SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Colnerud, G. (2014). Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study. Research Ethics, 10(4), 238–253. doi:10.1177/1747016114552339

Health researchers conducting research in the community are often faced with unanticipated ethical issues that arise in the course of their research and that go beyond the scope of ethical approval by the research ethics committee. Eight expert researchers were selected through extreme intensity purposive sampling, because they are representative of unusual manifestations of the phenomenon related to their research in the community. They were selected to take part in a semi-structured focus group discussion on whether practical wisdom (phronesis) is used as a decision-making skill to solve unanticipated ethical issues during research in the community. Although the researchers were not familiar with the concept phronesis, it became obvious that it formed an integral part of their everyday existence and decision making during intervention research. They could balance research ethics with practical considerations. The capacity of practical wisdom as a crucial decision-making skill should be assimilated into a researcher’s everyday reality, and also into the process of mentoring young researchers to become phronimos. Researchers should be taught this skill to handle unanticipated ethical issues.

Questions to Consider

1. Are ethics committees and oversight enough? Explain the author’s assertions on this.

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty Level: Medium

 

2. Should the researcher also employ an ethical decision-making process to help address unforeseen ethical challenges?

Cognitive Domain: Analysis

Difficulty Level: Medium

 

3. Explain, according to the article, how the capacity of practical wisdom as a crucial decision-making skill should be assimilated into a researcher’s everyday reality.

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty Level: Medium–Hard

 

Colnerud, G. (2014). Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study. Research Ethics, 10(4), 238–253. doi:10.1177/1747016114552339

The aim of the present article is to contribute empirically derived knowledge about Swedish researchers’ experience of ethical problems, conflicts and dilemmas in their research practice in relation to the ethical vetting legislation and procedure. The study has been carried out using the critical incident technique, with researchers from various disciplines providing examples from their own research practice of problems relating to research ethics. The analysis of the researchers’ responses indicates three phenomena, partly in line with similar studies in other countries: (i) the law of ethical vetting puts limits on the relevant research ethical questions; (ii) it is not possible to anticipate all questions of research ethics; and (iii) there are consequences to the fact that the boards for ethical vetting ignore problems that fall outside the law.

Questions to Consider

1. The analysis of the researchers’ responses indicates three phenomena; list and discuss.

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty Level: Medium–Hard

 

2. Exactly what is “empirically derived knowledge” as the article uses this term?

Cognitive Domain: Knowledge

Difficulty Level: Medium–Hard

 

3.The study has been carried out using the critical incident technique. What is this? Define and explain.

Cognitive Domain: Knowledge, Analysis

Difficulty Level: Medium

 

Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: A view of the participants’ and researchers’ world from a critical standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(2), 64–81. doi:10.1177/160940691201100208

This paper illustrates how certain ethical challenges in qualitative research necessitate sustained attention of two interconnected worlds: the world of the researcher and the world of the participant. A critical view of some of the ethical challenges in the participants’ and researchers’ world reveals how we examine both these worlds’ effects and how we design our research. In addition, it reflects the need for researchers to develop an ethical research vocabulary at the inception of their research life through multiple modes. The modes may include dialog in the spoken and written and visual to affect their aims to adhere to the principles of respect, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice in a way that is mutually beneficial to the participant and the researcher. Further, the deliberations in this paper reveal that a critical conscious research ethics are embedded in the unfolding research ethics process involving the participants and the researchers, and both the participant and the researcher add equal weight to the transparency of the ethical process and add value to building methodological and ethical rigor to the research.

Questions to Consider

1. What are the ethical concerns present within the article regarding “the world of the researcher and the world of the participant”?

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty level: Medium

 

2. How will developing an ethical research vocabulary at the inception of the research life through multiple modes help address ethical concerns?

Cognitive Domain: Knowledge

Difficulty level: Hard

 

3. Explain how both the participant and the researcher add equal weight to the transparency of the ethical process and add value to building methodological and ethical rigor to the research.

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty level: Medium

 

Zucchero, R. A. (2011). Psychology ethics in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 110–113.

Previous research revealed that introductory psychology textbooks included limited information about psychology ethics. This study reviewed 48 current introductory psychology textbooks for research and other APA ethics content. These textbooks included slightly more total ethics content and were more thorough in their review of research ethics than textbooks of the past. However, psychology ethics related to teaching and clinical practice received minimal coverage and the limited integration of psychology ethics is a concern. Instructors are encouraged to seek supplementary resources to effectively integrate a greater breadth of psychology ethics into their course. Likewise, authors might consider a more comprehensive incorporation in future textbooks.

Questions to Consider

1. How does the coverable of psychology ethics in introductory textbooks compare to the coverage in chapter?

2. Are there areas that seem to be missing in the introductory books that is covered in your chapter? Are there areas that are covered in the introductory books that is not covered in your chapter?

Learning Objective: Ethics

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty Level: Hard

 

3. How many pages of ethics content is covered in a full length introductory psychology textbook on average: (a) 1.58, (b) 2.35, (c) 32, (d) 52.86

Learning Objective: Ethical treatment of participants

Cognitive Domain: Knowledge

Difficulty Level: Easy

 

4. Which area of APA Principles is the least covered in introductory psychology: (a) Informed consent, (b) Debriefing, (c) Absence of coercion, (d) Privacy.

Learning Objective: APA code of ethics

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty Level: Easy

 

Tolich, M. (2014). What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm? Research Ethics, 10(2), 86–96.

The first objective of this article is to demonstrate that ethics committee members can learn a great deal from a forensic analysis of two classic psychology studies: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study and Milgram’s Obedience Study. Rather than using hindsight to retrospectively eradicate the harm in these studies, the article uses a prospective minimization of harm technique. Milgram attempted to be ethical by trying to protect his subjects through debriefing and a follow-up survey. He could have done more, however, by carrying out what ethics committees routinely insist on today for those researching sensitive topics. The establishment of counseling supports to identify harm to participants would have minimized additional harm. Were these in place, or in Zimbardo’s case had the Stanford Ethics Committee properly identified Zimbardo’s conflict of interest – he was both the principal investigator and the prison warden – how much harm could have been minimized? The second aim is to examine how some qualitative authors routinely demonize these classic studies. It might appear that there are too few cases of unethical qualitative research to justify such an examination; however, this article identifies a number of recent examples of ethically dubious qualitative research. This would suggest that qualitative research should examine its own ethics before poaching from psychology.

Questions to Consider

1. Tolich argues that Zimbardo had a conflict of interest in being both the principal investigator and the prison warden. What is a conflict of interest and how does it apply in this situation?

Learning Objective: Conflicts of interest

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty Level: Medium

 

2. How could Milgram have increased the ethical treatment of the participants in his study: (a) providing an informed consent, (b) debriefing participants, (c) directing to counseling services, (d) maintaining anonymity.

Learning Objective: Risks

Cognitive Domain: Application

Difficulty Level: Hard

 

3. Tolich criticizes Venkatesh’s (2008) sociological experiment on the basis that: (a) it did not undergo IRB approval, (b) no ethical responsibility was practiced, (c) the research could have caused harm, (d) all of the above.

Learning Objective: Treating participants ethically

Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

Difficulty Level: Medium