Research Ethics in the 21st Century

1. Research Ethics in the 21st Century • Plus: • The Place of Commitment, Bias & Reflexivity in Methodologies • Secret and Sacred Knowledge

2. Plan for Today’s Class Session 1-Finish discussions of 1st exercise 2-Introduction to Foundations of Research Ethics (and film clips from Quiet Rage) 3- Discussion of Readings 4-Planning Presentations on Methodological Debates in Specific Fields If time: video--“Ask a silly question”

3. Part 2: New Ethical Guidelines for Communications Research • History & changing ideas of human subject protection (Christians) • Medical & Psychological Experiments • Early use of institutionalized subjects etc. • New approaches respond to questionable ethics in past research as well as new paradigms

4. Tuskegee syphilis study • “Depression-era U.S. poster advocating early syphilis treatment. Although treatments were available, participants in the study did not receive them.” • www.hsc.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/apology/report.html

5. Milgrim obedience study • “Illustration of the setup of a Milgram experiment. The experimenter (E) convinces the subject ("Teacher" T) to give what he believes are painful electric shocks to another subject, who is actually an actor ("Learner" L). Many subjects continued to give shocks despite pleas of mercy from the actors.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milgram_Experiment_v2.png

6. Zimbardo –Stanford prison experiment Stanford Prison Experiment “debriefing”: One of the most abused prisoners, #416, and the guard known as "John Wayne", who was one of the most abusive guards, confront each other in an "encounter session" two months later. • www.prisonexp.org • Another Zimbardo link • Film clips from Quiet Rage

7. Newer Approaches Raise More Nuanced Concerns • Cultural Taboos & rights • such as sharing secret or sacred knowledge (eg. Michaels and Marcus articles) • Owning one’s stories • Institutional Constraints vs. Subject’s wishes (Mattingly) • Practical Complexities & Political or Moral Commitments (Menzies and Crisp) Pansy Napangardi painting

8. Other Examples: Portrayals of Victims, Photography of Street Life & things • Tip Sheet on how to portray famine victims with dignity (Reuters) • http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/112669600053.html • Photography of Street Life in Canada • The Duclos Affair & Quebec law • http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html • Photographing architecture or public art (national variations in intellectual property rights) Fatou Ousseini lies with her malnourished one-year-old son Alassa Galisou at an emergency feeding clinic in the town of Tahoua in northwestern Niger (Reuters_

9. Why Be Ethical? (Motivations) • Researchers’ scholarly or personal values • Demands from “subjects” & communities under study (eg. Menzie & Mattingly articles) • Community guidelines (ex. Mi’kmaq research ethics guidelines or Mugomeh guidelines for African Nova Scotian community-university research alliances) • Codes of Ethics & Guides to Best Practices • Professional Associations • Institutions • Legislation • Funding Agencies • Ex. Canadian Tri-council guidelines for ethical treatment of human subjects • SSHRC homepage

10. Some Motivations for unethical research • Career advancement • Ego (“knowing the right answer”) • Political, economic or agendas • Cheaper, faster • Ignorance etc… Fraud controversies as topic for communications research Link to press release quoting Communications researcher.

11. Ethics & Legality:Typology of Legal and Moral Actions in Research Both Moral and Legal Ethical Illegal Only Immoral Only Illegal Legal Both Immoral and Illegal Unethical Source: figure adapted from Neuman (2000:91)

12. Deception and covert observation formerly common practices e.g. Laud Humphrey Tearoom Trade http://web.missouri.edu/~philwb/Laud.html Defies Principle of voluntary INFORMED consent Potential for harm to subjects

13. Who can give consent? Participation must be voluntary; not coerced informed about planned procedures & commitments “special populations” cannot give voluntary informed consent e.g. military personnel, students, prison inmates, mentally challenged Why? can’t make the decision (mental incapacity, immaturity) not truly “free” (could be directly or indirectly coerced)

14. Distinctions : Privacy, Anonymity, Confidentiality privacy: a legal right (note : public vs. private domain)--even if subject is dead anonymity: subjects remain nameless & responses cannot be connected to them (problem in small samples) confidentiality: subjects’ identity may be known but not disclosed by researcher, identity can’t be linked to responses

15. Stakeholders & Points of View on Ethics scientific community “the subject” individual researcher society/the public sponsors/funding sources legal authorities/government

16. Scientific Misconduct research fraud falsification or distortion of data or methods fabrication plagiarism presenting the ideas or words of another as one's own Ex. failure to give credit (citation plagiarism) violation of ethical standards ex. failure to give informed consent suppression of findings ex. non-publication

17. From the Research Subjects’ Point of View: Types of Harm physical harm psychological abuse, stress, loss of self-esteem legal harm financial, “cultural capital” risks (G.P.A. , reputation, status, etc.) creation of inequities denial of treatment (ex. placebos in experimental research) etc.

18. Ethics & the Scientific Community:Codes of Ethics guide, control & regulate members protect researchers from outside pressures protect others and members from irresponsible practitioners “professionalisation” of research areas

19. Ethics & Research Relations: Colleagues & Bosses and the Research Process Not just about relations between researchers and people they are studying Relationships with other researchers main sources of conflict: sharing recognition, workload & other “rewards”

20. Ethical Issues related to Research Sponsors balancing allegiances “cooking” results intentionally or unintentionally biases from limits on conditions & resources suppressing findings concealing the sponsor

21. Ethical Debates about Sharing Research Findings control over use of raw data & findings especially subject information academic freedom autonomy of research common debates about reporting issues: suppression selective reporting effects, intended or unintended “models of relevance” no net effects, positive & negative effects, special constituencies

22. How Society & Government Shape Research Conditions & Content legislation (ex. FOIPOP --Freedom of Information, Protection of Privacy) “politically correct” or “safe” topics control of access to data (gatekeepers) biases in government statistics, archives, etc. other issues: censorship public opinion public good “national” security economic and political (ex. funding priorities of government granting agencies)

23. Practicalities: Informed Consent Statements(common features to consider) purpose & procedure of study potential risks and discomfort provisions for anonymity or confidentiality researcher’s address and source of information statement of voluntary nature of participation and ability to withdraw at any time provisions for compensation (or not) offer to provide summary of findings

24. Ethical issues related to common types of relationships amongst researchers student-student (teamwork, study groups, classmates) student-professor (ordinary class relationships, research assistantships) research &/or authorship teams (junior & senior authors, questions of recognition and remuneration) employee/employer relationships (authorship/anonymity) sponsors/funding organizations

25. Applications for ethical approval at SFU Office of Research Ethics Research Ethics at SFU Provide information about: Purpose, Methodology, Consent, Debriefing Risks, Safety issues Confidentiality/anonymity/privacy Compensation Deception Office of Research Ethics at SFU

26. VideoClips (if time or later) • Quiet Rage: the Stanford Prison Experiments

27. Discussion of Readings: Required Christians, C. (2005) “Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research” in Denzin and Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition). pp. 139-164. Crisp, J. (1999) " 'Who has counted the refugees?' UNHCR and the politics of numbers " New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 12. UNHCR, Geneva And one of Mattingly, C. (2005) “Toward a vulnerable ethics of research practice”, Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine. Vol 9(4): pp. 453-471. or Menzies, Charles R. (2004) “Putting Words into Action: Negotiating Collaborative Research in Gitxaala”, Canadian Journal of Native Education, Volume 28(1-2):15-32.

28. Other Recommended Readings Related to Ethics Hammersley, M. and Gomm, R. (1997) 'Bias in Social Research', Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 1, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/2.html Harding, S. (2004) “How Standpoint Methodology Informs Philosophy of Social Science”, in Hesse-Biber, S and P. Leavy (ed.) Approaches to Qualitative Research. A reader on Theory and Practice. Oxford, pp. 62-80. Marcus, George E. (1998) “Censorship in the Heart of Difference: Cultural Property, Indigenous Peoples’ Movements, and Challenges to Western Liberal Thought” in Post, Robert (ed.) Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation. Santa Monica: Getty Research Institute, pp. 221-242. Michaels, Eric. (1994) “A Primer of Restrictions on Picture-Taking in traditional areas of aboriginal Australia”, Bad Aboriginal Art. Tradition, Media and Cultural Horizons. Minneapolis: U. Minnesota Press, pp. 1-18.

29. Part 4-Planning Presentations on Methodological Debates (Special Topics)

30. If time: “Ask a Silly Question”