Informal Resolution

In research, situations may arise that might present as research misconduct but are the result of either a misunderstanding, are minor, or a dispute between individuals. It may be possible to mediate or resolve such differences at the individual or local / departmental level, and this should be considered and explored where appropriate. Formal investigation procedures should only be instigated if the informal route is inappropriate due to the seriousness of the allegation, or where mediation and/or arbitration has been refused or proved unsuccessful.

The Named Person will delegate to the Research Integrity Officer concerns raised which can be progressed through informal resolution.

1. Investigation

If it is determined that local mediation and/or arbitration is appropriate, the following process should be followed:

• The Research Integrity Officer (or delegate) will contact the Initiator in writing to advise on the process to be followed. They will then review any available information and ask for any further information required from the Initiator. This may be done through an informal interview but should be followed up in writing with a record of the information provided and agreement on the completeness and validity of this.
• The Research Integrity Officer (or delegate) will then liaise with a senior leader (such as the Head of Department or Director of Research) from the academic department(s) concerned (usually the Respondent’s home department), providing all the information and evidence collated. Any potential conflicts of interest should be taken into account.
• The Research Integrity Officer (or delegate) and/or senior leader of the department will contact the Respondent to advise them of the concerns / issues raised by the Initiator, present the information available, and ask for a response from the Respondent along with any further information required. This may be done through an informal interview but should be followed up in writing with a record of the information provided and agreement on the completeness and validity of this.
• The information provided by the Initiator and Respondent will be collated by the Research Integrity Officer (or delegate) who will consider, in consultation with the senior leader of the department, whether further information is required to form a conclusion i.e. seek confidential advice from persons with relevant expertise either from within or outside the department.

2. Follow up actions

• The Research Integrity Officer (or delegate) will then liaise further with the senior leader of the department regarding the most appropriate actions to address the concerns / issues raised.
• The Research Integrity Officer (or delegate) will inform the Initiator and Respondent, in writing, of the conclusions of the review of the concerns / issues and further actions. These may be further training, education, or other development activities for the Respondent; enhanced supervision / oversight of the Respondent’s research activities; mentoring or other support; a meeting with both the Initiator and Respondent to settle any disagreements or other forms of arbitration; rectifying the research record; and/or implementing best practice to prevent a reoccurrence of the issues.
• Where it is determined that the Respondent has conducted questionable research practices to be addressed through education, training and / or other actions, next steps with timeframes should be agreed with the Respondent in writing. If the Respondent fails to complete any agreed actions, then this will be escalated to the senior leader of the department.

The Research Integrity Officer (or delegate) is responsible for maintaining a record of the information collated and a log of the outcome of the review.

If local resolution proves unsuccessful, then the next steps of this Procedure should be progressed.

3. Timing

The Informal Resolution process should normally reach a conclusion on next steps within 3 months, following acknowledgement of the concern by the Research Integrity Officer to the Initiator, provided this does not compromise a full and fair assessment of the concern raised. Any delays should be explained to all parties in writing, and a revised completion date given.