Ethical Issues In Research Specific)

Ethical Issues in Research 1

Ethical Issues in Research Jyoti Unnikrishnan Reg no: 0934207 Christ University

Ethical Issues in Research 2

Ethics are not simply proper etiquette, but rather “they are expressions of our values and a guide for achieving them” (Diener & Crandall, 1978, p. 14). Ethical principles help researchers achieve their goals while avoiding strategies that compromise their values, and ethics help us make decisions when our values are in conflict (Diener & Crandall). ETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO SCHOLARLY WORK Below are the implications of the researcher’s responsibility to provide accurate information concerning five matters: execution of the research study, reporting the results, duplicate and piecemeal publication, publication credit, and plagiarism. Execution of the research study A study must be properly executed if it is to establish valid knowledge bases. The researcher is responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the study. Thus, to reduce methodological biases and errors, it is essential that researchers have an accurate and sensitive understanding of the target population. (Ponterotto & Casas, 1991; Ponterotto & Grieger). Problems can occur if the investigator becomes lax during any phase of executing a study. For example, differential participant biases may be created if participants are not solicited according to a standardized recruitment procedure. Or distortion can occur if the researcher does not impress upon all assistants the need for accuracy in matching participants to all of their questionnaire data. Drew (1980) noted incidents in which research assistants actually recorded fictitious data rather than conscientiously performing the needed task. Investigators are responsible for the competence of the assistants working with them, as well as the ethical treatment of the research assistants themselves. In short the researcher needs to maintain constant vigilance over all phases of executing a study to ensure the collection of accurate and reliable data. Reporting the results Reporting the results of a study, although seemingly straightforward task, entails responsibilities and often complexities.

Ethical Issues in Research 3

The investigator’s task is to present the facts of what happened in the study. Sometimes researchers believe that their data will have greater value if they confirm their hypotheses or support a well known researcher’s theory. However, it is imperative to note that the researcher is not responsible for whether the data do or do not support a particular theory: perhaps the theory is incorrect. Thus, the job of the researcher is to report the results honestly, regardless of any preconceived notions, predictions, or personal desires. The researcher also has the responsibility to present proper interpretations of findings. This is especially important when the data may have multiple interpretations (as in qualitative research) or when it is essential to interpret the findings within a cultural context. Investigators have responsibility to discuss the limitations of their data and to qualify their conclusions accordingly. Discussion of limitations is especially important when the research might be, interpreted in such a way as to harm persons in particular groups (e.g., gender, race, national origin, social class). Sometimes researchers believe that if limitations are discussed, their results will be weakened. Specifying the limitations is helpful to the profession, and often to future researchers as well. The investigator also has a responsibility, after research results are in the public domain, to make original data available to other qualified researchers who may want to inspect them and verify claims. This necessitates storage of raw data for some times after a study is published, typically for five years. Perhaps the most serious problem is intentional fabrication of data. It is clearly unethical to produce fraudulent data. There are at least three basic methods of concocting fraudulent data: (1) inventing findings without any actual data collection, (2) tampering with or doctoring actual findings to more closely resemble the desired outcome and (3) trimming actual findings to delete unwanted or discrepant information. Tampering with the findings can also include presenting post hoc findings as if they were planned; such fabrication obviously provides misinformation to the profession and serves only to increase confusion and misunderstanding. (Broad & Wade, 1982). Duplicate and piecemeal publication

Ethical Issues in Research 4

Publishing the same data in different journal articles creates some problems. Duplicate publication may give the impression that there is more information in our knowledge base on a particular topic that is warranted. Moreover, duplicate publications waste valuable resources, including journal space and reviewers’ and editors’ time. A related issue pertains to what is referred to as piecemeal publication. Piecemeal, or fragmented publication involves publication of several and perhaps slightly different studies from the same data set. Publication credit Researches have the responsibility to adequately and accurately assign credit for contributions to a project. Accurately assigning publication credit is important for several reasons. First and foremost, it is important to publicly acknowledge the contributions of all the people involved in the study – to give credit where credit is due. Moreover, public acknowledgement of one’s professional contributions can serve as a “psychic reward” to compensate for the low monetary rewards associated with writing for scholarly outlets (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 1998). Sometimes the order of authorship on a publication is important, because the first author is accorded more credit (and responsibility) for the scholarly work than other authors. Plagiarism Researchers have a responsibility to acknowledge the original contributions of other writers and to clearly distinguish their own original scholarly insights from the work of others. Plagiarism can occur on several levels. A researcher might omit necessary citations through inattention. The plagiarism in such cases is unintentional and due more to oversight. Another level involves, researchers working in slightly different areas may duplicate each other’s ideas without being aware of their common work. Another level of plagiarism involves the conscious or intentional exclusion of another person’s writing because of petty jealousies or interpersonal competition. A final level of plagiarism involves the verbatim copying of another’s writing or the duplicating of ideas with the motive of presenting oneself as the original contributor, all the while knowing full well that this is not the case.

Ethical Issues in Research 5

ETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO PARTICIPANTS Risks and benefits The ethical researcher’s goal is to conduct an investigation that creates new knowledge while preserving the dignity and welfare of the participants. It is researcher’s responsibility to identify potential sources of risk and eliminate or minimize them to protect potential participants. One of the problems inherent in assessing risk potential is that the task is often subjective, ambiguous and involves an estimation of probabilities. Typically one does not have prior, empirical, objective data about whether the experimental condition is stressful. Moreover, the type and level of stress that would be harmful is ambiguous and likely varies across cultures and individuals; that is what is perceived a harmful in one culture may not be perceived as such in another culture. Thus, assessing harm may also involve cross cultural sensitivity. For instance, focus group discussions may also throw up comments on the part of some participants that may upset others (for example, racist or sexist ones) (Kevern and Webb, 2001,p.331). The potentially harmful impact can also be lessened by giving careful consideration when convening groups and seeking to separate those whose comments are likely to cause offence to others (Krueger,1994) Assessing the benefits derived from a particular study, however, is also a difficult and ambiguous task. This assessment is complicated by the question of “benefit for whom?” That is, should participant be the ones to receive the benefit directly, or could it be a larger group, as when a profession’s knowledge base is increased. Moreover, it can be argued that the investigator is at a disadvantage to judge the cost/benefit ratio accurately because he or she may be overly biased regarding the benefit of the study (Diener & Crandall, 1978).

Researchers

have a duty to consult with those knowledge able about the individuals or groups most likely to be affected. Consent A critical issue in conducting studies involving risk pertains to informed consent. A number of factors make obtaining consent a rather complicated process, and a considerable amount of

Ethical Issues in Research 6

attention has been given to this topic in the past 20 years (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 1998; Schmidt & Meara, 1984). Turnbull (1977) discussed consent in this special relationship in terms of three key elements: capacity, information and voluntariness. Capacity refers to a participant’s ability to process information involves two issues : a legal age qualification and ability standards. Minors, people under the age of 18, are not considered to be legally able to make some decisions and thus do not have the needed capacity in these instances. Ramsey (1970) has argued that because children have a reduced or limited capacity , it is impossible to obtain a fully rational consent from them. Moreover, the child’s parent or legal guardian cannot know whether the child , if fully rational, would choose to participate or not. He argued that children should not be used in any research except research from which they would benefit directly. In case of institutionalized adults, then consent must be obtained from parents or legal guardians. In short, a critical element of consent involves the capacity to process information about the merits and drawbacks of participating in a particular study. The second key element of informed consent pertains to the type of information that potential participants are given about a study. Turnbull (1977) noted the importance of two issues: the kind of information provided and the process of providing it. Thus, the information must be complete and presented in understandable, jargon – free language. Drew (1980) referred to these issues as fullness and effectiveness. To satisfy the requirement of fullness, the information presented should contain a description of what the investigation is about and what the participant will be asked to do. This should include a discussion of any type of voice or image recording. Moreover, the explanation should include a discussion of possible risks or potential harm involved in the study, as well as a discussion of potential benefits that might accrue from participation. The third element of consent is voluntariness: assent must be given without any element of explicit or implicit coercion, pressure or undue enticement. The notion of voluntariness does not end when a potential participant decides to participate in a study; it continues throughout the duration of a study. The participants are informed prior to the commencement of a study that

Ethical Issues in Research 7

they have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and that their initial agreement to participate is not binding. The issue of payment to focus group participants is highly contentious. Interestingly, many researchers – and ethics committees – appear to regard as unproblematic the reimbursement of general practitioners in terms of providing locum fees to secure their attendance. The less prestigious the group, however, the greater is the likelihood that concerns will be expressed with regard to the effect of financial incentives – peaking with regard to respondents who are known to be illicit drug users. There are few exceptions to documentation of participant’s consent , such as observation of public behavior, the study of anonymous archival data, and certain types of survey and interview procedures. Participants are asked to sign a formal consent form indicating their informed agreement to participate if there is more than what is referred to as a minimal risk. Even in studies involving minimal risk to participants, obtaining a signed consent form is advisable to avoid misunderstandings and for the researcher’s own protection. It is important to note that cross cultural issues can also create confusion or misunderstandings that my be relevant during the process of obtaining informed consent, which again reinforces the need for sensitivity to these matters while obtaining consent. Deception and debriefing Deception refers to misrepresenting the facts pertaining to a study, through acts of either omission or commission. The simplest level of deception is the one in which, the experimenter may accurately describe the study but not disclose all the facts about it, or the experimenter might accurately disclose the nature of the experiment but not reveal the hypotheses. For the most part, the major controversy surrounding deception pertains to those situations in which participants are entirely misled. Researchers should avoid deception whenever possible. In particular, psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress. Moreover, the use of certain types of deception with oppressed groups is very questionable. Still, it is believed that there are exceptions in which deception may

Ethical Issues in Research 8

be allowed, specifically , when there is little or minimal risk and the benefits from the research are socially significant or directly benefit the participant, deception may be allowed. If deception is justified, the investigator is responsible for informing participants about the nature of the study and removing any misconception as soon as is possible within the experiment . Providing a sufficient explanation is known as debriefing. Debriefing serves two general purposes, referred to by Holmes(1976a,1977b) as “dehoaxing” and “desensitizing”. Dehoaxing means revealing the true purpose of the experiment to participants and desensitizing refers to the process of reducing any stress or other negative feelings experienced in the session. It is important to know that the effectiveness of debriefing is unclear and probably varies with each study or experimenter. Moreover, in some cases debriefing can itself create stress or harm. In this regard, Baumrind (1976) identified debriefing as “inflicted insight”. In other situations participants may feel angry because they were misled or “duped”. Thus, sometimes debriefing adds additional complications and results in delicate situations with which the investigator must contend.

Confidentiality and Privacy Experimenters promise confidentiality and privacy to increase the likelihood of honest responses from participants. Confidentiality and privacy issues in research setting can also intersect with psychologist’s duty to protect the welfare of participants and other individuals, thereby creating an ethical dilemma for the researcher. The most notable examples involve participants with homicidal and suicidal intentions that become evident during the course of a research investigation. In short, sometimes the researcher obtains information about participants that either creates considerable concern for the general well being of particular participants or other individuals, or brings up criminal or civil liabilities. Concern for the well- being of a particular participant must also be considered in light of the individual’s right to privacy. Schmidt and Meara (1984) suggested that investigators include in the consent form a statement that indicates that if the participant reveals information that signals danger to the participant or another person, confidentiality may need to be broken

Ethical Issues in Research 9

Treatment issues Researchers using between group designs to compare two or more groups of participants; one group received a particular treatment, and instead of the treatment one of the groups received a placebo or had treatment delayed. Although such designs offer methodological rigor, they can present ethical problems related to withholding treatment from people in need. Clients in the placebo group could be at risk as they continue to struggle under duress. Thus, researchers who are interested in examining questions about comparative treatments often must examine additional ethical issues. Other ethical considerations that merit attention in delayed – treatment conditions include informed consent and ultimately providing treatment. Ethically, participants should be informed before an investigation if there is possibility that they may be placed in the delayed treatment group; they then may or may not decide to participate in the study. Moreover, participants in a delayed treatment group are entitled to treatment after the experiment has concluded, and these participants deserve the same quality of treatment as the experimental group (Kazdin, 2003). Conclusion It is important to note that researchers are not likely to be entirely ethical all of the time. In fact, almost all researchers will unknowingly engage in some aspect of research that might infringe upon one of the ethical principles at some time or another. Sometimes an ethical problem may not be foreseen or may be inadequately anticipated, or the researcher may be inexperienced and have an incomplete understanding of the ethical codes. Or because there can be ambiguity in the ethical codes, inexperienced researcher may make questionable decisions. This is not to condone infringements, but rather to acknowledge that oversights and mistakes happen.

Ethical Issues in Research 10

References: Heppner, Wimple & Kivlinghan (2007). Counseling Research. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Goodwin J (1998). Research in Psychology: Methods and Design. (2nd.Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Barbour R (2007). Doing Focus Groups. Sage Publications Ltd. Stroebe, M. , Stroebe, W. , Schut, H. (2003). Bereavement Research: Methodological Issues and Ethical Concerns, 17, 235- 240.

Stalker, K. (1998). Some Ethical and Methodological Issues in Research with People with Learning Disabilities, 13 (1), 5 – 19.

Swain, J., Heyman, B. , Gillman, M. (1998). Public Research, Private Concerns: ethical issues in the use of open – ended interviews with people who have learning difficulties, 13(1),21- 36.