Running head: WHO S RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCH ETHICS?

Who s Responsible 1 Running head: WHO S RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCH ETHICS? Who s Responsible for Research Ethics? GNA Garcia University of Connecticut

Who s Responsible 2 Abstract Who s responsible for research ethics? This paper asserts that aspirational, regulatory, and educational approaches to research ethics, albeit the most common ways institutions attempt to manage research practices, cannot predict nor guarantee ethical behavior among researchers. This researcher argues for a revolutionary change in academia where researchers not only accept responsibility for their behavior, but guide graduate students to become active ethical agents. To accomplish this faculty must out their ethics, practice ethical reflexivity, and meta-ethical analysis, and ultimately ask themselves, Why be ethical? The application of the proposed practices to ethics research education is also addressed.

Who s Responsible 3 Who s Responsible for Research Ethics? In a recent New York Times article, Patricia Cohen (2007) describes the present tension between institutions and their Institutional Research Boards (IRBs) and faculty and graduate students. In short, some faculty and graduate students, especially those in the humanities, believe the current IRB regulations and procedures have no relevance or implications for their own work. The arguments presented against the need for universal IRB approval are implicit in that the researchers believe their area of inquiry is ethics-free and they assume their ethical compass will ensure the protection of their human subjects. A project cited by a faculty member in the New York Times article (as one that should not have to go through IRB approval) included interviewing local labor union members regarding a strike that took place in the 1970s. Are we to assume that the researcher involved in this project will be conducting their work with the integrity and potential impacts on the current labor union members in mind? Alternatively, are we to assume that if the researcher did get IRB approval to conduct the study, it would be conducted ethically? The answer to both questions is No. Neither the researchers own ethical commitment nor the approval of the IRB can guarantee the union workers will be treated ethically in the way they will be identified and recruited as participants, in how they will be interviewed, or in how the data collected will be handled and reported. So who is responsible for research ethics? Institution or Individual? The biggest challenge in research ethics lies not in an institution s inability to articulate policy or procedure relating to ethical research, but in bridging the gap between

Who s Responsible 4 an individual researcher s subjectivity as ethical being and the ethical standards of their field of inquiry as described and enforced by their institution or profession. All institutions that conduct research have Institutional Research Boards (IRBs) whose federal mandate is to ensure all research conducted by personnel affiliated with their institution is conducted ethically. Most institutions offer courses (face to face and online), workshops, and individual consulting in an effort to educate individuals engaged in research activities about ethical research practices. Few, if any, institutions can claim complete success in their ability to prevent research ethics violations. Philosophers, administrators, and the popular press wonder if we can teach researchers to be ethical. It remains unknown and almost entirely uninvestigated whether a correlation exists between an individuals ethical training and their ethical behavior. As part of a greater research study examining ethics education for doctoral students, Sailor (1997) surveyed graduate students (N = 390) about their ethics training and measured their responses to ethical dilemma scenarios. The study showed that formal ethics training for graduate students did not have a significant effect on their scores on the measure. Furthermore, the effect size between the influence of informal faculty interaction (i.e., one-on-one conversations, working together on projects, mentor relationships) was slightly higher than that reported in relation to formal research ethics courses or training. Because the study was not controlled for how long students had been in their academic program, it is difficult to ascertain whether ethical behavior would change (negatively or positively) based on increased or long-term interactions with faculty. The results of Sailor s research highlight the difficulty of unpacking the motives or influences on an individual s ethical behavior. It further suggests that regardless of

Who s Responsible 5 institutional approach, ultimately a researcher s ethical decision making is more bound to their own ethical and moral standards (and possibly loosely connected to those modeled by their mentors and/or colleagues) than to the standards and expectations set forth by their institution or profession. Some argue the best we can do is to encourage ethical research practices; we can never ensure them. One way to encourage ethical research practices is to move away from what some refer to as aspriational and regulatory guidelines towards measurable educational guidelines. In other words, instead of institutions and professional organizations creating ethical wish lists for their researchers or imposing punishable regulatory ethical statues, institutions should promote ethics education which can be assessed for its effectiveness (Langlais, 2006). Is Research Ethics Education the Solution? Tangney (2001) describes research ethics education as an ongoing process that begins during the initial project design phase and extends through the dissemination of findings. She believes involving students and research staff in ethical decision-making throughout the process and providing hands-on, real world experience to be the keys to training researchers who become active ethical agents (p. 98). The National Science Foundation recently awarded the Council of Graduate Schools a $300,000 grant to support an educational approach which would incorporate assessment (Council of Graduate Schools, 2006). As a start the Council for Graduate Schools provided funding and support to ten universities who are working to establish best practices for educating students and faculty members in professional standards, ethics, and the skills necessary to identify and make decisions about such issues as

Who s Responsible 6 conflicts of interest, authorship, ownership and use of data, plagiarism, and mentor relationships and responsibilities (Langlais, 2006, p. 11). The institutions involved in the pilot study are investigating questions like: Do students and faculty know research standards exist? And do they know how to locate information about ethics? Old Dominion University, one of the ten institutions selected to participate in a pilot project, recently surveyed their graduate students (N=534) and faculty as an initial step in uncovering the gaps between knowledge and practice in research ethics. The preliminary data suggest significant differences exist between how international versus domestic, and men versus women interpret and respond to research ethics scenarios. For example, in response to the statement, It is acceptable to exclude data that does not support your hypothesis, 29% of international graduate students responded True, while 0% of domestic graduate students responded True. In response to the same questions, students regardless of resident status but considering gender, 19% of women responded True and 29.4% of men responded True (Langlias, 2006). As evidenced by the findings above, the researcher s subjectivity as an ethical being reveals itself as the most challenging aspect of determining who is responsible for ethical research behavior. The problem with all three approaches aspirational, regulatory, educational is that the success (i.e., less ethical violations committed by researchers) still lies within the domain of the institution. Yet, the institution which imposes standards, educates, or even encourages ethical behavior has absolutely no control over whether an individual researcher behaves unethically. Neither does it have a way to measure what portion of ethical judgment exercised by its researchers can be attributed to its imposed standards, educational programs, or encouragements. This is where the expanse between individual

Who s Responsible 7 researcher behavior and institutional control resides. Institutions have taken a regulatory stance in their management of ethical conduct so they may, at a minimum, protect human subjects. However, adopting a regulatory stance subjugates research ethics to what some call a footnote to research practice. According to Vallance (2005), It is not uncommon for higher degree research students in humanity faculties to face the ethics clearance requirements of their institution as the last act in preparing their research (p. 193). Footnote or Foundation? Many might consider the elevation of research ethics, from a footnote (i.e., the last piece of business we attend to when pursuing research) to the foundation which supports and guides every step of our work, a revolutionary move. What would this look like in practice? Educators, especially those who teach and mentor graduate student researchers, must engage their pupils in ethical dialogues. Faculty researchers must also be committed to outing the ethical, moral, and values-based decisions they make as academics. They must accept the undeniable truth that it is impossible to live and work in an ethically, morally, or values-neutral environment, whether in a physics laboratory or in women s studies and whether you are doing quantitative or qualitative research. Greenbank (2003) asserts those who profess to carry out value-neutral research are deluding themselves. He states, Even before data is analyzed, interpreted and presented the researcher s method of sampling, experimental design or questionnaires are likely to reflect their (often unconscious) values (p. 792). I further argue the

Who s Responsible 8 researcher s ethics, morals, and values are what guide their decisions to confront and explore areas of research. For example, I am pursuing research on the impact of incorporating contemplative practices into the classroom experience of undergraduates with the goal of lowering their stress and improving their overall well being. My ethics, morality, and values have guided my decision to do work in an area that directly serves students. Improving the quality of the educational experience of students is a value heralded by our profession. Other values such as career aspirations, political aims, and economic gain may be considered by some as righteous and by others as self-serving. Whether our values are shared or self-determined, the distorting effect of our personal values may obscure our ability to analyze the ethics of our behavior objectively (Greenback, 2003). To find clarity researchers must do something more than abide by the regulations or worse, fool themselves into thinking they are conducting values-free research. Research Ethics as a Foundation A researcher s area of inquiry is a direct representation of their values, therefore exploring their research interests invites the researcher to not only contribute to the understanding of the discipline, but to examine their own ethical and moral relationship with the problem. Thus research ethics must be the foundation upon which rests all of the decisions we make and actions we take as researchers. Ethical Reflexivity According to Gewirtz and Cribb (2006), a concrete way for researchers to engage in ethical dialogs with themselves, and their protégées and colleagues is to practice ethical reflexivity. Practicing ethical reflexivity begins with understanding how our

Who s Responsible 9 beliefs and research practices interact. More specifically it demands researchers be,... ready to give an account of the way in which their personal involvement in social and fieldwork relations shape their data collection, analysis and writing (Gewirtz & Cribb, 2006, p. 147). In their view, ethical reflexivity involves: Being explicit, as far as is possible, about the value assumptions and evaluative judgments that inform or are embedded in every stage of our research. Being prepared to offer a defense of our assumptions and judgments to the extent that either they might not be shared by others or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently problematized by others. Acknowledging, and where possible responding to, tensions between the various values that are embedded in our research. Taking seriously the practical judgments and dilemmas of the people we are researching. Taking responsibility for the political and ethical implications of our research. We cannot assume researchers operate by a universal code of ethics. As a matter of fact, plain observance of ethical codes or rules discourages researchers from reflecting on themselves as subjective moral beings who must continually explore their motives and actions. In contrast, practicing ethical reflexivity insists the researcher insert themselves into their work as an active ethical agent. Meta-ethical Conversations The ultimate question researchers must consider, a question that urges them to confront their own ethics, morality, and values is one asked by Lawerence Kohlberg in the later years of his life, Why be moral? (Kohlberg & Ryncarz, 1980). Extending this query to the discussion of research ethics begs questions like, Why be ethical? Why perform ethical research? And, why behave ethically when no one is here to oversee my behavior?

Who s Responsible 10 Asking oneself these types of questions invites the researcher into a meta-ethical analysis. Why be ethical? must not only be the first question we ask, but should be a question we ask during every phase of the research we conduct. Yet our concerns must at the same time remain practical including the reasons for our ethical decisions and the clarification of ethical ambiguity. However for our practice to change from one based in problem solving to one of ethical reflexivity we must not only focus on,... the rational tools of ethical deliberation, analysis, and criticism, but also the uniquely human impulse that motivates the will into action and facilitates our intuitive grasp that events require our moral attention (Perlman, 2006, p. 13). In continuously asking and responding to the question, Why be ethical? we are forced to consider the Other, the most important subject of our research, the human being. Conclusion Who s responsible for research ethics? We are; everyone conducting research, training students to conduct research, and those running the IRB process. Although little concrete evidence exists to demonstrate a correlation between research ethics education and ethical research practice, I believe research ethics education is the key to promoting a community of researchers who behave as active ethical agents. In addition to formal research ethics education students should receive mentorship from experienced faculty researchers who train them in the discipline of research, engage them in vigorous dialogs about real-world ethical dilemmas, and speak openly about how their own ethics, values, and morals shape and guide their practice as scholars. Research ethics should not be a footnote to our practice as scholars. To the contrary, research ethics should be one of the few givens we can count on as always being present in every research design.

Who s Responsible 11

Who s Responsible 12 References Cohen, P. (2007, February 28). As ethics panels expand, no research field is exempt. The New York Times, pp. A15. Council of Graduate Schools (2006, March 2). NSF awards CGS grant for ethics education. Retrieved March 6, 2007 from http://www.cgsnet.org/?mid=440&newsid440=6&tabid=57 Gewirtz, S. & Cribb, A. (2006). What to do about values in social research: The case for ethical reflexivity in the sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(2), 141-155. Greenbank, P. (2003). The role of values in educational research: The case for reflexivity. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 791-802. Langlais, P. (2006, February). Ethics for the next generation. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Teaching Renewal Conference at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://provost.missouri.edu/nfts/pdfsdocs/trc_langlais_2006.pdf. Langlais, P. (2006). Ethics for the next generation [Electronic version]. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, B11. Perlman, D. (2006). Putting the ethics back into research ethics: A process for ethical reflection for human research protection [Electronic version]. Journal of Research Administration, 37(10), p. 13. Sailor, P. (1997). The relationship between graduate students education in research ethics and their attitudes towards research misconduct. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University.

Who s Responsible 13 Tangney, J. (2001). Training. In B.D. Sales & S. Folkman (Eds.), Ethics in research with human participants (pp. 97-105). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Vallance, R. J. (2005). Research ethics: Reforming postgraduate formation. Issues in Educational Research, 15(2), 193-205. Retrieved March 6, 2007 from http://www.iier.org.au/iier15/vallance.html.