Research ethics is not only a matter of doing no harm, or even abiding by the guidelines of the Ethics Review Board of the institution. While these matters are important and legal requirements, there is much more at stake in discussions of research ethics. Research ethics establish the foundation upon which research rests. Taking the social sciences and qualitative research in general, this article argues that sound formation in research ethics is critical for today's higher degree students. Sound ethical principles establish the usefulness and trustworthiness of research and as such research ethics are the mainstay of the academy's defence of research funding.
This discussion of research ethics focuses on the humanities and the social sciences. The article consciously focuses on qualitative methods, while accepting that the main ideas apply equally to quantitative methods employed in the social sciences. It explicitly excludes a discussion of medical, genetic and biochemical research. The intended audience is those researchers and beginning researchers who anticipate involving human participants in social sciences research. Such students may be in education, sociology, psychology, anthropology and other social sciences. The bioethical expectations of invasive or tissue experiments are not within the ambit of this discussion.
Smith develops this basis of three concerns into the five moral principles of Respect, Beneficence, Justice, Trust, and Fidelity (Smith, 2000, p.5). Sieber expands the three 'Belmont principles' to six norms of research.
All methodologies have an ethical imperative. Qualitative methods have usually been explicit about their ethical commitments (Anonymous, 2001; DeLorne, Zinkhan & French, 2001; Marshall, 2003; van den Hoonaard, 2001) whereas quantitative methods have often emphasised statistical and other skills (Bridges, Gillmore, Pershing & Bates, 1998).
Research ethics is commonly identified in two main areas. The first area is within the research of higher degree students. Student research frequently requires the presentation and acceptance, for institutional purposes, of a research proposal. Such a proposal is commonly required to include a section on research ethics. The second, and often parallel requirement is the institutional research ethics clearance (Marshall, 2003). Most universities maintain a standing committee of research ethics which has oversight functions for all research within the institution whether it be class, student or staff research. While some energy for these overviews of intended research comes from past malpractice (Gibelman & Gelman, 2001; Lucas & Lidstone, 2000; Steneck, 1994), present practices are reviewed in order to maintain best practice (DeLorne et al, 2001; Weijer, 2001). Similarly, as new areas of research develop, institutional review must adapt to the challenges (DeLorne et al, 2001; Erlen, 2000; Jeffers, 2002). Many external grant applications require this research clearance from the university's staff applicants and similar bodies exist at the level of State and Federal departments.
Researchers must be aware of and adhere to ethical principles of justice and veracity, and of respect for people and their privacy and avoidance of harm to them, as well as respect for non-human subjects of research. (NH&MRC, 1997, General Principles #1.5)The NH&MRC General Principles reaffirm the Belmont Report's three principles of justice, beneficence and respect (NH&MRC, 1999, p.4). The more recent Human Research Ethics Handbook comments upon the NH&MRC (1999) document and introduces the element of integrity (NH&MRC, 2001, p.C3). The Human Research Ethics Handbook then gives a valuable discussion of the four principles of integrity, as a guiding value, and beneficence, respect and justice (NH&MRC, 2001, pp.C3-C16). Integrity echoes the earlier fidelity of Smith (2000, p.5).
There is nothing wrong with these categories or principles as they stand. The focus of this discussion is on the teaching of research ethics, or to phrase it better, formation in research ethics. It is acknowledged tha t formation in research ethics has progressed beyond research codes of conduct, which are often rules and boundaries defining misconduct. Such codes of conduct might be more appropriately described as 'codes of misconduct'. The focus of this article is a discussion of how best to present and discuss research ethics so that beginning researchers are inculcated early in their development with a respect for the ethics oversight procedures, and more importantly, an understanding of the ethical requirements of good social research (Lucas & Lidstone, 2000). Essentially, this article is promoting a paradigm shift from research ethics as a matter of compliance to research ethics becoming an integrated and core concept of reflective research practice.
The argument is not directly concerned with misconduct. While misconduct includes unethical behaviours, misconduct also includes that which is unlawful. These include fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism and practices unacceptable to the research community regarding the proposing, conducting or reporting of research (Price, 1994). There are indications that examples of misconduct in research are not as rare as one would hope (Fox, 1994; Fox & Branxton, 1994; Hackett, 1994; Herman, Sunshine et al, 1994). Some research communities even include the destruction of primary data within their definition of misconduct (Bostanci, 2002).
The four principles of integrity, beneficence, respect and justice are excellent foundations for discussion (NH&MRC, 2001). Historically, the development of research ethics is overshadowed by medical and ethical abuses, and is founded in recent times in the Nuremburg trials of 1947, the Nuremburg Code, and the Declaration of Helsinki (Carlson, Boyd and Webb 2004). The usual treatment of research ethics in texts and codified presentations do not go far enough and do not represent the full range of the research enterprise. The traditional representation of research ethics in terms of compliance can no longer be accepted as sufficient (Meslin, 2002). This paper argues that there are at least three aspects in which the traditional understanding of research ethics are deficient. These deficiencies are that definitions of research ethics are often too limited and narrow in focus, as for instance
The ethical concerns for participants should also include their protection from harm due to research publication. This has implications for the style and place of research publications, and cannot be satisfied by merely claiming participants consented to be involved on data collection since publication may have unanticipated consequences after data collection.
This article argues that ethical research is not the sum of a set of guidelines but the result of personal accountability towards making the research as good as it can be while respecting all the people and institutions that the research touches. This point will be further explored in the latter half of this paper.
This model is not the result of perceived neglect of ethical principles nor their improper application. This article does not arise from an analysis of deficit of our presentation of research ethics but rather an analysis that seeks to improve and make more transparent the research thinking. It will be argued in a later section that this increased transparency is a claim for validity of all research and a strong response to those in the community who are sceptical of research and academic researchers (Branxton & Bayer, 1994; Steneck, 1994).
Research ethics are the guiding principles, based on values that esteem people and the growth of social structures, that promote and safeguard the integrity of all persons involved in the research: participants; gatekeepers; stakeholders; researchers and research consumers, to promote the good of all without sacrificing the interests of any, so that the research outcomes represent a progress worthy of the time and resources expended.This definition is an attempt to increase the transparency of the activities and reflections which comprise ethical review of proposed research. The definition promotes an understanding of research ethics which moves away from compliance to the letter of the law or even the proforma of an Approval Application towards an understanding of research ethics which of itself argues that research outcomes are intentionally beneficial and formative, and hence in even modest ways, contribute to the common good. Furthermore, research ethics, as will be more fully argued in a later section, is not merely a matter of compliance but is actually the fundamental ground for the validity claims of good research.
It would seem that such a definition above has immediate consequences for planning and how we speak about research. One way of developing these consequences is to map the headings of a research plan that are affected by this refomration of research ethics. These headings might include the following headings.
There is a strong motive for this better understanding of research ethics. It is well argued that the validity of social research stands upon its ethical conduct and, more insistently, the present cynicism and scepticism in some sections of the public and informed readership can only be addressed by the grounded ethical construction, conduct, analysis and reporting of research (Shaw, 2003, p.113).
The ethical issues of data collection are often focused upon informed consent and privacy. Yet other ethical issues do pertain to data collection. Mark, Eyssell and Campbell (1999) advocate a cost benefit analysis in which "the risks to participants are to be weighed against potential benefits of the research" (Mark et al, 1999, p.48). While methodological choices have ethical overtones (McLeod, 1996), the design of the research program is also an ethical issue since the resources and time and trouble of participants should not be lightly requested nor expended (Mark et al, 1999, pp.49-51).
Data analysis is a research activity that has its own ethical requirements. Most would be familiar with a sense of performing only those (statistical) tests that might be required as a minimum or to explore hypothesised relationships. Principled discovery (Mark et al, 1999, pp.52-53) stands in contrast to data mining, as data mining is an automatic and algorithmic approach to retrieving data (Mena, 1999, p.42).
Parker and Szymanski (1996) list ten standards of ethical publication of research findings which establish a sound basis for this often neglected aspect of research. They include: the responsibility to print retractions if findings are later found to be unsubstantiated; due accord to previous authors; not submitting the same article to multiple journals; and an openness to share data when requested (Parker & Szymanski, 1996, pp.162-163).
This article is not alone in calling for increased ethical responsibility in social research. Within a number of social science disciplines there is heightened concern for ethical clarity. Nursing (Jeffers, 2002; Royal College of Nursing Research Society, 2003) and social work (Antle & Regehr, 2003; Gibelman & Gelman, 2001; Richards & Schwartz, 2002) have within the last several years raised concerns about ethical education. It is argued that a more holistic model of research ethics, which moves beyond the traditional focus on the data collection, may address the valid and urgent concerns raised.
This focus on research ethics is not promoting a mindset that excludes or downplays research techniques as feared by some (Hammersley, 1999, p.18). This focus is arguing that an ethic of care combined with an ethic of justice (Edwards & Mauthner, 2002) is both possible and worthwhile. Edwards and Mauthner (2002, pp.28-29) offer nine leading and instructive questions to guide such an ethical formation of a research plan.
Gibelman and Gelman (2001, p.249-250) raise two further matters pertaining to maintaining high ethical standards. The first recommendation is that researchers develop mentoring relationships with more experienced researchers. Clearly this recommendation has benefits beyond those of high ethical standards. The second recommendation is that 'whistle blowing' be more strongly approved in ethics courses. While pointing out that many whistleblowers still suffer career detriments, Gibelman and Gelman (2001, p.50) note that most cases of misconduct are reported by whistle blowing colleagues. Evered and Lazar (1995) suggest three approaches to diminish misconduct: education and the establishment of ethical standards; encouraging practices to diminish pressures that promote malpractice (principally the pressure to publish); and processes to enact consequences for malpractice.
When instances of research fraud and cheating are discovered, the research community needs to act firmly. Firstly, the research community needs to respect and protect those who do function as 'whistle blowers' to report misconduct (Evered & Lazar, 1995; Gibelman & Gelman, 2001, pp.250-251). Secondly, the research community needs to ensure that adequate censures for misconduct are in place (Fox, 1994; Hackett, 1994). Thirdly, universities and their research centres as well as government and non government research facilities need to publicise and promulgate their ethical commitments (White, 2002). Fourthly, university curricula need to acknowledge the requirement to form research students and academics in research ethics (Beck & Kauffman, 1994; Kaiser, 2002).
Lastly, research review boards need to focus on moving from technical to personal values. The standard ethical clearance form of Australian universities requests technical information about research practices especially in relation to potential harm that participants might encounter. There is nothing wrong with this. What this article argues is that the research ethics should more transparently require the applicant to substantiate that the research promotes integrity, beneficence, respect and justice (NH&MRC, 2001, pp.C3-C16). In part this shift will require a personal ethical commitment from the researchers towards ethical principles, rather than a simple disavowal of those actions which might be unethical.
While the above point might seem to be a small one, in fact it is substantial. Research quality always rests on the researcher - oversight boards and even research supervisors can only be aware of a small part of the interactions that comprise research between and among human subjects. Good research is more likely to be done by well informed and well intentioned researchers, and research training needs to address both the technical side of research preparation and the human, ethical side of research formation. As research participants, consumers and interested readers better understand that the principles of integrity, justice, beneficence and respect underpin research, these same people are going to be more receptive to the claims and insights of research.
There have been research ethics mistakes of the recent past (Fox, 1994; Meland, 2003; Moreno, 1999; Normlie, 2001). While it has proved difficult to quantify such misconduct (Branxton & Bayer, 1994; Holden, 2002), it is clear that increased oversight of research is on the horizon (LaFollette, 1994). Put bluntly, to the extent that the research profession does not administer itself, the n governments will be tempted to administer.
One result of the publication of ethical lapses in research could be a public more critical of research and even consumers increasingly critical of research claims. The means to combat this possible outcome are already to hand and can be readily employed. Universities can take the lead in a triple approach to ensure that research ethics become the foundation of good research. These steps include the following.
It should be relatively easy to include a seminar or unit of research ethics preparation for higher degree students. While PhD students might need seminar preparation to ensure that their supervisors are not additionally burdened, doctoral students and those whose courses include some coursework will readily find opportunities for a research ethics unit. Further, the university should not be shy of teaching research ethics, even if not all aspects are unproblematic, since this readiness itself will impress the seriousness of the topic upon all.
The particular focus of this article has been the social or human sciences. That research not promote beneficence, integrity, justice and respect is simply unacceptable to most researchers. While various oversight measures may need to be better established in some universities, it is most likely that information and education are preferred means to achieving a higher profile for ethical standards and research practices. This education should be grounded in higher research degree programmes and proclaimed as an integral part of the research activity.
Antle, B.J. & Regehr, C. (2003). Beyond individual rights and freedoms: Metaethics in social work research. Social Work, 48(1), 135-144.
Beck, M.T. & Kauffman, G.B. (1994). Scientific methodology and ethics in university education. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(11), 922-926.
Bostanci, A. (2002). Germany gets in step with scientific misconduct rules. Science, 296, 1778.
Branxton, J.M. & Bayer, A.E. (1994). Perceptions of research misconduct and an analysis of their correlates. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 351-372.
Bridges, G.S., Gillmore, G.M., Pershing, J. L. & Bates, K. A. (1998). Teaching quantitative research methods: A quasi-experimental analysis. Teaching sociology, 26(1), 14-28.
Burgess, R. G. (1989). The ethics of educational research. New York: The Falmer Press.
Carlson, R.V., Boyd, K.M & Webb, D.J. (2004). The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: Past, present and future. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 56(6), 695-713.
DeLorne, D.E., Zinkhan, G.M. & French, W. (2001). Ethics and the Internet: Issues associated with qualitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(4), 271-286.
Edwards, R., & Mauthner, M. (2002). Ethics and Feminist Research: Theory and practice. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research (pp. 14-31). London: Sage Publications.
Elliot, D. & Stern, J.E. (Eds.) (1997). Research ethics: A reader. Hanover: University Press of New England.
Erlen, J.A. (2000). Conflicts of interest: An ethical dilemma for the nurse researcher. Orthopedic Nursing, 19(4), 74-77.
Evered, D. & Lazar, P. (1995). Misconduct in medical research. The Lancet, 345, 1161-1162.
Fox, M.F. (1994). Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 298-309.
Fox, M.F. & Branxton, J.M. (1994). Misconduct and social control in science. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 373-383.
Gibelman, M. & Gelman, S.R. (2001). Learning from the mistakes of others: A look at scientific misconduct in research. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(2), 241-269.
Hackett, E.J. (1994). A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 242-226.
Hammersley, M. (1999). Some reflections on the current state of qualitative research. Research Intelligence, (70), 16-18.
Herman, K.G., Sunshine, P.L., Fisher, M.K., Zwolenik, J.J. & Herz, C.H. (1994). Investigating misconduct in science: The National Science Foundation model. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 384-400.
Holden, C. (2002). Planned misconduct surveys meet stiff resistence. Science, 298, 1549.
Jeffers, B.R. (2002). Continuing education in research ethics for the clinical nurse. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 33(6), 265-269.
Kaiser, J. (2002). U.S. universities urged to do a better job. Science, 297, 321.
LaFollette, M.C. (1994). The politics of research misconduct: Congressional oversight, universities, and science. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 261-285.
Lucas, K.B., & Lidstone, J.G. (2000). Ethical issues in teaching about research ethics. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(1), 53-64.
Mark, M.M., Eyssell, K.M. & Campbell, B. (1999). The ethics of data collection and analysis. New Directions for Evaluation, 82, 4756.
Marshall, P.A. (2003). Human subjects protections, institutional review boards and cultural anthropological research. Anthropological Quarterly, 76(2), 269-285.
McLeod, J. (1996). Qualitative approaches to research in counselling and psychotherapy: issues and challenges. British Journal Guidance and Counselling, 24(3), 309-316.
Meland, E. (2003). Research ethics - revisited. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 21, 129-131.
Mena, J. (1999). Data mining your website. Boston: Digital Press.
Meslin, E.M. (2002). Raising the bar in research ethics: Traditional obligations are not enough. Postgraduate Medicine, 112(2), 5-9.
Moreno, J.D. (1999). Lessons learned: A half-century of experimenting on humans. The Humanist, 59(5), 9-15.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). The Belmont report. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. USA.
National Health and Medical Research Council (1997). Joint NHMRC/AVCC statement and guidelines on research practice. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/policy/researchprac.htm [verified 17 Oct 2005]
National Health and Medical Research Council (1999 ). National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: AusInfo.
National Health and Medical Research Council (2001). Human research ethics handbook: Commentary on the national statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: AusInfo.
Normlie, D. (2001). Japanese fraud highlights media-driven research ethic. Science, 291, 34-35.
Parker, R.M. & Szymanski, E.M. (1996). Ethics and publication. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 39(3), 162-164.
Payne, S.L. (2000). Challenges for research ethics and moral knowledge construction in the applied social sciences. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4), 307-318.
Penslar, R.L. (Ed.) (1995). Research ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Price, A.R. (1994). Definitions and boundaries of research misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 286-297.
Richards, H.M. & Schwartz, L.J. (2002). Ethics of qualitative research: are there special issues for health services research? Family Practice, 19(2), 135-139.
Royal College of Nursing Research Society. (2003). Nurses and research ethics. Nurse Researcher, 11(1), 7-21.
Sales, B.D. & Folkman, S. (Eds.) (2000). Ethics in research with human participants. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Shaw, I.F. (2003). Cutting edge issues in social work research. British Journal of Social Work, 33(1), pp.107-116.
Sieber, J.E. (1992). Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal review boards. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Smith, M.B. (2000). Moral foundations in research with human participants. In B.D. Sales & S. Folkman (Eds.), Ethics in research with human participants. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Steneck, N.H. (1994). Research universities and scientific misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 310-330.
van den Hoonaard, W.C. (2001). Is research-ethics review a moral panic? The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38(1), 19-35.
Weijer, C. (2001). Continuing review of research approved by Canadian research ethics boards. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 164(9), 1305-1306.
White, C. (2002). New guidance issued on promoting integrity in scientific research. British Medical Journal, 325, 182.
|Author: Associate Professor Roger Vallance has been the Director of Research Training since 2004. He holds a PhD from Cambridge University. His research interests in educational and values-based leadership, the education of boys and research methods particularly qualitative methods and research ethics. He has developed and taught in a Master of Leadership programme, and is a Visiting Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the second half of 2005. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org [from 2006, email@example.com]
Please cite as: Vallance, R. J. (2005). Research ethics: Reforming postgraduate formation. Issues In Educational Research, 15(2), 193-205. http://www.iier.org.au/iier15/vallance.html