Research Ethics in the Social Sciences

1
Research Ethics in theSocial Sciences
Humanities

• Dean Sharpe, Ph.D.
• Ethics Review Office, University of Toronto
• January, 2007

2
Outline

• Research ethics framework
• Assessing risk
• Issues primer
• Preparing a protocol

3
History Principles

• Landmarks
• Nuremberg Code (1947)
• Declaration of Helsinki (1964)
• Belmont Report/Common Rule (1979)
• Tri-council Policy Statement (1998)
• Key ideas
• Respect for human dignity, autonomy
• Balance distribution of harms/benefits

4
Tri-council Policy Statement (TCPS, 1998) MOU

• Binding guidelines for review of protocols
• Proportionate approach
• Exempt (normal educational testing, program
  evaluation)
• Delegated/departmental (undergrad)
• Delegated/expedited (minimal riskon par with
  daily life)
• Full Research Ethics Board (gtminimal risk)
• Continuing (annual renewal, site visits)
• Issues
• Free informed consent
• Privacy confidentiality
• Conflict of Interest
• Inclusion/Exclusion criteria

5
Research Ethics at UT

• Ethics Review Office (ERO) Mandate
• Facilitate ethics review
• Maintain institutional compliance
• Educate research community
• Research Ethics Boards (REBs)
• Quorum of 5 (women men) 2--knowledge of
  methods, 1--knowledge of ethics, 1--community
  member
• Social Sciences Humanities, Education, Health
  Sciences I II ( HIV/AIDS advisory network)

6
Assessing RiskProbability Magnitude of Harm

• Vulnerability of groupas relevant to study
• Physiological/health conditions
• Cognitive/emotional factors (impairment, trauma)
• Socio-economic/legal status
• Research riskfocus on identifiable harm
• Methods invasiveness data sensitivity
• Physiological/health diagnoses, side effects
• Cognitive/emotional stress, anxiety
• Socio-economic/legal duty to report, subpoena,
  breach-gtstigma, dismissal, deportation, conviction

7
Risk Matrix

• Review Type by Group Vulnerability Research
  Risk
• Research Risk
• Group vulnerability Low Med High
• Low Exp. Exp. Full
• Med Exp. Full Full
• High Full Full Full

8
Review IssuesFree Informed Consent

• Quality of researcher-participant relationship
  across all interactions, verbal or written
• emphasis on processnot just a signature on a
  page
• covers recruitment (verbal discussions, phone
  calls, letters, e-mail, ads), responses to
  questions, de-briefing
• Straight-forward explanation, warm invitational
  tone
• free not to participate, not to answer any
  question, to withdraw without consequence
• no undue influence (e.g., non-research roles) or
  inducement (e.g., financial)

9
Review IssuesFree Informed Consent

• Plain language, not legalistic, typically gr.6
  level
• name, position, contact, any non-research roles
• study title, sponsor, purpose, procedures, time
  involvement, risks/benefits, how data will be
  used, limits to confidentiality
• sign off had study explained, questions
  answered, agree to begin, can withdraw
• Variations
• verbal if culturally more appropriate phone web
• personal versus alternate, assent (lt 14 years),
  dissent ethics approval, admin consent,
  community consultation

10
Review IssuesPrivacy Confidentiality

• Identity and personal information
• Some projects name participants, attribute
  quotes
• Most projects protect personal information
• Consider throughout project
• Recruitment (e.g., confidentiality/anonymity,
  snowball referrals, phone messages)
• Data collection (e.g., focus groups/interviews,
  notes/recordings)
• Data storage plan separate identifiers from
  content double lock password protect,
  retention/destruction
• Publication pseudonyms, generics, aggregates

11
Review IssuesPrivacy Confidentiality

• Possible limits to confidentiality
• Key informants (specialized group, readership)
• Duty to report
• child abuse
• intent to harm self or other
• Subpoena
• may be possible to challenge

12
Review IssuesConflict of Interest

• Typically role-based
• e.g., researcher teacher/minister/manager
• real or perceived, must disclose non-research
  aspects
• may have to managee.g., not recruit directly,
  blind to participation
• May have to abandon one interest

13
Review IssuesInclusion/Exclusion Criteria

• Principle of Justice
• fair distribution of benefits, burdens
• Need to justify basis for including/excluding
• students sometimes have trouble with complex
  constructs (e.g., sex/gender/sexual orientation,
  race/ethnicity/culture)

14
Forms, Deadlines, Guidelineswww.research.utoront
o.ca/ethics/

• Preparing a protocol
• follow models from your research group
• work closely with your supervisor
• check reviewer guide and consent checklist
• each section brief, clear, focus on ethics
• Submission
• Undergrad to your DERC coordinator
• OISE to your departmental coordinator
• Everyone else to ERO, Monday/5pm for expedited,
  or check website for monthly REB deadlines

15
More Informationwww.research.utoronto.ca/ethics/

• Research Ethics Officer, Social Sciences and
  Humanities
• dean.sharpe_at_utoronto.ca, 8-5585
• Coordinator, Education REB
• bridgette.murphy_at_utoronto.ca, 6-5606
• Coordinator, Social Sciences and Humanities REB
• marianna.richardson_at_utoronto.ca, 8-3165
• Coordinator, Undergraduate/Delegated Ethics
  Review
• rhain.louis_at_utoronto.ca, 6-0836
• Information Assistant, Ethics Review Office
• ethics.review_at_utoronto.ca, 6-3273