An integrated psychology virtual research ethics committee

Research and professional ethics are an integral part of every Psychology degree, as this is seen as a key graduate learning outcome for students leaving to become clinicians working with clients and patients. The development of these skills is embedded in teaching, but they culminate in the final year of a degree when final year students must gain formal ethical approval for their final research project. Decision as to the ethical appropriateness of research are made by a Departmental Research Ethics Committee, which considers all research project proposals submitted by staff and students within the department. One of the challenges of this practice is the scale of work involved for committee members (Doyle & Buckley, 2014) who are all faculty members, and the tracking of applications and decisions, alongside the quality assurance required to ensure that all applications are treated fairly and equally. The time involved in performing this work is often underestimated by Universities, and the variety and complexity of decisions requires extensive discussion and negotiation. Traditionally, these decisions are reached by committee discussions, however this presents logistical difficulties as it requires meetings with quorate attendance. The University of Westminster launched a virtual tool in 2014 to facilitate the management of the Research Ethics Committee, to help track the progress of applications and to allow discussions to occur and be managed virtually. The Department of Psychology adopted the tools in September 2014 to deal with all ethics applications. Here we report on how this virtual committee has affected the role and practices of a working committee that deals with over 300 applications per year, and how an online ethics procedure has facilitated an integrated developmental approach to ethical education.

An analysis of beginning mentors’ critical incidents in English post-compulsory education: navigating stormy waters

This qualitative study explores the barriers and dilemmas faced by beginning and novice mentors in post-compulsory education in the southeast of England. It analyses critical incidents (Tripp, 2012) taken from the everyday practice of mentors who were supporting new teachers and lecturers in the southeast of England. It categorises different types of critical incidents that mentors encountered and describes the strategies and rationales mentors used to support mentees and (indirectly) their learners and colleagues. The study explores ways in which mentors' own values, beliefs and life experiences affected their mentoring practice.  Methodology As part of a specialist master’s-level professional development module, 21 mentors wrote about two critical incidents (Tripp, 2012) taken from their own professional experiences, which aimed to demonstrate their support for their mentee’s range of complex needs. These critical incidents were written up as short case studies, which justified the rationale for their interventions and demonstrated the mentors' own professional development in mentoring. Critical incidents were used as units of analysis and categorised thematically by topic, sector and mentoring strategies used. Findings The research demonstrated the complex nature of decision-making and the potential for professional learning within a mentoring dyad. The study of these critical incidents found that mentors most frequently cited the controversial nature of teaching observations, the mentor’s role in mediating professional relationships, the importance of inculcating professional dispositions in education, and the need to support new teachers so that they can use effective behaviour management strategies. This study contributes to our understanding of the central importance of mentoring for professional growth within teacher education. It identifies common dilemmas that novice mentors face in post-compulsory education, justifies the rationale for their interventions and mentoring strategies, and helps to identify ways in which mentors' professional development needs can be met. It demonstrates that mentoring is complex, non-linear and mediated by mentors’ motivation and values.