Ethical Issues in Research

Ethical Issues in
Research
Jyoti Unnikrishnan

Reg no: 0934207

Christ University
Ethical Issues in Research
2

Ethics are not simply proper etiquette, but rather “they are expressions of our values and a guide
for achieving them” (Diener & Crandall, 1978, p. 14). Ethical principles help researchers achieve
their goals while avoiding strategies that compromise their values, and ethics help us make
decisions when our values are in conflict (Diener & Crandall).

ETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO SCHOLARLY WORK

Below are the implications of the researcher’s responsibility to provide accurate information
concerning five matters: execution of the research study, reporting the results, duplicate and
piecemeal publication, publication credit, and plagiarism.

Execution of the research study

A study must be properly executed if it is to establish valid knowledge bases. The researcher is
responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the study. Thus, to reduce methodological biases
and errors, it is essential that researchers have an accurate and sensitive understanding of the
target population. (Ponterotto & Casas, 1991; Ponterotto & Grieger).

Problems can occur if the investigator becomes lax during any phase of executing a
study. For example, differential participant biases may be created if participants are not solicited
according to a standardized recruitment procedure. Or distortion can occur if the researcher does
not impress upon all assistants the need for accuracy in matching participants to all of their
questionnaire data. Drew (1980) noted incidents in which research assistants actually recorded
fictitious data rather than conscientiously performing the needed task. Investigators are
responsible for the competence of the assistants working with them, as well as the ethical
treatment of the research assistants themselves. In short the researcher needs to maintain constant
vigilance over all phases of executing a study to ensure the collection of accurate and reliable
data.

Reporting the results

Reporting the results of a study, although seemingly straightforward task, entails responsibilities
and often complexities.
Ethical Issues in Research
3

The investigator’s task is to present the facts of what happened in the study. Sometimes
researchers believe that their data will have greater value if they confirm their hypotheses or
support a well known researcher’s theory. However, it is imperative to note that the researcher is
not responsible for whether the data do or do not support a particular theory: perhaps the theory
is incorrect. Thus, the job of the researcher is to report the results honestly, regardless of any
preconceived notions, predictions, or personal desires.

The researcher also has the responsibility to present proper interpretations of findings.
This is especially important when the data may have multiple interpretations (as in qualitative
research) or when it is essential to interpret the findings within a cultural context.

Investigators have responsibility to discuss the limitations of their data and to qualify
their conclusions accordingly. Discussion of limitations is especially important when the
research might be, interpreted in such a way as to harm persons in particular groups (e.g., gender,
race, national origin, social class). Sometimes researchers believe that if limitations are
discussed, their results will be weakened. Specifying the limitations is helpful to the profession,
and often to future researchers as well.

The investigator also has a responsibility, after research results are in the public domain,
to make original data available to other qualified researchers who may want to inspect them and
verify claims. This necessitates storage of raw data for some times after a study is published,
typically for five years.

Perhaps the most serious problem is intentional fabrication of data. It is clearly unethical
to produce fraudulent data. There are at least three basic methods of concocting fraudulent data:
(1) inventing findings without any actual data collection, (2) tampering with or doctoring actual
findings to more closely resemble the desired outcome and (3) trimming actual findings to delete
unwanted or discrepant information. Tampering with the findings can also include presenting
post hoc findings as if they were planned; such fabrication obviously provides misinformation to
the profession and serves only to increase confusion and misunderstanding. (Broad & Wade,
1982).

Duplicate and piecemeal publication

Ethical Issues in Research
4

Publishing the same data in different journal articles creates some problems. Duplicate
publication may give the impression that there is more information in our knowledge base on a
particular topic that is warranted. Moreover, duplicate publications waste valuable resources,
including journal space and reviewers’ and editors’ time.

A related issue pertains to what is referred to as piecemeal publication. Piecemeal, or

fragmented publication involves publication of several and perhaps slightly different studies
from the same data set.

Publication credit

Researches have the responsibility to adequately and accurately assign credit for contributions to
a project.

Accurately assigning publication credit is important for several reasons. First and
foremost, it is important to publicly acknowledge the contributions of all the people involved in
the study – to give credit where credit is due. Moreover, public acknowledgement of one’s
professional contributions can serve as a “psychic reward” to compensate for the low monetary
rewards associated with writing for scholarly outlets (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 1998).
Sometimes the order of authorship on a publication is important, because the first author is
accorded more credit (and responsibility) for the scholarly work than other authors.

Plagiarism

Researchers have a responsibility to acknowledge the original contributions of other writers and
to clearly distinguish their own original scholarly insights from the work of others.
Plagiarism can occur on several levels. A researcher might omit necessary citations
through inattention. The plagiarism in such cases is unintentional and due more to oversight.
Another level involves, researchers working in slightly different areas may duplicate each other’s
ideas without being aware of their common work. Another level of plagiarism involves the
conscious or intentional exclusion of another person’s writing because of petty jealousies or
interpersonal competition. A final level of plagiarism involves the verbatim copying of another’s
writing or the duplicating of ideas with the motive of presenting oneself as the original
contributor, all the while knowing full well that this is not the case.
Ethical Issues in Research
5

ETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO PARTICIPANTS

Risks and benefits

The ethical researcher’s goal is to conduct an investigation that creates new knowledge while
preserving the dignity and welfare of the participants.

It is researcher’s responsibility to identify potential sources of risk and eliminate or

minimize them to protect potential participants. One of the problems inherent in assessing risk
potential is that the task is often subjective, ambiguous and involves an estimation of
probabilities. Typically one does not have prior, empirical, objective data about whether the
experimental condition is stressful. Moreover, the type and level of stress that would be harmful
is ambiguous and likely varies across cultures and individuals; that is what is perceived a
harmful in one culture may not be perceived as such in another culture. Thus, assessing harm
may also involve cross cultural sensitivity. For instance, focus group discussions may also throw
up comments on the part of some participants that may upset others (for example, racist or sexist
ones) (Kevern and Webb, 2001,p.331). The potentially harmful impact can also be lessened by
giving careful consideration when convening groups and seeking to separate those whose
comments are likely to cause offence to others (Krueger,1994)

Assessing the benefits derived from a particular study, however, is also a difficult and
ambiguous task. This assessment is complicated by the question of “benefit for whom?” That is,
should participant be the ones to receive the benefit directly, or could it be a larger group, as
when a profession’s knowledge base is increased. Moreover, it can be argued that the
investigator is at a disadvantage to judge the cost/benefit ratio accurately because he or she may
be overly biased regarding the benefit of the study (Diener & Crandall, 1978). Researchers
have a duty to consult with those knowledge able about the individuals or groups most likely to
be affected.

Consent

A critical issue in conducting studies involving risk pertains to informed consent. A number of
factors make obtaining consent a rather complicated process, and a considerable amount of
Ethical Issues in Research
6

attention has been given to this topic in the past 20 years (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 1998;
Schmidt & Meara, 1984).

Turnbull (1977) discussed consent in this special relationship in terms of three key
elements: capacity, information and voluntariness. Capacity refers to a participant’s ability to
process information involves two issues : a legal age qualification and ability standards. Minors,
people under the age of 18, are not considered to be legally able to make some decisions and thus
do not have the needed capacity in these instances. Ramsey (1970) has argued that because
children have a reduced or limited capacity , it is impossible to obtain a fully rational consent
from them. Moreover, the child’s parent or legal guardian cannot know whether the child , if
fully rational, would choose to participate or not. He argued that children should not be used in
any research except research from which they would benefit directly. In case of institutionalized
adults, then consent must be obtained from parents or legal guardians. In short, a critical element
of consent involves the capacity to process information about the merits and drawbacks of
participating in a particular study.

The second key element of informed consent pertains to the type of information that
potential participants are given about a study. Turnbull (1977) noted the importance of two
issues: the kind of information provided and the process of providing it. Thus, the information
must be complete and presented in understandable, jargon – free language. Drew (1980) referred
to these issues as fullness and effectiveness. To satisfy the requirement of fullness, the
information presented should contain a description of what the investigation is about and what
the participant will be asked to do. This should include a discussion of any type of voice or
image recording. Moreover, the explanation should include a discussion of possible risks or
potential harm involved in the study, as well as a discussion of potential benefits that might
accrue from participation.

The third element of consent is voluntariness: assent must be given without any element
of explicit or implicit coercion, pressure or undue enticement. The notion of voluntariness does
not end when a potential participant decides to participate in a study; it continues throughout the
duration of a study. The participants are informed prior to the commencement of a study that
Ethical Issues in Research
7

they have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and that their initial agreement
to participate is not binding.

The issue of payment to focus group participants is highly contentious. Interestingly,

many researchers – and ethics committees – appear to regard as unproblematic the
reimbursement of general practitioners in terms of providing locum fees to secure their
attendance. The less prestigious the group, however, the greater is the likelihood that concerns
will be expressed with regard to the effect of financial incentives – peaking with regard to
respondents who are known to be illicit drug users.

There are few exceptions to documentation of participant’s consent , such as observation

of public behavior, the study of anonymous archival data, and certain types of survey and
interview procedures. Participants are asked to sign a formal consent form indicating their
informed agreement to participate if there is more than what is referred to as a minimal risk.
Even in studies involving minimal risk to participants, obtaining a signed consent form is
advisable to avoid misunderstandings and for the researcher’s own protection. It is important to
note that cross cultural issues can also create confusion or misunderstandings that my be relevant
during the process of obtaining informed consent, which again reinforces the need for sensitivity
to these matters while obtaining consent.

Deception and debriefing

Deception refers to misrepresenting the facts pertaining to a study, through acts of either
omission or commission. The simplest level of deception is the one in which, the experimenter
may accurately describe the study but not disclose all the facts about it, or the experimenter
might accurately disclose the nature of the experiment but not reveal the hypotheses. For the
most part, the major controversy surrounding deception pertains to those situations in which
participants are entirely misled.

Researchers should avoid deception whenever possible. In particular, psychologists do

not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical
pain or severe emotional distress. Moreover, the use of certain types of deception with oppressed
groups is very questionable. Still, it is believed that there are exceptions in which deception may
Ethical Issues in Research
8

be allowed, specifically , when there is little or minimal risk and the benefits from the research
are socially significant or directly benefit the participant, deception may be allowed.

If deception is justified, the investigator is responsible for informing participants about

the nature of the study and removing any misconception as soon as is possible within the
experiment . Providing a sufficient explanation is known as debriefing. Debriefing serves two
general purposes, referred to by Holmes(1976a,1977b) as “dehoaxing” and “desensitizing”.
Dehoaxing means revealing the true purpose of the experiment to participants and desensitizing
refers to the process of reducing any stress or other negative feelings experienced in the session.
It is important to know that the effectiveness of debriefing is unclear and probably varies with
each study or experimenter. Moreover, in some cases debriefing can itself create stress or harm.
In this regard, Baumrind (1976) identified debriefing as “inflicted insight”. In other situations
participants may feel angry because they were misled or “duped”. Thus, sometimes debriefing
adds additional complications and results in delicate situations with which the investigator must
contend.

Confidentiality and Privacy

Experimenters promise confidentiality and privacy to increase the likelihood of honest responses
from participants. Confidentiality and privacy issues in research setting can also intersect with
psychologist’s duty to protect the welfare of participants and other individuals, thereby creating
an ethical dilemma for the researcher. The most notable examples involve participants with
homicidal and suicidal intentions that become evident during the course of a research
investigation. In short, sometimes the researcher obtains information about participants that
either creates considerable concern for the general well being of particular participants or other
individuals, or brings up criminal or civil liabilities. Concern for the well- being of a particular
participant must also be considered in light of the individual’s right to privacy.

Schmidt and Meara (1984) suggested that investigators include in the consent form a
statement that indicates that if the participant reveals information that signals danger to the
participant or another person, confidentiality may need to be broken
Ethical Issues in Research
9

Treatment issues

Researchers using between group designs to compare two or more groups of participants; one
group received a particular treatment, and instead of the treatment one of the groups received a
placebo or had treatment delayed. Although such designs offer methodological rigor, they can
present ethical problems related to withholding treatment from people in need. Clients in the
placebo group could be at risk as they continue to struggle under duress. Thus, researchers who
are interested in examining questions about comparative treatments often must examine
additional ethical issues.

Other ethical considerations that merit attention in delayed – treatment conditions

include informed consent and ultimately providing treatment. Ethically, participants should be
informed before an investigation if there is possibility that they may be placed in the delayed
treatment group; they then may or may not decide to participate in the study. Moreover,
participants in a delayed treatment group are entitled to treatment after the experiment has
concluded, and these participants deserve the same quality of treatment as the experimental
group (Kazdin, 2003).

Conclusion

It is important to note that researchers are not likely to be entirely ethical all of the time. In fact,
almost all researchers will unknowingly engage in some aspect of research that might infringe
upon one of the ethical principles at some time or another. Sometimes an ethical problem may
not be foreseen or may be inadequately anticipated, or the researcher may be inexperienced and
have an incomplete understanding of the ethical codes. Or because there can be ambiguity in the
ethical codes, inexperienced researcher may make questionable decisions. This is not to condone
infringements, but rather to acknowledge that oversights and mistakes happen.
Ethical Issues in Research
10

References:

Heppner, Wimple & Kivlinghan (2007). Counseling Research. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Goodwin J (1998). Research in Psychology: Methods and Design. (2nd.Ed.) John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.

Barbour R (2007). Doing Focus Groups. Sage Publications Ltd.

Stroebe, M. , Stroebe, W. , Schut, H. (2003). Bereavement Research: Methodological Issues and

Ethical Concerns, 17, 235- 240.

Stalker, K. (1998). Some Ethical and Methodological Issues in Research with People with

Learning Disabilities, 13 (1), 5 – 19.

Swain, J., Heyman, B. , Gillman, M. (1998). Public Research, Private Concerns: ethical issues

in the use of open – ended interviews with people who have learning difficulties, 13(1),21- 36.