Research governance: implications for health library and information professionals

Implementing a research governance framework for clinical and public health research

Research conduct in Australia and worldwide is mostly unaudited. The purpose of good research governance is to ensure integrity in research through accountability, transparency and responsibility. Institutional responsibility for research governance has been adopted by Monash University's Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, providing clear lines of accountability for researchers as well as support and guidance. A research audit tool has been developed, identifying areas where practice could be improved especially among less experienced researchers; the most common adverse findings concerned research protocols and procedure manuals. The need for participant confidentiality, privacy and data security was found to be understood, and adhered to widely by all researchers. An evaluation of the effect of audit on researchers found that the process was well accepted.

The impact of research governance in healthcare and higher education organizations

AIM

This paper reports a study exploring the impact and implementation of research governance in the North West region of England.

BACKGROUND

In 2001, the UK Government launched a framework to ensure the governance of research within the National Health Service. Whilst this framework was undoubtedly geared towards improving the standards and practice of research, concerns have been raised in the academic literature about the potentially negative impact on future research.

METHODS

A mixed method approach, using questionnaires (n = 350), semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a volunteer sample, was used to explore research staff perspectives about research governance. Survey data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, and a thematic analysis was used to elicit themes from the semi-structured interviews. The study lasted for 12 months and used a range of study sites, giving insight into potentially different experiences or approaches to implementing the research governance framework.

FINDINGS

Questionnaire data revealed a good level of awareness about the Research Governance Framework. However, a range of concerns was also raised, such as the increased workload associated with the research governance application process and lack of transparency about the process. Five themes emerged from the focus groups: control, epistemology, organizational issues, impact on teaching and learning, and ambiguity in the definitions of research and audit.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations emerging from the study include the promotion of transparent research governance guidelines for practitioners, and the need for staff education about governance processes and greater parity between organizations in research governance processes.