ethics in conducting research l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Ethics in Conducting Research PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Ethics in Conducting Research

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 57
ethan

Ethics in Conducting Research - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1124 Views
Download Presentation
Ethics in Conducting Research
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Ethics in Conducting Research By David Agnew Arkansas State University Slide presentation adapted from two slide presentations Dr. Jim Dyer, University of Florida Dr. Gary Moore, North Carolina State University

  2. Review • Explain the difference in Evaluation and Research. • Explain why Educational Research is important. • Explain why Research may be more important to CTE than Academic Education. • Explain why it is important to be good consumers of research. • What are some words associated with quality? • Explain how to locate sources of good research. • List 5 good sources of research for Career and Technical Education.

  3. Tonight • Power point – and handout • Online tutorial of human subjects – on your own after class • NCSU Human subjects tutorial http://www.ncsu.edu/sparcs/tutorial/intro.php?Submit=Return+to+Main+Menu • Bring a printed copy of the final results. • Jaeb Center for Health Researchhttp://ethics.jaeb.org/ • You will get a certificate of completion (bring to class next time)

  4. Objectives • Describe briefly what is meant by "ethical" research. • Identify forces that govern the definition of ethical research. • Describe briefly three important ethical principles that should guide researchers. • Identify the basic question with regard to ethics that researchers need to ask before beginning a research project. . • State the three questions researchers must address to protect research participants from harm. • Describe the procedures researchers must follow in order to ensure confidentially of data collected in a research investigation. • Describe when it might be appropriate to deceive participants in a research investigation and researcher's responsibility in such a case. • Describe the special considerations involved when doing research with children • Define what is meant by IRB (Institutional Review Board) and explain the process for obtaining IRB approval to conduct research.

  5. Obj 1: What is meant by "ethical" research? • Personal integrity of researcher, fair, honest • Right of privacy of participants • Disclosure of methods • Reason for research • Informed willingness • Respect for integrity of individual • Acknowledge financial support

  6. Obj 2: Sources for Guidelines of Ethical Research • 1st Each profession has a set of ethics • Even it it does not address research specifically it usually gives direction on human interactions. • 2nd Schools or institutions have a code of ethics • Usually involves completion of a form(s) • Involves a review by committee(s) • 3rd There are laws that outline what is acceptable and what is not. • Some rules do not apply when you are doing education about research (except the thesis or dissertations).

  7. Obj 3: Ethical Principles that Should Guide Researchers. Two Major Issues, One Common Concern: • Conducting the Research • Reporting the Research

  8. Obj 3: Ethical Conduct at each Stage of Research • Data Collection – Procedures, confidentiality • Sharing of data – Sources of data, credit, etc. • Interpretation of the data – Bias, $$$, common good • Reporting the results – Omission, where, multiple outlets • Credit of authorship – who did what? • All of these require first a knowledge of appropriate procedure 1st and 2nd a willingness to follow procedure from both the standpoint of ethics and second sound research methodology.

  9. First lets look at …. • Conducting the Research

  10. Obj 3: Ethical Principles Should Guide Researchers • As with many educated communities or disciplines principles emerge from experience, some of which are not positive. • So what have we learned from history….?

  11. The Nuremberg Trials • The public was outraged to learn of the scientific experiments conducted by Nazi physicians and scientists during WWII. As a result 10 principles to guide research were formulated – The Nuremberg Code

  12. Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution By Sue Ellin Browder • “In public, Kinsey presented himself as a stable married man, a disinterested scientist just reporting “the facts.” But, privately, Jones’s research revealed Kinsey to be……” • “Three problems • Problem #1: Humans as Animals Before he began studying human sexuality, Kinsey was the world’s leading expert on the gall wasp. Trained as a zoologist, he saw sex purely as a physiological “animal” response. • Problem #2: Skewed Samples Kinsey often presented his statistics as if they applied to average moms, dads, sisters, and brothers. In doing so, he claimed 95 percent of American men had violated sex-crime laws that could land them in jail. • Problem #3: Faulty Statistics …….Kinsey’s statistics were so seriously flawed that no reputable scientific survey has ever been able to duplicate them. • “Source: http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2004/kinsey.htm H.R.2749Title: To determine if Alfred Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and/or "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female“ are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing. Year: 1995

  13. British Science Journal Admits Publishing Phony Report About Biotech Corn In Mexico • “After a five-month holdout, the besieged British journal Nature has raised the white flag of surrender--admitting that it published as fact a report that turned out to be merely the latest in a series of biotech hoaxes. In a rare skinback, the journal’s editors disavowed a November story reporting that genes from genetically modified corn were “polluting” the DNA of a farmer-bred corn in an area of southern Mexico believed to be the birthplace of corn. Based on widespread criticism of the article by independent scientists and further assessments by outside referees, the editors said the evidence submitted was “not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper.” • Source: http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/apr_5_02.htm

  14. Tuskegee Syphilis Study • Poor Black men in the South were not told they had syphilis and the available treatment was withheld to see what would happen. This went from 1932-1972. The public was outraged. President Clinton issued an apology.

  15. The Belmont Report • Because of the public outcry, the federal government organized the National Commission for Protection of Human Subjects of Behavioral and Biomedical Research to develop guidelines for research with human subjects. This group issued a report in 1979 known as The Belmont Report.

  16. The Belmont Report • Beneficence – Do no harm (risks to subjects must be balanced against the benefits to them and to others) • This is not a major problem in agricultural and extension education research.

  17. The Belmont Report • Justice – really should be labeled as equality. Protects one part of the population from bearing the brunt of the research. • Are death row inmates involved in potentially risky research? • Where are garbage dumps located?

  18. The Belmont Report • Respect for persons – allow people to make their own decisions about whether or not to participate in the research.

  19. Federal Regulations • In 1991 the Federal Government established Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations (part 46) to govern federally funded research activities. • The regulations are administered by the Office for Research and Technology Transfer (ORTT) • Since ASU receives federal research money, we must abide by these guidelines.

  20. Federal Regulations • Institutions like ASU must have an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that reviews and approves any research involving humans (and animals). • A board such as this makes sure our research is in accordance with federal guidelines.

  21. The IRB • The IRB has the authority to: • approve • approve with modifications • table, or • disapprove any research proposal involving human subjects. • They also have the authority to suspend or stop any research project involving human subjects.

  22. The IRB • If an investigator conducts human subject research without obtaining appropriate IRB review and approval, a number of consequences may arise. The investigator may be unable to publish his/her findings, study data may be confiscated, sources of funding may be lost, and ultimately, an institution could lose its assurance, thereby losing its privilege to conduct research with human subjects.

  23. IRB Levels of Approval • Exempt – Determined by the IRB Administrator. Even if the researcher knows the study is exempt, IRB review is required. • The IRB must determine it is exempt.

  24. So What is Exempt? • 1. Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.

  25. So What is Exempt? • 2. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability, or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.

  26. So What is Exempt? • 3. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior that is not exempt under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if: (i) the human subjects are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; or (ii) federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter.

  27. So What is Exempt? • 4. Research, involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available, or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.

  28. So What is Exempt? • 5. Research and demonstration projects, which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine: (i) public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs.

  29. So What is Exempt? • 6. Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies, (i) if wholesome foods without additives are consumed, or (ii) if a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the level found to be safe.

  30. IRB Levels of Approval • Expedited – If the potential for harm of human subjects is neglible, a review from one or more committee members is all that is needed.

  31. IRB Levels of Approval • Full Board – Review by the full board with a quorum being present.

  32. The Review • The IRB must see everything the subject will see (cover letter, survey instrument, etc.) • This must be done before any type of data collection. • For ongoing projects, you must get IRB approval every year.

  33. Possible Research Risks • Physical Harm • Confidentiality (leaking information about a participant) • Intrusion on Privacy (conducting part of a study in a public setting) • Emotional/Psychological

  34. How to Reduce Risks • Have an informed consent form • Have example • Use code numbers instead of names to identify people • Destroy raw data when study is over

  35. IRB @ ASU • The address below is the one you should use to go to the IRB forms for ASU. They are at the bottom of the page. • Link 1 – is the form • Link 2 is the instructions • http://researchoffice.astate.edu/forms.htm • Also at this same link are the forms for animal research

  36. Science fairs also require adherence to various requirements for use of human subjects and animals used in research Side note:

  37. Second Major Ethical Issue: • Reporting the Research • Written • Oral

  38. Scientific Misconduct • Basically, there are three major types of scientific misconduct • fabrication; • falsification; • plagiarism; or • other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the research community for proposing, conducting, and reporting research.

  39. Fabrication • Inventing or making up data • Did anyone see Krippendorf’s Tribe? • An anthropologist creates a fictitious lost New Guinea tribe using his family members to cover-up for his mis-use of grant moneys. • This does happen in Academia, but shouldn’t

  40. Closer to Home: Here at ASU "The Great King Crowley Hoax," • An exhibit about a man who supposedly discovered an ancient Indian burial ground containing authentic artifacts. Approximately 30 of the 60 stone pieces that Dentler Rowland claimed to have dug up from a grave on Crowley's Ridge in 1924. Rowland said they were evidence of a lost civilization. Well-known archaeologists and prominent institutions began refuting the authenticity of the work as early as 1924.

  41. Falsification • Falsification of data is the selective alteration of data collected in the conduct of scientific investigation. • Falsification also includes the selective omission/deletion/suppression of conflicting data without scientific or statistical justification.

  42. Plagiarism • As a general working definition, the Office of Research Integrity (a federal agency) considers plagiarism to include both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes.

  43. Plagiarism (p. 293, APA) • Defined - The unacknolwedged use of another person’s words, ideas, or phrases • Can be deliberate or unintentional

  44. Plagiarism (continued) • What must be cited? • All information from outside sources - (Non-original material) • Quotation • Paraphrase • Summary • What needn’t be cited? • General knowledge

  45. Examples of Plagiarism • Use of sources from the internet without proper documentation • Undocumented use of sources from other written materials, i.e. books, magazines, etc. • Use of other student’s work as one’s own

  46. Citations • Quotation marks should be used to indicate the exact words of another. • Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a sentence and changing some of the words is paraphrasing. • Each time a source is paraphrased, a credit for the source needs to be included in the text. APA Manual

  47. Scientific Misconduct Source: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-11/p42.html#cap1

  48. Other Examples of Misconduct • False citation – This s the deliberate citing of a source for information, when the source does not contain that information, with intention to mislead.

  49. Other • Misuses of the refereeing process • a) Misappropriation of ideas—stealing ideas from papers that one referees • b) Misappropriation of priority—publishing an idea first by delaying publication of papers that one referees

  50. One Other Issue - Authorship • Conflicts often occur over authorship of research papers. • For graduate student research, it is common protocol to include the major professor and other committee members who made “substantial” contributions to the research in the list of authors of a paper/manuscript. • The graduate student’s name goes first, if he/she is doing the bulk of the work.