Introducing Communication Research 2e © 2014 SAGE Publications Chapter Three Ethics: What Are My Responsibilities as a Researcher?

Introducing Communication Research 2e © 2014 SAGE Publications

Chapter ThreeEthics: What Are My Responsibilities as a Researcher?

Key Concepts

•Communication research could harm participants.

•Classic ethical positions provide bases for decisions about treating participants.

•Codes of practice provide practical guidelines about treating participants.

•Formal review is often required where research on humans is proposed.


For Discussion Would you . . .

▫Deliberately deceive participants?▫Accept funding from a source that

wants your research to help sell its products?

▫Start false rumors? (push polling in politics)

▫Record people’s behavior without them being aware of it?


Some Classic Ethical Positions•Judeo-Christian -

“Do unto others.” VIDEO

•Kant – categorical imperative – A behavior is valid if you are willing to accept it

as a universal rule.•Bentham, Mill – utilitarianism –

Greatest good for the greatest number.

•Rawls – “Veil of Ignorance” – Dispassionate; review all sides of decision

equally.


The Purpose of Ethics Codes

The primary purpose of ethics codes in human communication research is to protect research participants.


Key Points of Ethics Codes•Do no harm. (similar to the medical field)• Informed consent. (similar to HIPAA and FERPA)•Voluntary participation.•Participants can leave at any time.•Debriefing after the study.•Anonymity or confidentiality. (HIPAA and FERPA)•Crediting other researchers. (avoid plagiarism)•Full reporting. (4 out of 5 doctors recommend…)


Nazi Germany “Research”


Nuremberg & Helsinki Codes

Nuremberg Code (1948) – ▫Participants must consent to research.▫Research benefits must outweigh risks.

Declaration of Helsinki (1964) – ▫Review by independent committee.▫Informed consent.▫Research by qualified individuals.▫Research benefits should exceed risks.


Tuskegee Experiment (1932-1972)


The Belmont Report (1979)

•Respect for Persons▫Information. (Such as a clinical trial)▫Comprehension. (Mental capacity?)▫Voluntariness.

•Beneficence▫Maximize benefits/

minimize harm.•Justice

▫Fair procedures and outcomes in selecting research subjects.


Peer Review•Basic Assumption:

Those best equipped to evaluate your work and its impact on human participants are appropriately qualified people doing similar work to your own.

•Formal Review: Institutional Review Boards, editorial process.

•Informal Review: Networking, conferences.


Institutional Review BoardIRB

A formal review mechanism established to review research proposals for their impact on human participants.


Relationships of Participants to Researchers.

•Subject

•Respondent

•Informant

•Participant

•Collaborator

•Partner


Ethics of the Literature Review

•How far back in time to review. (recency)

•Use of secondary sources (summary articles) versus primary (original) sources.

•Reporting research that does not support your viewpoint. (objectivity)

•Reporting research that is proprietary (“owned”). Avoid plagiarism, even unintentional.


Ethical Issues in Reporting Research

•Honesty.

•Plagiarism.

•Confidentiality or anonymity.

•Crediting others.

•Appropriate language.


The Internet and Research Ethics


The Internet and Research Ethics

Advantages•Rapid access to large numbers of research

participants. •Low cost.Disadvantages•Conceptual problems defining the Internet.•Practical problems of sampling, obtaining

consents & establishing authenticity of participants


The Internet Research Ethics Dilemma

•Human participants are being studied.

•Consent of participants is therefore required.

versus

•The web is published content. •Internet research is content analysis.•Consent of participants is therefore not

required.


Guidelines for Internet Research

•The more vulnerable the participants, the greater the researcher’s obligation to protect them.

•The more public the venue, the less obligation there may be to protect individual privacy, confidentiality, & right to informed consent.

Adopted from the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) - http://aoir.org/documents/ethics-guide.


Chapter Summary

Research Ethics . . .•Focus on how research participants

should be treated.•Basic concern is protecting participants

from harm.•Review mechanisms include IRBs and

informal peer review.•Formal ethics codes include

“Nuremberg”, “Helsinki”, the Belmont Report and the “Common Rule”.


Web Resources

•The National Institutes of Health Bioethics Resources -

http://bioethics.od.nih.gov/IRB.html•American Psychological Association -

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

•American Association for Public Opinion Research -

http://www.aapor.org/aaporcodeofethics


Documents

Introducing Communication Research 2e © 2014 SAGE Publications Chapter Three Ethics: What Are My Responsibilities as a Researcher?