC/WG/TG Presidents and Secretaries can create current list of ISA members who have paid their RC dues through ISA membership portal. Such a list can be obtained in excel or pdf format. In order to process members' personal data, RC/WG/TG Presidents and Secretaries must accept a Privacy Statement on Duties and Obligations of the ISA Data Base System User .

4. Sending out renewal reminders.

ISA Secretariat each year in autumn sends out renewal reminders to ISA members whose dues to ISA and relevant RCs, WGs TGs have to be paid

5. Internet service.

ISA Secretariat uses e-mail for daily correspondence and also for the circulation of announcements of meetings, calls for papers, etc., which come from the RCs, WGs and TGs.

The Web World Wide Home Page provides general information about the ISA (structure, activities, publications) as well as about each Research Committee, Working and Thematic Group.

The content of the home page relating to RCs is constantly being updated on the basis of the information received directly from the RCs, WGs, TGs. If a RC, WG or TG has its own home page, a direct link is established and thus each group can alter its home page itself.

According to the UE Data Protection Policy no personal contact addresses shall be made available on Internet. Mailing lists cannot be rented or sold to any third party.

III. Duties of RCs, WGs and TGs

RCs, WGs and TGs are expected to submit to the ISA Secretariat:

1. Reports every two years of their activities when requested (every two years: a mid-term report and a full-term report in Congress years).

These reports should include:

• details of publications made and planned, both newsletters and other types of publication;
• a list of current officers and dates of the next Board election. As far as possible, elections for the Steering Board should be held every fours years at a business meetings scheduled during the week of the World Congress;
• details of past and planned meetings and other activities.

The reports are reviewed by the Research Coordinating Committee at its meetings every two years.

Activities Report form

• The current list of members whose dues are collected directly by the RC, WG, TG and not by the ISA. Such list should be received at the ISA Secretariat by January 31 of each year for inclusion in the ISA data base.
• A copy of each issue of the newsletter as soon as it is produced

IV. Guidelines

Approved by ISA Research Council, Montreal, August 1997.  The ISA Research Council approved four sets of recommendations:

• Basic minimum requirements
• Good practices for Research Committees (RCs)
• Support and incentives from ISA Executive Committee and Secretariat
• Dealing with shortcoming

A. Basic minimum requirements

• A1. Submit to ISA Secretariat current list of RC members whose dues are collected directly by the RC.
• A2. Maintain a minimum of 50 ISA paid-up members.
• A3. Members from at least 10 countries in 2 continents or 7 countries in 3 continents.
• A4. Statutes should reflect the ISA Statutes.
• A5. Appropriate activity between World Congresses as indicated in B5 below.
• A6. Communicate and provide routine information to Secretariat and appoint  delegate and alternate to ISA Research Council.

B. Good practices for Research Committees

• B1.1 Keep up-to-date membership list with dues renewal status and dates.
• B1.2 Systematic reminders on dues payment and deletion of those who have lapsed.
• B1.3 Special dues categories for students and low GNI countries.
• B1.4 Membership services should be only for paid-up members.
• B1.5 Provide ISA and Research Committee information to members regularly.
• B2.1 Keep accounting system and report accounts to members regularly.
• B2.2 Aim at self-financing.
• B2.3 Report subsidies received and avoid dependency on any one external body.
• B2.4 Encourage participation of sociologists from low GNI countries.
• B3.1 Hold regular elections for Board officers providing for turnover of officers.
• B3.2 Make provision for continuity of business across elections.
• B3.3 Set up clear division of labour among Board members.
• B3.4 Set up system to ensure participation in decision-making of all Board members.
• B4.1 Encourage individual ISA membership among all RC members.
• B4.2 Organise full programme of high quality sessions at ISA World Congresses.
• B4.3 Meet deadlines set up for the organisation of the World Congress.
• B4.4 Respond promptly to ISA Secretariat's request for routine information and send copies of newsletter to Secretariat and VP(Research).
• B4.5 Ensure that your representative to ISA Research Council will be able to attend the meetings.
• B5.1 Have regular newsletter with at least two issues per year.
• B5.2 Have at least one interim conference (or other academic activity) and business meeting between World Congresses.
• B5.3 Have a system of paper selection to ensure quality & geographical representation.
• B5.4 Encourage membership from different countries.
• B5.5 Encourage scholarly publications from RC activities.

C. Suggestions for ISA Executive and Secretariat on support and incentives

• C1. Produce booklet on ISA philosophy, aims and requirements for Research Committees.
• C2. Provide training for Research Committee officers at World Congresses.
• C3. Use RC's framework to consult RC officers and involve them organisationally.
• C4. Offer a computer template via e-mail for response to Secretariat's requests.
• C5.1 best reporting of activities;
• C5.2 greatest increase in ISA membership;
• C5.3 most useful newsletter;
• C5.4 greatest improvement in running of RC over specified period;
• C5.5 best-run small and large RCs.

D. Suggestions for ISA Executive and Secretariat on dealing with RCs' shortcomings

• D1. Send a communique of the action(s) likely to follow with one year time limit.
• D2. RCs receiving communique will be put on probationary status.
• D3. Provide advice or support to RCs in dealing with shortcomings through either experienced individuals, or a group nominated by the ISA Research Council, or the Research Coordinating Committee.
• D4. When there is refusal to meet ISA criteria, appropriate action involves the number of World Congress sessions allocated.
• D5. Demotion or closure of a RC is appropriate only when warning had been given and sufficient improvement had not been shown by the specified deadline.

E. Transition policy for low-membership RC/WG/TG

      Approved by the Research Coordinating Committee in April 2017

• E1. If the membership of an RC (WG) falls below the newly required 50 (25) ISA members in good-standing, the ISA Executive Secretariat will alert President and Secretary of that unit and encourage measures to increase its membership.
• E2. If an RC (WG) has been unable to reach a threshold of at least 50% of the newly required threshold of 50 (25) ISA members in good standing for more than two consecutive years, the Vice-President for Research, or a representative appointed by her or him, will contact the Board of the RC (WG) to discuss the situation and measures for increasing the membership numbers.
• E3. If an RC (WG) has been unable to reach a threshold of at least 50% of the newly required 50 (25) ISA members in good standing for more than a term of four consecutive years, the Research Coordinating Committee will consider proposing to the EC sanctions, which could include demotion or closure, while duly weighing the unit’s level of activities, plans, and other circumstances.
• E4. The percentage thresholds in (2.) and (3.) shall be increased to 65% at year-end 2018 and to 80% at year-end 2022, with the full requirements being phased in at year-end 2026.

V. Policy for ISA awards

1. general principles.

• Any ISA awards should be for significant contributions to sociology, to international issues directly related to the ISA’s mission, or to the ISA as such.
• All proposals for new awards should need the approval of the ISA Executive Committee. Any proposal for a new award should specify its purpose and form, indicate who would be eligible for it, estimate its costs and show how those could be covered, and provide information on whether there were any existing awards or prizes of similar character.
• There should not be more than one award of a similar nature (e.g. specifically for junior sociologists, or general whole-career achievement), and overlap with awards or prizes given by other bodies (in particular, the Rokkan Prize of the International Social Science Council for comparative research by a younger person) should be avoided.
• Unless awards are aimed at a particular category of person, special care should be taken in the procedures and personnel involved to ensure that gender, language, nationality etc do not stand in the way of equal opportunity to win the award.
• Issues of general policy for ISA awards should be decided by the Executive Committee, though it would probably be appropriate to have a subcommittee responsible for formulating proposals. However, such issues will not arise often, so it would be unnecessary that this should be a standing subcommittee.
• If Research Committees have awards or prizes, they should be consistent with the ISA’s general policy, and should be described as an award of Research Committee X of the ISA (not of the RC without mention of the ISA, or of the ISA alone); proposals for the establishment of such awards or prizes should be submitted to the ISA Executive Committee for approval.
• The award of any awards from the whole ISA, the Research Council or the CNA should be announced at a World Congress (where this might form part of a special ceremony), so they should be given every four years. The timetable leading up to this would need to be planned so that recipients could be sure to be able to attend the World Congress. If there were awards associated with a particular Research Committee or region, they could be given at interim meetings of the appropriate body.

2. Nominations and Selection Process

• Some awards might be intended specifically for ISA members, and others not; that should be decided when an award is first established.
• Nominations should be invited from all ISA members, at a date which would allow reasonable opportunities for discussion and liaison before the deadline for their submission was reached. A nomination should normally require more than one supporting member, the number to be specified; the form that it should take would always be that of providing evidence for the merits of the candidate nominated for the award, but what that should consist of would need to be laid down in relation to the nature of the specific award in question. (For instance, the nomination of a single publication would be quite different from the nomination of the record of a whole career.)
• A sub-committee or jury should be set up with members appropriate to the particular task; at least one of those members, who will act as chairperson, should be drawn from the Executive Committee. If the award is made by the Research Council, proposals for membership of the jury should be made by the Research Coordinating Committee to the Research Council; if it is made by the Council of National Associations, the National Associations Liaison Committee should make proposals to the CNA.
• The jury should report its proposed award to the Executive Committee, which should be required to approve the award; the grounds on which the EC considers approval should be only those of procedural correctness and conformity with general ISA policy on awards.

VI. Policy on Research Committee* journals

*All the points made here would apply equally to Working Groups and Thematic Groups.

ISA warmly encourages RCs to run their own journals if the market and the resources of personnel and intellectual work are there.  However, there are some guidelines, listed below, which should be borne in mind.

• RCs do not require permission to set up their own journals; however, they should inform the ISA Secretariat if they propose to do so, notify the Secretariat when one is actually established, and include information about the journal’s progress in their annual reports.
• RC journals may be run entirely by one RC, or cooperatively with another RC or some other body outside ISA. (If an outside body is potentially involved, the Vice-President for Publications should be informed before any decisions are reached in case issues are raised about the suitability of the partnership.) Whichever is the case, the journal and associated material such as web sites should acknowledge the ISA connection, for instance by including a statement that the RC is an RC of the ISA.  However, it must not be stated that the journal is sponsored by ISA (as distinct from the particular RC), or the ISA logo used on it, unless the proposal to do so has been approved by the ISA Publications Committee.
• It is expected that any RC journal will set up arrangements for journal governance and continuity, and follow customary academic practice.  It should establish an editorial board if one is wanted, an appropriate division of labour for editorial tasks, a system of refereeing, and provision for the observation of relevant ethical standards. It is also expected that these arrangements, and the practical working of the journal, will observe ISA’s commitments to internationalism and to the goal of equality in opportunities for participation.  The provision of some material in languages other than English is encouraged.
• Sage is currently the ISA publisher.  Our contract with them does not require all journals associated with ISA to be published by Sage, though to create one which could reasonably be seen as in direct competition with the Sage ISA ones would not be acceptable. Sage would be interested to consider proposals to publish any new RC journals.
• The only funding that ISA might provide for an RC journal is the regular activity grant from the RCC, of which each RC may apply for one during a four-year period, which the RC could use for that purpose. No office support is available, but the Publications Committee would, however, be happy to offer advice on the practical issues involved in running a journal, and to help publicise RC-sponsored journals.  A link to the journal from the ISA web site can be provided.

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health-Related Research with Human Participants. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.

Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health-Related Research with Human Participants.

Iii standards and guidance for members of the research ethics committees.

The primary task of an REC is the ethical review of research protocols and their supporting documents. Approval or disapproval is based on the ethical acceptability of the research, including its social value and scientific validity, an acceptable ratio of potential benefits to risks of harm, the minimization of risks, adequate informed consent procedures (including cultural appropriateness and mechanisms to ensure voluntariness), measures to ensure protection of vulnerable populations, fair procedures for selection of participants, and attention to the impact of research on the communities from which participants will be drawn, both during the research and after it is complete. The review take into account any prior scientific reviews and applicable laws.

Standard 7. Ethical basis for decision-making in research ethics committees

The REC bases its decisions about research that it reviews on a coherent and consistent application of the ethical principles articulated in international guidance documents and human rights instruments, as well as any national laws or policies consistent with those principles. The REC makes clear the specific ethical guidelines on which it relies in making decisions and makes them readily available to researchers and the public. When an REC develops reliance agreements for review of research under its jurisdiction by another REC, it is the responsibility of the delegating REC to assure that the same ethical principles serve as the basis of the other REC's decision-making.

To aid in determining the ethical acceptability of research protocols, an REC may utilize a checklist to ensure that all relevant criteria are considered during review and that, as a general rule, similar protocols are treated similarly. When an REC determines that an approach it has taken on a particular ethical issue in the past is no longer appropriate, it provides an explicit rationale for its change in position. In communicating decisions about particular protocols to researchers, the REC explains its analysis of any significant ethical issues that arose in the review.

As articulated in more detail in international ethics guidelines and the research regulations of a number of jurisdictions, key criteria include, but are not limited to, the following.

1. Scientific design and conduct of the study

Research is ethically acceptable only if it relies on valid scientific methods. Research that is not scientifically valid exposes research participants or their communities to risks of harm without any possibility of benefit . RECs should have documentation from a prior scientific review, or should themselves determine that the research methods are scientifically sound, and should examine the ethical implications of the chosen research design or strategy. Unless already determined by a prior scientific review, RECs should also assess how the study will be conducted, the qualifications of the researcher (s), the adequacy of provisions made for monitoring and auditing, as well as the adequacy of the study site (e.g. availability of qualified staff and appropriate infrastructures).

2. Risks and potential benefits

In ethically acceptable research, risks have been minimized (both by preventing potential harms and minimizing their negative impacts should they occur) and are reasonable in relation to the potential benefits of the study. The nature of the risks may differ according to the type of research to be conducted. REC members should be aware that risks may occur in different dimensions (e.g. physical, social, financial, or psychological), all of which require serious consideration. Further, harm may occur either at an individual level or at the family or population level.

3. Selection of study population and recruitment of research participants

Ethically acceptable research ensures that no group or class of persons bears more than its fair share of the burdens of participation in research. Similarly, no group should be deprived of its fair share of the benefits of research; these benefits include the direct benefits of participation (if any) as well as the new knowledge that the research is designed to yield. Thus, one question for research ethics review to consider is whether the population that will bear the risks of participating in the research is likely to benefit from the knowledge derived from the research. In addition, ethically acceptable research includes recruitment strategies that are balanced and objectively describe the purpose of the research, the risks and potential benefits of participating in the research, and other relevant details.

4. Inducements, financial benefits, and financial costs

It is considered ethically acceptable and appropriate to reimburse individuals for any costs associated with participation in research, including transportation, child care, or lost wages. Many RECs also believe that it is ethically acceptable to compensate participants for their time. However, payments should not be so large, or free medical care or other forms of compensation so extensive, as to induce prospective participants to consent to participate in the research against their better judgement or to compromise their understanding of the research.

5. Protection of research participants' privacy and confidentiality

Invasions of privacy and breaches of confidentiality are disrespectful to participants and can lead to feelings of loss of control or embarrassment, as well as tangible harms such as social stigma, rejection by families or communities, or lost opportunities such as employment or housing. RECs should therefore examine the precautions taken to safeguard participants' privacy and confidentiality.

6. Informed consent process

The ethical foundation of informed consent is the principle of respect for persons. Competent individuals are entitled to choose freely whether to participate in research, and to make decisions based on an adequate understanding of what the research entails. Decisions for children or adults who lack the mental capacity to provide informed consent should be made by an authorized surrogate decision-maker.

RECs should examine the process through which informed consent will occur, as well as the information that will be provided. RECs may waive the requirement of informed consent only when doing so is consistent with international guidelines and national standards.

While informed consent to research is important, the fact that a participant or surrogate may be willing to consent to research does not, in itself, mean that the research is ethically acceptable.

7. Community considerations

Research has impacts not only on the individuals who participate, but also on the communities where the research occurs and/or to whom findings can be linked. Duties to respect and protect communities require examining by the REC and, as far as possible, are aimed at minimizing any negative effects on communities such as stigma or draining of local capacity, and promoting, as relevant, positive effects on communities, including those related to health effects or capacity development. Researchers should actively engage with communities in decision-making about the design and conduct of research (including the informed consent process), while being sensitive to and respecting the communities' cultural, traditional and religious practices.

Standard 8. Decision-making procedures for research ethics committees

Decisions on research protocols designated for review by the convened REC are based on a thorough and inclusive process of discussion and deliberation. Protocols involving no more than minimal risk and burden to research participants may be reviewed on an expedited basis by one or more members (rather than the full committee), if the REC has established written procedures permitting such a procedure.

• During meetings of the REC , members engage in discussions to elicit all concerns and opinions related to the protocols and the associated documents under consideration. The REC's rules ensure that the discussions are respectful of all opinions and allow for varied beliefs to be aired. The Chair fosters a respectful and inclusive tone and allows adequate time for deliberation, during which only REC members participate and decisions are made only by those who were present during the entire discussion. The Chair is responsible for the decision-making process, in particular for determining when consensus is needed to achieve the decision. Researchers, funders, or others directly associated with the protocol in question are not present during committee deliberations.
• REC members recognize the limitations of their knowledge and seek external input when necessary, particularly in relation to research that involves people whose life experiences may differ significantly from those of the committee members.
• Decisions are arrived at through either a vote or consensus. Consensus does not require that all REC members support the decision, but that all members consider the decision at least acceptable and no member considers the decision unacceptable. A pre-defined method determines when votes will be taken and how many favourable votes will be needed for a proposed research to be approved.

All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization are available on the WHO web site ( www.who.int ) or can be purchased from WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; e-mail: tni.ohw@sredrokoob ).

Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press through the WHO web site ( http://www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/index.html ).

• Cite this Page Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health-Related Research with Human Participants. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. III, Standards and guidance for members of the research ethics committees.
• PDF version of this title (1.2M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Ethical basis for decision-making in research ethics committees
• Decision-making procedures for research ethics committees

Other titles in this collection

• WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee

Recent Activity

• Standards and guidance for members of the research ethics committees - Standards... Standards and guidance for members of the research ethics committees - Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health-Related Research with Human Participants

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Research Committees
• Office of Research and Innovation Fellows
• Stats and Rankings
• Awards and Honors
• Improving Research Infrastructure
• Research Initiatives
• Shared Core Research Facilities
• Interdisciplinary Initiatives
• Centers and Institutes
• Faculty Clusters
• ERA Project
• Institutional Training Grants
• Research Portal
• Partner With Us
• Centennial Campus
• Research Commercialization
• National Security Initiatives
• Research Visitors
• Staff Directory

University Research Committee

The University Research Committee is the faculty’s voice to the research administration.

North Carolina State University’s University Research Committee (URC) is the faculty’s voice to the research administration. The faculty body is comprised of individuals who have active research programs and who have been appointed by their College’s Associate Dean for Research. 

The URC champions the progression of NC State research through evaluating and advising on research-related issues while simultaneously helping to identify emerging areas of interest or concern affecting faculty engaged in research. It is the intention of the URC to be a forum of discussion for research inquiries faculty have and liaise with the Office of Research and Innovation (ORI) for potential solutions.

To provide a faculty perspective on matters of research direction and administration, to identify and make recommendations on research infrastructure and administration topics that are integral to faculty research productivity, and to serve as a communication liaison between the university faculty and ORI.

The responsibilities of the URC are to advise the Vice Chancellor for the Office of Research and Innovation and to:

• Encourage and support the intellectual and research interests of the faculty;
• Evaluate and advise on research and administration policies and procedures and promote their continuous improvement;
• Evaluate and advise on consulting policies and practices and promote their continuous improvement;
• Inform the faculty on the availability of support for research and professional development, and to assist as it can in securing such support; and
• Recommend to the Vice Chancellor the allocations to be made from the Research and Innovation Seed Funding (RISF) Program.

Role, Time Commitment and Appointments

For faculty members.

• Coordinate with the faculty representative from your College to ensure a minimum of one of you is able to attend at least 80% of the URC meetings,
• Share resources and updates from ORI and research partners  to your College, 
• Evaluate and advise on research-related topics, 
• Provide regular updates from your College to the URC, and
• Vote in polls and participate in surveys both during the meeting and when asked via email after meetings.
• 1.5 hours per month for 10 months of the year to attend URC meetings (hybrid).
• Additional time spent within your College sharing research updates and gathering questions/concerns to be brought back to a future URC meeting. 
• Additional representation at events as requested.
• Appointments to the University Research Committee are managed at the college level. The Associate Dean for Research for each College has the authority to select two representatives to serve on this committee.

For Ex-Officio Members

• Attend a minimum of 80% of the URC meetings,
• Share resources and updates from your unit,
• Answer questions URC members have that concern your area of expertise, and 
• Bring questions or areas of concern raised during a URC meeting back to your group/unit.
• 1.5 hours per month for 10 months of the year to attend URC meetings.
• Additional time spent within your group/unit bringing concerns to the attention of the appropriate team.
• Ex-officio members are provided appointments by virtue of another position.
• Appointments are regularly reviewed by ORI staff with adjustments made to the number of appointees and the departments/units represented.
• Chair: Lucian Lucia , Professor, Forest Biomaterials and Chemistry, CNR
• Chair-Elect: Susana Milla-Lewis , Professor, Crop and Soil Sciences, CALS
• Communications Manager: Sofia Colón, Office of Research and Innovation

Research Events

Wednesday 12:00 PM

URC Meeting

Please subscribe to our blog

• August 19, 2024

How to write strong charters to set your committees up for success

• --> Written by Ed Rees

Committees are the backbone of a thriving nonprofit. They break down the daunting workload, ensuring specialised attention to critical areas like fundraising, governance and community outreach. Yet, without a clear charter, even the best-intentioned committees can flounder in ambiguity and inefficiency. Setting up a charter isn’t just a good practice — it’s a lifeline. It provides structure, defines roles and aligns every committee member with your mission.

Boards create standing committees for major issues such as finance, auditing, executive hiring, and member nominations. Ad hoc committees are formed when an issue comes up that requires further study or research but are not intended to be permanent.

According to the Charity Commission , “Committees are essential for ensuring that charities are run effectively and transparently. They provide the oversight needed to maintain trust and accountability.”

Once the committee is formed, whether standing or ad hoc, the board needs to make sure the committee understands its role, stays on track and fulfills its purpose. A committee charter outlines the committee’s structure, purpose and goals.

What should go into a committee charter

A good charter will give clear directions and expectations to committee members. Here are some tips to help you write the committee’s charter.

Purpose or mission statement

This section can be a simple statement of purpose or a more formal statement. A mission statement should reflect the work that the committee needs to do. It can also be a longer narrative that includes the committee’s purpose, primary goals and objectives. The purpose statement can also describe the functions and responsibilities of the committee.

Committee type and purpose

This section should state whether the committee is a standing committee or a special committee. As mentioned above, standing committees meet regularly for a specified purpose. Other examples of standing committees are governance committees and compliance committees.

Special or ad hoc committees are formed to serve for a limited amount of time with a designated and short-term purpose in mind. An example of an ad hoc committee is one formed to review school boundary changes or zoning regulation adjustments.

Membership makeup

The charter should define the size and composition of who should serve on the committee. Generally, at least one board member should serve on each committee. Depending upon the purpose of the committee, the membership may also consider including an advisory board member.

The membership section should state whether the committee is open to interested non-members or the public.

Committees generally consist of five to seven members, but a committee can be as small as two people.

The membership section should also state which members of the committee receive voting privileges.

Unlock the full potential of your nonprofit board with our exclusive guide on best practices in governance. Whether you’re struggling with aligning your strategies, building an effective board, or enhancing accountability and engagement, our guide has it all. Drawn from a wealth of knowledge across various sectors, this resource is tailored to help you navigate the evolving challenges of board governance.  Click here  to access the insights and tools you need to lead your nonprofit to success. 

————————————————————————————————

Chairperson

It’s important that the committee has a chairperson who will lead the work. When writing the charter, board members should designate the chairperson or outline how the committee will select the chair. The committee chair can be voted on by the full board, voted on by the committee, or appointed by the  board chair . These rules should not conflict with the organisation’s bylaws. Don’t forget to include the term of the chairperson, which is typically for a period of one year.

In most cases, the committee should designate a co-chair or vice chair in case the committee chair can’t be present. This is especially important for standing committees that meet all year long.

Activities, duties, and responsibilities

This section spells out the expectations, responsibilities and goals of the committee. For example, a standing fundraising committee may be charged with identifying a certain number of new donors. The technology committee could be formed to make recommendations on new software for the organisation.

Delegation of authority

Every charter should have a section that details the kinds of decisions that the committee can make without formal approval from the board. For example, it may state that the governance committee may send a packet out to potential board member recruits or give the fundraising committee a budget to carry out their duties.

Standard committee procedures

The  frequency of meetings  should be outlined in this section of the charter. For example, a charter may state that the fundraising committee will meet from May through August for the annual September fundraiser.

The charter should state a deadline for the work to be completed, including when committee members will be presenting to the full board. Boards may also want to include verbiage regarding how committee members are expected to interact with the full board or other committees. For example, the charter may state the deadline for the committee to submit a request to the finance committee for an increase in the committee’s budget for the coming year.

Formalities

Charters should be approved by the board and signed and dated by the board chair.

“Committees are essential for ensuring that charities are run effectively and transparently. They provide the oversight needed to maintain trust and accountability.” – Charity Commission

Use templates for efficiency

Each time a board forms a committee, it needs to write and approve a charter. While some of the charter will be written specifically for the committee, much of the language is boilerplate. Using a template for committee charters saves time. Board members and administrator don’t have to start from scratch each time the board forms a committee. While the template outlines the basics of the committee structure, it can be customised to the purpose of each new committee.

Storing electronic copies of charters and charter templates can help the board work more efficiently. Board members can access, review, and update existing committee charters and use the templates as a basis for new committee charters.

Board management systems such as BoardEffect allow boards to create charter templates and store committee charters. Committee members can get access to workrooms with information that is specific to their work. Find out how BoardEffect can help with committee charters and request a demo today.

Ed is a seasoned professional with over 12 years of experience in the Governance space, where he has collaborated with a diverse range of organizations. His passion lies in empowering these entities to optimize their operations through the strategic integration of technology, particularly in the realms of Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC).

Technology’s role in diversity planning for charities

  As mission-driven entities, charities and nonprofits face specific pressures and challenges in promoting equity,…

A Board Effectiveness Checklist Helping Community Banks Better Fulfill Their Responsibilities

  Regulatory burdens. The rapid advancement in technology. Competition from larger banks. Customer expectations on…

How to Facilitate More Efficient and Effective Nonprofit Board Meetings

  Your nonprofit has vibrant goals and an important mission that can make a deep…

• previous post: The role of ethics and compliance in the charity boardroom

©BOARDEFFECT 2024 • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • PRIVACY POLICY

• BOARD PORTAL SOFTWARE
• BOARD MEETING CYCLE
• ANNUAL MEETING CYCLE
• BOARD DEVELOPMENT CYCLE
• CLIENT SUCCESS
• WHITEPAPERS
• BOARD PORTAL BUYER’S GUIDE
• REQUEST A DEMO

Lippincott ® NursingCenter ®

• Journal Index
• Journal of Neuroscience Nur...
• Evolution of Nursing Resear...

Evolution of Nursing Research Committees

• Add to Bookmarks

Journal of Neuroscience Nursing

February 2008, Volume :40 Number 1 , page 60 - 63 [Free]

Join NursingCenter to get uninterrupted access to this Article

• Fowler, Susan
• Leaton, Mary Beth
• Baxter, Trish
• McTigue, Toni
• Snook, Nancy

Article Content

Starting a nursing research committee (NRC) begins with a vision and curiosity for learning. The vision must be tied to best practices, evidencebased practice (EBP), and advancing the art and science of nursing. It should also be linked to the nursing culture at the institution. Embedded in starting an NRC is a quest for knowledge and professional growth. This article presents a historical perspective and provides our own experiences with an NRC.

A historical perspective on nursing research provides a foundation for understanding the need for and development of NRCs. The National Center for Nursing Research (NCNR) became part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1986. Seven years later, it became an NIH institute and was renamed the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR; Norwood, 2000 ). National recognition and acknowledgment of research by nurses emphasized the importance of research for the profession. During this time, the American Nurses Credentialing Center's (ANCC) Magnet designation for excellence in nursing was formalized with an emphasis on quality of care. Research was embedded in the concept of quality of care, which today is a specific force of magnetism. ANCC recommends that an NRC, council, or similar structure, exist to promote the integration and acculturation of EBP and nursing research. Both initiatives by NINR and ANCC triggered thinking and action by nurses in healthcare institutions for the formulation of NRCs.

Getting Started

Efforts to start an NRC begin with a group of interested nurses with a passion to promote understanding and generation of research and evidence-based practice. Generating interest in nursing research is the first step in developing an NRC. Strategies to generate interest include (1) securing experienced leadership, (2) inviting staff nurses, (3) starting a journal club, (4) communicating via a newsletter, (5) including research in the institution's clinical ladder system, and (6) celebrating nursing research ( Hedges, 2006 ). Leaders are needed to provide momentum for creating interest and involvement in research. Advanced practice nurses (APNs) may be the leaders in some institutions because they often use research findings in revising policies and procedures or implement investigations as required by their job descriptions. Staff nurses may welcome a personal invitation to the NRC, either written or in person. Journal clubs that highlight research articles are an easy way to start a discussion among staff nurses. They also facilitate understanding of the research process and encourage study critique. Written communication about nursing research can be facilitated in alreadyexisting newsletters or a specific nursing research newsletter created just for this purpose. Placement of research-related activities within clinical advancement programs provides emphasis and direction for research. Celebrating success refers to dissemination of findings and recognition of nurses participating in research. Many of these activities simply raise the awareness of research among nurses that may spur inquiry and investigation.

The next step is formulating a purpose for the NRC. According to Vessey and Campos (1991) , NRCs fundamentally have three main functions: (1) screen proposals for scientific merit, before submitting to the institutional review board (IRB), (2) facilitate the institutional research agenda and make sure nursing research issues are represented, and (3) educate nurses about research. Committee members must be clear on the purpose and function of the NRC as well as its synergistic relationship with the IRB. A balanced NRC membership consists of staff nurses, APNs, administrators, and researchers. However, achieving an appropriate mix can be challenging (Vessey & Campos). Some members may not have sufficient expertise to review the theoretical and methodological structure of proposed research investigations, but may possess excellent skills to evaluate clinical merit. Martin (1996) also suggested that members be knowledgeable about the research process, participants' rights, and the role of the committee.

Jacobson and Winslow (1998) reported findings from a survey of clinical nurse researchers on the topic of hospital NRCs. Responses from 139 researchers identified barriers that challenge the conduct of clinical nursing research including multiple reviews of a research proposal with different requirements by reviewers. It is essential to determine the number of reviews required (i.e., NRC, IRB), the focus of each review, and the depth of each. For example, the NRC may review the proposal for sufficient review of the literature and significance to nursing, whereas the IRB will focus on protection of human subjects.

Turkel, Reidinger, Ferket, and Reno (2005) suggested a different focus and format for NRCs. The NRC can serve as a forum for interested nurses to begin discussion about areas of research interest, create journal clubs, and become educated on EBP. They proposed that membership be inclusive of nurses at all levels of educational preparation and practice. Although some novice nurses will not be able to review research proposals due to limited knowledge and expertise, they can become educated on the research process and mentored to gain necessary skills. Novice nurses also can become involved in EBP guideline development. The NRC also can serve as a mechanism for generating research ideas rather than following a specific research agenda dictated by others.

Laying the Foundation

Five basic questions should be answered when considering the development of an NRC: (1) What is the purpose of the committee? (2) Who should be members of the NRC, and who should chair the group? (3) When and how often should the committee meet? (4) Where should the committee meet? and (5) How should the meetings be structured? Answers to these questions can be obtained through brainstorming among leaders and potential committee members.

One Hospital's Experience

Our NRC originated with a core group of nurses who were in pursuit of advancing nursing research and EBP at their institution. APNs, staff nurses, unit managers, staff development instructors, educators, and the chief nursing officer (CNO) composed the initial membership. The CNO was instrumental in determining the committee structure so that it paralleled membership on other shared governance councils. The committee was cochaired by a critical care staff nurse and nurse educator. The staff nurse was pursuing a master's degree and engaged in a research investigation. A nurse educator also led the committee to support the initial education efforts regarding the research process. Initial activity was limited to review of nursing research proposals and education on relevant research topics such as use of research findings in practice. Meetings were held monthly.

It is important to have synergy between the nursing research committee and nursing and hospital cultures to gain support for the time required to engage in the research process.

As the committee began to slowly expand and take shape, a university-based professor with research expertise joined the committee and provided direction, mentorship, and support for EBP and research efforts. A series of six consecutive, progressive education programs were provided, focusing on EBP and nursing research. As a result of these actions, NRC membership grew, the number of studies increased, and the quality of research proposals improved.

It is important to have synergy between the NRC and nursing and hospital cultures to gain support for the time required to engage in the research process. For example, staff nurse NRC members are able to attend meetings because managers and staff nurse colleagues adjust patient care assignments to allow attendance.

Nurses at our facility practice within a shared governance model. The NRC obtained council status within this model and subsequent bylaws were revised to be in accordance with other councils (Education, Practice, Quality Improvement, and Management). As a result, research is represented at the executive level of shared governance and secretarial support is available. Most councils are chaired by a staff nurse with a chair-elect. The Nursing Research Council is cochaired by a clinical nurse researcher and nursing research coordinator because it was felt that more mentoring and collaboration would take place with the cochair concept. Staff nurses can fulfill the position of cochair.

We determined the purpose of our new council was to encourage and support EBP and scientific investigations; it became more than reviewing proposals and educating nurses on the research process. We decided to adopt Newhouse's model for EBP from the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System ( Newhouse, Dearholt, Poe, Pugh, & White, 2005 ) and continually educate nurses on EBP. We continue to serve as an initial review for nursing-research proposals prior to IRB submission. We have focused on communication to heighten awareness and understanding of the council, EBP projects, and research studies by posting this information on the hospital's intranet Web site, which includes a link to nursing research via the research and grants department. Recently, we developed a nursing research newsletter that is distributed bimonthly with various columns including member spotlight, critique of published research, listing of research-related conferences, and a question-and-answer section.

Consistency in a meeting schedule is essential in promoting attendance and participation. We have a set day and time of the month to meet with meeting reminders, agendas, and additional materials sent out 1-2 weeks prior to the meeting. The meetings are structured in the following manner: (1) introductions; (2) approval of minutes; (3) subcommittee updates (i.e., EBP education, research education, grant reviewer); (4) new business, including discussion of a pertinent article on EBP or research; and (5) education, which includes a 10-minute presentation on topics such as sampling, reliability, and validity. As the committee evolves, informational updates can be disseminated prior to the meeting to allow ample time for discussion and learning.

Keeping the Momentum

Keeping the momentum strong in the direction of growth and commitment is often overlooked by members of an NRC. It is essential to create a structure that generates enthusiasm and cultivates fresh ideas. Three initiatives that keep motivation and the energy level high within an NRC are dissemination of research findings, publication, and celebration. As research investigations are completed, there needs to be a mechanism for dissemination of findings throughout the organization. This communication promotes credibility of and interest in the NRC. Nothing is a better motivator for future research than implementing a practice change based on an investigation done at the institution. For example, positive findings from an investigation of a music intervention in critically ill patents resulted in use of music to increase patient comfort and decrease anxiety ( Sabatini, 2006 ).

Another means of dissemination is through publication. Although facilitation of publication is often not thought of as a purpose of the NRC, it is an opportunity that needs to be harnessed. NRCs can facilitate learning of the publishing process by assisting with identification of appropriate journals, understanding author guidelines, and manuscript writing. We have recently formalized a publication subcommittee to help move our publication efforts forward. We have expanded our listing of EBP projects and research studies to include subsequent publications and presentations. This information is posted on the institution's Web site with a link to nursing research through the grants and research department. The public exposure and subsequent pride in publication can be a catalyst for future investigations and publications.

Celebrating success and achievements in nursing research is fundamental to maintaining and enhancing momentum. Institution-sponsored research education programs or conferences that feature research done by nurses within the organization spark the energy needed to sustain interest. They also provide safe forums for novice researchers. APNs play a key role in encouraging staff nurses to submit unitfocused EBP projects for presentation and assisting with development of abstracts and poster displays. We are currently building a research fund through monies received from outside consultation that nurses can access for a variety of reasons, including poster printing, data-entry services, and statistical consultation.

Future Directions

Nursing research committees evolve in their focus as the purposes and membership change, resulting in varying competencies and interests. In addition, goals targeted by both nursing and hospital administration provide direction for research activities. For example, as the hospital promotes multidisciplinary collaboration, including research, the NRC may extend membership to other disciplines, especially those engaged in shared governance. Streamlining the research review process is continually being addressed. Ongoing education of committee members is critical to ensure knowledge of and subsequent expertise in the research process. We chose the letters of the word research to guide our educational endeavors and topics: R eview of the literature, E ntry of data, S ampling, E valuation of instruments or tools, A nalysis, R eliability and validity, C onclusions, and H ypotheses and research questions. A separate education plan for EBP has also been developed and implemented for nurses throughout the institution. We developed a 5-part e-mail and poster series focusing on understanding the Johns Hopkins model for EBP. Response by staff nurses has been favorable. The next step in promoting EBP is a contest called "Unlocking the Key to Clinical Practice," which focuses on the best formulation of a practice question using the PICO (patient/population, intervention, comparison group or intervention, outcome) format.

Knowledge of resources, including grants and opportunities for research presentations, is important in promoting professional development. NRCs can meet this challenge by providing listings of Internet and institutional resources, grant opportunities from various organizations with focus areas and deadlines specified, and research-focused national conferences with abstract deadlines.

As NRCs become more seasoned, they need to explore new directions. For example, consider a nursing-research fellowship program to foster research interest in nursing students. Conceptualization and development of a center for nursing research housed in the department of nursing demonstrates commitment to advancing the science of nursing.

Literature and experience recommend that NRCs be clear on their purpose. NRCs have a responsibility to educate nurses on the research process and facilitate a user-friendly format for proposal review. Communication of research activities, including those of the committee, is one way to celebrate success in advancing the science of nursing. In the future, NRCs may become more interdisciplinary and function within a designated center for nursing research.

Hedges, C. (2006). If you build it, will they come? Generating interest in nursing research. AACN Advances in Critical Care, 17, 226-229. [Context Link]

Jacobson, A. F., & Winslow, E. H. (1998). Clinical nurse researchers' perceptions of hospital nursing research committees: Results of a national survey. Applied Nursing Research, 11, 122-129. [Context Link]

Martin, P. A. (1996). Member responsibilities on a nursing research committee. Applied Nursing Research, 9, 154-157. [Context Link]

Newhouse, R., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L.C., & White, K. M. (2005). Evidence-based practice: A practical approach to implementation. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35, 35-40. [Context Link]

Norwood, S. (2000). Research strategies for advanced practice nurses. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health. [Context Link]

Sabatini, R. R. (2006). Hitting the high notes. Advance for Nurses, 6 (3), 14-15. [Context Link]

Turkel, M., Reidinger, G., Ferket, K., & Reno, K. (2005). An essential component of the Magnet journey: Fostering an environment for evidence-based practice and nursing research. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 29 (3), 254-262. [Context Link]

Vessey, J., & Campos, G. (1991). The role of nursing research committees. Nursing Research, 4, 247-249. [Context Link]

Continuing Education Credit

The Journal of Neuroscience Nursing is pleased to offer the opportunity to earn neuroscience nursing CE for this article online. Go to http://www.aann.org , and select "Continuing Education." There you can read the article again or go directly to the posttest assessment. The cost is $15 for each article. You will be asked for a credit card or online payment service number.

The posttest consists of 10 questions based on the article, plus several assessment questions (e.g., How long did it take you to read the article and complete the posttest?). A passing score of 80% (8 of 10 questions correct) on the posttest and completion of the assessment questions yields 1 continuing nursing education contact hour.

The American Association of Neuroscience Nurses is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.

Connect With NursingCenter

Join NursingCenter on Social Media to find out the latest news and special offers

FIND YOUR NEXT JOB WITH NURSING JOBSPLUS

Ce resources.

• Account Login
• Search by Specialty
• Search by Category
• Recommended CE
• Licensure Renewals

Nursing Resources

• Career Articles
• Drug Updates
• Patient Education

About NursingCenter

• Advertise with us
• Evidence-Based Practice Network
• Contact Us / Help

Connect with NursingCenter

Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, YouTube, Pinterest, and Instagram.

• Subscribe to our Newsletter

popular searches

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity

Upcoming Webinar Series

Publications

Annual Conference

Research Ethics Support and Review

Code of Practice for Research

Checklist for Researchers

Checklist during COVID-19

Case Study Packs

Researcher Checklist of Ethics Applications

Concordat Self-Assessment Tool

What is a Research Ethics Committee?

• Newsletter issues

Research ethics committees (RECs) are an important part of a healthy research culture. Their role is to consider the ethical implications of research. Traditionally this has focussed on the need to protect research participants (both human and animal), but in recent years their role in supporting researchers, and promoting research integrity more generally, has been increasingly recognised.

Two types of RECs

It is important to distinguish two types of research ethics committees. The first type is often set up to consider ethical issues that may be relevant to researchers working in specific areas. These might include the ethics of research into genetic modification, climate engineering, dual-use research (e.g., research with military applications), or research using potentially contentious methodologies such as “ human challenge ” trials (where participants are intentionally infected with diseases such as COVID). As these are difficult and complex areas, the main output is often in the form of guidance or position statements that can be applied by researchers, their institutions, funders, and ultimately policymakers. Consequently, these committees are convened at a fairly high level by organisations with an interest in the area of research being considered. They normally include scientific and legal experts alongside those with a specific interest in the topic under consideration (such as patient groups).

But the second, and far more common, type of research ethics committee is those set up by universities, research organisations, or health care providers (such as the NHS) to consider the ethical issues relating to individual, and often very specific, research projects. These Research Ethics Committees — abbreviated as RECs and referred to as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States — provide a point-in-time review of a very detailed research protocol before the research is allowed to start. They aim to provide an opinion as to whether the research, if carried out in accordance with the detailed protocol, will meet accepted ethical norms. Exactly what these norms are, and how they can be addressed, is a complex question that may need to take into account guidance created by the first type of ethics committee described above. As such, although RECs still need to have suitably experienced individuals, it is more important that they are also suitably independent from the researcher (and their funder) to ensure they give an ethical opinion that is free from as many conflicts of interest as possible. Scientific or research expertise is important, but so is the voice of non-expert members. Quite often researchers will not be allowed to publish their work if they cannot prove it was reviewed by a REC before it started.

REC review supports research and researchers

REC review is criticised by researchers as being too lengthy, burdensome, or bureaucratic. This is often because it is confused with wider governance processes relating to issues such as data protection, health and safety, financial management, etc. While such issues are important, the fact that they are related to specific, often legally prescribed, arrangements means that they are governance issues that are the responsibility of the research institution (e.g., the university) to review and approve. The distinction between governance approvals , and ethics opinion , is extremely important if the aim is to create systems that provide robust, but proportionate, support to research and researchers. While in some contexts committees are expected to review both governance and ethics issues, there is an increasing recognition that governance is best handled separately by expert research officers, freeing RECs to consider the more complex ethical issues that may arise in any given research project.

Written by Dr Simon Kolstoe, UKRIO Trustee .