Ethics in Educational - Research Paper Example

Ethics in Educational Research Introduction Consider this case. Paula Stewart is a schoolteacher who teaches history to student and is a part of the health committee at school. Moreover, she is also pursing her Masters degree in health sciences. As a part of the dissertation, she is conducting an educational research. For the same, she is conducting interviews with the senior students at her school. As per the code of conduct, Paula has told her participants that she would maintain confidentiality at all times. All her interviews were going according to the plan when John Clarke the seventh participant came in the room for the interview. As the interview with John moved on, Paula realized that John might have some serious disorders that have already caused him some health problems. Clearly, Paula here is facing a dilemma. She never mentioned to the participants that in case of a serious risk she would comprise the rule of confidentiality (Anderson, Anderson & Arsenault, 1998). However, now she feels that she should comprise her role of a researcher over the role a teacher and a health committee member. Over the past years, educational research has established itself as a separate field of study. Quite understandably, like any other research field, ethical concerns also surround the field of educational research. In fact, there has been a lot of work on the same over the past couple of decades (Penslar, 1995). However, much of the focus has remained on the qualitative methods, minimization of harm, informing participants before the research and maintaining confidentiality at all times (Federman, Hanna & Rodriguez, 2003). Moreover, there are concerns that whether the ethical concerns and codes that apply to other research fields like marketing, business, anthropological, biosciences, medical and psychological; are these applicable to educational research as well. As mentioned earlier in the Paula and John case that as the field of educational research is growing the ethical dilemmas and problems are growing as well (Iltis, 2006). This paper is an attempt to look at the ethical issues that affect educational research by dividing it into the areas of quantitative and quantitative research. As the paper would move on, the strengths and weaknesses of these methods in terms of ethics would become evident. Moreover, in light of hypothetical or historical examples this paper would shed light on various components of these ethical dilemmas. Discussion As mentioned earlier in the paper, much of the ethical concerns in educational research arise from qualitative research methods. Quite understandably, focus groups, observations, interviews and others are the prominent methods. However, most of these methods directly involve human beings; many critics have identified the importance of informed consent while having any kind of research with human beings (McNamee, Mcnamee & Bridges, 2002). Moreover, they strongly discourage covert researches. In light of Kantian ethics, no research has the right to violate the self-respect of human beings, their self-determination and it should consider this as a universal right for all researches. Before any research, the agendas should be disclosed (Anderson, Anderson & Arsenault, 1998). However, the dilemma here appears when the researchers find themselves facing the choice between the individual’s rights to privacy vs. the right of public to know. Consider this example. A researcher disguises himself as a counselor in front of a rape victim and takes the information, which later publishes in the journal article (Israel & Hay, 2006). Quite understandably, the information that the victim provided was without knowing the fact that it is a research. Moreover, the information was private and confidential. The researcher may argue that the publishing of the interview was necessary considering the public good and the right of people to know so that they can save themselves from such incidences (Simons & Usher, 2000). The only way here to solve this problem would be by weighing both of these, the individual’s right to privacy, and the public right to know and then decide what is imperative. If the public benefit gained is more necessary, then the individual’s right to privacy and harm involved, the betrayal of trust then the covert research is justifiable and vice versa (Eckstein, & King's College, 2003). However, there is another problem here. One of the most fundamental characteristics of qualitative research is that it provides researchers with a boarder dimension to explore and find out various dimensions (Israel & Hay, 2006). Furthermore, most of qualitative researchers are conducted when there answer in the absence of known answers and conclusions. It is during the qualitative research that the researcher decides its future path and scope (Long & Johnson, 2007). The point here is that when the research is not anticipated then how can and to what an extent the researcher can have the consent of the subject or participants (Mertens & Ginsberg, 2009). Another ethical concern in qualitative research is the relationship between the researcher and the participant. Trust should remain as the key element of this research. Moreover, the relationship should be collaborative and based on mutual understanding (Kimmel, 1998). The participants of educational research should receive treatment not as means to the research, subjects, or non-human parts but as ends to the means, humans, and an important part of the research. This implies that the researcher then has all the right to know about the research methodology and data collection methods (Barnbaum & Byron, 2001). There should be balance between the voice of teachers and the theory and the design of research. Quite understandably, teachers, students or other participants always have questions like “what are you going to do? To what an extent you will be a source of disruption. What have you chosen us when you had other options? In addition, what will we be getting out of all this process?” (Gregory, 2003). It becomes the ethical responsibility of the educational researcher to answer all these questions. Another ethical concern while qualitative research remains regarding the cultural sensitivity. Researchers that are conducting educational researches in new environments are often on the risk of their subjects (Gregory, 2003). The same is true because “you will be what people in the field choose to define you as and you have little control over this since you are entering their cultural totality - they are not entering yours” (Eckstein, & King's College, 2003). For example, if a researcher from the US chooses to go to Japan for educational research, surely, he would have troubles in building that trust and rapport, mentioned above. Therefore, it becomes important for the researchers to engage into full cultural study of the area and the people. Moreover, it is important to spend a considerable amount of time with the participants before the research (Anderson, Anderson & Arsenault, 1998). On the other hand, qualitative methods have their own pros and cons in the educational research world. Most of the times, especially for researchers with large samples, the problem of confidentiality are least likely to occur (Penslar, 1995). Quantitative data focuses more on numbers, percentages, degrees, and confidence intervals and less on the individual identities and names of the persons (McNamee, Mcnamee & Bridges, 2002). It is also important that the data collection methods for educational research should be should be in line with the ethics. It is imperative that the design should minimize the harm that it can cause to the participants (Burgess, 1998). For example, if a researcher is observing the students by spying on them, in order to find out the various dimensions of adolescent dating behavior then surely it is an unethical data collection method (Israel & Hay, 2006). A deontological theorist would condemn it even more strongly because unlike consequentialist, they would assess the morality of any action by the looking at the action, behavior and the attitude rather than the consequences. It is also wrong since it is a serious breach of privacy and may end up diminishing the willingness of the people about their feelings with trust and confidence (Long & Johnson, 2007). Plagiarism is also one of the ethical concerns that surround both the research methods. Quite understandably, it can take many forms. The most blatant form could be of copying some one else’s works word to word. Using ideas and sentences from other authors without citing the source for the same or not asking the permission from the author is another form (Barnbaum & Byron, 2001). Usually with all the technology it has become easy to identify if the work is totally copied, however, if it is paraphrased and not cited then it becomes troublesome for authorities to identify its exact source. Consider this case from the biomedical research field (Anderson, Anderson & Arsenault, 1998). “Elias Alsabti, a citizen of Jordan, completed his graduate studies from Jordan in medicine” (Eckstein, & King's College, 2003). He came to United States in 1977 to pursue further studies in terms of postgraduate degree. Very soon, he found himself doing cancer research for a laboratory who had hired him for the same purpose. Surprisingly, in a short span of two year he published more than 60 articles. Most of those articles became a part of prestigious journals like Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology (Eckstein, & King's College, 2003). However, looking at his speed for publishing new articles and changing laboratories, he had put many observers into suspect. Finally, serious plagiarism in almost all of his articles came onto the scene with strong proofs. Further investigation revealed that he never completed his graduate studies from Jordan. Quite understandably, it was a turning point for the research industry that how come so many articles pass through the eyes of the review system without screening and how come the individual was able to continue his fraudulent practices for more than two years (Long & Johnson, 2007). Most of the research labs that found him suspicious simply terminated him, which allowed him to have a chance to go to some new lab (Federman, Hanna & Rodriguez, 2003). Coupled with plagiarism and the issue of fabrication of data is an important one both in qualitative and quantitative researches. There have been cases in the past where the researchers have been accused of using the data in an unethical way, falsification of data, production of data or political issues that surround the research findings (Buchanan, 2004). John Darsee was a prominent researcher at Hard University who submitted around 100 articles during the time of 1978-1982 (McNamee, Mcnamee & Bridges, 2002). However, unfortunately, all of them had their basis on fabricated and misrepresented data. Despite the fact that it his peers and management had the suspicion but they allowed Darsee to work giving him the benefit of doubt. The problem here was that the officials did not want to ruin the reputation of their institution. However, finally, due to pressures from the funding agency, when the investigation took place it was revealed that the data of the past four years was clearly misrepresented (Federman, Hanna & Rodriguez, 2003). Critics, IRB, and the public expect educational researchers to report contradictory findings, cite all the outside sources properly, write abstract that has data or findings, report negative findings and limitations of the research. It is also important to note that lack of ignorance towards other systematic and technical errors is also an ethical misconduct. As an author puts it, “Young scientists should understand all the subtle ways in which they can delude themselves in the design of observations and the interpretation of data and statistics. They should understand metrology and should know what tendencies to manipulate information are built into their digital signal processors. They should also get to know the algorithms used in their favourite computers, which may under certain circumstances give strange results. Above all they should be trained in detection and control of systematic errors” (Federman, Hanna & Rodriguez, 2003). Another problem, which is common to both researchers, qualitative and quantitative, is regarding the planning and costing of these researches. Most of such educational researches fail to acknowledge the provision for remedying of harm or loss caused by the research (Mertens & Ginsberg, 2009). This may include compensation for the breach of privacy or for the physical damage or pain, extra time allotment to the loss of time, remedial teaching, briefing, and debriefing. Moreover, minors in no way shall be asked for consent for damage or risks caused by research (Long & Johnson, 2007). Besides, under ethical dimensions a researcher is bound not to use the consent of teacher or the guardians in case of higher degrees of harms or risks. Sponsors or financers of research pose another issue in educational research. The basic idea of educational research remains that it should be of some benefit to the participants. The idea of public good and participant empowerment or mutuality has to be there at all times (Mertens & Ginsberg, 2009). However, not always the financers or sponsors of these researchers share the same kind of ideas. Most probably, they will think the corporate way and they would emphasis on the return on investment thus leading to maximum exploitation of participants if needed (Barnbaum & Byron, 2001). Moreover, in no way, researchers have the right to put direct or indirect pressures on the participants to be a part of the research exercise (Buchanan, 2004). Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that the participants preserve the right to withdraw from the research at any time. Important here to note is that the process of simple random sampling does not override or overrule this principle (Barnbaum & Byron, 2001) (Burgess, 1998). The last part of this paper would talk about how one could make sure that clearance from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) could be ensured with maximum speed. Quite understandably, for the same the researcher would have to ensure that he or she has already fulfilled all the requirements and conditions of the research. Firstly, the researcher should be spot on in proving the fact that the research is for public good, it would not harm the participants, all the participants are well aware of the research and it is not happening with any deception, and confidentiality would remain at the top of the list (McNamee, Mcnamee & Bridges, 2002). Researchers can also win the confidence of the IRB by continuously keeping themselves in touch with the board in regards of any changes in the cost and benefit structure, unforeseen incidents and changes in the principles of informed consent. In addition, the researcher is bound to report any such incidents of harm or potential harm to subjects with 24 hours of the happening of revelation to the board (Long & Johnson, 2007). Furthermore, IRB also requires the assurance that all the private information, and all parts of it, should be destroyed as soon as the research enters into its final phases. Assurance of the same to IRB would really speed up the process. Lastly, the underlying idea here is to be as transparent and as comprehensive as possible since the same would allow you to win the confidence of the board thus speeding up the process (Eckstein, & King's College, 2003). References Anderson, Gary, Anderson, Gary J., & Arsenault, Nancy. (1998). Fundamentals of educational research. Routledge. Barnbaum, Deborah R., & Byron, Michael. (2001). Research ethics: text and readings. Prentice Hall. Buchanan, Elizabeth A. (2004). Readings in virtual research ethics: issues and controversies. Idea Group Inc (IGI). Burgess, Robert G. (1989). The Ethics of educational research. Routledge. Eckstein, Sue, & King's College (2003). Centre of Medical Law and Ethics. Manual for research ethics committees. Cambridge University Press. Federman, Daniel D., Hanna, Kathi E., & Rodriguez, Laura Lyman. (2003). Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. National Academies Press. Gregory, Ian. (2003). Ethics in research. Continuum International Publishing Group. Iltis, Ana Smith. (2006). Research ethics. Taylor & Francis. Israel, Mark, & Hay, Iain. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists: between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. Sage. Kimmel, Allan J. (1998). Ethics and values in applied social research. Sage Publications. Long, Tony, & Johnson, Martin. (2007). Research ethics in the real world: issues and solutions for health and social care. Elsevier Health Sciences. McNamee, Mike J., Mcnamee, Michael, & Bridges, David. (2002). the ethics of educational research. Wiley-Blackwell. Mertens, Donna M., & Ginsberg, Pauline E. (2009). The handbook of social research ethics. SAGE Publications Inc. Penslar, Robin Levin. (1995). Research ethics: cases and materials. Indiana University Press. Simons, Helen, & Usher, Robin. (2000). Situated ethics in educational research. Routledge. Read More