Importance of ethics in research

Editor's Notes

• #2 Welcome to today’s presentation on Ethics. We will be discussing the importance of ethics in educational research.
• #3 Today’s topic of ethics review and its importance includes a variety of subjects. The presentation will begin with why ethics are needed. Following will be the five guiding principles of the American Educational Research Association along with twelve of the twenty-two ethical standards. Later in the presentation, a review of the ethics and how they impact qualitative and quantitative research and collection methods will be discussed. The presentation will conclude with a summary of importance of today’s topics for individual researchers.
• #4 One may believe that ethics are something that we should have as a human. However, in the case of research the ethical lines can be blurred as the scales of right and wrong balance on benefit of the research. This is a reason to develop a standard of ethics. A written ethical code allows researchers to see in black and white and compare the studies and research to these standards to ensure that they are always met. The AERA, American Educational Research Association, authored a set of principles and ethical standards that researchers should abide by designed to meet the unique situations of educational researchers (AERA, 2011). Foremost the goal of the code of ethics is to protect those who are involved with education research including researchers, participants, and those who will be impacted by the research in the long term. Secondarily, it acts as a learning tool in aiding researchers with ethical research and studies. There are several instances in the past that in the name of science and research, horrors were seen. Even still, conducting research without ethics can also lead to devastating consequences that may be unknown and without a proper ethical review of implications in social and physical aspects one cannot fully understand the future consequences (Li, 2003). Another need for ethics is to avoid abuse and fraud. One such example is when a psychopharmacologist made false claims that a prescription drug for ADHD could help children with mental retardation in order to acquire funding (Cowen, 1998). Unethical behaviors such as this is wasteful, negates proper research, and can create mistrust. These ethical standards hold light to grey areas to avoid horrific events in the name of research and to ensure that research is aimed at helping. The ethical standards are born out of five guiding principles.
• #5  The Principle of Professional Competence is important to education researchers as it is necessary for any sort of research to be valid and relevant. The principle stresses that educational researchers should collaborate with other professionals when necessary and only proceed with tasks for which they are qualified. They also consult resources and previous research as needed to make sure that they have a thorough understanding of the task that they are undertaking (AERA, 2011). This principle represents the vital importance of professional qualifications and competencies when working with the public in a research scenario and can also be important for professional development. Principle B is integrity. This principle represents the personal practices of the researcher relating to honesty, fairness, and respect in professional activities as well as how these align within these activities (AERA, 2011). It is easy to conclude that integrity has a simple definition: doing the right thing. Yet integrity is more involved than simply choosing between right and wrong. Integrity is a self-discipline that includes making the best decision, but also doing so when no witnesses are present. Integrity is also being “honest, fair, and respectful” as well as steering clear of activities that one can foresee negative consequences (AERA, 2011). A simple way, however, to view integrity is to strive to be a trustworthy and confident role model in the educational research field. It is an important principle because without integrity on a professional level, a researcher cannot be trusted to make participants feel safe and can cause distrust for the results of the research itself. As reviews of research practices were composed mostly of peer review and surveys in the past, it was impossible to truly measure the amount of ethics violations in research practices there could potentially have been. As this has changed to far more empirical review over the past 25 years, the measure of integrity has become more scrupulous (Steneck, 2006). This is important as it can help to keep research honest and fair for all involved.
• #6 Professional, Scientific, and Scholarly Responsibility: This principle is vital to researchers as it holds them accountable for the work they do, and the conditions used to do so. They collaborate with other professionals and show respect even when differences in opinion arise (AERA, 2011). This is a representation of the community aspect of research and allows researchers to be held to high standards both in their work and how it is conducted. This is incredibly important for researchers as it helps to ensure that academic standards and professional competence are upheld. This can be illustrated in the National Park Service’s Director’s Order for the Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities, a set of guidelines specific to the NPS that goes into detail to provide parameters to be met and followed, and procedures for any violations that may occur (National Park Service, 2012). The American Educational Research Association (AERA) lists respect for people’s rights, dignity and diversity as its fourth educational guiding principle (Principle D). This principle represents the condition that all participants must be treated equally and respectfully in any research activity, with researchers taking care to show sensitivity to the personal and cultural differences between participants, and the differences between the researchers themselves and the participants (AERA, 2011). This is a very common founding principle for many organized groups and organizations. While laws vary by location, this principle is embedded into daily life as something citizens, organizations, businesses and professional institutes abide by(Lowman, 2008). This is important for researchers to practice because a participant who feels disrespected or discriminated against will not give authentic answers or results, thus invalidating the study. It is also vital as it specifies that researchers cannot disregard the rights of individuals to enhance or influence a study in order to obtain a better understanding of the topic or to provide some other benefit to the study (The Norwegian National Committees for Research Ethics, 2016). Researchers must acknowledge and respect the right of individuals to hold their own beliefs and opinions that may differ from their own, and must always treat others with respect (AERA, 2011). Social Responsibility: This principle represents the role researchers play in keeping the public informed of their findings and to serve the public with their research and making it known (AERA, 2011). This is important as it should be the founding basis behind the choice of research topic and what the purpose of the study will be, and who it can benefit.
• #7 There is a total of twenty-two ethical standards. Each of these relate to at least one guiding principle and some correspond to multiple principles. The following standards are explained in detail. Use and Misuse of Expertise: This is the third ethical standard of AERA which explains that researchers should be accurate in the representation of their knowledge, avoid accepting grants that violate the standards, guard against misuse, and correct any misuse that occurs (AERA, 2011). This standard is an example of the principles of Professional Competence, Integrity as well as Professional, Scientific and Scholarly Responsibility. It relates to integrity by being honest and choosing the appropriate grants and research projects. The standard represents responsibility by knowing and representing an accurate detail of expertise. It is the researcher’s responsibility to ensure that all knowledge and certifications relating to the research and expertise are valid. The respect principle plays a role in this standard, as honesty of expertise and upholding the standards by not accepting or participating in research that is funded by an entity that will not uphold the standards. Neglecting the ethical standard of expertise could lead to false information. Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. When one thinks of these words an image comes to mind of kids telling lies to get out of trouble or inventing a story to explain why they did or did not do something, or in the case of Plagiarism writing a paper and not using the appropriate citations. These three items are sometimes referred to as the three “cardinal sins” and are integral concerns for research misconduct (Schienke 2019). The AERA (2011) states that educational researchers do not engage in this act of dishonesty and that they do not falsify or fabricate data, sources, findings, claims or credentials. When doing research and quoting sources, the researcher must make sure that citations correctly acknowledge the author and does not create the illusion that it is original work. These “cardinal sins” could lead to harm. Do no harm is the fifth principle outlined by AERA. Not intentionally causing harm is self-explanatory, but researchers should make extra precautions to ensure it does not happen and have a contingency plan if it does (AERA, 2011). The ethical standards it relates to include respect for individuals, integrity, and social responsibility. Harm is not always physical though, another way that harm could be felt is in the misuse of power. Some examples of this include improper peer reviews and causing mistrust in the research community. In the first example researchers participating in peer review boards made biased comments and personal attacks on authors, which violates individual respect, and integrity (Hadjistavropoulos & Bieling, 2000). The second example outlines arguments that new research may lead to similar consequences of Nazi Germany experiments made by generalizations that stem from fear from past unethical research which violates social responsibility (Fuhrmans, 2001). In the end, a researcher must learn from past mistakes and use the ethical principles and standards to ensure it does not happen again. Standard six, nondiscrimination, simply states that researchers must not discriminate in their work using any applicable classification protected by law (AERA, 2011). This could lead to study results that are biased, lacking objective validity and the participants may feel uncomfortable. Nondiscrimination relates back to the principle of integrity as educators are expected to act in ways that do not endanger their students or participants and must ensure that everyone feels respected. It also relates to the principle of respect for people's rights and dignity, as discrimination would be blatant disrespect and disregard for others' rights. This standard also ties back to professional, scientific and scholarly responsibility as the use of discrimination can lead to unreliable results as well as participant discomfort. Standard 8, harassment, maintains that researchers shall not harass anyone such as students, research participants, employees and others based on classifications such as race, ethnicity, or any of the statuses protected by law. This also seems obvious, but it may not always be. In an educational setting such as a peer review board, as illustrated by an article recently published by the National Institute of Health. In this article, the newly appointed director, Noni Byrnes, stated that a researcher’s proposal may receive a lower score if they are accused of sexual harassment, even if found to be innocent(Kaiser, 2019). Kaiser (2019) continues by stating this would be attributed to the bias of the reviewer, as would a female postdoc receiving a lower score than her male counterparts by a review board comprised of mainly males. Harassment, which relates back to integrity, defies the concept that educational researchers will not endanger participants or students. It is also linked to respect for rights and dignity, as rights are violated when harassment takes place in any capacity. Professional and scholarly responsibility is also at play as harassment can encourage false results. Standard 13, informed consent, also emphasizes respect as it means that all participants must be made aware that they are participating, and for what reason. Particularly of note here is subsection 13.02, point b, which states that informed consent should engage in understandable dialogue that is either written or oral but also respectful (AERA, 2011). This is important because without this request for consent being presented respectfully, participants will be unable to feel completely comfortable sharing their knowledge and opinions, and this will lead to unsubstantiated results as the participant may not be entirely forthcoming or open during the research process. Informed consent links to all the principles and the ties to social responsibility are evident as the results should be shared with the larger community to promote public good and without informed consent this is not possible. AERA describes the eighteenth principle as Teaching, training, and administering educational programs. This standard prescribes that researchers in these types of positions should foster ethics, appropriate training, inclusion, accurate information, and ethical course completions (AERA, 2011). This standard also relates to integrity, as many standards do. Those in positions of power within the educational community are often faced with difficult decisions with multiple positive and negative outcomes, often where the students have little say in the decision process creating the highest need for ethical decision making (Lashway, 1996). It can also tie to the responsibility principle as researchers in positions may partake in action research having a vested interest in research directly involving the entity for which they are associated (Mills, 2003). Finally, it can tie to the respect principle as Nolen & Putten (2007) explain that special attention must be utilized in terms of consent, confidentiality, and autonomy. Where you may have permission in one area of the educational facility does not automatically cross into consent for research. Mentoring, AERA’s nineteenth standard, states that it is a responsibility that should come with great care and attention with those who are able to demonstrate conscientiousness, competency, and integrity all while fostering ethical behavior and environments (AERA, 2011). One such example of a violation of this that relates directly to integrity is when mentors pose as the main contributor of a graduate researcher’s proposal. It is highly unethical as it looks as if the mentor is the primary researcher when in many instances they simply edit, review, and submit (Jennings, 2012). Standard 22, Adherence to the Ethical Standards of AERA, seems a bit redundant, but it means more that researchers should attempt to resolve issues and conflicts that arise. They should be familiar with the code of ethics and work hard to mitigate any conflict or problems from the start in order to prevent bias and disrespect before they occur. It has been found that ethical violations of educators take place outside the school environment and are the most common type of violations including endangerment of students, sexual harassment, aggressive behavior, and failure to disclose previous criminal activity (Apgar, 2018). While this study was not focused on educational research, it does indeed tie in to the respect principle because it is so incredibly important to respect all individuals in research and to make sure that they are safe. Adherence to AERA's Ethical Standards links to all five guiding principles together as the standards and the educational researcher's knowledge of them helps to ensure that the study is carried out with no discomfort on the part of the participants, ensuring that the study results are as ethical as possible and that they are reliable and not coerced in any way. With a brief understanding of the guiding principles and ethical standards it is now possible to understand how they play a role in quantitative and qualitative research.
• #8 While many aspects of quantitative research will be similar to the ethical standards in qualitative researcher it is still important to note some specifics. Use and misuse of expertise can be utilized during quantitative research by knowing and understanding one’s knowledge and limits. Knowing when to bring another expert researcher on board is an excellent example of this standard. A researcher should not attempt to research a topic solely, if they do not have a complete understanding. Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism is related to quantitative research as a reminder that data collection, sampling methods, analysis, and all parts of the study should be done in an ethical way. This means that even in the literature review one must ensure the publications are reviewed and accurate before citing. Never falsify test results, purposefully alter samples for desired results, or any other dishonest means of creating data. Do no Harm is expressed in quantitative research by ensuring a full review of the proposal is completed. By having a review panel overlook the research proposal this ensures the ethical integrity of the project and allows outside views of what may constitute as harm.
• #9 Nondiscrimination is evident when researchers make efforts to help individuals feel inclusive of the research. This could be in a variety of means but one such example is when researchers translate questionnaires into the native language of participants as it was in a study in West Ethiopia (Wondemagegn, Cheme, & Kibret, 2017). The standards of harassment and informed consent can play together. Quantitative research participants should be fully informed of the study and implications to the individual both immediately and long-term. As outlined by Panter & Sterba’s handbook on ethics in research (2012) the participant should also make the decision of consent on their own and not be harassed into it (O’neill, 2012). Even in the event of blind studies the participant must be informed of risks involved and should be fully debriefed following the conclusion of research.
• #10 Those researchers participating in teaching, training, and administering educational programs as well as those mentoring should strive to build ethics into their students. One such example to lend in terms of quantitative research is that no problem is simple: a full review must be made and there cannot be a simple list of “best practices” that is an umbrella for all quantitative research (Zyphur & Pierides, 2017). To act ethically, these positions should instill researchers with the knowledge of how to obtain data in a truly unbiased way, including the sample selection and data collection tools. Upholding the AERA’s code of ethics in each research project is simple in theory. This would mean combing through research proposals to ensure no unethical items lie within. It also means a full ethical review prior to beginning, not skipping steps in the process, and ensuring all standards in the code are met.
• #11 In summary, the responsibility lies with each individual researcher to conduct themselves in all aspects to the highest ethical standards (AERA, 2011). This is not a simple task, but a life-long personal commitment (AERA, 2011). It is important for each researcher to follow these guidelines because together, they will make it much more likely that the results obtained will be found in a manner that is respectful, safe, and scientifically and academically sound and viable while keeping within the purpose of the research. In the previous slides the evidence of how each principle and standard are interrelated, ethics is not a black and white picture.
• #12 Adherence to the ethical standards of AERA is also incredibly important, as it ties everything together and ensures that all researchers understand the ethical standards and abide by them. This is, in many cases, law, and it collects all previously mentioned standards into one convenient, all-encompassing standard. As an educational researcher, one has the responsibility to maintain these standards. Understanding all the ethical standards, how they relate to each other, and the implications of one action in multiple standards creates a truly unique and ultimately good quest for knowledge.
• #13 References American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://resources.careered.com/LCMSFileSharePreview/Resources/AdobePDF/AERACodeOfEthics.pdf Apgar, K. (2018). Teacher Ethics Code Violations that Result in Licensure or Certification Sanctions. 49. Retrieved from https://pilotscholars.up.edu/etd/49 Cowen, R. C. (1988). Clear Research Ethics Needed to Fight Fakery and Fraud. The Christian Science Monitor. Fuhrmans, V. (2001). Horrors of Nazi Experiments Haunt Stem-Cell Debate in Germany --- Chancellor Calls for Easing Ban On Embryo-Tissue Research; Others Cite Fear of Eugenics. Wall Street Journal, p. B1. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.cecybrary.com/central/docview/398727911/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=144459 Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Bieling, P. J. (2000). When Reviews Attack: Ethics, Free Speech, and the Peer Review Process. Canadian Psychology, 41(3), 152-159. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.cecybrary.com/central/docview/220814746/fulltext/AB88B6412F6497CPQ/1?accountid=144459 Jennings, M. M.-a. (2012). Ethical Issues in Multiple-Authored and Mentor-Supervised Publications. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 138(1), 37-47. Retrieved from https://doi-org.proxy.cecybrary.com/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000087 Kaiser, J. (2019). NIH May Bar Peer Reviewers Accused of Sexual Harassment. Science Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/nih-may-bar-peer-reviewers-accused-sexual-harassment Lashway, l. (1996). Ethical Leadership. Eric Digest(107), 1-5. Retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/3329/digest107.pdf?seque Li, X. (2003). Ethics Needed in Medical Research. China Daily. Lowman, R. (n.d.). Respect for People\s Rights and Dignity. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 11, 71-77. Retrieved from https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/j146v11n01_06 National Park Service. (2012). Director’s Order #79: Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities. Retrieved from National Park Service: https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO_79.pdf Nolen, A. L., & Putten, J. V. (2007). Action Research in Education: Addressing Gaps in Ethical Principles and Practices. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 401-407. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.cecybrary.com/central/docview/216900972/fulltext/E6A4BB3ABA0344C0PQ/1?accountid=144459 O'neill, P. (2012). Book Review: Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(4), p. 87. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.cecybrary.com/central/docview/1113346154/fulltextPDF/C892876211A440C7PQ/1?accountid=144459 Schienke, E. W. (2018). Ethical Dimensions of Renewable Energy and Sustainability Systems. Retrieved from Penn State: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/bioet533/ Stenek, N. H. (2006). Fostering Integrity in Research: Definitions, Current Knowledge, and Future Directions. Science and Engineering Ethics. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/PL00022268 The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. (2016). Respect for Individuals, 4. Retrieved from Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology: https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/english-publications/60127_fek_guidelines_nesh_digital_corr.pdf Unknown. (n.d.). Retrieved from Creative Commons: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Wondemagegn, A. T., Cheme, M. C., & Kibret, K. T. (2017). Perceived Psychological, Economic, and Social. BioMed Research International, 2017, pp. 1-9. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=d7197fc1-8f93-4628-b07c-99ad0353e586%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=121148194&db=a9h Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is Quantitative Research Ethical? Tools for Ethically Practicing, Evaluating, and Using Quantitative Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), pp. 1-16. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=d10ff83c-2238-49ad-afdb-318f5868273d%40pdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=123476071&db=bth