The Place of Commitment, Bias & Reflexivity in Methodologies; Secret and Sacred Knowledge;

Research Ethics in the 21st Century

The Place of Commitment, Bias & Reflexivity in Methodologies; Secret and Sacred Knowledge;

Research Ethics in the 21st Century

Plan for Today’s Class Session

1- Review of Last Week”s Topics and Discussion of Examples of Debates about Methodological Approaches

2-Short Introduction to Foundations of Research Ethics in the Social Sciences

3- Discussion of Readings4-Exercise 1 -Research Design5-Planning Presentations on Methodological Debates in

Specific Fields6- Exercise 2- Designing a “Data Collection” or

“information gathering tool”7-Plan for Next Class

Part 1: Review of Last Week & Discussion of Second Case

Study

Part 2: New Ethical Part 2: New Ethical GuidelinesGuidelines

• History: idea of human subject protection (Christians)

• Medical & Psychological Experiments • Examples Questionable Ethics in research

– experiment• Milgrim obedience study

– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment• Zimbardo –Stanford prison experiment

– www.prisonexp.org– Another Zimbardo link

• Tuskegee syphilis study– www.hsc.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/apology/report.html

Web SitesWeb Sites

• Tri-council guidelines for ethical treatment of human subjects (Canada)– SSHRCC homepage

• Office of Research Ethics at SFU• Reading List for aboriginal research

ethics– http://www.ecdip.org/ethics/readings.htm

Why Be Ethical? Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)(Motivations)

Why Be Ethical? Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)(Motivations)

• Personal• Researcher’s scholarly

values• Guides to Best Practices,

– codes of ethics --professional associations

– Legislation– Requirements of Funding

AgenciesStanford 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.

Motivations for unethical research – Career pressure– Ego (“knowing the right answer”)– Political agendas (ex. P. Rushton on race)– cheaper, faster, career advancement,

prestige, etc.– Ignorance etc…

Case Study: Fraud controversies as topic for communications research

Link to press release quoting Communications researcher.

Ethical Issues: stakeholdersEthical Issues: stakeholders

• 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 such as– presenting the ideas or words of another as

one's own – Failure to give credit (citation plagiarism)

• Violation of ethical standards – ex. Failure to give informed consent

• Suppression of findings (non-publication of important findings)

BothMoral and

Legal

IllegalOnly

ImmoralOnly

BothImmoral

and Illegal

EthicalIll

egal

Legal

Unethical Source: figure adapted fromNeuman (2000:91)

Ethics & LegalityEthics & LegalityTypology of Legal and Moral Typology of Legal and Moral

Actions in ResearchActions in Research

Ethical TreatmentEthical Treatment of Research Subjects of Research Subjects

Types of HarmTypes of Harm• physical harm• psychological abuse, stress, loss of self-

esteem• legal harm• other possible forms of harm

– financial, – “cultural capital” risks (G.P.A. , reputation, status, etc.)– creation of inequities– denial of treatment– placebos in experimental 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• Not applicable to special populations

– e.g. military personnel, students, prison inmates, mentally challenged

– Why? not capable of giving true voluntary informed consent because:

• can’t make the decision (mental incapacity, immaturity)• not truly “free” (could be directly or indirectly coerced)

Informed Consent Informed Consent StatementsStatements

(some points to cover)(some points to cover)• purpose & procedure of study• Potential risks and discomfort• Provisions for anonymity and confidentiality• researcher’s address and source of information• statement of voluntary nature of participation and

ability to withdraw at any time• alternative procedures• Provisions for compensation (or not)• offer to provide summary of findings• Sample form from SFU (Office of Research Ethics)

Privacy, Anonymity, Privacy, Anonymity, ConfidentialityConfidentiality

• 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

Applications for ethical Applications for ethical approval approval

• Office of Research Ethics (sample)• Provide information about:

– Purpose, Methodology, Consent, Debriefing

– Risks, Safety issues– Confidentiality/anonymity/privacy– Compensation– Deception

Ethics & Ethics & the Scientific Community:the Scientific Community:

Codes of EthicsCodes of Ethics• guide, control & regulate members• protect researchers from outside

pressures• protect others from irresponsible

practitioners

Ethical Issues Ethical Issues related to Research related to Research

SponsorsSponsors

• balancing allegiances• “cooking” results unintentionally • biases from limits on conditions &

resources• suppressing findings• concealing the sponsor

How Society & GovernmentHow Society & Government Shape Research Shape Research

• legislation• “politically correct” or “safe” topics• control of access to data (gatekeepers)• biases in government statistics• issues:

– censorship, public opinion– national security– public good– funding priorities of government granting agencies

Ethical Debates about Ethical Debates about Research FindingsResearch Findings

• “models of relevance”– no net effects, positive & negative effects,

special constituencies

• control over use of findings• control of raw data

– especially subject information

• academic freedom– autonomy of research

Ethics and Basic IdeasEthics and Basic Ideas about Science about Science

• debates about whether science is:– objective

opposed to subjective, logical, rational not arbitrary

– value free amoral, neutral, not prejudiced

– unbiased nonrandom error eliminated, not influenced by

personal or cultural values

Ethics & Research Relations: Ethics & Research Relations: Colleagues & BossesColleagues & Bosses

and the Research Process and the Research Process

• getting along with others as part of research

• main source of conflict: sharing recognition & workload& other “rewards”

Common types of Common types of relationshipsrelationships

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

Ethics & Use of FindingsEthics & Use of Findings

• suppression • selective reporting• social research findings can affect

behavior

Video(if time or later)

• Quiet Rage: the Stanford Prison Experiments

Part 3: Dicussion of Readings

• Christians, C. “Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research” in Denzin and Lincoln op cit. pp. 133-155.

• 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.

• 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

• Michaels, Eric. (1994) “A Primer of Restrictions on Picture-Taking in tradition areas of aboriginal Australia”, Bad Aboriginal Art. Tradition, Media and Cultural Horizons. Minneapolis: U. Minnesota Press, pp. 1-18.

Part 4- Presentations of Research Design

5-Planning Presentations on Methodological Debates in

Specific Fields

6- Planning Exercise 2- Designing a “Data Collection” or

“information gathering tool”? Interview, Survey, Content

Analysis

7-Plan for Next Class