Ethics and Research with Practitioners
When researchers conduct studies in professional or organizational settings, whose ethical guidelines should be observed? How do researchers bridge their own institution’s or academic discipline’s expectations for ethical research practice with the norms and codes of the people or organizations they want to study? This collection of open-access articles offers some examples and options.
Beasley, C., & Walker, L. (2014). Research ethics and journalism in the academy: Identifying and resolving a conflict of culture. Research Ethics, 10(3), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016114531981
The difficulty faced by research ethics committees in evaluating ethical conduct in journalism can be considered a recent conundrum. Journalistic investigation has traditionally been seen as residing outside the need for ethics clearances owing to debates around its status as research and to the reluctance of journalism practitioners to subject their investigations to committee evaluation. The inclusion of creative industries in revamped definitions of research, however, means that if journalistic inquiry is to be tallied under national research reward schemes, it must be ethically accountable. This article interrogates the difficulties caused by a conflict of cultures between ethics committees and journalism research and poses a number of possible resolutions. It aims to function as an exploration of key thinking in the field, thus acting as a frame for further development of case-specific examples of the issues raised.
Fleming, S. (2013). Social research in sport (and beyond): Notes on exceptions to informed consent. Research Ethics, 9(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016112472872
Over the last two decades sport-related research has become increasingly influenced by ethical propriety and institutional governance. Whilst there has been thorough consideration of biomedical and associated research in sport and exercise, social research in sport studies has received less attention. In this article, following a brief contextualization of the current climate for research ethics discourse, the planks of an argument for social research in sport without informed consent are addressed. Dealing with ideas linked to ecological validity, impracticality, averting alarm, public interest and ‘leaving only footprints’, a case is made based on two important questions: (a) is the research useful?; and (b) are other research methods available that are fit-for-purpose and allow informed consent to be secured? If the answers are ‘yes’ and ‘no’, respectively, the case should be considered. In such instances the principle of ‘McFee’s friends’ serves as an important source of guidance for researchers.
Gelling, L., & Munn-Giddings, C. (2011). Ethical Review of Action Research: The Challenges for Researchers and Research Ethics Committees. Research Ethics, 7(3), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/174701611100700305
Action research has repeatedly demonstrated how it can facilitate problem solving and change in many settings through a process of collaboration which is driven by the community at the heart of the research. The ethical review of action research can be challenging for action researchers and research ethics committees. This paper explores how seven ethical principles can be used by action researchers and research ethics committees as the basis for ethical review. This paper concludes by offering some suggestions for a way forward for both action researchers and research ethics committees.
Ben Khaled, W., & Gond, J.-P. (2020). How do external regulations shape the design of ethical tools in organisations? An open polity and sociology of compliance perspective. Human Relations, 73(5), 653–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719828437
In response to the numerous hard and soft ethical regulations that have emerged in the wake of recurrent corporate scandals, Multinational Corporations (MNCs) have adopted ethical tools. This move is often interpreted as a means to garner legitimacy and as loosely coupled to corporate activities. Little is known, however, about the processes by which external regulations affect the design of ethical tools. Approaching organisations as open polities and building on institutional theory and the sociology of compliance, we conducted a qualitative study of the development of 23 ethical tools at four MNCs. We analytically induced a three-stage model that explains how ethical tools are externally sourced (importation), then subjected to competing pressures from distinct professional groups that replicate legal features of the environment (politicisation), to become finally turned into quasi-legal procedures (legalisation). Our analysis contributes to theory by explaining how external regulations relate to the organisational production of ethical tools in a self-reinforcing manner, while specifying the role of ethics professionals in the process of ethical tool production.
MacNeill, K., Bolt, B., Barrett, E., McPherson, M., Sierra, M., Miller, S., Ednie-Brown, P., & Wilson, C. (2021). An ethical engagement: creative practice research, the academy and professional codes of conduct. Research Ethics, 17(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120915950
This paper reports on the experiences of creative practice graduate researchers and academic staff as they seek to comply with the requirements of the Australian National Statement on the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans. The research was conducted over a two-year period (2015 to 2017) as part of a wider project ‘iDARE – Developing New Approaches to Ethics and Research Integrity Training through Challenges Presented by Creative Practice Research’. The research identified the appreciation of ethics that the participants acquired through their experience of institutional research ethics procedures at their university. It also revealed a disjunction between the concepts of ethics acquired through meeting institutional research ethics requirements, the notion of ethics that many researchers adopt in their own professional creative practice and the contents of professional codes of conduct. A key finding of the research was that to prepare creative practice graduates for ethical decision-making in their professional lives, research ethics training in universities should be broadened to encompass a variety of contexts and enable researchers to develop skills in ethical know-how.
Ray, N. (2005). Architectural Ethics. Research Ethics, 1(2), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/174701610500100207
The practice of architecture, a discipline that is inescapably contingent on the particular, but that is also required by society in some way to represent an ideal, raises a number of specific ethical issues. Following an essay by the philosopher Thomas Nagel, this paper argues that it is intrinsic to professional judgement that this involves the prioritizing of unquantifiable ‘goods’. A twentieth-century case study is examined, which exhibits the choices made by a well-known architect. The changed nature of architectural practice in the United Kingdom in the twenty-first century is then described, whereby the privilege of making such judgements has been severely limited by the substitution of managerial values for professional values. In the face of different ethical imperatives – most obviously to design responsibly within pressing ecological concerns – it is argued that the task for architects now is to re-establish a context within which sound judgements can be made, which of course implies a degree of professional trust. Their ability to balance managerial values (technical competence for example) with ethical decision-making is what may prove to be most valuable. There are implications for architectural education, which in the past has either pretended to be a science or has retreated into aesthetic speculation, providing training in the skills of persuasion rather than relationship-building. The conclusion is that ethical thinking is inescapable for the profession of architecture in the twenty-first century.
More Methodspace Posts about Research Outside Academia
