Research Ethics in a Case Study

Posted on by

The topic revolved around research ethics. From the in-class notes, this link to the University of Indiana site on How to Recognize Plagiarism was an interesting connection worth reviewing.

From the assigned readings and my notes:

Larson, K. (2009). Research ethics and the use of human participants. In S. D. Lapan and M. T. Quartarolli, (Eds.), Research essentials: An introduction to designs and practices (pp. 1-15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Genesis of research standards – Nuremburg Code
  • Federal regulations for ethical research – National Research act 1974
  • Institutional review boards (IRB); submit prior to collecting data;
  • Minimizing risks to participants
    • Informed consent – nature of study, risks involved, right to quit; elements outlined on p. 7; documentation recommendations; how to deal with ‘deception’ in studies; children under 18; unintentional coercion
    • Deception – intentionally concealing aspects of the study; topic of debate; criteria for use of deception (p. 10); studies that used deception
    • Debriefing – after data gathered; made aware of results; remedy possible misconceptions
    • Confidentiality – keeping participant data safe from unauthorized use; maintaining info in safe place; secure storage; private conversations not public disclosures
    • Anonymity – concealing identities of participants; using codes to match findings with participants;
  • Publishing research – four ethical mistakes
    • Fabrication of data – adjusting numbers or putting numbers where there aren’t any
    • Elimination of outliers – all participants’ data should be included even if they don’t meet expected hypotheses; data dropping is when a participant’s results are not included in the overall findings
    • Exploitation of data – making undue claims or over-stating the significance
    • Plagiarism – representing another author’s work or data as your own
  • Social consequences of unethical research
    • Damage to public confidence e.g Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Sikes, P. (2009). Will the real author come forward? Questions of ethics, plagiarism, theft and collusion in academic research writing. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 13–24, DOI:10.1080/17437270902749247.

Abstract info: questions about academic honesty around plagiarism, theft and collusion; internet as ubiqituous in copy/paste culture; consequences for academic writers and journal editors

  • Story of personal experiences – difficult to gain hard evidence due to topic
  • History of anonymous peer reviewing; “transparency can lead to greater honesty and better, more critically constructive reviews” (p. 13)
  • Definition of plagiarism; not talking about remix or building on existing knowledge
    • Students – attitudes and behaviours learned and normalized while studying; encountering plagiarism; supervisory relationship; exams used as surveillance strategy; paying for papers; pressures to become credentialed; shifting moral values; cultural differences (see Ison notes below); friends helping friends
    • Academics – why plagiarize: advance careers, publish or perish, tenure, normalized, e.g. of reviewers stealing then denying publication; opportunities for appropriation (my note: impact of this on CC licensing scholarly materials)
    • Self plagiarism – pressures to publish; does it matter – yes, detrimental to scientific process, repetitive papers published; recycling fraud; determine what is legitimate recycling; some done to pad the CV
  • Theft
  • Collusion – work that supervisors may do to bring students up to scratch, then take credit for work done; my note -issue of collusion vs collaboration; some students saw collusion as honourable – being loyal to and supportive of friends or classmates; ethically and morally justifiable; acclaim under false pretense
  • Office of research integrity; Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
    • Questions about truth and lies; what to do when they uncover deception
    • Clear need for education to address, actively attend to authorial honesty; significant role for journal editor play in shaping the FoS

Verification that the author who wrote this article really wrote this article – how is this any different than current need to fact-check media sources

(link to Mike Caulfield’s work – 4 moves https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/chapter/four-strategies/

  • Check for previous work
  • Go upstream to the source
  • Read laterally
  • Circle back

Our group case study response: Case Study 2: Ethical Issues with Research

Issue 1: Informed consent:

  • With secondary data analysis consent is required if it was not included in the initial application to REB.
  • No mention of initial or secondary involvement with relationship/ communication with Indigenous council.
  • Because this is indigenous research, it is unethical to disseminate knowledge without consulting and involving the community.
  • No mention of initial or secondary REB.
  • Questionable ethics and duty to maintain data securely when this researcher shares data information with a colleague with specialization in mental health without amendment to REB/Indigenous council.

Issue 2: Justice

  • Does not follow the OCAP principles- Ownership, Control, Access and Possession of Indigenous research Consider justice issues when misrepresenting or stigmatizing community (Graham, 2013, p.iv) – right to self-determination.
  • Issue of not following Tri-Council Policy Statement – community based research projects should involve the indigenous community at every step of the process (Graham, 2013).

Issue 3: Risks of study

  • Although we know that there is print by-product locked in a cabinet, how secure is the data? Not explicit in the case study how data was collected e.g. electronic vs print.
  • Data should be kept in a locked office and the cabinet access should be limited to PIs.
  • If data is electronic it should be encrypted and password protected.
  • Secondary to this issue, who should be the keepers of knowledge and for how long?

Issue 4: Beneficence

  • While mutual collaboration between the researcher and the community to explore the potential factors in high-school dropout rates in a First Nations community would be beneficial in order to mitigate the situation, doing the secondary publication without informed consent or community involvement in a meaningful way would breach the ethical standards of the Tri-Council policies.
  • Question of whether the results of the study shared with the community in a way that was meaningful to them.

Issue 5: Issues of power

  • Devaluing the community knowledge prior to going to the mental health expert before sharing the results with the community.
  • Devaluing the voice and agency of the participants – they are high-school students; there is no acknowledgment of their perspectives
  • Power relations of academia with the disregard of the indigenous voice, high-school students’ agency and community.