experience
With respect to their academic background, most participants (n = 9) had a PhD, three (3) had a post-doctorate, two (2) had a master’s degree, and two (2) had a bachelor’s degree. Participants came from a variety of disciplines: nine (9) had a specialty in the humanities or social sciences, four (4) in the health sciences and three (3) in the natural sciences. In terms of their knowledge of ethics, five (5) participants reported having taken one university course entirely dedicated to ethics, four (4) reported having taken several university courses entirely dedicated to ethics, three (3) had a university degree dedicated to ethics, while two (2) only had a few hours or days of training in ethics and two (2) reported having no knowledge of ethics.
As Fig. 1 illustrates, ten units of meaning emerge from the data analysis, namely: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. To illustrate the results, excerpts from verbatim interviews are presented in the following sub-sections. Most of the excerpts have been translated into English as the majority of interviews were conducted with French-speaking participants.
Ethical issues in research according to the participants
The research environment is highly competitive and performance-based. Several participants, in particular researchers and research ethics experts, felt that this environment can lead both researchers and research teams to engage in unethical behaviour that reflects a lack of research integrity. For example, as some participants indicated, competition for grants and scientific publications is sometimes so intense that researchers falsify research results or plagiarize from colleagues to achieve their goals.
Some people will lie or exaggerate their research findings in order to get funding. Then, you see it afterwards, you realize: “ah well, it didn’t work, but they exaggerated what they found and what they did” (participant 14). Another problem in research is the identification of authors when there is a publication. Very often, there are authors who don’t even know what the publication is about and that their name is on it. (…) The time that it surprised me the most was just a few months ago when I saw someone I knew who applied for a teaching position. He got it I was super happy for him. Then I looked at his publications and … there was one that caught my attention much more than the others, because I was in it and I didn’t know what that publication was. I was the second author of a publication that I had never read (participant 14). I saw a colleague who had plagiarized another colleague. [When the colleague] found out about it, he complained. So, plagiarism is a serious [ethical breach]. I would also say that there is a certain amount of competition in the university faculties, especially for grants (…). There are people who want to win at all costs or get as much as possible. They are not necessarily going to consider their colleagues. They don’t have much of a collegial spirit (participant 10).
These examples of research misbehaviour or misconduct are sometimes due to or associated with situations of conflicts of interest, which may be poorly managed by certain researchers or research teams, as noted by many participants.
The actors and institutions involved in research have diverse interests, like all humans and institutions. As noted in Chap. 7 of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2, 2018),
“researchers and research students hold trust relationships, either directly or indirectly, with participants, research sponsors, institutions, their professional bodies and society. These trust relationships can be put at risk by conflicts of interest that may compromise independence, objectivity or ethical duties of loyalty. Although the potential for such conflicts has always existed, pressures on researchers (i.e., to delay or withhold dissemination of research outcomes or to use inappropriate recruitment strategies) heighten concerns that conflicts of interest may affect ethical behaviour” (p. 92).
The sources of these conflicts are varied and can include interpersonal conflicts, financial partnerships, third-party pressures, academic or economic interests, a researcher holding multiple roles within an institution, or any other incentive that may compromise a researcher’s independence, integrity, and neutrality (TCPS2, 2018). While it is not possible to eliminate all conflicts of interest, it is important to manage them properly and to avoid temptations to behave unethically.
Ethical temptations correspond to situations in which people are tempted to prioritize their own interests to the detriment of the ethical goods that should, in their own context, govern their actions (Swisher et al., 2005 ). In the case of researchers, this refers to situations that undermine independence, integrity, neutrality, or even the set of principles that govern research ethics (TCPS2, 2018) or the responsible conduct of research. According to study participants, these types of ethical issues frequently occur in research. Many participants, especially researchers and REB members, reported that conflicts of interest can arise when members of an organization make decisions to obtain large financial rewards or to increase their academic profile, often at the expense of the interests of members of their research team, research participants, or even the populations affected by their research.
A company that puts money into making its drug work wants its drug to work. So, homeopathy is a good example, because there are not really any consequences of homeopathy, there are not very many side effects, because there are no effects at all. So, it’s not dangerous, but it’s not a good treatment either. But some people will want to make it work. And that’s a big issue when you’re sitting at a table and there are eight researchers, and there are two or three who are like that, and then there are four others who are neutral, and I say to myself, this is not science. I think that this is a very big ethical issue (participant 14). There are also times in some research where there will be more links with pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, there are then large amounts of money that will be very interesting for the health-care institutions because they still receive money for clinical trials. They’re still getting some compensation because its time consuming for the people involved and all that. The pharmaceutical companies have money, so they will compensate, and that is sometimes interesting for the institutions, and since we are a bit caught up in this, in the sense that we have no choice but to accept it. (…) It may not be the best research in the world, there may be a lot of side effects due to the drugs, but it’s good to accept it, we’re going to be part of the clinical trial (participant 3). It is integrity, what we believe should be done or said. Often by the pressure of the environment, integrity is in tension with the pressures of the environment, so it takes resistance, it takes courage in research. (…) There were all the debates there about the problems of research that was funded and then the companies kept control over what was written. That was really troubling for a lot of researchers (participant 5).
Further, these situations sometimes have negative consequences for research participants as reported by some participants.
Many research projects, whether they are psychosocial or biomedical in nature, involve human participants. Relationships between the members of research teams and their research participants raise ethical issues that can be complex. Research projects must always be designed to respect the rights and interests of research participants, and not just those of researchers. However, participants in our study – i.e., REB members, researchers, and research ethics experts – noted that some research teams seem to put their own interests ahead of those of research participants. They also emphasized the importance of ensuring the respect, well-being, and safety of research participants. The ethical issues related to this unit of meaning are: respect for free, informed and ongoing consent of research participants; respect for and the well-being of participants; data protection and confidentiality; over-solicitation of participants; ownership of the data collected on participants; the sometimes high cost of scientific innovations and their accessibility; balance between the social benefits of research and the risks to participants (particularly in terms of safety); balance between collective well-being (development of knowledge) and the individual rights of participants; exploitation of participants; paternalism when working with populations in vulnerable situations; and the social acceptability of certain types of research. The following excerpts present some of these issues.
Where it disturbs me ethically is in the medical field – because it’s more in the medical field that we’re going to see this – when consent forms are presented to patients to solicit them as participants, and then [these forms] have an average of 40 pages. That annoys me. When they say that it has to be easy to understand and all that, adapted to the language, and then the hyper-technical language plus there are 40 pages to read, I don’t understand how you’re going to get informed consent after reading 40 pages. (…) For me, it doesn’t work. I read them to evaluate them and I have a certain level of education and experience in ethics, and there are times when I don’t understand anything (participant 2). There is a lot of pressure from researchers who want to recruit research participants (…). The idea that when you enter a health care institution, you become a potential research participant, when you say “yes to a research, you check yes to all research”, then everyone can ask you. I think that researchers really have this fantasy of saying to themselves: “as soon as people walk through the door of our institution, they become potential participants with whom we can communicate and get them involved in all projects”. There’s a kind of idea that, yes, it can be done, but it has to be somewhat supervised to avoid over-solicitation (…). Researchers are very interested in facilitating recruitment and making it more fluid, but perhaps to the detriment of confidentiality, privacy, and respect; sometimes that’s what it is, to think about what type of data you’re going to have in your bank of potential participants? Is it just name and phone number or are you getting into more sensitive information? (participant 9).
In addition, one participant reported that their university does not provide the resources required to respect the confidentiality of research participants.
The issue is as follows: researchers, of course, commit to protecting data with passwords and all that, but we realize that in practice, it is more difficult. It is not always as protected as one might think, because professor-researchers will run out of space. Will the universities make rooms available to researchers, places where they can store these things, especially when they have paper documentation, and is there indeed a guarantee of confidentiality? Some researchers have told me: “Listen; there are even filing cabinets in the corridors”. So, that certainly poses a concrete challenge. How do we go about challenging the administrative authorities? Tell them it’s all very well to have an ethics committee, but you have to help us, you also have to make sure that the necessary infrastructures are in place so that what we are proposing is really put into practice (participant 4).
If the relationships with research participants are likely to raise ethical issues, so too are the relationships with students, notably research assistants. On this topic, several participants discussed the lack of supervision or recognition offered to research assistants by researchers as well as the power imbalances between members of the research team.
Many research teams are composed not only of researchers, but also of students who work as research assistants. The relationship between research assistants and other members of research teams can sometimes be problematic and raise ethical issues, particularly because of the inevitable power asymmetries. In the context of this study, several participants – including a research assistant, REB members, and researchers – discussed the lack of supervision or recognition of the work carried out by students, psychological pressure, and the more or less well-founded promises that are sometimes made to students. Participants also mentioned the exploitation of students by certain research teams, which manifest when students are inadequately paid, i.e., not reflective of the number of hours actually worked, not a fair wage, or even a wage at all.
[As a research assistant], it was more of a feeling of distress that I felt then because I didn’t know what to do. (…) I was supposed to get coaching or be supported, but I didn’t get anything in the end. It was like, “fix it by yourself”. (…) All research assistants were supposed to be supervised, but in practice they were not (participant 1). Very often, we have a master’s or doctoral student that we put on a subject and we consider that the project will be well done, while the student is learning. So, it happens that the student will do a lot of work and then we realize that the work is poorly done, and it is not necessarily the student’s fault. He wasn’t necessarily well supervised. There are directors who have 25 students, and they just don’t supervise them (participant 14). I think it’s really the power relationship. I thought to myself, how I saw my doctorate, the beginning of my research career, I really wanted to be in that laboratory, but they are the ones who are going to accept me or not, so what do I do to be accepted? I finally accept their conditions [which was to work for free]. If these are the conditions that are required to enter this lab, I want to go there. So, what do I do, well I accepted. It doesn’t make sense, but I tell myself that I’m still privileged, because I don’t have so many financial worries, one more reason to work for free, even though it doesn’t make sense (participant 1). In research, we have research assistants. (…). The fact of using people… so that’s it, you have to take into account where they are, respect them, but at the same time they have to show that they are there for the research. In English, we say “carry” or take care of people. With research assistants, this is often a problem that I have observed: for grant machines, the person is the last to be found there. Researchers, who will take, use student data, without giving them the recognition for it (participant 5). The problem at our university is that they reserve funding for Canadian students. The doctoral clientele in my field is mostly foreign students. So, our students are poorly funded. I saw one student end up in the shelter, in a situation of poverty. It ended very badly for him because he lacked financial resources. Once you get into that dynamic, it’s very hard to get out. I was made aware of it because the director at the time had taken him under her wing and wanted to try to find a way to get him out of it. So, most of my students didn’t get funded (participant 16). There I wrote “manipulation”, but it’s kind of all promises all the time. I, for example, was promised a lot of advancement, like when I got into the lab as a graduate student, it was said that I had an interest in [this particular area of research]. I think there are a lot of graduate students who must have gone through that, but it is like, “Well, your CV has to be really good, if you want to do a lot of things and big things. If you do this, if you do this research contract, the next year you could be the coordinator of this part of the lab and supervise this person, get more contracts, be paid more. Let’s say: you’ll be invited to go to this conference, this big event”. They were always dangling something, but you have to do that first to get there. But now, when you’ve done that, you have to do this business. It’s like a bit of manipulation, I think. That was very hard to know who is telling the truth and who is not (participant 1).
These ethical issues have significant negative consequences for students. Indeed, they sometimes find themselves at the mercy of researchers, for whom they work, struggling to be recognized and included as authors of an article, for example, or to receive the salary that they are due. For their part, researchers also sometimes find themselves trapped in research structures that can negatively affect their well-being. As many participants reported, researchers work in organizations that set very high productivity standards and in highly competitive contexts, all within a general culture characterized by individualism.
Participants, especially researchers, discussed the culture of individualism and performance that characterizes the academic environment. In glorifying excellence, some universities value performance and productivity, often at the expense of psychological well-being and work-life balance (i.e., work overload and burnout). Participants noted that there are ethical silences in their organizations on this issue, and that the culture of individualism and performance is not challenged for fear of retribution or simply to survive, i.e., to perform as expected. Participants felt that this culture can have a significant negative impact on the quality of the research conducted, as research teams try to maximize the quantity of their work (instead of quality) in a highly competitive context, which is then exacerbated by a lack of resources and support, and where everything must be done too quickly.
The work-life balance with the professional ethics related to work in a context where you have too much and you have to do a lot, it is difficult to balance all that and there is a lot of pressure to perform. If you don’t produce enough, that’s it; after that, you can’t get any more funds, so that puts pressure on you to do more and more and more (participant 3). There is a culture, I don’t know where it comes from, and that is extremely bureaucratic. If you dare to raise something, you’re going to have many, many problems. They’re going to make you understand it. So, I don’t talk. It is better: your life will be easier. I think there are times when you have to talk (…) because there are going to be irreparable consequences. (…) I’m not talking about a climate of terror, because that’s exaggerated, it’s not true, people are not afraid. But people close their office door and say nothing because it’s going to make their work impossible and they’re not going to lose their job, they’re not going to lose money, but researchers need time to be focused, so they close their office door and say nothing (participant 16).
Researchers must produce more and more, and they feel little support in terms of how to do such production, ethically, and how much exactly they are expected to produce. As this participant reports, the expectation is an unspoken rule: more is always better.
It’s sometimes the lack of a clear line on what the expectations are as a researcher, like, “ah, we don’t have any specific expectations, but produce, produce, produce, produce.” So, in that context, it’s hard to be able to put the line precisely: “have I done enough for my work?” (participant 3).
While the productivity expectation is not clear, some participants – including researchers, research ethics experts, and REB members – also felt that the ethical expectations of some REBs were unclear. The issue of the inadequate ethical guidance of research includes the administrative mechanisms to ensure that research projects respect the principles of research ethics. According to those participants, the forms required for both researchers and REB members are increasingly long and numerous, and one participant noted that the standards to be met are sometimes outdated and disconnected from the reality of the field. Multicentre ethics review (by several REBs) was also critiqued by a participant as an inefficient method that encumbers the processes for reviewing research projects. Bureaucratization imposes an ever-increasing number of forms and ethics guidelines that actually hinder researchers’ ethical reflection on the issues at stake, leading the ethics review process to be perceived as purely bureaucratic in nature.
The ethical dimension and the ethical review of projects have become increasingly bureaucratized. (…) When I first started working (…) it was less bureaucratic, less strict then. I would say [there are now] tons of forms to fill out. Of course, we can’t do without it, it’s one of the ways of marking out ethics and ensuring that there are ethical considerations in research, but I wonder if it hasn’t become too bureaucratized, so that it’s become a kind of technical reflex to fill out these forms, and I don’t know if people really do ethical reflection as such anymore (participant 10). The fundamental structural issue, I would say, is the mismatch between the normative requirements and the real risks posed by the research, i.e., we have many, many requirements to meet; we have very long forms to fill out but the research projects we evaluate often pose few risks (participant 8). People [in vulnerable situations] were previously unable to participate because of overly strict research ethics rules that were to protect them, but in the end [these rules] did not protect them. There was a perverse effect, because in the end there was very little research done with these people and that’s why we have very few results, very little evidence [to support practices with these populations] so it didn’t improve the quality of services. (…) We all understand that we have to be careful with that, but when the research is not too risky, we say to ourselves that it would be good because for once a researcher who is interested in that population, because it is not a very popular population, it would be interesting to have results, but often we are blocked by the norms, and then we can’t accept [the project] (participant 2).
Moreover, as one participant noted, accessing ethics training can be a challenge.
There is no course on research ethics. […] Then, I find that it’s boring because you go through university and you come to do your research and you know how to do quantitative and qualitative research, but all the research ethics, where do you get this? I don’t really know (participant 13).
Yet, such training could provide relevant tools to resolve, to some extent, the ethical issues that commonly arise in research. That said, and as noted by many participants, many ethical issues in research are related to social injustices over which research actors have little influence.
For many participants, notably researchers, the issues that concern social injustices are those related to power asymmetries, stigma, or issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion, i.e., social injustices related to people’s identities (Blais & Drolet, 2022 ). Participants reported experiencing or witnessing discrimination from peers, administration, or lab managers. Such oppression is sometimes cross-sectional and related to a person’s age, cultural background, gender or social status.
I have my African colleague who was quite successful when he arrived but had a backlash from colleagues in the department. I think it’s unconscious, nobody is overtly racist. But I have a young person right now who is the same, who has the same success, who got exactly the same early career award and I don’t see the same backlash. He’s just as happy with what he’s doing. It’s normal, they’re young and they have a lot of success starting out. So, I think there is discrimination. Is it because he is African? Is it because he is black? I think it’s on a subconscious level (participant 16).
Social injustices were experienced or reported by many participants, and included issues related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when one researcher is a woman.
If you do international research, there are things you can’t talk about (…). It is really a barrier to research to not be able to (…) address this question [i.e. the question of inequalities between men and women]. Women’s inequality is going to be addressed [but not within the country where the research takes place as if this inequality exists elsewhere but not here]. There are a lot of women working on inequality issues, doing work and it’s funny because I was talking to a young woman who works at Cairo University and she said to me: “Listen, I saw what you had written, you’re right. I’m willing to work on this but guarantee me a position at your university with a ticket to go”. So yes, there are still many barriers [for women in research] (participant 16).
Because of the varied contextual characteristics that intervene in their occurrence, these social injustices are also related to distributive injustices, as discussed by many participants.
Although there are several views of distributive justice, a classical definition such as that of Aristotle ( 2012 ), describes distributive justice as consisting in distributing honours, wealth, and other social resources or benefits among the members of a community in proportion to their alleged merit. Justice, then, is about determining an equitable distribution of common goods. Contemporary theories of distributive justice are numerous and varied. Indeed, many authors (e.g., Fraser 2011 ; Mills, 2017 ; Sen, 2011 ; Young, 2011 ) have, since Rawls ( 1971 ), proposed different visions of how social burdens and benefits should be shared within a community to ensure equal respect, fairness, and distribution. In our study, what emerges from participants’ narratives is a definite concern for this type of justice. Women researchers, francophone researchers, early career researchers or researchers belonging to racialized groups all discussed inequities in the distribution of research grants and awards, and the extra work they need to do to somehow prove their worth. These inequities are related to how granting agencies determine which projects will be funded.
These situations make me work 2–3 times harder to prove myself and to show people in power that I have a place as a woman in research (participant 12). Number one: it’s conservative thinking. The older ones control what comes in. So, the younger people have to adapt or they don’t get funded (participant 14).
Whether it is discrimination against stigmatized or marginalized populations or interest in certain hot topics, granting agencies judge research projects according to criteria that are sometimes questionable, according to those participants. Faced with difficulties in obtaining funding for their projects, several strategies – some of which are unethical – are used by researchers in order to cope with these situations.
Sometimes there are subjects that everyone goes to, such as nanotechnology (…), artificial intelligence or (…) the therapeutic use of cannabis, which are very fashionable, and this is sometimes to the detriment of other research that is just as relevant, but which is (…), less sexy, less in the spirit of the time. (…) Sometimes this can lead to inequities in the funding of certain research sectors (participant 9). When we use our funds, we get them given to us, we pretty much say what we think we’re going to do with them, but things change… So, when these things change, sometimes it’s an ethical decision, but by force of circumstances I’m obliged to change the project a little bit (…). Is it ethical to make these changes or should I just let the money go because I couldn’t use it the way I said I would? (participant 3).
Moreover, these distributional injustices are not only linked to social injustices, but also epistemic injustices. Indeed, the way in which research honours and grants are distributed within the academic community depends on the epistemic authority of the researchers, which seems to vary notably according to their language of use, their age or their gender, but also to the research design used (inductive versus deductive), their decision to use (or not use) animals in research, or to conduct activist research.
The philosopher Fricker ( 2007 ) conceptualized the notions of epistemic justice and injustice. Epistemic injustice refers to a form of social inequality that manifests itself in the access, recognition, and production of knowledge as well as the various forms of ignorance that arise (Godrie & Dos Santos, 2017 ). Addressing epistemic injustice necessitates acknowledging the iniquitous wrongs suffered by certain groups of socially stigmatized individuals who have been excluded from knowledge, thus limiting their abilities to interpret, understand, or be heard and account for their experiences. In this study, epistemic injustices were experienced or reported by some participants, notably those related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when a researcher is a woman or an early career researcher.
I have never sent a grant application to the federal government in English. I have always done it in French, even though I know that when you receive the review, you can see that reviewers didn’t understand anything because they are English-speaking. I didn’t want to get in the boat. It’s not my job to translate, because let’s be honest, I’m not as good in English as I am in French. So, I do them in my first language, which is the language I’m most used to. Then, technically at the administrative level, they are supposed to be able to do it, but they are not good in French. (…) Then, it’s a very big Canadian ethical issue, because basically there are technically two official languages, but Canada is not a bilingual country, it’s a country with two languages, either one or the other. (…) So I was not funded (participant 14).
Researchers who use inductive (or qualitative) methods observed that their projects are sometimes less well reviewed or understood, while research that adopts a hypothetical-deductive (or quantitative) or mixed methods design is better perceived, considered more credible and therefore more easily funded. Of course, regardless of whether a research project adopts an inductive, deductive or mixed-methods scientific design, or whether it deals with qualitative or quantitative data, it must respect a set of scientific criteria. A research project should achieve its objectives by using proven methods that, in the case of inductive research, are credible, reliable, and transferable or, in the case of deductive research, generalizable, objective, representative, and valid (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). Participants discussing these issues noted that researchers who adopt a qualitative design or those who question the relevance of animal experimentation or are not militant have sometimes been unfairly devalued in their epistemic authority.
There is a mini war between quantitative versus qualitative methods, which I think is silly because science is a method. If you apply the method well, it doesn’t matter what the field is, it’s done well and it’s perfect ” (participant 14). There is also the issue of the place of animals in our lives, because for me, ethics is human ethics, but also animal ethics. Then, there is a great evolution in society on the role of the animal… with the new law that came out in Quebec on the fact that animals are sensitive beings. Then, with the rise of the vegan movement, [we must ask ourselves]: “Do animals still have a place in research?” That’s a big question and it also means that there are practices that need to evolve, but sometimes there’s a disconnection between what’s expected by research ethics boards versus what’s expected in the field (participant 15). In research today, we have more and more research that is militant from an ideological point of view. And so, we have researchers, because they defend values that seem important to them, we’ll talk for example about the fight for equality and social justice. They have pressure to defend a form of moral truth and have the impression that everyone thinks like them or should do so, because they are defending a moral truth. This is something that we see more and more, namely the lack of distance between ideology and science (participant 8).
The combination or intersectionality of these inequities, which seems to be characterized by a lack of ethical support and guidance, is experienced in the highly competitive and individualistic context of research; it provides therefore the perfect recipe for researchers to experience ethical distress.
The concept of “ethical distress” refers to situations in which people know what they should do to act ethically, but encounter barriers, generally of an organizational or systemic nature, limiting their power to act according to their moral or ethical values (Drolet & Ruest, 2021 ; Jameton, 1984 ; Swisher et al., 2005 ). People then run the risk of finding themselves in a situation where they do not act as their ethical conscience dictates, which in the long term has the potential for exhaustion and distress. The examples reported by participants in this study point to the fact that researchers in particular may be experiencing significant ethical distress. This distress takes place in a context of extreme competition, constant injunctions to perform, and where administrative demands are increasingly numerous and complex to complete, while paradoxically, they lack the time to accomplish all their tasks and responsibilities. Added to these demands are a lack of resources (human, ethical, and financial), a lack of support and recognition, and interpersonal conflicts.
We are in an environment, an elite one, you are part of it, you know what it is: “publish or perish” is the motto. Grants, there is a high level of performance required, to do a lot, to publish, to supervise students, to supervise them well, so yes, it is clear that we are in an environment that is conducive to distress. (…). Overwork, definitely, can lead to distress and eventually to exhaustion. When you know that you should take the time to read the projects before sharing them, but you don’t have the time to do that because you have eight that came in the same day, and then you have others waiting… Then someone rings a bell and says: “ah but there, the protocol is a bit incomplete”. Oh yes, look at that, you’re right. You make up for it, but at the same time it’s a bit because we’re in a hurry, we don’t necessarily have the resources or are able to take the time to do things well from the start, we have to make up for it later. So yes, it can cause distress (participant 9). My organization wanted me to apply in English, and I said no, and everyone in the administration wanted me to apply in English, and I always said no. Some people said: “Listen, I give you the choice”, then some people said: “Listen, I agree with you, but if you’re not [submitting] in English, you won’t be funded”. Then the fact that I am young too, because very often they will look at the CV, they will not look at the project: “ah, his CV is not impressive, we will not finance him”. This is complete nonsense. The person is capable of doing the project, the project is fabulous: we fund the project. So, that happened, organizational barriers: that happened a lot. I was not eligible for Quebec research funds (…). I had big organizational barriers unfortunately (participant 14). At the time of my promotion, some colleagues were not happy with the type of research I was conducting. I learned – you learn this over time when you become friends with people after you enter the university – that someone was against me. He had another candidate in mind, and he was angry about the selection. I was under pressure for the first three years until my contract was renewed. I almost quit at one point, but another colleague told me, “No, stay, nothing will happen”. Nothing happened, but these issues kept me awake at night (participant 16).
This difficult context for many researchers affects not only the conduct of their own research, but also their participation in research. We faced this problem in our study, despite the use of multiple recruitment methods, including more than 200 emails – of which 191 were individual solicitations – sent to potential participants by the two research assistants. REB members and organizations overseeing or supporting research (n = 17) were also approached to see if some of their employees would consider participating. While it was relatively easy to recruit REB members and research ethics experts, our team received a high number of non-responses to emails (n = 175) and some refusals (n = 5), especially by researchers. The reasons given by those who replied were threefold: (a) fear of being easily identified should they take part in the research, (b) being overloaded and lacking time, and (c) the intrusive aspect of certain questions (i.e., “Have you experienced a burnout episode? If so, have you been followed up medically or psychologically?”). In light of these difficulties and concerns, some questions in the socio-demographic questionnaire were removed or modified. Talking about burnout in research remains a taboo for many researchers, which paradoxically can only contribute to the unresolved problem of unhealthy research environments.
The question that prompted this research was: What are the ethical issues in research? The purpose of the study was to describe these issues from the perspective of researchers (from different disciplines), research ethics board (REB) members, and research ethics experts. The previous section provided a detailed portrait of the ethical issues experienced by different research stakeholders: these issues are numerous, diverse and were recounted by a range of stakeholders.
The results of the study are generally consistent with the literature. For example, as in our study, the literature discusses the lack of research integrity on the part of some researchers (Al-Hidabi et al., 2018 ; Swazey et al., 1993 ), the numerous conflicts of interest experienced in research (Williams-Jones et al., 2013 ), the issues of recruiting and obtaining the free and informed consent of research participants (Provencher et al., 2014 ; Keogh & Daly, 2009 ), the sometimes difficult relations between researchers and REBs (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ), the epistemological issues experienced in research (Drolet & Ruest, accepted; Sieber 2004 ), as well as the harmful academic context in which researchers evolve, insofar as this is linked to a culture of performance, an overload of work in a context of accountability (Berg & Seeber, 2016 ; FQPPU; 2019 ) that is conducive to ethical distress and even burnout.
If the results of the study are generally in line with those of previous publications on the subject, our findings also bring new elements to the discussion while complementing those already documented. In particular, our results highlight the role of systemic injustices – be they social, distributive or epistemic – within the environments in which research is carried out, at least in Canada. To summarize, the results of our study point to the fact that the relationships between researchers and research participants are likely still to raise worrying ethical issues, despite widely accepted research ethics norms and institutionalized review processes. Further, the context in which research is carried out is not only conducive to breaches of ethical norms and instances of misbehaviour or misconduct, but also likely to be significantly detrimental to the health and well-being of researchers, as well as research assistants. Another element that our research also highlighted is the instrumentalization and even exploitation of students and research assistants, which is another important and worrying social injustice given the inevitable power imbalances between students and researchers.
Moreover, in a context in which ethical issues are often discussed from a micro perspective, our study helps shed light on both the micro- and macro-level ethical dimensions of research (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ; Glaser 1994 ). However, given that ethical issues in research are not only diverse, but also and above all complex, a broader perspective that encompasses the interplay between the micro and macro dimensions can enable a better understanding of these issues and thereby support the identification of the multiple factors that may be at their origin. Triangulating the perspectives of researchers with those of REB members and research ethics experts enabled us to bring these elements to light, and thus to step back from and critique the way that research is currently conducted. To this end, attention to socio-political elements such as the performance culture in academia or how research funds are distributed, and according to what explicit and implicit criteria, can contribute to identifying the sources of the ethical issues described above.
The German sociologist and philosopher Rosa (2010) argues that late modernity – that is, the period between the 1980s and today – is characterized by a phenomenon of social acceleration that causes various forms of alienation in our relationship to time, space, actions, things, others and ourselves. Rosa distinguishes three types of acceleration: technical acceleration , the acceleration of social changes and the acceleration of the rhythm of life . According to Rosa, social acceleration is the main problem of late modernity, in that the invisible social norm of doing more and faster to supposedly save time operates unchallenged at all levels of individual and collective life, as well as organizational and social life. Although we all, researchers and non-researchers alike, perceive this unspoken pressure to be ever more productive, the process of social acceleration as a new invisible social norm is our blind spot, a kind of tyrant over which we have little control. This conceptualization of the contemporary culture can help us to understand the context in which research is conducted (like other professional practices). To this end, Berg & Seeber ( 2016 ) invite faculty researchers to slow down in order to better reflect and, in the process, take care of their health and their relationships with their colleagues and students. Many women professors encourage their fellow researchers, especially young women researchers, to learn to “say No” in order to protect their mental and physical health and to remain in their academic careers (Allaire & Descheneux, 2022 ). These authors also remind us of the relevance of Kahneman’s ( 2012 ) work which demonstrates that it takes time to think analytically, thoroughly, and logically. Conversely, thinking quickly exposes humans to cognitive and implicit biases that then lead to errors in thinking (e.g., in the analysis of one’s own research data or in the evaluation of grant applications or student curriculum vitae). The phenomenon of social acceleration, which pushes the researcher to think faster and faster, is likely to lead to unethical bad science that can potentially harm humankind. In sum, Rosa’s invitation to contemporary critical theorists to seriously consider the problem of social acceleration is particularly insightful to better understand the ethical issues of research. It provides a lens through which to view the toxic context in which research is conducted today, and one that was shared by the participants in our study.
Clark & Sousa ( 2022 ) note, it is important that other criteria than the volume of researchers’ contributions be valued in research, notably quality. Ultimately, it is the value of the knowledge produced and its influence on the concrete lives of humans and other living beings that matters, not the quantity of publications. An interesting articulation of this view in research governance is seen in a change in practice by Australia’s national health research funder: they now restrict researchers to listing on their curriculum vitae only the top ten publications from the past ten years (rather than all of their publications), in order to evaluate the quality of contributions rather than their quantity. To create environments conducive to the development of quality research, it is important to challenge the phenomenon of social acceleration, which insidiously imposes a quantitative normativity that is both alienating and detrimental to the quality and ethical conduct of research. Based on our experience, we observe that the social norm of acceleration actively disfavours the conduct of empirical research on ethics in research. The fact is that researchers are so busy that it is almost impossible for them to find time to participate in such studies. Further, operating in highly competitive environments, while trying to respect the values and ethical principles of research, creates ethical paradoxes for members of the research community. According to Malherbe ( 1999 ), an ethical paradox is a situation where an individual is confronted by contradictory injunctions (i.e., do more, faster, and better). And eventually, ethical paradoxes lead individuals to situations of distress and burnout, or even to ethical failures (i.e., misbehaviour or misconduct) in the face of the impossibility of responding to contradictory injunctions.
The triangulation of perceptions and experiences of different actors involved in research is a strength of our study. While there are many studies on the experiences of researchers, rarely are members of REBs and experts in research ethics given the space to discuss their views of what are ethical issues. Giving each of these stakeholders a voice and comparing their different points of view helped shed a different and complementary light on the ethical issues that occur in research. That said, it would have been helpful to also give more space to issues experienced by students or research assistants, as the relationships between researchers and research assistants are at times very worrying, as noted by a participant, and much work still needs to be done to eliminate the exploitative situations that seem to prevail in certain research settings. In addition, no Indigenous or gender diverse researchers participated in the study. Given the ethical issues and systemic injustices that many people from these groups face in Canada (Drolet & Goulet, 2018 ; Nicole & Drolet, in press ), research that gives voice to these researchers would be relevant and contribute to knowledge development, and hopefully also to change in research culture.
Further, although most of the ethical issues discussed in this article may be transferable to the realities experienced by researchers in other countries, the epistemic injustice reported by Francophone researchers who persist in doing research in French in Canada – which is an officially bilingual country but in practice is predominantly English – is likely specific to the Canadian reality. In addition, and as mentioned above, recruitment proved exceedingly difficult, particularly amongst researchers. Despite this difficulty, we obtained data saturation for all but two themes – i.e., exploitation of students and ethical issues of research that uses animals. It follows that further empirical research is needed to improve our understanding of these specific issues, as they may diverge to some extent from those documented here and will likely vary across countries and academic research contexts.
This study, which gave voice to researchers, REB members, and ethics experts, reveals that the ethical issues in research are related to several problematic elements as power imbalances and authority relations. Researchers and research assistants are subject to external pressures that give rise to integrity issues, among others ethical issues. Moreover, the current context of social acceleration influences the definition of the performance indicators valued in academic institutions and has led their members to face several ethical issues, including social, distributive, and epistemic injustices, at different steps of the research process. In this study, ten categories of ethical issues were identified, described and illustrated: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. The triangulation of the perspectives of different members (i.e., researchers from different disciplines, REB members, research ethics experts, and one research assistant) involved in the research process made it possible to lift the veil on some of these ethical issues. Further, it enabled the identification of additional ethical issues, especially systemic injustices experienced in research. To our knowledge, this is the first time that these injustices (social, distributive, and epistemic injustices) have been clearly identified.
Finally, this study brought to the fore several problematic elements that are important to address if the research community is to develop and implement the solutions needed to resolve the diverse and transversal ethical issues that arise in research institutions. A good starting point is the rejection of the corollary norms of “publish or perish” and “do more, faster, and better” and their replacement with “publish quality instead of quantity”, which necessarily entails “do less, slower, and better”. It is also important to pay more attention to the systemic injustices within which researchers work, because these have the potential to significantly harm the academic careers of many researchers, including women researchers, early career researchers, and those belonging to racialized groups as well as the health, well-being, and respect of students and research participants.
The team warmly thanks the participants who took part in the research and who made this study possible. Marie-Josée Drolet thanks the five research assistants who participated in the data collection and analysis: Julie-Claude Leblanc, Élie Beauchemin, Pénéloppe Bernier, Louis-Pierre Côté, and Eugénie Rose-Derouin, all students at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), two of whom were active in the writing of this article. MJ Drolet and Bryn Williams-Jones also acknowledge the financial contribution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), which supported this research through a grant. We would also like to thank the reviewers of this article who helped us improve it, especially by clarifying and refining our ideas.
As noted in the Acknowledgements, this research was supported financially by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Home » Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and Writing Guide
Table of Contents
Ethical considerations in research refer to the principles and guidelines that researchers must follow to ensure that their studies are conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. These considerations are designed to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of research participants, as well as the integrity and credibility of the research itself
Some of the key ethical considerations in research include:
Types of Ethical Considerations are as follows:
Research Ethics:
This includes ethical principles and guidelines that govern research involving human or animal subjects, ensuring that the research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner.
Business Ethics :
This refers to ethical principles and standards that guide business practices and decision-making, such as transparency, honesty, fairness, and social responsibility.
Medical Ethics :
This refers to ethical principles and standards that govern the practice of medicine, including the duty to protect patient autonomy, informed consent, confidentiality, and non-maleficence.
Environmental Ethics :
This involves ethical principles and values that guide our interactions with the natural world, including the obligation to protect the environment, minimize harm, and promote sustainability.
Legal Ethics
This involves ethical principles and standards that guide the conduct of legal professionals, including issues such as confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and professional competence.
Social Ethics
This involves ethical principles and values that guide our interactions with other individuals and society as a whole, including issues such as justice, fairness, and human rights.
Information Ethics
This involves ethical principles and values that govern the use and dissemination of information, including issues such as privacy, accuracy, and intellectual property.
Cultural Ethics
This involves ethical principles and values that govern the relationship between different cultures and communities, including issues such as respect for diversity, cultural sensitivity, and inclusivity.
Technological Ethics
This refers to ethical principles and guidelines that govern the development, use, and impact of technology, including issues such as privacy, security, and social responsibility.
Journalism Ethics
This involves ethical principles and standards that guide the practice of journalism, including issues such as accuracy, fairness, and the public interest.
Educational Ethics
This refers to ethical principles and standards that guide the practice of education, including issues such as academic integrity, fairness, and respect for diversity.
Political Ethics
This involves ethical principles and values that guide political decision-making and behavior, including issues such as accountability, transparency, and the protection of civil liberties.
Professional Ethics
This refers to ethical principles and standards that guide the conduct of professionals in various fields, including issues such as honesty, integrity, and competence.
Personal Ethics
This involves ethical principles and values that guide individual behavior and decision-making, including issues such as personal responsibility, honesty, and respect for others.
Global Ethics
This involves ethical principles and values that guide our interactions with other nations and the global community, including issues such as human rights, environmental protection, and social justice.
Ethical considerations are important in many areas of society, including medicine, business, law, and technology. Here are some specific applications of ethical considerations:
Here are a few examples of ethical considerations in different contexts:
When writing about research involving human subjects or animals, it is essential to include ethical considerations to ensure that the study is conducted in a manner that is morally responsible and in accordance with professional standards. Here are some steps to help you write ethical considerations:
Ethical considerations should be written whenever research involves human subjects or has the potential to impact human beings, animals, or the environment in some way. Ethical considerations are also important when research involves sensitive topics, such as mental health, sexuality, or religion.
In general, ethical considerations should be an integral part of any research project, regardless of the field or subject matter. This means that they should be considered at every stage of the research process, from the initial planning and design phase to data collection, analysis, and dissemination.
Ethical considerations should also be written in accordance with the guidelines and standards set by the relevant regulatory bodies and professional associations. These guidelines may vary depending on the discipline, so it is important to be familiar with the specific requirements of your field.
Ethical considerations are an essential aspect of many areas of life, including business, healthcare, research, and social interactions. The primary purposes of ethical considerations are:
Here are some of the advantages of ethical considerations:
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
19k Accesses
37 Citations
9 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
This editorial offers new ways to ethically practice, evaluate, and use quantitative research (QR). Our central claim is that ready-made formulas for QR, including ‘best practices’ and common notions of ‘validity’ or ‘objectivity,’ are often divorced from the ethical and practical implications of doing, evaluating, and using QR for specific purposes. To focus on these implications, we critique common theoretical foundations for QR and then recommend approaches to QR that are ‘built for purpose,’ by which we mean designed to ethically address specific problems or situations on terms that are contextually relevant. For this, we propose a new tool for evaluating the quality of QR, which we call ‘relational validity.’ Studies, including their methods and results, are relationally valid when they ethically connect researchers’ purposes with the way that QR is oriented and the ways that it is done—including the concepts and units of analysis invoked, as well as what its ‘methods’ imply more generally. This new way of doing QR can provide the liberty required to address serious worldly problems on terms that are both practical and ethically informed in relation to the problems themselves rather than the confines of existing QR logics and practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Explore related subjects.
Abrahamson, E., Berkowitz, H., & Dumez, H. (2016). A more relevant approach to relevance in management studies: An essay on performativity. Academy of Management Review, 41, 367–381.
Article Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Google Scholar
Bettis, R. A., Ethiraj, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2016). Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 37 (2), 257–261.
*Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2008). The unholy alliance of business and science. Journal of Business Ethics, 78 (1), 199–206.
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297–312.
Campbell, D. T. (1991). Methods for the experimenting society. Evaluation Practice, 12 (3), 223–260.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171–246). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cartwright, N. (1993). In defence of this worldly’causality: Comments on van Fraassen’s laws and symmetry. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53 (2), 423–429.
Cartwright, N. (2004). Causation: One word, many things. Philosophy of Science, 71 (5), 805–819.
Cartwright, N. (2006). Well-ordered science: Evidence for use. Philosophy of Science, 73 (5), 981–990.
Cartwright, N. (2007). Hunting causes and using them: Approaches in philosophy and economics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
*Collison, D., Cross, S., Ferguson, J., Power, D., & Stevenson, L. (2012). Legal determinants of external finance revisited: The inverse relationship between investor protection and societal well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 108 (3), 393–410.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations, 56, 983–1003.
Daston, L. (1995). The moral economy of science. Osiris, 10, 2–24.
Daston, L. (2005). Scientific error and the ethos of belief. Social Research, 72, 1–28.
Davies, W. (2017, January 19). How statistics lost their power—And why we should fear what comes next. The Guardian . Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/crisis-of-statistics-big-data-democracy .
Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1 (4), 309–344.
Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7, 191–207.
Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty . New York: Minton, Balch, & Co.
Dunn, W. N. (1982). Reforms as arguments. Knowledge, 3 (3), 293–326.
Erturk, I., Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A., & Williams, K. (2013). (How) do devices matter in finance? Journal of Cultural Economy, 6 (3), 336–352.
Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2014). Registering ‘the ethical’ in organization theory formation: Towards the disclosure of an ‘invisible force’. Organization Studies, 35, 1013–1039.
Falleti, T. G., & Lynch, J. F. (2009). Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42 (9), 1143–1166.
Farjoun, M., Ansell, C., & Boin, A. (2015). Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26 (6), 1787–1804.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization science .
Freeman, R. E. (2002). Toward a new vision for management research: A commentary on “Organizational researcher values, ethical responsibility, and the committed-to-participant research perspective”. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11 (2), 186–189.
Gabbay, D. M., Hartmann, S., & Woods, J. (2011). Handbook of the history of logic: Inductive logic (Vol. 10). Oxford: Elsevier.
Gelman, A. (2015). The connection between varying treatment effects and the crisis of unreplicable research a Bayesian perspective. Journal of Management, 41, 632–643.
Gigerenzer, G., & Marewski, J. N. (2015). Surrogate science the idol of a universal method for scientific inference. Journal of Management, 41, 421–440.
Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z. G., Porter, T. M., Daston, L., Beatty, J., & Krüger, L. (1989). The empire of chance: How probability changed science and everyday life . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Greenwood, M. (2016). Approving or improving research ethics in management journals. Journal of Business Ethics , 137 , 1–14.
Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, I. (1992a). Statistical language, statistical truth and statistical reason: The self-authentification of a style of scientific reasoning. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (Vol. 3, pp. 130–157). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hacking, I. (1992b). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 29–64). Chicago: Chicago Unviersity Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hacking, I. (2001). An introduction to probability and inductive logic . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, I. (2002). Historical Ontology . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hacking, I. (2006). The emergence of probability: A philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction and statistical inference . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hakala, J., & Ylijoki, O.-H. (2001). Research for whom? Research orientations in three academic cultures. Organization, 8 (2), 373–380.
Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. (1997). Relativity without relativism: Reflexivity in post-paradigm organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8, 5–17.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Clegg, S. (2001). Reflexivity in organization and management theory: A study of the production of the research “subject”. Human Relations, 54, 531–560.
*Hill, R. P. (2002). Stalking the poverty consumer a retrospective examination of modern ethical dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 37 (2), 209–219.
*Holland, D., & Albrecht, C. (2013). The worldwide academic field of business ethics: Scholars’ perceptions of the most important issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 117 (4), 777–788.
Howie, D. (2002). Interpreting probability: Controversies and developments in the early twentieth century . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huhtala, M., Feldt, T., Lämsä, A. M., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2011). Does the ethical culture of organisations promote managers’ occupational well-being? Investigating indirect links via ethical strain. Journal of Business Ethics, 101 (2), 231–247.
Jeanes, E. (2016). Are we ethical? Approaches to ethics in management and organisation research. Organization . doi: 10.1177/1350508416656930 .
*Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. S. (2008). The effectiveness of business codes: A critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77 (2), 111–127.
*Keeble, J. J., Topiol, S., & Berkeley, S. (2003). Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. Journal of Business Ethics, 44 (2), 149–158.
*Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., & Fisscher, O. A. (2003). Ethical dilemmas in performance measurement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45 (1), 51–63.
*Knox, S., & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75 (2), 115–135.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts . Beverly Hills: Sage.
Law, J. (2009). Seeing like a survey. Cultural Sociology, 3 (2), 239–256.
MacKenzie, D. A., Muniesa, F., & Siu, L. (2007). Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Martela, F. (2015). Fallible inquiry with ethical ends-in-view: A pragmatist philosophy of science for organizational research. Organization Studies, 36, 537–563.
*Michalos, A. C. (1988). Editorial. Journal of Business Ethics, 1, 1.
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. (2017). Embracing causal complexity the emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43 (1), 255–282.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization . Thousand Oaks: Sage.
OED Online. Oxford University Press, (June 2016). Retrieved June 10, 2016, from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/orient .
*Orlitzky, M., Louche, C., Gond, J. P., & Chapple, W. (2015). Unpacking the drivers of corporate social performance: A multilevel, multistakeholder, and multimethod analysis. Journal of Business Ethics . doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2822-y .
*Painter-Morland, M. (2011). Rethinking responsible agency in corporations: Perspectives from Deleuze and Guattari. Journal of Business Ethics, 101 (1), 83–95.
Panter, A. T., & Sterba, S. K. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology . New York: Routledge.
Parkhurst, J. O., & Abeysinghe, S. (2016). What constitutes “good” evidence for public health and social policy-making? From hierarchies to appropriateness. Social Epistemology, 30 (5–6), 665–679.
Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science a crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (6), 528–530.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2013). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach . Washington, DC: Psychology Press.
*Prado, A. M., & Woodside, A. G. (2015). Deepening understanding of certification adoption and non-adoption of international-supplier ethical standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 132 (1), 105–125.
*Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Furrer, O., Kuo, M. H., Li, Y., Wangenheim, F., et al. (2014). Societal-level versus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior: A 48-society study of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Business Ethics, 122 (2), 283–306.
*Rathner, S. (2013). The influence of primary study characteristics on the performance differential between socially responsible and conventional investment funds: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 118 (2), 349–363.
Rorty, R. (2009). Philosophy and the mirror of nature . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rose, N. (1985). The psychological complex . London: Routledge Kegan.
*Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 475–515.
Russell, J., Greenhalgh, T., Byrne, E., & McDonnell, J. (2008). Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13, 40–46.
Schön, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22 (2), 119–139.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed . New Haven: Yale University Press.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference . New York: Wadsworth Cengage learning.
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Singleton, V., & Law, J. (2013). Devices as rituals: Notes on enacting resistance. Journal of Cultural Economy, 6 (3), 259–277.
*Soares, C. (2003). Corporate versus individual moral responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (2), 143–150.
Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104 (2), 281–300.
Tuck, E., & McKenzie, M. (2015). Relational validity and the “where” of inquiry: Place and land in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21 (7), 633–638.
Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of business ethics, 85 (4), 411–427.
Wasserman, L. (2013). All of statistics: A concise course in statistical inference . New York: Springer.
Werhane, P. H., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Business ethics: The state of the art. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1 (1), 1–16.
Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organizational studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9, 123–140.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data . Cambridge: MIT press.
Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the politics of difference . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zyphur, M. J., Pierides, D. C., & Roffe, J. (2016a). Measurement and statistics in ‘organization science’: Philosophical, sociological, and historical perspectives. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M. Greenwood (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies (pp. 474–482). Abingdon: Routledge.
Zyphur, M. J., Zammuto, R. F., & Zhang, Z. (2016b). Multilevel latent polynomial regression for modeling (in) congruence across organizational groups: The case of organizational culture research. Organizational Research Methods, 19 (1), 53–79.
Download references
This research was supported by Australian Research Council’s Future Fellowship scheme (project FT140100629).
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia
Michael J. Zyphur
Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Dean C. Pierides
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Michael J. Zyphur .
Typical regression methods minimize the residual variance of outcome variables by predicting the mean (or statistical ‘expectation’) of an outcome. This can be shown by a simple regression model as follows:
wherein \(y_{i}\) is an outcome for some unit i , \(a\) is a regression intercept, \(\beta\) is a slope linking a predictor \(x_{i}\) to the outcome, and \(e_{i}\) is a residual. Typical regression assumptions pertain to \(e\) because this is parameterized as a random variable for estimation and inference, typically with a normal distribution such that:
wherein the residual variable has zero mean and variance \(\sigma^{2}\) .
However, if the outcome variable y is parameterized using the regression equation, the prediction of the outcome enters as the variable’s average. Specifically:
wherein all terms are as before, but the focus on the average of the outcome \(y\) at each level of the predictor \(x\) is clarified by showing how what is predicted are average levels of the outcomes \(y\) at different values of the predictor \(x\) .
The implication is that most regression methods implicitly assume that predicting averages are what is of greatest interest to researchers. With a focus on reducing errors in inference, the best way to do this probabilistically is to predict averages, but this is only true to the extent that a single numerical prediction of an assumedly homogenous group is desired based on the group’s average standing along an outcome \(y\) at a specific value of a predictor \(x\) . However, whether or not (and to what extent) averages may be relevant for a specific purpose and research orientation is typically left unclarified in QR, and we propose that this should be examined on a case-by-case basis with an eye to the ethics this or other QR practices.
Reprints and permissions
Zyphur, M.J., Pierides, D.C. Is Quantitative Research Ethical? Tools for Ethically Practicing, Evaluating, and Using Quantitative Research. J Bus Ethics 143 , 1–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3549-8
Download citation
Received : 14 February 2017
Accepted : 17 April 2017
Published : 28 April 2017
Issue Date : June 2017
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3549-8
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Advertisement
Overview of the quantitative question, the irb process, ethical considerations, legal considerations, ethics in data collection and reporting results.
In quantitative research, much attention should be paid to addressing ethical and legal norms and rules. According to Wiles and Boddy (2013), research ethics can “encourage researchers not only to improve levels of ‘ethical literacy’ in the research community but more fundamentally, to reflect deeply on their research project and process from the perspective of all the possible stakeholders” (p. 1). As a result, the rights and interests of all individuals involved in the study can be discussed as protected if ethical and legal norms are followed. The purpose of this paper is to present the quantitative research question and discuss ethical and legal issues related to quantitative methodology.
The following research question was developed for the quantitative study: Is there a relationship between the amount of time which students from grades 6-7 spend playing computer and video games and their achievement at school? The independent variable in this study is the amount of time that students can spend while playing computer and video games.
The time is measured in minutes per week. The dependent variable is the students’ achievement that should be measured in weekly tests’ scores (from 0 to 100). Tests should cover the materials related to Language, Mathematics, and Science. The proposed research question is appropriate to be used in the study the aim of which is to find out how the students’ interest in playing computer and video games can predict their achievement at school.
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a committee that is responsible for controlling the research process in educational and other types of organizations. The IRB process means filling in the specific form and receiving the approval to conduct the planned study (Metro, 2014).
The IRB form includes the following information to mention: a purpose of the research, dates, a description of the process and procedures, a note regarding the voluntary participation in a study, principles of selecting participants for a study, a note on ethical issues and confidentiality, and a description of the withdrawal procedure (Metro, 2014). This information should be provided to the Institutional Review Board to guarantee that human participants’ rights and interests will be protected and non-violated concerning the proposed study.
The involvement of children in a quantitative study is associated with a range of ethical issues. Therefore, researchers can start conducting a study only when informed consent forms are signed, and the permissions of parents are received (Tangen, 2014). For this study, the permission of parents and their involvement in the research process are critical because they help report the actual time spent on playing video and computer games (Wouters, Van Nimwegen, Van Oostendorp, & Van Der Spek, 2013; Yang, 2012).
Thus, it is expected that the participation of students and their families is voluntary even though a random sampling technique can be used to determine the sample for the study (Smith, 2016). Also, it is important to guarantee that the test results of students and the private data are not shared publicly. Much attention should be paid to the issue of confidentiality to protect participants’ rights.
Legal issues associated with involving children in the proposed quantitative study are the following ones: the necessity of collecting the data with the help of parents as guardians; the necessity of protecting students’ anonymity; the impossibility to provide the plagiarized data; and the impossibility to make up data to address the purpose of the study (Doyle & Buckley, 2014; Smith, 2016). If the listed principles are ignored, it is possible to speak about the violation of legal norms associated with conducting quantitative research. Therefore, much attention should be paid to organizing quantitative research in the sphere of education.
The data related to quantitative studies should be effectively collected and reported. The sample size selected for the study should be appropriate to guarantee the ethical generalization of results. All the data necessary for the study should be collected concerning the guardians’ permission (Roberts & Allen, 2015). The gathered information needs to be protected with the help of passwords if the digital data are collected for the study.
When all the required data are stored appropriately to guarantee the confidentiality and privacy of participants, it is necessary to select the relevant statistical test to analyze the information (Tangen, 2014). Reporting results are the next stage at which researchers are expected to avoid presenting the made-up data or discussing only significant and positive results (Smith, 2016). In quantitative research, there are risks that hypotheses formulated with the focus on the research question cannot be supported concerning study results. The ethical behavior at this stage means reporting all findings and limitations associated with the study.
To conduct quantitative research, educators need to pay much attention to ethical and legal issues. It is important to guarantee that the participation of respondents is voluntary and that they understand their rights related to the study. Therefore, researchers should focus on protecting the interests of children when they conduct quantitative studies in the educational area. In this context, the focus should be on the researcher’s cooperation with parents to protect children’s interests.
Doyle, E., & Buckley, P. (2014). Research ethics in teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 51 (2), 153-163.
Metro, R. (2014). From the form to the face to face: IRBs, ethnographic researchers, and human subjects translate consent. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 45 (2), 167-184.
Roberts, L. D., & Allen, P. J. (2015). Exploring ethical issues associated with using online surveys in educational research. Educational Research and Evaluation , 21 (2), 95-108.
Smith, J. (2016). Reflections on teaching research ethics in education for international postgraduate students in the UK. Teaching in Higher Education , 21 (1), 94-105.
Tangen, R. (2014). Balancing ethics and quality in educational research – the ethical matrix method. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 58 (6), 678-694.
Wiles, R., & Boddy, J. (2013). Introduction to the special issue: Research ethics in challenging contexts. Methodological Innovations Online , 8 (2), 1-5.
Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology , 105 (2), 249.
Yang, Y. T. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Computers & Education , 59 (2), 365-377.
IvyPanda. (2020, August 2). Ethical and Legal Considerations in Quantitative Research. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-and-legal-considerations-in-quantitative-research/
"Ethical and Legal Considerations in Quantitative Research." IvyPanda , 2 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-and-legal-considerations-in-quantitative-research/.
IvyPanda . (2020) 'Ethical and Legal Considerations in Quantitative Research'. 2 August.
IvyPanda . 2020. "Ethical and Legal Considerations in Quantitative Research." August 2, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-and-legal-considerations-in-quantitative-research/.
1. IvyPanda . "Ethical and Legal Considerations in Quantitative Research." August 2, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-and-legal-considerations-in-quantitative-research/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Ethical and Legal Considerations in Quantitative Research." August 2, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-and-legal-considerations-in-quantitative-research/.
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Diagnostic evaluation of the contribution of complementary training subjects in the self-perception of competencies in ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability in engineering students.
2. theoretical framework, 3. review of related research, 4. materials and methods, 4.1. study population, 4.2. instrument, 4.3. data analysis technique, 5.1. descriptive statistics, 5.2. analysis of competencies in ers vs. courses taken, 5.3. relationship of ers competencies with sociodemographic variables, 6. discussion, 7. conclusions, 8. future work, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Sociodemographic Variables | First Semester | Last Semesters | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Gender | Female | 34 | 13.7 | 18 | 10.7 | 52 | 12.4 |
Male | 210 | 84.3 | 151 | 89.3 | 361 | 86.4 | |
Other | 5 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1.2 | |
Age | 15–25 years | 209 | 83.9 | 86 | 50.9 | 295 | 70.6 |
26–35 years | 33 | 13.3 | 64 | 37.9 | 97 | 23.2 | |
36 years and above | 7 | 2.8 | 19 | 11.3 | 26 | 6.2 | |
Stratum | 1 | 64 | 25.7 | 32 | 18.9 | 96 | 23.0 |
2 | 110 | 44.2 | 83 | 49.1 | 193 | 46.2 | |
3 | 69 | 27.7 | 54 | 32.0 | 123 | 29.4 | |
4 | 6 | 2.4 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1.4 |
Experts | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|
n | % | ||
Higher education level | Master’s degree | 13 | 61.9 |
Doctor’s degree | 8 | 38.1 | |
Age | 26–35 years | 1 | 4.8 |
36–45 years | 6 | 28.6 | |
46–55 years | 8 | 38.1 | |
56 years and above | 6 | 28.6 | |
Experience in education | 1–5 years | 1 | 4.8 |
5–10 years | 3 | 14.3 | |
Over 10 years | 17 | 81.0 | |
Experience in the productive sector | Yes | 14 | 66.7 |
No | 7 | 33.3 | |
Years in the productive sector | 1–5 years | 1 | 4.8 |
5–10 years | 1 | 4.8 | |
Over 10 years | 12 | 57.1 | |
TOTAL | 21 | 100 |
Reliability Statistics | ||
---|---|---|
Cronbach’s Alpha | Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items | N of Elements |
0.930 | 0.934 | 30 |
Competency | Dimensions | Indicator | Item |
---|---|---|---|
Social Responsibility [ ] | Awareness | I am aware that I am in the world to contribute responsibly to its transformation | R1 |
I understand that being part of this world entails a responsibility towards the members of a group or organization for the benefit of society | R2 | ||
Commitment | I am familiar with and care about local issues and their connection to national and global factors | R3 | |
Citizenship | As a student, I feel that I have the skills to contribute to social, political, and economic changes in my community | R4 | |
As a student, I would like to contribute to public policies that improve the quality of life for (ethnic, racial, sexual) minority groups and other vulnerable groups (children, women…) | R5 | ||
Social justice | I believe that my educational process provides me with the necessary tools to follow up on public or private programs and initiatives aimed at social transformation | R6 | |
I believe that, through my profession, I can contribute to reducing poverty and inequality in my country | R7 | ||
Ethics [ ] | Responsibility | In my daily actions, it is important to fulfill my commitments on time | E1 |
In my daily actions, I am willing to take responsibility for any mistakes | E2 | ||
Act with moral principles and professional values | I am willing to spend time updating my knowledge about my career | E3 | |
There are ethical decisions that are so important in my career that I cannot leave them to the sole discretion of others | E4 | ||
In my daily actions, maintaining confidentiality is crucial | E5 | ||
Doing the right things in my daily life brings me inner peace | E6 | ||
I communicate my values through my daily actions | E7 | ||
Professional and personal ethics | To avoid mistakes in my profession, I must be aware of the limits of my knowledge and skills | E8 | |
Working with passion is part of my personal fulfillment | E9 | ||
Ethical aspects are crucial to my career and future profession | E10 | ||
I must assess the consequences before making important decisions | E11 | ||
It is good to aspire but not have excessive ambition | E12 | ||
To perform well in my career, developing technical skills alone is not enough | E13 | ||
Honesty | To be a good professional, I cannot ignore the problems of the society I live in | E14 | |
I take the risk of making mistakes to improve my career performance | E15 | ||
Sustainability [ ] (S1, S6, S7, S8) [ ] (S2 to S5) | Systemic | I analyze individually or in groups situations related to sustainability and their impact on society, the environment, and the economy, both locally and globally | S1 |
Discipline and regulations | I am aware of the importance of sustainability in society. I learn and then I impact my community | S6 | |
Anticipatory | I use resources sustainably in the prevention of negative impacts on the environment and social and economic systems | S7 | |
I anticipate and understand the impact of environmental changes on social and economic systems | S3 | ||
Strategic | I am aware of the potential of the human and natural resources in my environment for sustainable development | S8 | |
I actively participate in groups or communities committed to sustainability | S2 | ||
Action competence for interventions | I am coherent in my actions, respecting and appreciating (biological, social, cultural) diversity and committing myself to improving sustainability | S4 | |
I create and provide critical and creative solutions to technology and engineering issues, always considering sustainability | S5 |
Competencies | Social Responsibility | Ethics | Sustainability |
---|---|---|---|
Social responsibility | 1 | ||
Ethics | 0.566 ** | 1 | |
Sustainability | 0.719 ** | 0.484 ** | 1 |
Group | Gender | Age | Stratum | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mode | First semester | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Last semesters | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
All | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Group | Social Responsibility | Ethics | Sustainability |
---|---|---|---|
First semester | 4.028 (0.656) | 4.496 (0.453) | 3.798 (0.689) |
Last semester | 4.101 (0.589) | 4.577 (0.447) | 3.921 (0.646) |
Levene Test | t-Test for Equality of Means | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | Sig. | t | Gl | Sig (Bilateral) | Mean Differences | Standard Error Differences | 95% Difference Confidence Interval | ||
Social responsibility | 0.919 | 0.338 | −1.167 | 416 | 0.244 | −0.07332 | 0.06281 | −0.19679 | 0.05014 |
Ethics | 1.277 | 0.259 | −1.808 | 416 | 0.071 | −0.08127 | 0.04494 | −0.16961 | 0.00706 |
Sustainability | 0.128 | 0.721 | −1.839 | 416 | 0.067 | −0.12317 | 0.06698 | −0.25483 | 0.00849 |
Statistical Tests | Social Responsibility | Ethics | Sustainability |
---|---|---|---|
Mann–Whitney U test | 20,073.500 | 18,501.000 | 19,304.500 |
Wilcoxon W test | 51,198.500 | 49,626.000 | 50,429.500 |
Z test | −0.800 | −2.101 | −1.435 |
Bilateral asymptotic sig. | 0.424 | 0.036 | 0.151 |
ANOVA | Gender | Age | Stratum | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | Sig. | F | Sig. | F | Sig. | |
Social responsibility | 0.438 | 0.646 | 11.052 | 0.000 | 1.705 | 0.165 |
Ethics | 0.337 | 0.714 | 7.404 | 0.000 | 0.227 | 0.877 |
Sustainability | 0.805 | 0.448 | 9.237 | 0.000 | 0.742 | 0.527 |
Social Responsibility | |||
---|---|---|---|
Age | N | Subset | |
1 | 2 | ||
15–25 years | 295 | 3.9603 | |
26–35 years | 97 | 4.2180 | |
36 years and above | 26 | 4.5357 | 4.5357 |
Sig. | 0.091 | 0.221 |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Yepes, S.M.; Montes, W.F.; Herrera, A. Diagnostic Evaluation of the Contribution of Complementary Training Subjects in the Self-Perception of Competencies in Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Sustainability in Engineering Students. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167069
Yepes SM, Montes WF, Herrera A. Diagnostic Evaluation of the Contribution of Complementary Training Subjects in the Self-Perception of Competencies in Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Sustainability in Engineering Students. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):7069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167069
Yepes, Sara María, Willer Ferney Montes, and Andres Herrera. 2024. "Diagnostic Evaluation of the Contribution of Complementary Training Subjects in the Self-Perception of Competencies in Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Sustainability in Engineering Students" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167069
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Research ethics are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices in both quantitative and qualitative research. In this article, you will learn about the types and examples of ethical considerations in research, such as informed consent, confidentiality, and avoiding plagiarism. You will also find out how to apply ethical principles to your own research projects with ...
At Prolific, we believe in making ethical research easy and accessible. The findings from the Fairwork Cloudwork report speak for themselves. Prolific was given the top score out of all competitors for minimum standards of fair work. With over 25,000 researchers in our community, we're leading the way in revolutionizing the research industry.
Abstract. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a context for thinking about the role of ethics in quantitative methodology. We begin by reviewing the sweep of events that led to the creation and expansion of legal and professional rules for the protection of research subjects and society against unethical research.
Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is Quantitative Research Ethical? Tools for Ethically Practicing, Evaluating, and Using Quantitative Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 1-16. 4 use of quantitative research, not ready-made formulas applied without attention to purposes and their relations. This focus places the onus on authors ...
This text provides an interdisciplinary review of ethical issues as they relate to quantitative methodology, including how to present evidence for reliability and validity, what comprises an adequate tested population, and what constitutes scientific knowledge for eliminating biases. The book uses an ethical framework that emphasizes the human cost of quantitative decision making to help ...
Sage Research Methods Video: Research Ethics and Integrity - Ethical Issues in Quantitative Research. This visualization demonstrates how methods are related and connects users to relevant content. Find step-by-step guidance to complete your research project. Answer a handful of multiple-choice questions to see which statistical method is best ...
Definition. Ethics is a set of standards, a code, or value system, worked out from human reason and experience, by which free human actions are determined as ultimately right or wrong, good, or evil. If acting agrees with these standards, it is ethical, otherwise unethical. Scientific research refers to a persistent exercise towards producing ...
Multiple examples of unethical research studies conducted in the past throughout the world have cast a significant historical shadow on research involving human subjects. Examples include the Tuskegee Syphilis Study from 1932 to 1972, Nazi medical experimentation in the 1930s and 1940s, and research conducted at the Willowbrook State School in the 1950s and 1960s.[1] As the aftermath of these ...
Introduction. Quantitative methods include formalized principles that form the basis for a stringent research process that proceeds from formulation of research questions, research design and the selection and analysis of data to interpretations and conclusions. About The Researchs Ethics Library (FBIB).
Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology . ... Part 3 considers the ethical aspects of selecting measurement instruments and sample size planning and explores issues related to high stakes testing, the defensibility of experimental vs. quasi-experimental research designs, and ethics in program evaluation. Decision points that shape a ...
6.3 Principles of Research Ethics There are general ethical principles that guide and underpin the proper conduct of research. The term "ethical principles" refers to those general rules that operate as a foundational rationale for the numerous specific ethical guidelines and assessments of human behaviour. 7 The National Statement on 'ethical conduct in human research' states that ...
Revised on 6 July 2024. Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people. The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments ...
QE. Quantitative ethics involves the use of quantitative methods for examining ethics-related issues in human interactions and institutions. Datasets like the Business Bribery Index (BBI) and the World Value Survey (WVS) are examples of the quantitative data that can be utilized by ethicists as a means to test their ethical hypotheses.
Research ethics play a crucial role in ensuring the responsible conduct of research. Here are some key reasons why research ethics matter: Research ethics protect the rights and well-being of participants, uphold the integrity of research findings, and contribute to the positive impact of research on individuals and society.
Introduction. Research includes a set of activities in which researchers use various structured methods to contribute to the development of knowledge, whether this knowledge is theoretical, fundamental, or applied (Drolet & Ruest, accepted).University research is carried out in a highly competitive environment that is characterized by ever-increasing demands (i.e., on time, productivity ...
Research Ethics: This includes ethical principles and guidelines that govern research involving human or animal subjects, ensuring that the research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. ... For example, companies must ensure that their products are safe for consumers and that they do not engage in exploitative labor practices.
regulate clinical research arose in 1931, the German Law. In 1947, the excesses of the Nazi period led to the drafting of the Nuremberg Code consisting of ethical rules about experimentation on human beings, which attempted to reconcile medical research and ethics. The Nuremberg Code emphasized the importance of
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philos-. ophy with standards or codes or value systems. and involves defending, systematizing, recommending concepts of right, and minimizing. wrong ...
Ethical Considerations in Research. Research is an important component of expanding knowledge and understanding the. world, and the people that inhabit the it. As Fiske (2018) notes, how people ...
This editorial offers new ways to ethically practice, evaluate, and use quantitative research (QR). Our central claim is that ready-made formulas for QR, including 'best practices' and common notions of 'validity' or 'objectivity,' are often divorced from the ethical and practical implications of doing, evaluating, and using QR for specific purposes. To focus on these implications ...
Introduction. In quantitative research, much attention should be paid to addressing ethical and legal norms and rules. According to Wiles and Boddy (2013), research ethics can "encourage researchers not only to improve levels of 'ethical literacy' in the research community but more fundamentally, to reflect deeply on their research project and process from the perspective of all the ...
Researchers have to take the sole responsibility for the ethical conduct of thei r own. research. In simple terms, we can say ethics are researcher's responsibility. First and. the foremost ...
Define a research question in medical ethics suitable for empirical investigation. Design a study to gather data to answer the question, using quantitative or qualitative methods. (For a quick summary of quantitative and qualitative methods, see Acad Med 2012;87(3):386.) Interpret the findings generated.
Higher education institutions, as organizations that transform society, have a responsibility to contribute to the construction of a sustainable and resilient world that is aware of the collateral effects of technological advances. This is the initial phase of a research that aims to determine whether subjects in the complementary training area have a significant effect on ethical, social ...