Ethical considerations in research

1. Ethical considerations in research Dr Emile van der Zee University of Lincoln

2. Overview • Why bother with Research Ethics? • Tension between Research and Ethics • Where do we get our Ethical Guidance from? • Ethical Theories • Ethical Principles • Ethical Codes • Implementing the codes • Procedures for your programme? • What about you / me?

3. Why bother with Research Ethics? Why should we be interested in ethics?

4. Tension between research and ethics Get results quickly Fabricate / Plagiarise Disregard (original) evidence (at any costs) Get interesting results Coerce / -Consent Disregard participants / researchers (at any costs) DiederikStapel Marc Hauser Joseph Mengele Twin experiments

5. Tension between research and ethics Publish quickly information pollution Disregard Science & Society (at any costs) http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

6. Where do we get ourEthical Guidance from? Our own intuitions (!) Ethical Theories / Principles Professional Codes; BPS, APA, NHS, etc. University Department Environmental factors

7. Ethical Theories Aristotelian Ethics: lead a virtuous life / do good. Deontology (Kant): acts are right if they could be a universal law. Do as you would be done by; never lie.

8. Ethical Theories Utilitarianism (Bentham): maximise benefits and reduce harm. The greatest good for the greatest number. Theory of Justice (Rawls): each person has equal rights to basic liberties, such as free speech. Fairness.

9. Ethical Principles Beauchamp and Childress (2008) four ‘prima facie’ moral principles when doing (biomedical) research: Autonomy: capacity to self-govern / personal wishes Beneficence: maximise benefits for those involved Non-maleficence: minimise potential harm Justice: distribute benefits, risks and costs fairly, treat everyone the same, and be aware of power differential

10. Ethical Codes • The relevant parties in a research project? • Autonomy: • Participant information (give / take) • Consent • Data withdrawal (limits specified) • Protecting those with diminished autonomy (children, those mentally / physically incapacitated) • Beneficence: • Does participant / science / society benefit?

11. Ethical Codes • Non-maleficance: • Care (deception, stress, etc.) • After-care • Confidentiality (≠ anonymity) • Legal issues (who is liable, who has intellectual property rights, etc.) • Justice: • Data storage (7 years) • Debrief • Rewards for participation

12. Implementing the codes A Case Imagine that you aim to investigate the relation between psychopathic traits and violent behaviour in sex offenders. For that purpose you carry out a qualitative study which involves interviewing offenders in a secure setting who receive therapy, as well as their therapists. What issues should be addressed in judging the ethical soundness of this research project?

13. Implementing the codes • clarity of research design, method and responsibility • scientific context, including appropriate referencing • issues relating to writing (spelling, sentence structure, etc) • ethical issues identified • mechanisms used to address the issues • necessary accompanying documents (letters, consent, debrief, etc)

14. Procedures for your programme? • University Ethical Guidelines • Professional Guidelines • IRAS approval • See http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/psychology/Ethics.htm for examples

15. What about you / me? Survey of graduate students from 40 training programs in clinical psychology (Mearns & Allen, 1991): • 49% were aware of unethical behaviors by peers • only 42% confronted peers behaving unethically Question; where do you go to report ethical violations?

16. What about you / me? Survey of counseling and clinical psychology training directors from 75 APA-accredited programmes (Fly, et al 1997): • 89 ethical transgressions by students • confidentiality (25%), professional boundaries (20%), plagiarism (15%) • 54% of students committing ethical violations had taken an ethics course Changing attitude ≠ changing behaviour

17. Questions?

18. References • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 4, 814-834. http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/sbaldwin/emotional%20dog%20rational%20tail.pdf • Hauser, M. (2006). Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. • Hauser, M., Young, L. & Cushman, F. (2008). Reviving Rawls’ Linguistic Analogy; Operative principles and the causal structure of moral actions. In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed), Moral Psychology; The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity (pp 107-143). Cambridge, US: The MIT Press. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/ReviveRawslChpt.pdf • Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development. Volume II; The Psychology of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers. • Lee, S. W. S. & Schwartz, N. (2011). Wiping the Slate Clean: Psychological Consequences of Physical Cleansing. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(5) 307–311. • Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. • http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/psychology/Ethics.htm