FFR-RP6

RCH 5302, Foundation for Research 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VI Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

2. Discuss the ethical imperatives of conducting research. 2.1 Explore how various stakeholders and ethics issues can affect the research process. 2.2 Prescribe a code of ethics that can be used to guide a research process. 2.3 Evaluate the imperative for ethical post-research activities.

Course/Unit Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

2.1

Unit Lesson eBook: Fundamentals of Research Methodology : A Holistic Guide for

Research Completion, Management, Validation and Ethics, pp. 173– 190

Article: “Bias in Research” Article: “A Discipline-Relevant Conceptual Framework for Research Ethics

Review in Economic Sciences” Unit VI Reflection Paper

2.2

Unit Lesson eBook: Fundamentals of Research Methodology : A Holistic Guide for

Research Completion, Management, Validation and Ethics, pp. 173– 190

Article: “Bias in Research” Article: “A Discipline-Relevant Conceptual Framework for Research Ethics

Review in Economic Sciences” Unit VI Reflection Paper

2.3

Unit Lesson eBook: Fundamentals of Research Methodology : A Holistic Guide for

Research Completion, Management, Validation and Ethics, pp. 173– 190

Article: “Bias in Research” Article: “A Discipline-Relevant Conceptual Framework for Research Ethics

Review in Economic Sciences” Unit VI Reflection Paper

Required Unit Resources In order to access the following resources, click the links below. Read Chapter 9 in the eBook below. Godwill, E. A. (2015). Fundamentals of research methodology: A holistic guide for research completion,

management, validation and ethics [E-reader version]. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=nlebk&AN=1023403&site=eds-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_173

Smith, J., & Noble, H. (2014). Bias in research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(4), 100–101. https://search-

proquest-com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/1784000380?accountid=33337

UNIT VI STUDY GUIDE

Ethical Considerations in Research

RCH 5302, Foundation for Research 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

van Heerden, M., Visagie, R. G., & Wessels, J. S. (2016). A discipline-relevant conceptual framework for research ethics review in economic sciences. Review of Social Economy, 74(1), 33–52. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir ect=true&db=bsu&AN=114328659&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Unit Lesson

Reviewing Data Collection The analysis that a researcher selects as a part of the research study will likely be a good fit, but a perfect fit is not common in what is a very imperfect world. Even so, high precision is achievable and should be sought by researchers—but only as long as the process and results are not compromised by a lapse in ethics. A precise analysis most certainly will be expected, if not demanded, by industry leaders, research mentors, and the institutional review board (IRB). This is the commonly accepted rationale for the development or discovery of so many analysis choices and variations. There always might be a better way to understand collected data, but no way should ever involve compromising ethics. Devlin’s (2021) exploration of analysis and past efforts to improve data collection and analysis reflects this belief.

Research Ethics at the Academic, Business, and Organizational Levels Research as a concept and prospective career focus may, on its surface, seem pure with its associated ethics. Research and its ethics are neither easy nor straightforward, though one may enjoy academic research for its relatively idealistic culture as compared to that of most businesses and nonprofit organizations that possess their own research capabilities. Often, this potentially increased level of happiness attendant with academic research counterbalances certain disadvantages, including lower pay in academics as compared to that in certain businesses. While research ethics are often understood to primarily exist through the regulatory framework of the IRB’s review process, the need to uphold ethics and high scientific standards in business applies to other parties. There is self-interest on the part of owners, organizational leaders, peers, and researchers that must be considered. This has led to some researchers distrusting IRB or research ethics committees, believing them to be more interested in protecting their self-interests rather than protecting and validating the research and the research participants (Whitney et al., 2008). This self-interest can and has led to unreliable research or artificial results. Social organizations are not immune to the risk of failure in relation to ethics; whatever may be the core beliefs of the organization leads to an all but inevitable pressure to achieve research results that confirm such beliefs. Businesses and social organizations must replicate a meaningful IRB and IRB process as well, whether this is internal to the organization or conducted on behalf of an entire industry or region of similar firms. Without an effective IRB process, the safeguarding of research ethics and participants would not be assured. These efforts to host the research, provide the framework, provide funding, and manage research efforts to maintain a reputation for ethical practices may seem to be too much trouble for many organizations. Indeed, there is a cost involved with research, and a cost analysis or break-even assessment may indicate that it is best to contract for research or purchase research results; many firms, often small to medium in size, routinely do this. By whatever means its results are acquired, research has value. At this time in human history, superstitions and other irrational explanations for physical phenomena have given way to reasoning and observable or theoretical facts. As Tseng (2012) explains, potential adherents and supporters of certain policies and practices demand that these are reason-based with evidence demonstrating their factuality. As we may agree from observing contemporary discourse across the Internet and social media, being able to claim scientific results as the foundation for one’s beliefs is a powerful strength. It follows, then, that research is a desirable and rare enough commodity to require husbanding of its practice, the establishment of a price for research on occasion, and the safeguarding of the rights to the research and its results. Ironically, there is a field of study dedicated to the use of research, so it is possible to perform research on research. One of the most important factors that influence research is the source of funding and, often going hand-in- hand, the approval to proceed with research. It is also one of the biggest areas in which ethics can play a role.

RCH 5302, Foundation for Research 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

As noted, research is funded by businesses, private persons, nonprofit groups, and academic institutions. Most of these entities maintain a high level of confidence that proper ethics are being upheld in the research processes; some, though, may be suspect as they are more interested in promoting their ideology or politics. Even if an organization’s reputation is sound, internal or intermediate leaders with ethics that are a bit ambiguous may attempt to exert inappropriate influence upon researchers, the research process, or how results are reported. The lessons in this course cannot provide solutions to every ethical dilemma that a researcher may face. Instead, it may serve you best to note that shaping and resolving problems, including ethical ones, is a part of the art of social interaction, including research policies and standards in particular. The researcher will be well advised to stay familiar with the standards and policies of the researcher’s own organization, including when it is good followership to accept an approval or disapproval decision and when circumstances indicate that a complaint to prescribed authority is in order. Research can be frustrating for many reasons. Most learners imagine that difficulties originate with an imperfect research design and plan, problems with data collection, incorrect data analysis calculations, bias, or other errors. Indeed, frustrations may occur in these areas, but the problems do not end there. Ethics play a significant role in the entire research process. In the beginning, ethics must be present in funding decisions and resource allocation as well as in the overall IRB process. Ethics must be at the forefront when selecting research team members and research participants. Inclusion of ethics is paramount to the analysis of the data in order to prevent researcher bias or self-interest from affecting the results and conclusions. Ethics can affect research even after it is completed. How might a researcher feel if the research was a success, the hypothesis or its null was proven, and the recipient of the results did nothing with them due to organizational self-interests or other ethical missteps? What if a senior leader decided to take a course of action that was a contravention to what was suggested in the research results? Moreover, what if the research was denied publication due to factors that might call ethics into play? Often, researchers choose to employ and clearly describe in their research proposal and plan what could be described as a code of ethics. This would be quite similar to a code of ethics established by an organization, company, or institution as a means to communicate acceptable behavior and practices. Such a code needs to be considered by the researcher at the inception of the research idea, during the entire research process, and through the publication of results and recommendations for follow-on research. Just like a code of ethics in business, a code of ethics in research would also establish and define acceptable behaviors, promote practices of the highest standards, provide a benchmark for overall process evaluation, and establish a framework of acceptable responsibilities.

A Case Study of Ethics in Research Research and development (R&D) is always present in the creation and fielding of a component or end item—the term for a complete and independently functioning object. For example, engineers and researchers across a hierarchy of contractors and organizations built the first fleet of U.S space shuttles in the 1980s and 1990s. With millions of components in every shuttle, the expectations were extraordinary—as they had been for previous space programs; the expectation was that there would be no serious defects in the composition and operation of each individual component. Safety and operational risk management had been a commonly practiced aspect of flight since well before the U.S. space program, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and its supporting contractors practiced safety and researched as needed to uphold safety standards for their successive manned space projects. In each program, a series approval system was practiced; in every phase, all involved contractors and NASA participants had to sign off on a procedure for it to be approved to move forward to the next stage. By the mid-1980s, the Challenger program, under significant stress to maintain a rapid launch schedule, moved to a different approval system—parallel approval. The parallel approval system involved a panel of participants, and some did not have their historical form of a veto authority on an operation. At the time, all parties accepted the streamlined review and decision-making arrangement as a framework that fit the needs to maintain a high tempo of launches to get astronauts, satellites, and scientific equipment in space in a limited number of years. This management structure was, of course, regretted after the 1986 Challenger disaster. Corporate engineers and researchers, looking at their test analysis and results, had growing concerns that too much risk was being assumed for the whole system of the space shuttle to work every single time. Warnings they expressed were not heeded or acted on in time by NASA leadership, leaving many questions about who warned whom about what after the fact (Heimann, 1993). A number of lessons were

RCH 5302, Foundation for Research 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

drawn from the Challenger disaster: the need to shape an organizational environment where participants feel free to speak out if something appears wrong to them; the hazards of the “Abilene paradox,” which is a social tendency to go along with what seems to be a group consensus; and the unwavering importance of facts, which are acquired from, among other means, research. You are encouraged to learn more about the method of analysis and conclusions drawn from research into the Challenger disaster by reading the article in the Suggested Unit Resources section for this unit.

Conclusion A researcher can shape a career in research in academics, business, social organizations, or some combination of all of these, gaining experience along the journey, but he or she must do so with ethics in mind. The potential for self-fulfillment, scientific achievement, and contributions to a better world or society is there—but so are the hazards and pitfalls ever-present in any career field or profession when and if ethics are compromised.

References Devlin, A. S. (2021). The research experience: Planning, conducting, and reporting research (2nd ed.).

SAGE. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781544377933 Heimann, L. (1993, June). Understanding the Challenger disaster: Organizational structure and the design of

reliable systems. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 421–435. https://www-jstor- org.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/stable/2939051?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Tseng, V. (2012). Using research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 1–24.

https://www.srcd.org/research/using-research-policy-and-practice Whitney, S. N., Alcser, K., Schneider, C., McCullough, L. B., McGuire, A. L., & Volk, R. J. (2008). Principal

investigator views of the IRB system. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 5(2), 68–72. doi:10.7150/ijms.5.68

Suggested Unit Resources In order to access the following resource, click the link below. To learn more about the Challenger disaster findings, which were discussed in the Unit VI Lesson, and to see the data presented in a research report, view the article below. Heimann, L. (1993, June). Understanding the Challenger disaster: Organizational structure and the design of

reliable systems. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 421–435. https://www-jstor- org.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/stable/2939051?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents