Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2018 Social Scientists' Conceptualization and Implementation of Research Ethics and Integrity Heather A. Pease Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.edu/luc_diss Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation Pease, Heather A., "Social Scientists' Conceptualization and Implementation of Research Ethics and Integrity" (2018).edu/luc_diss/2836 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact ecommons@luc.
Pease LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO SOCIAL SCIENTISTS’ CONCEPTUALIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH ETHICS AND INTEGRITY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUTE SCHOOL IN CANDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN RESEARCH METHODOLOGY BY HEATHER A. PEASE CHICAGO, IL MAY 2018 Copyright by Heather A. Pease, 2018 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Loyola University Chicago, as a collective whole, for helping me become a better version of myself.
My dissertation focuses on ethics and integrity, which is a core component of Jesuit values and Ignatian Pedagogy. My assistantship, Higher Learning Commission Accreditation and Pathways project made available via the School of Education facilitated both my intellectual and moral development. The faculty within the School of Education challenged me in unexpected ways. They helped me develop the necessary skills to think more critically, compassionately, and comprehensively about my responsibilities as both a scientist and a member of society.
The many peers and friends I have here at Loyola have opened my eyes to alternative perspectives and cultures, allowing me to better understand and communicate with those who are different than myself. All of these skills, developed here at Loyola, went above and beyond my expectations, leaving me in a state of humility and gratitude. The Office of Research Services and the members of the Institutional Review Board deserve special recognition. I was granted the honor to be the boards first doctoral student member.
This privilege allowed me to actively be a part of research ethics and integrity while simultaneously developing experiential knowledge which extended far beyond academic literature and classroom experiences. Needless to say, these experiences helped me craft a dissertation which, hopefully, can be used to inform the enrichment and practice of research ethics and integrity. iii I would like to thank the Associate Provost of Research, who was also my assistantship and dissertation supervisor, Terri Pigott, PhD. Pigott’s unwavering support, vast knowledge, and experience was instrumental to my success.
However, it was Dr. Pigott’s level of compassion and dedication to both myself and my research which made all the difference. Without her, I doubt this dissertation would be what it is today, something which truly represents myself, my passion, and the influence I hope to have on the world. Lastly, I thank my parents, Tom and Phyllis Pease.
They never lost hope, faith, or confidence in my ability to earn my doctorate. My passion for ethics and integrity stems from the way in which they lived their lives, in the service of others. (Phyllis Pease succumbed to ALS on Oct. 13, 2017, six months prior to degree conferral.) iv For my parents, Tom and Phyllis, who taught me there is never a wrong time to do the right thing.
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. iii LIST OF TABLES. viii LIST OF FIGURES. ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
xi CHAPTER ONE: SOCIAL SCIENTISTS CONCEPTUALIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH ETHICS AND INTEGRITY .1 CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ETHICS REGULATIONS .6 Pre-Nuremburg Codes and Regulations.8 Declaration of Helsinki (1964) .11 National Research Act (1974) .17 Selection of Subjects .25 CHAPTER THREE: THE SOCIAL SCIENCES .28 The Monster Study (1939) .30 Milgram Obedience Study (1963). Brown Eyes Exercise (1968) .35 Zimbardo Prison Experiment (1973) .38 CHAPTER FOUR: CURRENT TRENDS IN SOCIAL SCIENCES RESEARCH .46 CHAPTER FIVE: METHODS .73 Role of the Researcher .77 Participant Inclusion Criteria .81 CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS .87 Research Ethics and Integrity .95 Academic Discipline and Academic Culture .95 Populations and Participants .102 Role of the Researcher .110 Institutional Review Board (IRB) .110 Peers and Mentors .113 CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION .119 Academic Discipline and Academic Culture .119 Populations and Participants .120 Role of the Researcher .122 Implications and Applications .123 Critical Self-Reflection .125 vii Directions for Future Research .127 APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT LETTER .129 APPENDIX B: CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH .131 APPENDIX C: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .145 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Paradigm Position on Selected Issues. Emergent Codes and Tags.
Final Codes and Tags .84 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Preliminary Coding Word Cloud. Final Coding Word Cloud .85 x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS APA American Psychological Association ASA American Sociological Association CFR Code of Federal Regulations CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Co-Pi Co-Principal Investigator DC District of Colombia DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid DoH Declaration of Helsinki FFP Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism HHS Department of Health and Human Services IQ Intelligence Quotient IRB Institutional Review Board LGBTQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer LSD Lysergic acid diethylamide N Number of participants NAS National Academy of Sciences NIH National Institute of Health NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making OHRP Office of Human Research Protection OPHS Office of Public Health and Science ORI Office of Research Integrity PI Principal Investigator RCR Responsible Conduct of Research RCT’s Randomized control trials US United States WMA World Medical Association xi ABSTRACT The purpose of the current study is to identify core themes, values, and principles through which social scientists conceptualize and implement research ethics and integrity. Periods of rapid growth and interest in research ethics and integrity often coincide with significant scientific discoveries (e., mapping of the human genome) or scientific misconduct (e.
Even though research policies are being developed, they are done in a manner which does not maximize the opportunities to regulate ethics and integrity within social science research. The laws and programs aimed at mitigating acts of misconduct were originally intended for biomedical sciences, yet they are extended to the social sciences, which are rooted in different scientific philosophies, methodologies, and utility. I believe, from a methodological perspective, that ethical and integrity guidelines developed for biomedical sciences do not provide the optimal amount of guidance and protection for researchers and participants within the social sciences. The research question: How do social scientists conceptualize and implement research ethics and integrity?, was investigated using phenomenological methodology analyzed through an emergent feminist lens.
Seven (N=7) social science tenure- track faculty who conduct human subjects research participated. Data yielded seven themes; discipline/academic culture, role of the researcher, data, IRB, resources, consequences, and research ethics/integrity. Results inform foundational research into the application of research ethics and integrity for social scientists and provide argumentative support for further inquiry. xii CHAPTER ONE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS CONCEPTUALIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH ETHICS AND INTEGRITY Recent socio and political events have fueled ongoing conversations and debate regarding research ethics and integrity in the social sciences.
In the fall of 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released proposed changes to the Common Rule (Department of Health and Human Services, 2015), which are scheduled to start taking effect in 2018. Thus, many researchers and regulators are considering their position and beliefs toward the oversight of human subject’s protection in social science research. Mark Israel (2015) states, Social scientists are angry and frustrated. They believe their work is being constrained and distorted by regulators of ethical practice who neither understand social science research nor the social, political, economic and cultural contexts within which researchers work.
In many countries…researchers have argued that regulators are imposing, and acting on the basis of biomedically driven arrangements that make little or no sense to social scientists (p. Historically, laws and programs aimed at mitigating acts of misconduct and protecting human subjects were developed by, and for, biomedical researchers in response to a history of questionable research practices within the biomedical community. The Hippocratic Oath (5th century B.), the first known document containing guidelines for medical practices and research, has been used as the foundation for all subsequent guidelines and regulations for both biomedical and social science research (Annas & Grodin, 1992). Current human subject’s protection policies such as the Common Rule are intended for both biomedical and behavioral research even though the research paradigms and methodologies 1 2 within these disciplines vary both in research methods and philosophical assumptions.
Biomedical research is typically conducted under a positivist or post positivist research paradigm. These paradigms call for rigorous, replicable, statistically based research such as that seen with true experimental designs and randomized control trials (RCTs). The social sciences do use post positivism, in addition to more fluid and flexible research designs specifically, critical, constructivist, and participatory paradigms. These paradigms are not necessarily intended for statistical analysis and replication.
Much of the data are qualitative and are intended to present individual accounts of unique experiences. In these paradigms, the researcher has progressively more influence and interaction with the participants. The type and degree of influence the researcher may have is often related to the research question, design, data collection method and analysis. Additionally, extraneous variables and factors are harder to both identify and control.
These variables, such as the environment in which the study takes place, cannot only affect the data, but also the well-being of the human subjects, institution, community, and population of interest. My concern is that human subject’s research policies are primarily developed from a positivist and post positivist perspective, then extended to researchers using critical, constructivist, and participatory paradigms. I believe, from a methodological perspective, that guidelines developed primarily for biomedical research are not able to provide the optimal type of guidance and protection for human subject’s researchers and participants within all social sciences. Thus, the intent of my dissertation is to support this hypothesis by investigating social scientists’ conceptualization and implementation of research ethics and integrity in human subject’s research.
3 This question is of significance because human subject’s research in the social sciences affects multiple parts of society and peoples' daily life. The research conducted by social scientists ranges across a broad array of topics including, but not limited to, education, health, race, religion, law, and politics. These topics are often highly emotionally charged and tap into issues which can greatly affect the way societies and governments function. The sometimes subjective, sensitive and emotional nature of these topics makes ethical and integrity concerns hard to proactively identify, define, and manage.
The purpose of the current study is to develop an understanding of the different ways social scientists think about and manage the ethical and integrity concerns they face while conducting research in their respective field. Using qualitative methodology, participants were asked about (a) their background and identity as a researcher, (b) research interest, (c) conceptualization of research ethics and integrity, (d) implementation of research ethics and integrity, (e) consequences of misconduct and ethical violations, and (f) use of resources. Research ethics and integrity is a convoluted and often subjective construct. The definition of ethics and integrity varies between and within disciplines.
It is widely accepted that there is no one definition of how to practice human subjects research ethics as the parameters of integrity are typically based upon individual, professional, and disciplinary standards. The National Institute of Health (NIH) endorses the following definition: “Research integrity includes: the use of honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing, and evaluating research; reporting research results with particular attention to adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines and; following commonly accepted professional codes or norms” (National Institutes of Health, 2013). In addition, the NIH also supports the shared values in scientific research as 4 outlined by Steneck in 2007, specifically, honesty – convey information truthfully and honoring commitments; accuracy – report findings precisely and take care to avoid errors; efficiency – use resources wisely and avoid waste, and objectivity- let the facts speak for themselves and avoid improper bias.