QBRDM #8

Resource2.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >QBRDM #8

Ethical Considerations

J ust as ethics is an important part of our interactions with consumers and colleagues and in carrying out social work practice on a daily basis, ethics is also important when we are conducting research. Research, like all parts of

the social work profession, has ethics at its core. This chapter introduces you to some ethical principles and applications used in research, including the pro- tection of the rights of research participants.

H I S T O R I C A L OV E R V I E W

Today, most countries have laws in effect that require human subjects to be treated with dignity and respect in the conduct of research. The United States has regulations in place providing guidance and structure for the researcher. What is the history behind these regulations? It may surprise you to know that the im- petus for these regulations and the implementation of oversight committees was research done during World War II.

In 1946, an American military tribunal opened a criminal trial in Nuremberg, Germany, against twenty- three Nazi physicians. These physicians were accused of conducting horrific medical experiments on prisoners at various concentra- tion camps. After 140 days of proceedings during which eighty- five witnesses testified and 1,500 documents were entered as evidence, sixteen doctors were found guilty, and seven were sentenced to death. From this trial came the Nuremberg Code, ten principles for permissible medical experiments:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good

of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random or unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and knowledge of the natural history of the

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Al l ri gh ts r es er ve d. M ay n ot b e re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 11/11/2019 7:05 PM via NORTHCENTRAL UNIV AN: 1854272 ; Faulkner, Samuel S., Faulkner, Cynthia A..; Research Methods for Social Workers : A Practice-Based Approach Account: s1229530.main.eds

14 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S F O R S O C I A L W O R K E R S

disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur, except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subjects against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

At this point you may be thinking, “How does this apply to me?” In this chapter, we will examine three ethical principles that social workers can use to protect human subjects in research.

Public Law 93- 348, called the National Research Act, was signed into law on July 12, 1974, and addresses the protection of human subjects in research. It recognizes that research and practice may occur together and that any element of research should undergo review for the protection of human subjects. The Belmont Report, published in 1979, summarizes the law as proposing three basic ethical principles: respect for individuals, beneficence, and justice.

R E S P E C T F O R I N D I V I D U A L S

Respect for individuals involves acknowledging the autonomy of individuals and protecting those with diminished autonomy. Section 5.02(l) of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999) states that “Social

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Ethical Considerations 15

workers engaged in evaluation or research should ensure the anonymity or con- fidentiality of participants and of the data obtained from them. Social workers should inform participants of any limits of confidentiality.” With this in mind, we will first discuss the concepts of anonymity, confidentiality, and informed consent. We will then discuss how to protect those whose capacity to make au- tonomous decisions is limited.

(Note that we are using the current Code of Ethics from the National Association of Social Workers [1999 edition], but these are due to be updated and will change in 2018.)

A nony mity

Anonymity is often confused with confidentiality. In research, anonymity means that the researcher will not collect any identifying information on the subjects participating in the research study. For instance, you design an explor- atory study in which you will collect information on how consumers feel about the services in your agency. One way to do this is to have a comment box in the lobby or waiting room; consumers can write comments on a blank piece of paper and put them the box. This allows the individual to remain anonymous. However, you notice that only consumers with complaints are making use of the comment box. You then decide to do a descriptive study for which you develop a form that allows consumers to rate their satisfaction with various services on a scale from one to four. To maintain the anonymity of the participants, you do not ask for any information that can be used to identify them, such as name, age, or occupation. Everyone checking into your agency is handed the form and asked to complete it before they leave and place it in the comment box. These are examples of a study using both qualitative and quantitative methods that protect the anonymity of the participants.

Conf identia lity

Confidentiality is the assurance that a researcher provides to subjects that all information about them and all answers they provide will remain in the hands of the investigator and that no person outside the research process will have access to this information. Subjects have a basic right to know that their infor- mation is kept confidential; this also ensures that they feel protected from poten- tial repercussions for answering honestly. The researcher, however, may have the ability to identify the responses of a particular individual. You may be asking, “How, then, do researchers publish their findings if all information remains con- fidential?” The answer is that all information is reported in the aggregate (i.e., the findings are combined). The researcher compiles the data and presents them in such a way that no individual can be identified.

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

16 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S F O R S O C I A L W O R K E R S

Let’s say that you are conducting a six- week smoking cessation workshop. You want to follow up with your participants in six months to see how many remain free of cigarettes, how many times they relapsed, and how many returned to smoking on a regular basis. In addition to this descriptive (quantitative) data, you will ask them for written comments (qualitative data) on what worked for them, what did not work for them, what was helpful about the workshop, and what was not helpful. The quantitative and qualitative data you collect will be in- cluded in a grant proposal to fund additional workshops. In your summary, you would not state that John Smith relapsed twice and found that cinnamon gum helped curb cravings. But you might say, “One participant relapsed twice and found that cinnamon gum helped curb cravings.”

Confidentiality can also become an issue in more subtle ways, especially in small communities where the disclosure of too much information can result in the identification of an individual. For instance, you are reporting treatment outcomes of sex offenders to city council members. During your presentation you describe an offender by stating that “A recently released male sex offender with a history of child molestation has recently reoffended. He has only been in treatment for three months, and our statistics show that those in treatment over six months have a better chance of not reoffending.” The audience may be able to identify this individual through news articles and even common knowl- edge about his recent release or arrest. One way you could have reported your research findings anonymously would have been to report the data in aggregate. In this example, you could report percentages, such as “One hundred percent of participants in treatment less than six months have reoffended, while only 54% of participants in treatment over six months have reoffended.” The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999) states that “Social workers who report evaluation and research results should protect participants’ confidentiality by omitting identifying information unless proper consent has been obtained authorizing disclosure” (section 5.01m).

Informed Consent

Informed consent is the process of educating potential research participants about the basic purpose of the study, informing them that their participation is volun- tary, and obtaining their written consent to participate in the study. Informed con- sent involves the researcher helping potential participants to understand exactly what is being asked of them and what their participation will entail. Ingelfinger (1972) argues that informed consent can never be entirely complete. On the other hand, Gorovitz (1985) believes that the individual has dominion over his or her own body and is responsible for what happens to him or her. In some ways, both are correct. As a researcher, it is your responsibility to provide as much informa- tion as possible to potential participants so that they can decide whether they wish to participate. The ethical researcher will take care to sit down with the participant and explain in detail what will be required and what will happen during the study.

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Ethical Considerations 17

The practice of informed consent is an important part of any study. One small part of the informed consent process is asking a research participant to sign a statement that outlines the information provided in the informed con- sent process (see Example 2.1). It is important to note that informed consent must be obtained before any data are collected. In addition, if you are offering an incentive for participation (for example, a gift certificate at a fast- food res- taurant) in your study, then the subject will receive the incentive regardless of whether or not he or she completes the study. The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999) states that “Informed consent should in- clude information about the nature, extent, and duration of the participation requested and disclosure of the risks and benefits of participation in the re- search” (section 5.01e). In addition, section 5.01(h) states that “Social workers should inform participants of their right to withdraw from evaluation and re- search at any time without penalty.” The informed consent form must provide the following information:

1. The researcher’s identity and the nature and aim of the research 2. The subject’s role in the project and the expected duration of the

subject’sparticipation 3. A description of experimental procedures and any possible risks to the

subject’s physical, psychological, or emotional well- being 4. Any benefits to the subject that may reasonably be expected from the

research 5. Contact information that subjects can use to obtain answers to

questions about the research and research subjects’ rights and information on whom to contact in the event of a research- related injury or if counseling is needed due to the sensitive nature of the questions

In addition, the informed consent form must

1. Explain to prospective subjects that they are free to refuse to participate or to refuse to answer any question or to withdraw from the study at any time and that refusal to participate or withdrawal from the project will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subjects are otherwise entitled;

2. Describe how the confidentiality of the information will be maintained (e.g., surveys, audiotapes, or videotapes will be kept in a locked filing cabinet) and the anonymity of the participants will be protected;

3. Explain that participants must be eighteen years of age or older, or parental/ guardian consent must be obtained; and

4. Provide a verification statement and signature line for participants (“By signing below, I verify that I have been informed of and understand the nature and purpose of the project, freely consent to participate, and am at least eighteen years of age”).Co

py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Example 2.1

Informed Consent Form

Dear Participant:

My name is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . I am requesting your help with a research project I am conducting on the effects of challenge courses. Let me emphasize that you do not have to take part in anything that makes you uncomfortable. If you do not wish to take part in this project (or any of the exercises), you do not have to par- ticipate. This is true, also, for the attached questionnaire. You are free to refuse to answer any and all of the questions. The survey is voluntary (up to you), and you can withdraw from the study at any time.

If you agree to participate in the challenge course experience, you will be asked to participate in activities that require you to work with others as a group to solve problems and perform tasks. The facilitator/ trainer will explain each activity be- fore you begin.

Challenge courses are supervised by trained facilitators who are experienced and able to keep participants safe. The potential benefits for those who partici- pate in the challenge course are increased communication and trust with group members.

This study has been reviewed to determine that participants’ rights are safeguarded, and there appears to be minimal risk or discomfort associated with completion of this study. The answers you provide on the study will be kept strictly confidential, and all your responses (completed surveys) will be stored in a locked file cabinet accessible only to the researcher. This means that no one will be able to find out how you answered any of the questions. The results of this study may be presented at a conference or published as a research article in a journal. These records will be kept in Jones Hall, 100 University Drive, Anytown, Anystate, 10011. Please feel free to ask for help if something does not make sense to you or if you have any questions. If you experience any discomfort, you may contact Jane Smith, Caring Hands Help Agency, 101- 000- 1234.

If you decide to volunteer, please be sure to PRINT your name on the form and SIGN it to indicate your willingness to participate. That will indicate that you understand the purpose and elements of the study and that you are willing to participate.

Name (Print): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Date Signed: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Ethical Considerations 19

Social workers have a long- standing tradition of being the voice (i.e., advo- cate) of the person who has the least amount of power in a situation. This should be the guiding principle when you are designing your research study with any person who is considered to have diminished autonomy. These populations in- clude individuals who have diminished rights or capacities, including minors; individuals with diminished capacity due to illness or mental disability; and people with severely restricted liberties, such as individuals who are incarcerated. We will say more about these groups in a moment. An ongoing argument is whether or not children and prisoners can truly give their informed consent (or whether there is an element of coercion that is subtly implied). And while no one has the ultimate answer to this debate, it is important to keep in mind.

The legal guardians of minors and individuals with diminished capacity can weigh the risks and benefits of the research and then decide either with or for them whether or not they will participate in a research study. Section 5.02f of the Code of Ethics states: “When evaluation or research participants are incapable of giving informed consent, social workers should provide an appropriate expla- nation to the participants, obtain the participants’ assent to the extent they are able, and obtain written consent from an appropriate proxy.” In Example 2.2, the signature lines were modified for the addition of consent of a parent or guardian (or power of attorney).

Informed consent is much more complicated for individuals with restricted liberties because the pressure to volunteer may come from the authorities in charge of their liberties. Volunteerism is an element of informed consent that requires the person to be free of coercion and undue influence. On the other hand, the individual may want to be involved in the research, and denying that opportunity can also be viewed as a restriction of his or her rights. While there is no easy answer to the dilemma posed by such situations, one should examine whether the benefits of participating outweigh the risks. For instance, let’s say

Example 2.2

Modified Signature Lines for Consent of a Legal Guardian

If you decide to volunteer, please be sure to PRINT your name on the form and SIGN it to indicate your willingness to participate. That will be indication that you understand the purpose of the survey and that you are willing to help.

Name (Print): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _

Name of Legal Guardian (Print): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Signature of Legal Guardian: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Date Signed: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

20 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S F O R S O C I A L W O R K E R S

you are researching the effectiveness of a six- week anger management group. The possible benefits of participating in the treatment may outweigh the risk that the individual may feel obligated to participate. On the other hand, if you are researching homophobia among males, the risk of harm is much greater and the benefits nonexistent.

Several groups of people enjoy extra protection as potential research subjects. The federal government mandates that anyone who wishes to conduct research with one of these populations must ensure that their rights are protected. These protected classes of people are prisoners, pregnant women (and their unborn chil- dren); minor children; and anyone with diminished intellectual capacity. If you find yourself in a position where you will be conducting research with one of these groups, we strongly encourage you to seek out expert help in negotiating the myriad of regulations that are in place.

Informed Consent a nd A ssent

A word about the difference between consent and assent is important. Informed consent is the process of informing potential research subjects about the research study. It should provide someone considering participating as a research subject enough information to help them make a decision. They (the potential subject) should be able to state what the research study is about, how long/ how much time their participation will require, and any risks or potential benefits that will occur as a result of their involvement.

Assent, on the other hand, is for those individuals who do not have the legal authority to agree to participate. For example, a minor child does not have the right to sign for his consent to participate, but he must provide his assent (his agreement to be a research subject).

B E N E F I C E N C E

The term beneficence refers to being charitable or acting with kindness. In re- search, it is an obligation to do no harm and to maximize any benefits (i.e., posi- tive values related to health or well- being) while minimizing possible harm. The issue of beneficence relates to determining whether the benefits (which can be direct or indirect and can seem large or small to the participant) outweigh the risks for the participants of the study. To minimize harm, we must identify the risks of the research on human participants.

The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999) states that “Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should protect participants from unwarranted physical or mental distress, harm, danger, or deprivation” (section 5.02j). Participants need to be protected from the risks of participating

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Ethical Considerations 21

in research. Risk refers to the possibility that psychological, physical, legal, social, or economic harm may occur. Risk is sometimes expressed in levels, such as, “no risk,” “little risk,” “moderate risk,” and “high risk.”

One note about risk. Risks are rarely acceptable in research and always highly regulated. Today, medical research involves a degree of risk, especially with drug trials, but in social behavioral research, risks need to be minimized and eliminated. This has not always been the case, as we will see next.

Much has been learned from past research studies that have involved a level of risk to the individual participants. One of these has come to be known as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment (1932– 1972), a study conducted by the US Public Health Service on a group of mostly poor African- American men with syphilis living in the rural South. They were not told that they had syphilis so that the researchers could examine the etiology (progression) of the disease (Jones, 1981). Even after a cure in the form of penicillin became available, they were not offered treatment, which caused long- term health issues for the men and their families. This high level of physical risk would be considered unethical today.

In 1961, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an infamous study of how au- thority figures could abuse their power. Milgram designed a series of experiments in which subjects were instructed to administer a series of electric shocks to an- other subject. Unknown to those administering the shocks, the individuals who were supposedly being shocked were actually working with the researcher. A dis- turbing number of subjects were willing to administer dangerously high levels of voltage even though the people they thought they were shocking were pleading with them to stop. Several subjects said they did not feel comfortable continuing with the experiment but continued, regardless, when told to do so by the researcher (Milgram, 1963). To some people, this research was a worthwhile endeavor as it provides evidence of the strong influence those in authority can have over others. One would only have to point to such tragedies as the atrocities carried out under the Nazis as justification for Milgram’s study. However, others might argue that the potential trauma this study could cause the participants outweighs the benefit of the information it could provide. (Accounts of follow- up studies with research participants in the study who said they were not permanently harmed by the re- search have been published.)

Another study that has become somewhat infamous in research circles is a study conducted by a professor of psychology at Stanford University. Philip Zimbardo converted part of a basement in one of the buildings at Stanford into a makeshift prison and recruited students for the study. The students were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards. Within a few days, the subjects overidentified with the roles they were playing. Subjects who had been assigned the roles of guards became sadistic and mistreated the individuals assigned to be prisoners. The subjects playing the roles of prisoners soon began to identify as prisoners and worked to plot against the guards (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). The risk for psychological, physical, and legal harm was so great that the study, which was originally intended to last two weeks, was abandoned after a few days.

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

22 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S F O R S O C I A L W O R K E R S

A debate still rages today (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1998) as to whether the information that was gained from these studies (benefits) outweighed the potential harm (risks) to participants. Our point is not to enter into this debate but to illustrate that the regulations governing research were established to en- sure the safety and rights of those participating in research. Today, the preceding experiments would not be approved by the ethics boards that oversee research with human subjects. All of the preceding studies would be labeled as “uneth- ical” and would not be allowed to happen. By understanding the mistakes that have occurred in the past, we can avoid harm in the future.

Debriefing is the process of fully informing subjects of the nature of the re- search when some form of deception has been employed or when some of the information is not disclosed. Rarely is it necessary for a researcher to deceive subjects. However, there may be times when fully disclosing the exact nature of the research will cause the subjects to act in a way that will skew (alter) the results. For instance, in medication research, participants are frequently placed into three groups. One group gets the new drug, one group gets a drug that is already on the market, and one group gets a placebo. It is not until after the experiment has concluded that research participates are debriefed as to which group they participated in. The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999) states that “Social workers should take appropriate steps to ensure that participants in evaluation and research have access to appropriate supportive services” (section 5.01i).

In debriefing participants, the researcher must describe the nature and aim of the project, explain why participants were misled or provide the missing information, and provide the name and phone number of the person to con- tact in case participants have questions regarding the project. In addition, it is strongly suggested that the researcher have subjects sign a statement (or other form of documentation) stating that the subjects have been debriefed and that all questions about the project have been answered.

J U S T I C E

The principle of justice finds its application in the moral requirement that fair procedures and outcomes be used in the selection of research subjects. Justice is the fairness of distribution of benefits and risks among all individuals. This principle can be formulated in four ways: to each person an equal share, to each person according to individual need, to each person according to individual effort, and to each person according to merit. Often in research, vulnerable populations such as the homeless, people of color, institutionalized individuals, and those living in poverty bear the burden of risky research endeavors, whereas those with more influence, wealth, and power are selected for research that has potential benefits.

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is a good example of researchers imposing potential risks on an unknowing vulnerable population. In an agency- based

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Ethical Considerations 23

setting, the convenience of already having a population to research can create opportunities for beneficial interventions, such as new programs. For example, an agency offering and using research to evaluate an evening recovery program for residents of a homeless shelter has benefits for participants. When this re- covery program is opened to the public, those benefits are available to everyone.

This becomes problematic when the population is burdened with risky interventions, such as “holding” therapy techniques. Therapeutic holding is a commonly used intervention in residential facilities for the containment of aggressive behavior in children. Although often effective, the intervention has inherent physical and emotional safety risks.

O T H E R E T H I C A L C O N S I DE R AT IO N S

The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999) states that “Social workers should report evaluation and research findings accurately. They should not fabricate or falsify results and should take steps to correct any errors later found in published data using standard publication methods” (section 5.01n). This code addresses two ethical issues: reporting findings ac- curately and not falsifying data. In research, this is called laundering data and faking data.

Sometimes data from real- world sources are erroneous, incomplete, or in- consistent. For instance, on a survey, a research participant might select “highly unsatisfied,” thinking that he or she is selecting “highly satisfied.” Data are in- complete when one of the ten questions asked on a survey is left unanswered. Data are inconsistent when one out of one hundred surveys has responses that are so different from the others that the answers are considered abnormal in the findings. To deal with erroneous, incomplete, and inconsistent data, researchers sometimes clean up the data, which is called laundering. Laundering data is a way of statistically manipulating the data collected to reduce errors and make the findings more accurate. One way one can achieve this is by removing the ab- normal responses from the data. However, most applications for laundering data require more complicated statistical techniques, such as grouping the data into blocks, reorganizing the data into tables, then regrouping them into blocks after adjustments are made. The opportunity to manipulate the statistics to support a hypothesis or desired outcome can be tempting. The problem arises in how the manipulation is constructed; this can pose ethical problems if the results do not accurately reflect the findings.

Unfortunately, falsifying or faking data, while not often easily identified, can and does occur. Faking data is making up desired data or eliminating unde- sired data in research findings. One example of faking data would be to duplicate or multiply the answers collected in a research study in order to increase the number of responses. If only five people responded, the researcher might repeat their answers ten times and now have fifty responses. The findings are more con- vincing with a larger sample and can allow for more rigorous statistical analyses

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

24 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S F O R S O C I A L W O R K E R S

(discussed in Chapters 10 and 11). Another example is to simply not include responses that do not support the hypothesis. For instance, researchers have col- lected data on how satisfied clients are with the services at their agency. They throw out some negative responses and keep all the positive responses to in- crease the percentage of clients reporting satisfaction. Perhaps the most devious type of faking is simply making up findings without conducting the research. This can occur when a person mimics another research study but changes the characteristics and findings.

There are as many reasons for faking data as there are examples. For in- stance: manipulating or changing findings to support a hypothesis, changing information so that it increases the chances of publication, providing evidence needed to apply for or continue a funded grant, or even meeting requirements of a class project are all examples of how data can be manipulated to fit a desired outcome. However, the ethical researcher needs to be on guard against unethical behavior.

One final ethical issue encountered in research that is often overlooked (espe- cially by students) is plagiarism. The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers states that “Social workers should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed and to which they have contributed” and “Social workers should honestly ac- knowledge the work of and the contributions made by others” (section 4.08). Being ethical as a social worker means not only conducting research in a humane manner, but also giving credit to others’ work. The research process depends on an assumption that people are being honest and forthcoming when they write papers and report findings. If researchers, instructors, and students fail to be honest in their work, the entire process loses credibility and the research pro- cess becomes suspect. The issue of plagiarism has become an increasing concern among educators in the past few years. With the invention of the Internet, it has become increasingly easy for students to take advantage of others’ work without assigning proper credit to the true authors.

In its simplest form, plagiarism means taking credit for work that is not one’s own, either in whole or in part. This can take many forms, including copying or repeating research without giving proper credit. Individuals who plagiarize are not always intentionally being deceitful; many simply do not understand that when you use someone else’s ideas, words, or work you need to give proper credit. This means citing other people’s work in the body of your paper and on the reference page. The same is true when a person paraphrases someone else’s thoughts. The rule of thumb is that if you utilize another person’s work, you need to give him or her credit. If you quote that person, then his or her words are enclosed in quotation marks and proper citation is given. If you utilize the person’s thoughts or main ideas but paraphrase what he or she wrote, then you need to cite the person. Providing proper citations is more than a matter of eth- ical integrity in research— it is a form of courtesy shown to other authors and researchers.

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Ethical Considerations 25

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a committee mandated by the federal government to oversee the protection of human and animal subjects in research. Any institution of higher learning that receives federal money (including finan- cial aid for students) has an IRB committee that oversees research with human subjects and animals and ensures that all research is conducted in a safe, ethical, and humane manner. Hospitals and other facilities that conduct research with humans or animals also have committees to ensure that research is carried out in a humane manner. A review board can be beneficial to researchers by ensuring compliance with ethical practices and standards that protect the rights of research participants. In fact, the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999) states that “Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should carefully consider possible consequences and should follow guidelines de- veloped for the protection of evaluation and research participants. Appropriate institutional review boards should be consulted” (section 5.02d).

Federal regulations stipulate that research that is conducted for the purposes of publication or presentation or to contribute to knowledge must gain IRB approval. If you plan to present your research in a journal or at a conference, plan to submit your research to the IRB at your institution. In addition, some universities require students to submit a research protocol and meet the board’s requirements when conducting research as part of a class project. It is a good idea to keep in mind the principles established by these boards and to incorporate them into your own research. The first and foremost issue to consider is the safety of your subjects. It is imperative that, as a researcher, you always consider the issue of what might go wrong. It is a good idea to keep in mind Murphy’s Law (if something can go wrong, it probably will).

We recommend checking with your instructor and your own university’s IRB to determine the regulations in place that govern research at your institution. In some colleges and universities, the instructor is given oversight of students conducting research as part of a class and no formal approval from the IRB is needed. In other schools, all research (regardless of whether it is conducted as part of a class or not) is required to obtain IRB approval before collecting data.

C A S E S C E N A R IO

You are a case manager working in a community mental health facility. Part of your duties is to provide group and individual counseling for adult consumers who have chronic and severe mental illnesses. Your supervisor has instructed you to ask your clients to complete a survey. The survey asks several questions in- cluding their use of illicit drugs (such as smoking marijuana) and alcohol and to name their mental health diagnosis. You are concerned that your clients have not been fully informed about their rights as research subjects. When you approach your supervisor about your concerns, her response is, “It’s okay, I am not asking anything that could identify them.”

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

26 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S F O R S O C I A L W O R K E R S

C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G QU E S T IO N S

1. Based on the information in this chapter and what you have learned so far, do you believe that you are being asked to contribute to unethical behavior? Why or why not?

2. Do you agree with the supervisor’s statement that because no specific identifying information is collected, it is all right to ask these questions? Why or why not?

3. Given the information provided, what would you suggest as the best course of action for the case manager?

K E Y P O I N T S

• The three guiding principles for protecting human rights in research are respect for individuals, beneficence, and justice.

• Three methods for protecting human rights in research are confidentiality, anonymity, and informed consent.

• Confidentiality is the assurance that a researcher provides to subjects that all information about them and all answers they provide will remain in the hands of the investigator and that no other person outside the research process will have access to this information.

• Anonymity is the practice of not collecting any information that will identify the subject.

• Informed consent is letting potential subjects know what the basic purpose of the study will be and that their participation is voluntary and obtaining their written permission to participate in the study.

• Debriefing is the process of fully informing subjects of the nature of the research when some form of deception has been employed.

• Plagiarism is the unauthorized use of another person’s work and failure to give him or her credit.

• Institutional review boards oversee the rights of human subjects involved in research.

P R AC T I C E E X A M

Mu ltiple Choice

1. The Nuremberg Trials were a. an investigation into Germany’s treatment of prisoners during World

War II. b. a study conducted on athletes during the 1936 Olympics in Nuremberg,

Germany.

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.

Ethical Considerations 27

c. a jury trial that considered the legality of the Geneva Convention. d. none of the above.

2. Some people believe that one of the ethical issues with conducting research on children and prisoners is a. they may not be reliable test subjects. b. they may not be in a position to fully consent to being a subject. c. they may skew the results of the experiment. d. all of the above. e. none of the above; there are no ethical dilemmas with conducting re-

search with children and prisoners.

True or Fa lse

3. Institutional Review Boards (known as IRBs) grew out of the Nazis’ unethical experimentation on prisoners.

4. The NASW Code of Ethics does not specifically mention ethics. 5. Plagiarism is considered unethical behavior. 6. Failing to acknowledge another person’s work is a form of plagiarism. 7. Debriefing is the process of discussing with a subject what they thought

about the experiment after it is over. 8. Governmental agencies are not immune from unethical practices.

Co py ri gh t 20 19 . Ox fo rd U ni ve rs it y Pr es s.