Transcript 3cmns801_ethics

Research Ethics in the 21st
Century
Plus:
•The Place of Commitment, Bias &
Reflexivity in Methodologies
•Secret and Sacred Knowledge
Plan for Today’s Class
Session
1-Finish discussions of 1st exercise
2-Introduction to Foundations of Research
Ethics (and film clips from Quiet Rage)
3- Discussion of Readings
4-Planning Presentations on Methodological
Debates in Specific Fields
If time: video--“Ask a silly question”
Part 2: New Ethical Guidelines
for Communications Research
• History & changing ideas of human
subject protection (Christians)
• Medical & Psychological Experiments
• Early use of institutionalized subjects etc.
• New approaches respond to
questionable ethics in past research as well
as new paradigms
Tuskegee syphilis study
• “Depression-era U.S. poster
advocating early syphilis
treatment. Although treatments
were available, participants in the
study did not receive them.”
• www.hsc.virginia.edu/hslibrary/historical/apology/report.ht
ml
Milgrim obedience study
• “Illustration of the setup
of a Milgram experiment.
The experimenter (E)
convinces the subject
("Teacher" T) to give
what he believes are
painful electric shocks to
another subject, who is
actually an actor
("Learner" L). Many
subjects continued to
give shocks despite
pleas of mercy from the
actors.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milgram_Experiment_v2.pn
g
Zimbardo –Stanford prison
experiment
Stanford Prison Experiment
“debriefing”: One of the
most abused prisoners,
#416, and the guard known
as "John Wayne", who was
one of the most abusive
guards, confront each other
in an "encounter session"
two months later.
•
•
www.prisonexp.org
Another Zimbardo
•
link
Film clips from Quiet
Rage
Newer
Approaches
Raise More
Nuanced
Concerns
•
Cultural Taboos &
rights
– such as sharing secret
or sacred knowledge
(eg. Michaels and
Marcus articles)
– Owning one’s stories
•
•
Institutional Constraints
vs. Subject’s wishes
(Mattingly)
Practical Complexities
& Political or Moral
Commitments (Menzies
and Crisp)
Pansy Napangardi painting
Other Examples: Portrayals of Victims,
Photography of Street Life & things
• Tip Sheet on how to portray
famine victims with dignity
(Reuters)
–
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefre
sources/112669600053.html
• Photography of Street Life in
Canada
– The Duclos Affair & Quebec
law
• http://www.montrealmirror.com/20
05/080405/news1.html
• Photographing architecture or
public art (national variations in
intellectual property rights)
Fatou Ousseini lies with her
malnourished one-year-old son
Alassa Galisou at an emergency
feeding clinic in the town of
Tahoua in northwestern Niger
(Reuters_
Why Be Ethical?
(Motivations)
• Researchers’ scholarly or personal values
• Demands from “subjects” & communities under study (eg. Menzie &
Mattingly articles)
– Community guidelines (ex. Mi’kmaq research ethics guidelines or
Mugomeh guidelines for African Nova Scotian community-university
research alliances)
• Codes of Ethics & Guides to Best Practices
– Professional Associations
– Institutions
– Legislation
– Funding Agencies
• Ex. Canadian Tri-council guidelines for ethical treatment of human
subjects
– SSHRC homepage
Some Motivations for unethical
research
– Career advancement
– Ego (“knowing the right answer”)
– Political, economic or agendas
– Cheaper, faster
– Ignorance etc…
Fraud controversies as topic for communications research
Link to press release quoting Communications researcher.
Ethics & Legality:
Typology of Legal and Moral
Actions in Research
Ethical
Illegal
Only
Immoral
Only
Legal
Illegal
Both
Moral and
Legal
Both
Immoral
and Illegal
Unethical
Source: figure adapted from
Neuman (2000:91)
Deception and
covert observation
• formerly common practices
• e.g. Laud Humphrey Tearoom Trade
– http://web.missouri.edu/~philwb/Laud.html
– Defies Principle of voluntary
INFORMED consent
– Potential for harm to subjects
Who can give consent?
• Participation must be voluntary; not coerced
• informed about planned procedures &
commitments
• “special populations” cannot give voluntary
informed consent
– e.g. military personnel, students, prison inmates, mentally
challenged
– Why?
• can’t make the decision (mental incapacity, immaturity)
• not truly “free” (could be directly or indirectly coerced)
Distinctions : Privacy,
Anonymity, Confidentiality
• privacy:
a legal right (note : public vs.
private domain)--even if subject is dead
• anonymity:
subjects remain nameless &
responses cannot be connected to them
(problem in small samples)
• confidentiality:
subjects’ identity may
be known but not disclosed by researcher,
identity can’t be linked to responses
Stakeholders & Points of
View on Ethics
•
•
•
•
•
•
scientific community
“the subject”
individual researcher
society/the public
sponsors/funding sources
legal authorities/government
Scientific Misconduct
• research fraud
– falsification or distortion of data or methods
– fabrication
• plagiarism
– presenting the ideas or words of another as one's own
• Ex. failure to give credit (citation plagiarism)
• violation of ethical standards
• ex. failure to give informed consent
• suppression of findings
• ex. non-publication
From the Research Subjects’
Point of View: Types of Harm
•
•
•
•
•
physical harm
psychological abuse, stress, loss of self-esteem
legal harm
financial,
“cultural capital” risks (G.P.A. , reputation, status,
etc.)
• creation of inequities
• denial of treatment (ex. placebos in experimental
research) etc.
Ethics &
the Scientific Community:
Codes of Ethics
• guide, control & regulate members
• protect researchers from outside
pressures
• protect others and members from
irresponsible practitioners
• “professionalisation” of research areas
Ethics & Research Relations:
Colleagues & Bosses
and the Research Process
• Not just about relations between researchers
and people they are studying
• Relationships with other researchers
• main sources of conflict: sharing recognition,
workload & other “rewards”
Ethical Issues
related to Research Sponsors
• balancing allegiances
• “cooking” results intentionally or
unintentionally
• biases from limits on conditions &
resources
• suppressing findings
• concealing the sponsor
Ethical Debates about
Sharing Research Findings
• control over use of raw data & findings
– especially subject information
• academic freedom
– autonomy of research
• common debates about reporting issues:
–
–
–
–
suppression
selective reporting
effects, intended or unintended
“models of relevance”
• no net effects, positive & negative effects, special
constituencies
How Society & Government
Shape Research Conditions & Content
• legislation (ex. FOIPOP --Freedom of Information,
Protection of Privacy)
• “politically correct” or “safe” topics
• control of access to data (gatekeepers)
• biases in government statistics, archives, etc.
• other issues:
–
–
–
–
–
censorship
public opinion
public good
“national” security
economic and political (ex. funding priorities of government
granting agencies)
Practicalities: Informed Consent
Statements
(common features to consider)
•
•
•
•
purpose & procedure of study
potential risks and discomfort
provisions for anonymity or confidentiality
researcher’s address and source of
information
• statement of voluntary nature of participation
and ability to withdraw at any time
• provisions for compensation (or not)
• offer to provide summary of findings
Ethical issues related to common
types of relationships
amongst researchers
• student-student (teamwork, study groups,
classmates)
• student-professor (ordinary class
relationships, research assistantships)
• research &/or authorship teams (junior &
senior authors, questions of recognition and
remuneration)
• employee/employer relationships
(authorship/anonymity)
• sponsors/funding organizations
Applications for ethical
approval at SFU
•
Office of Research Ethics
– Research Ethics at SFU
• Provide information about:
–
–
–
–
–
Purpose, Methodology, Consent, Debriefing
Risks, Safety issues
Confidentiality/anonymity/privacy
Compensation
Deception
• Office of Research Ethics at SFU
Video
Clips (if time or later)
• Quiet Rage: the Stanford Prison
Experiments
Discussion of Readings: Required
Christians, C. (2005) “Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research” in Denzin and
Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition). pp. 139-164.
Crisp, J. (1999) " 'Who has counted the refugees?' UNHCR and the politics of
numbers " New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 12. UNHCR,
Geneva
And one of
Mattingly, C. (2005) “Toward a vulnerable ethics of research practice”, Health:
An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and
Medicine. Vol 9(4): pp. 453-471.
or
Menzies, Charles R. (2004) “Putting Words into Action: Negotiating
Collaborative Research in Gitxaala”, Canadian Journal of Native Education,
Volume 28(1-2):15-32.
Other Recommended
Readings Related to Ethics
Hammersley, M. and Gomm, R. (1997) 'Bias in Social Research', Sociological Research
Online, vol. 2, no. 1, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/2.html
Harding, S. (2004) “How Standpoint Methodology Informs Philosophy of Social
Science”, in Hesse-Biber, S and P. Leavy (ed.) Approaches to Qualitative Research.
A reader on Theory and Practice. Oxford, pp. 62-80.
Marcus, George E. (1998) “Censorship in the Heart of Difference: Cultural Property,
Indigenous Peoples’ Movements, and Challenges to Western Liberal Thought” in
Post, Robert (ed.) Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation.
Santa Monica: Getty Research Institute, pp. 221-242.
Michaels, Eric. (1994) “A Primer of Restrictions on Picture-Taking in traditional areas
of aboriginal Australia”, Bad Aboriginal Art. Tradition, Media and Cultural
Horizons. Minneapolis: U. Minnesota Press, pp. 1-18.
Part 4-Planning Presentations on
Methodological Debates (Special
Topics)
If time: “Ask a Silly Question”