research ethics in the 21st century
DESCRIPTION
Research Ethics in the 21st Century. Plus: The Place of Commitment, Bias & Reflexivity in Methodologies Secret and Sacred Knowledge. Plan for Today’s Class Session. 1-Finish discussions of 1st exercise 2-Introduction to Foundations of Research Ethics (and film clips from Quiet Rage) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Research Ethics in the 21st Research Ethics in the 21st CenturyCentury
Research Ethics in the 21st Research Ethics in the 21st CenturyCentury
Plus:•The Place of Commitment, Bias & Reflexivity in Methodologies•Secret and Sacred Knowledge
Plan for Today’s Class Session
1-Finish discussions of 1st exercise
2-Introduction to Foundations of Research Ethics (and film clips from Quiet Rage)
3- Discussion of Readings
4-Planning Presentations on Methodological Debates in Specific Fields
If time: video--“Ask a silly question”
Part 2: New Ethical Guidelines Part 2: New Ethical Guidelines for Communications Researchfor Communications Research
• History & changing ideas of human subject protection (Christians)
• Medical & Psychological Experiments• Early use of institutionalized subjects etc.
• New approaches respond to questionable ethics in past research as well as new paradigms
Tuskegee syphilis study
• “Depression-era U.S. poster advocating early syphilis treatment. Although treatments were available, participants in the study did not receive them.”
• www.hsc.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/apology/report.html
Milgrim obedience study• “Illustration of the setup
of a Milgram experiment. The experimenter (E) convinces the subject ("Teacher" T) to give what he believes are painful electric shocks to another subject, who is actually an actor ("Learner" L). Many subjects continued to give shocks despite pleas of mercy from the actors.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milgram_Experiment_v2.png
Zimbardo –Stanford prison experiment
Stanford Prison Experiment “debriefing”: One of the most abused prisoners, #416, and the guard known as "John Wayne", who was one of the most abusive guards, confront each other in an "encounter session" two months later.
• www.prisonexp.org• Another Zimbardo
link• Film clips from Quiet
Rage
Newer Approaches Raise More
Nuanced Concerns
• Cultural Taboos & rights – such as sharing secret or
sacred knowledge (eg. Michaels and Marcus articles)
– Owning one’s stories
• Institutional Constraints vs. Subject’s wishes (Mattingly)
• Practical Complexities & Political or Moral Commitments (Menzies and Crisp)
Pansy Napangardi painting
Other Examples: Portrayals of Victims, Photography of Street Life & things
• Tip Sheet on how to portray famine victims with dignity (Reuters)
– http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/112669600053.html
• Photography of Street Life in Canada– The Duclos Affair & Quebec
law• http://www.montrealmirror.com/
2005/080405/news1.html
• Photographing architecture or public art (national variations in intellectual property rights)
Fatou Ousseini lies with her malnourished one-year-old son Alassa Galisou at an emergency feeding clinic in the town of Tahoua in northwestern Niger (Reuters_
Why Be Ethical? Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)(Motivations)
Why Be Ethical? Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)(Motivations)
• Researchers’ scholarly or personal values • Demands from “subjects” & communities under study (eg. Menzie &
Mattingly articles)– Community guidelines (ex. Mi’kmaq research ethics guidelines or
Mugomeh guidelines for African Nova Scotian community-university research alliances)
• Codes of Ethics & Guides to Best Practices – Professional Associations – Institutions– Legislation– Funding Agencies
• Ex. Canadian Tri-council guidelines for ethical treatment of human subjects
– SSHRC homepage
Some Motivations for unethical research
– Career advancement– Ego (“knowing the right answer”)– Political, economic or agendas– Cheaper, faster– Ignorance etc…
Fraud controversies as topic for communications researchLink to press release quoting Communications researcher.
BothMoral and
Legal
IllegalOnly
ImmoralOnly
BothImmoral
and Illegal
EthicalIll
egal
Legal
Unethical Source: figure adapted fromNeuman (2000:91)
Ethics & Legality:Ethics & Legality:Typology of Legal and Moral Typology of Legal and Moral
Actions in ResearchActions in Research
Deception andDeception and covert observation covert observation
• formerly common practices• e.g. Laud Humphrey Tearoom Trade
– http://web.missouri.edu/~philwb/Laud.html
– Defies Principle of voluntary INFORMED consent
– Potential for harm to subjects
Who can give consent?Who can give consent?
• Participation must be voluntary; not coerced• informed about planned procedures &
commitments• “special populations” cannot give voluntary
informed consent– e.g. military personnel, students, prison inmates, mentally
challenged– Why?
• can’t make the decision (mental incapacity, immaturity)• not truly “free” (could be directly or indirectly coerced)
Distinctions : Privacy, Distinctions : Privacy, Anonymity, ConfidentialityAnonymity, Confidentiality
• privacy: a legal right (note : public vs. private domain)--even if subject is dead
• anonymity: subjects remain nameless &
responses cannot be connected to them (problem in small samples)
• confidentiality: subjects’ identity may be known but not disclosed by researcher, identity can’t be linked to responses
Stakeholders & Points of Stakeholders & Points of View on EthicsView on Ethics
• scientific community
• “the subject”
• individual researcher
• society/the public
• sponsors/funding sources
• legal authorities/government
Scientific MisconductScientific Misconduct
• research fraud– falsification or distortion of data or methods– fabrication
• plagiarism– presenting the ideas or words of another as one's own
• Ex. failure to give credit (citation plagiarism)
• violation of ethical standards • ex. failure to give informed consent
• suppression of findings • ex. non-publication
From the Research Subjects’ From the Research Subjects’ Point of View: Types of HarmPoint of View: Types of Harm
• physical harm• psychological abuse, stress, loss of self-esteem• legal harm• financial, • “cultural capital” risks (G.P.A. , reputation, status,
etc.)• creation of inequities• denial of treatment (ex. placebos in experimental
research) etc.
Ethics & Ethics & the Scientific Community:the Scientific Community:
Codes of EthicsCodes of Ethics• guide, control & regulate members• protect researchers from outside
pressures• protect others and members from
irresponsible practitioners• “professionalisation” of research areas
Ethics & Research Relations: Ethics & Research Relations: Colleagues & BossesColleagues & Bosses
and the Research Process and the Research Process
• Not just about relations between researchers and people they are studying
• Relationships with other researchers
• main sources of conflict: sharing recognition, workload & other “rewards”
Ethical Issues Ethical Issues related to Research Sponsorsrelated to Research Sponsors
• balancing allegiances• “cooking” results intentionally or
unintentionally • biases from limits on conditions &
resources• suppressing findings• concealing the sponsor
Ethical Debates about Ethical Debates about Sharing Research FindingsSharing Research Findings
• control over use of raw data & findings– especially subject information
• academic freedom– autonomy of research
• common debates about reporting issues: – suppression – selective reporting– effects, intended or unintended – “models of relevance”
• no net effects, positive & negative effects, special constituencies
How Society & GovernmentHow Society & Government Shape Research Shape Research Conditions & ContentConditions & Content
• legislation (ex. FOIPOP --Freedom of Information, Protection of Privacy)
• “politically correct” or “safe” topics• control of access to data (gatekeepers)• biases in government statistics, archives, etc.• other issues:
– censorship – public opinion– public good– “national” security– economic and political (ex. funding priorities of government
granting agencies)
Practicalities: Informed Consent Practicalities: Informed Consent StatementsStatements
(common features to consider(common features to consider))
• purpose & procedure of study• potential risks and discomfort• provisions for anonymity or confidentiality• researcher’s address and source of
information• statement of voluntary nature of participation
and ability to withdraw at any time• provisions for compensation (or not)• offer to provide summary of findings
Ethical issues related to common Ethical issues related to common types of relationshipstypes of relationships amongst researchers amongst researchers
• student-student (teamwork, study groups, classmates)
• student-professor (ordinary class relationships, research assistantships)
• research &/or authorship teams (junior & senior authors, questions of recognition and remuneration)
• employee/employer relationships (authorship/anonymity)
• sponsors/funding organizations
Applications for ethical Applications for ethical approval at SFUapproval at SFU
• Office of Research Ethics – Research Ethics at SFU
• Provide information about:– Purpose, Methodology, Consent, Debriefing– Risks, Safety issues– Confidentiality/anonymity/privacy– Compensation– Deception
• Office of Research Ethics at SFU
VideoClips (if time or later)
• Quiet Rage: the Stanford Prison Experiments
Discussion of Readings: Required
Christians, C. (2005) “Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research” in Denzin and Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition). pp. 139-164.
Crisp, J. (1999) " 'Who has counted the refugees?' UNHCR and the politics of numbers " New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 12. UNHCR, Geneva
And one of
Mattingly, C. (2005) “Toward a vulnerable ethics of research practice”, Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine. Vol 9(4): pp. 453-471.
or
Menzies, Charles R. (2004) “Putting Words into Action: Negotiating Collaborative Research in Gitxaala”, Canadian Journal of Native Education, Volume 28(1-2):15-32.
Other Recommended Readings Related to Ethics
Hammersley, M. and Gomm, R. (1997) 'Bias in Social Research', Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 1, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/2.html
Harding, S. (2004) “How Standpoint Methodology Informs Philosophy of Social Science”, in Hesse-Biber, S and P. Leavy (ed.) Approaches to Qualitative Research. A reader on Theory and Practice. Oxford, pp. 62-80.
Marcus, George E. (1998) “Censorship in the Heart of Difference: Cultural Property, Indigenous Peoples’ Movements, and Challenges to Western Liberal Thought” in Post, Robert (ed.) Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation. Santa Monica: Getty Research Institute, pp. 221-242.
Michaels, Eric. (1994) “A Primer of Restrictions on Picture-Taking in traditional areas of aboriginal Australia”, Bad Aboriginal Art. Tradition, Media and Cultural Horizons. Minneapolis: U. Minnesota Press, pp. 1-18.
Part 4-Planning Presentations on Methodological Debates (Special
Topics)
If time: “Ask a Silly Question”