Seán Lacey, Research Integrity & Compliance Officer, Munster Technological University, reflects on work that contributed to his Principal Fellowship

When I first took on the role of Research Integrity & Compliance Officer in Munster Technological University, responsible conduct of research (RCR) was already established within the University. Colleagues were committed to maintaining high standards on research integrity, and students were being introduced to ethical principles through their programmes. What was less consistent was how these principles were experienced in practice, particularly across multiple campuses and disciplines. 

Processes had developed over time in ways that reflected local strengths and needs. While this brought flexibility, it also meant that students and staff sometimes encountered different expectations, timelines, and levels of support. For many students, especially those new to research, research integrity and ethics could feel procedural rather than something that informed how they thought about their work. 

That distinction mattered. If research is central to higher education, then how students encounter integrity and ethics shapes how they approach inquiry, responsibility, and decision-making. Framed more broadly, this speaks to how RCR is understood in practice. The opportunity was not to replace what existed, but to bring greater clarity and alignment so that RCR became part of learning, rather than something sitting alongside it. 

Building a more connected approach 

This work formed part of a sustained period of strategic leadership, where I worked to align research governance with teaching, learning, and research priorities across the institution, influencing practice at programme, faculty, and institutional level. 

As the University developed as a multi-campus institution, the need to align practices was essential. In my role, I worked with colleagues across academic, research, and professional areas to co-develop a more connected approach to RCR (https://www.mtu.ie/research/research-integrity-and-compliance/). 

This was a collaborative process. Academic leaders, researchers, professional staff, and student representatives all contributed to shaping policies and procedures that reflected both regulatory expectations and the realities of teaching and learning. The aim was to ensure that guidance was not only robust, but also usable in day-to-day work. 

Alongside policy development, equal attention was given to support for embedding the RCR in day-to-day practice. This included working with colleagues to strengthen supervisory practice, support curriculum design, and build confidence in applying RCR in teaching and assessment. Tailored guidance, information sessions, and opportunities for discussion were introduced so that both staff and students could engage with RCR in ways that made sense within their own contexts. This helped shift the focus from meeting requirements to developing understanding. 

Creating shared structures for learning 

A key step in this work was the establishment of a university-wide Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) and Animal Research and Education Ethics Committee (AREEC), bringing together representation from all campuses. The intention was to create shared structures that offered consistency and transparency, while remaining responsive to different types of research activity. 

Clearer pathways were introduced to reflect levels of risk, supported by screening tools that helped applicants identify the most appropriate route. A central online resource brought together policies, templates, and guidance materials, making the process more accessible.  

These changes improved clarity and efficiency, but their more lasting impact was on how RCR were experienced (https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/ws2cv_v1). They also contributed to the professional development of academic staff, supporting more consistent approaches to supervision, feedback, and the design of research-based learning activities. In this way, RCR became more visible as part of the learning process. 

What has changed 

Over time, these developments have influenced both student experience and staff practice. Rather than focusing only on completing an application, students and staff consider questions around consent, data use, and potential impact earlier in the process (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socimp.2025.100129). This has supported stronger research design and more confident decision-making. 

At an institutional level, there is now a more shared understanding of RCR. Practices continue to evolve, but there is a stronger basis for ongoing dialogue and reflection. This has strengthened the quality of research-informed teaching and supported a more coherent student experience across campuses. 

Extending the work across institutions 

This experience informed later work within the INGENIUM European University alliance, where the focus shifted to developing shared approaches to RCR across institutional and national contexts, extending the impact of this work beyond a single institution. I worked with colleagues from ten institutions to develop The Munster Statement on the Principles of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (https://sword.mtu.ie/ingenium_dissemination/). Each institution brought its own regulatory context and research perspective. The challenge was to develop something that could work across these differences while still being meaningful in practice. The resulting statement provides a clear reference point that can be used in policy, teaching, and research training (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socimp.2026.100187). 

In several institutions, it is now supporting postgraduate development and informing discussions around supervision and curriculum design, including the development of the first shared research training module across INGENIUM. As with the work within the University, the emphasis has been on supporting understanding and conversation rather than prescribing a single approach. 

What I have learned 

A few points have stayed with me through this work. These reflections have also informed how I continue to support and mentor colleagues in developing their own approaches to research-informed teaching and supervision. 

Building on what is already working is important. Recognising existing strengths created a more constructive starting point for developing greater consistency. 

Clarity and support are as important as structure. Policies are more effective when people have space to engage with them and understand how they apply in practice. 

Involving a wide range of perspectives leads to more workable outcomes. Input from colleagues and students across different contexts helped ensure that the systems developed were relevant and practical. 

Finally, RCR are best understood through experience. When students engage with these ideas in their own work, they become more meaningful and more likely to shape future practice. 

Closing reflection 

Strengthening RCR across a multi-campus university and an international alliance has been a shared effort. It has involved aligning existing practices, creating clear structures, and supporting staff and students to engage with these principles in ways that are relevant to their work. 

The result is a more connected approach, where RCR are part of how teaching, learning, and research are experienced. Students are better prepared to navigate the responsibilities that come with research, and colleagues have clearer frameworks to support them. 

Applying for Principal Fellowship provided an opportunity to reflect on this work and to consider its impact on teaching, learning, and research. I am grateful to colleagues who contributed their time, insights, and encouragement throughout the process, and to the Teaching and Learning Unit in MTU for supporting this work and recognising the contributions being made across the University community. 

Since 2022, Seán has served as Research Integrity & Compliance Officer in MTU – a new multi-campus university formed in 2021. Seán had responsibility for research integrity, ethics, and compliance, while coordinating academic governance in an integrated manner to ensure that policy, pedagogy, and professional practice are aligned with university strategy.