�԰ɵ���

• �԰ɵ��� (faculty, staff, student) researchers who plan to conduct research with human participants internal or external to the institution
• Researchers external to �԰ɵ��� who plan to recruit human participants at �԰ɵ���
• Research that involves the review of records not normally available to the public
• Research that involves observational methods (virtual or otherwise)  
• Course-based student projects, when information is collected from non-course members and information will be analyzed, summarized, and disseminated
• Research projects previously approved by another institution that will involve recruiting participants from the �԰ɵ��� community
• Self-studies involve researchers examining their own experiences, practices, or personal development

The Research Ethics Board only considers research involving human participants. If you are considering animal research, please refer to the information regarding teaching and research with animals at �԰ɵ���. 

• Program evaluation, quality assurance studies and performance reviews
• Testing within normal educational requirements when used exclusively for assessment, management or improvement purposes
• Collecting information from authorized personnel to release information or data in the ordinary course of their employment about organizations, policies, procedures, professional practices or statistical reports
• Information legally accessible to the public with no reasonable expectation of privacy
• Observation of people in public places or online when there is no interaction or intervention involved by the researcher, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, AND dissemination of research results does not allow identification of individuals
• Secondary use of anonymous information when research data does not lead to identifiable information if linked with other data
• Interpretation of a work or works of art by an artist, and the study of how a work of art is generated
• Research about a living individual involved in the public arena based exclusively on publicly available information

Please consult the REB if you have questions about whether your planned activity requires REB approval. 

Class assignments where students will collect and analyze data from human participants must also obtain ethical clearance. Each student's project does not need to be reviewed by the Research Ethics Board. Only the assignment is reviewed, and the instructor then provides ethical oversight for each student's project.

You'll need a REB review if any of the following apply to your research:  

• The intent is to educate students on research processes used to explore and expand existing theories and conceptual knowledge
• Students compare effectiveness of new techniques, practices, programs with standard approaches
• Primary data is collected and organized for analysis and distribution (orally or written)
• Data is collected from persons who are not members of the course
• Data is collected from a vulnerable population (e.g. vulnerable ethnic communities or individuals, children, cognitively challenged individuals, “captive” groups)

The defines minimal risk as “If potential participants can reasonably be expected to regard the probability and magnitude of possible harms implied by participation in the research to be no greater than those encountered by the subject in those aspects of his or her everyday life that relate to the research, then the research can be regarded as within the range of minimal risk.” 

Generally, minimal risk research does not:

• Involve vulnerable participants or groups of people without sufficient and respectful protocols for securing consent
• Involve sensitive or incriminating topics or questions
• Manipulate the behaviour of participants beyond the range of normal activity
• Involve physically invasive contact with the participants
• Involve undue or excessive rewards for participation 

If the proposed project represents more than minimal risk, then the instructor will be required to complete the full research ethics application process.

Student information gathering activities are classified as skill development and, therefore, not “research”, when the intent is to:

• Use the information to provide advice, diagnosis, identification of appropriate interventions, general advice for a client
• Develop skills which are considered standard practice within a profession (e.g. observation, assessment, intervention, evaluation, auditing)
• Collect information as part of the normal relationship between a student and the ‘participants’ (e.g. classroom teacher and students; nurse and patient; lawyer and client)
• Teach the design, conduct and process of research (e.g. ‘practice’ data collection from students within their class)

Please consult with the REB if you have any questions about whether or not your planned activity requires REB approval. 

Do self-studies, where researchers examine their own experiences, practices, or development, require REB approval?

• Yes. Even in a self-study, when the research is conducted under a researcher’s affiliation with a post-secondary institution, REB approval is required. This includes autoethnographies, where researchers analyze their own experiences. 
  See

My study does not involve any external participants, nor will there be any interventions with other participants. Does this require REB review?

• The REB review ensures fully informed and voluntary consent, even in self-studies, and is a legally required component of all academic research. It is mandated by professional associations, institutional policies, and funding organizations to oversee researchers' work. While independent review might seem unnecessary when the researcher and subject are the same, many institutions require approval before researchers experiment on themselves. Additionally, researchers are often asked to provide evidence of an independent ethics review to publish their findings, even if the data comes from self-experimentation.

I am planning a research study that involves recording temperature and capacitance values. I will not be collecting or storing biological samples (e.g., blood, tissue, DNA). Do I need REB approval?

• Yes. Although no biological materials will be collected, temperature and capacitance values still qualify as personal data. Personal data includes any information unique to the participant that originates from them, such as opinions, experiences, test performance, or bodily measurements.
   

There are various situations when research involving humans requires the involvement of multiple institutions and/or multiple Research Ethics Boards.  This includes, but is not limited to, the following situations;

• a team of researchers affiliated with different institutions;
• several research projects affiliated with different institutions, with data combined at some point to form one overall research project;
• a researcher affiliated with one institution, but that involves collecting data or recruiting participants at different institutions;
• a researcher who has multiple institutional affiliations (e.g., two universities, a university and a college, or a university and a hospital.);
• a researcher at one institution that requires the limited collaboration of individuals affiliated with different institutions or organizations (e.g., statisticians, lab or X-ray technicians, social workers and schoolteachers); or
• researcher(s) working under the auspices of a Canadian research institution conduct in another province, territory or country.

When another Canadian, TCPS-bound Research Ethics Board has approved a minimal risk research project, it may be eligible for a modified review process at �԰ɵ���.  Below are some of the different scenarios for multiple jurisdiction research and an outline of the review process.

Note: this applies to minimal risk research only

If �԰ɵ��� faculty, students, and/or staff are being recruited as participants in minimal risk research, the proposed research will undergo a Chair Review. The Principal Investigator (PI) must submit the following:

• External Researcher / Multi-Site Research Form.
• All recruitment and consent documents used.
• A copy of certificate / approval documentation from the PI’s institution.
  • If the PI’s institution is not TCPS2 compliant, this process does not apply; the PI must apply for a regular REB review from �԰ɵ���.

The REB reserves the right to request further documents related to the research and to request that the submitting party use �԰ɵ��� REB forms.

Note: this applies to minimal risk research only

�԰ɵ��� researchers conducting research at other Canadian PSIs are responsible for inquiring as to the requirements for REB review at those sites. They will be required to submit this information the �԰ɵ��� REB as part of their Project Application form. 

Note: this applies to minimal risk research only

�԰ɵ��� Researcher as Principal Investigator (PI)

The Research Ethics Board (REB) must review all research conducted by its faculty, students, and staff members when they are the PI. Collaborating researchers must consult with their REBs to determine if they are required to apply to their own institutions. The �԰ɵ��� REB reserves the right to impose the condition that Co-Investigators secure REB approval from their own institutions. If data will be collected from other Canadian post-secondary institutions, the PI is responsible for inquiring as to the requirements for REB review at all these other sites and provide this information for the �԰ɵ��� REB review.

Principal Investigator (PI) from Another Institution, �԰ɵ��� Co-Investigators

When the research project has a PI from another Canadian institution and that institution’s REB has approved the project, a Chair Review will be conducted. The following must be submitted:

• A Multi-Site Research Form, completed by the PI; any �԰ɵ��� researchers will also be named on the Form
• All approved research materials (e.g., recruitment materials, consent documents, surveys, interview questions, etc) (if �԰ɵ��� participants will be recruited)
• A copy of certificate / approval from the institution that has conducted the initial review.  
  • If the PI’s institution is not TCPS2 compliant, this modified review process does not apply; the PI must apply for a regular REB review from �԰ɵ���.
• TCPS2 CORE Certificates for all �԰ɵ��� researchers

The Form and supporting documents are to be submitted by email to the REB. If the research involves a �԰ɵ��� researcher, they may submit the forms on behalf of the PI. The REB reserves the right to request further documents related to the research and to request that the submitting party use �԰ɵ��� REB forms.

Note: this applies to minimal risk research only

When conducting research required for the completion of a degree at another Canadian PSI, normally that institution’s REB will be the Board of Record for the research. In some situations, however, a regular review or a Chair review by the �԰ɵ��� REB will be required - for instance, when the research involves the �԰ɵ��� students as participants (dual-role research) or when the researcher is representing themselves as an employee of �԰ɵ��� to participants.

• Talitha Klym, Chair (Social Work, School of Health & Wellness)
• Robert Opoku, Vice Chair (Business, Donald School of Business)
• Daniel Haas, Vice Chair (Philosophy, School of Arts & Education)
• Krista Robson, Past Chair (Sociology, School of Arts & Education)
• Greg Wells, Past Vice-Chair (Psychology, School of Arts & Education)
• Sona Macnaughton (Library, Division of Student Experience)
• Jolene Wright (Social Work, School of Health & Wellness)
• Janet Molchanko (Learning Designer, Centre of Teaching, Learning and Scholarship)
• Jennifer Macleod (Early Learning and Child Care, School of Arts & Education)
• Stacey Bliss (Research Grant Specialist, Applied Research)
• Irene Wenger (Olds College of Agriculture & Technology)
• Sam Darby (Student Representative, Psychology, School of Arts & Education)
• Taylor Burn (Student Representative, Multidisciplinary Studies, School of Arts & Education)
• Shaelea Shoemaker (Student Representative, Psychology, School of Arts & Education)
• Dieulita Datus-Hall (Community Member Representative)

• Reiko Yeap, Chair (Psychology, School of Arts & Education)
• Greg Wells, Vice-Chair (Psychology, School of Arts & Education)
• Krista Robson, Past Chair (Sociology, School of Arts & Education)
• Dustin Quirk (Business, Donald School of Business)
• Talitha Klym (Social Work, Donald School of Business)
• Sona Macnaughton (Library, Division of Student Success)
• Daniel Haas (Philosophy, School of Arts & Education)
• Robert Opoku (Business, Donald School of Business)
• Wesley Maciejewski (Mathematics, Donald School of Business)
• Celina Cloarec (Student Representative, Psychology, School of Arts & Education)
• Bobbi Ferguson (Student Representative, Education, School of Arts & Education)
• Sam Darby (Student Representative, Psychology, School of Arts & Education)
• Irene Wenger (Olds College of Agriculture & Technology)
• Community member Representative 1
• Community member Representative 2

Terms of Reference