Research Ethics in the Social Sciences - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

Research Ethics in the Social Sciences

Description:

review Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology, Political Science, Management. ... See TCPS, Article 2.1c) and commentary. Is it necessary? Rigourously think ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:120
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: rache83
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Research Ethics in the Social Sciences


1
Research Ethics in theSocial Sciences
Humanities
  • Dean Sharpe, Ph.D.
  • Office of Research Ethics
  • University of Toronto
  • September, 2008

2
Outline
  • Research ethics framework culture
  • Proportionate review risk
  • Preparing a protocol research ethics issues

3
History
  • Nuremberg Code (1947)
  • WWII crimes against humanity
  • Declaration of Helsinki (1964)
  • World Medical Association, drug trials
  • Belmont Report/Common Rule (1979)
  • Research scandals (e.g., Tuskegee syphilis study)
  • Tri-council Policy Statement (1998) MOUs
  • Canadian research council guidelines

4
Key Ideas
  • Key principles and issues
  • Respect for human dignity, autonomy
  • Balance distribution of harms/benefits
  • Free informed consent
  • Privacy confidentiality
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Inclusion/exclusion criteria
  • System of research participant protection
  • Prior review of protocols
  • Office of Research Ethics (ORE) Research Ethics
    Boards (REBs)

5
REBs
  • Quorum
  • 5 members, women men
  • 2 broad knowledge of methods or areas
  • 1 knowledgeable in ethics
  • 1 no affiliation with the institution
  • 1 knowledgeable in relevant law (biomed research)
  • University of Toronto 2 boards
  • Social Sciences, Humanities Education (
    management, law, engineering, . . .)
  • Health Sciences

6
Research Ethics Culture at UTIntegral Part of
Scholarly Process
  • Research ethics at its best when understood to be
    part of scholarly process . . . not about
    authority
  • The same tri-council that funds research is the
    same tri-council that requires research ethics
    review
  • Researchers should budget for it, have models on
    hand, supervise studentsmake part of the
    scholarly process
  • Reviews should be principles based, tightly
    reasoned
  • Have to get beyond idea that excellence in
    research excellence in research ethics somehow
    incompatible
  • Should be self-evident they go hand in hand

7
Research Ethics Culture at UTDedicated Board
for SSH
  • Myth that research ethics fixated on biomedical
    model
  • UT has a board dedicated to social sciences
    humanities
  • Researchers from Psychology, Anthropology,
    Sociology, Political Science, Management review
    Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology, Political
    Science, Management . . .
  • no over-weaning interest in or sympathy for
    biomedical model

8
Research Ethics ReviewProportionate Approach
  • Exempt
  • educational testing, program evaluation
  • Undergrad
  • Delegated Ethics Review Committees (DERCs)
  • Expeditable
  • minimal risk on par with daily lifebut see
    risk matrix
  • Non-expeditable
  • full REBsee risk matrix
  • Continuing review
  • annual renewal, study completion, chance of site
    visit

9
Proportionate Review Risk
  • Group vulnerability diminished autonomy . . .
    Informed? Free?
  • Physiological (e.g., health crisis, service
    dependence)
  • Cognitive/emotional (e.g., age, capacity, recent
    trauma)
  • Social (e.g., stigma, under the table,
    undocumented)
  • Research risk probability magnitude of
    reasonably foreseeable, identifiable harm
  • Methods invasiveness data sensitivity
  • Physiological (e.g., new diagnoses, side effects)
  • Cognitive/emotional (e.g., stress, anxiety)
  • Social (e.g., dismissal, deportation, reporting,
    subpoena)

10
Proportionate Review 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

11
Forms, Deadlines, Guidelineswww.research.utoront
o.ca/ethics/
  • Preparing a protocol
  • Thesis proposal should be approved by thesis
    committee
  • Follow model protocolse.g., from your research
    group
  • Work closely with your supervisor
  • Check reviewer guide consent doc guide
  • Each section brief, clear, focused on ethics
  • Submission
  • Undergrad to local DERC coordinator
  • Everyone else departmental sign off, then to ORE
  • Expedited weekly, Mondays by 5pm Full REB
    monthly (except August), check website for
    deadlines

12
Research Ethics 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)

13
Research Ethics IssuesFree Informed Consent
  • Plain language, not legalistic, typically gr.6-8
    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

14
Research Ethics IssuesFree Informed Consent
  • Deception and debriefing
  • Not inherently unethical good versus bad
    practices
  • See TCPS, Article 2.1c) and commentary
  • Is it necessary? Rigourously think through
    justification
  • Low riski.e., vulnerable group? sensitive
    topic?
  • Immediate, full debriefing? Clear, explicit
    explanation
  • What elements were deceptiveremove any
    misconceptions
  • Explain why necessary why importantnot
    arbitrary/capricious
  • Re-consent option--i.e., can withdraw if not
    satisfied
  • Report any concerns to REB

15
Research Ethics 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

16
Research Ethics 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

17
Research Ethics IssuesConflict of Interest
  • Typically role-based
  • e.g., researcher instructor/minister/manager
  • real or perceived, must disclose non-research
    aspects
  • may have to managee.g., not recruit directly,
    blind to participation until after relationship
    ends
  • May have to abandon one interest

18
Research Ethics 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)

19
More Informationwww.research.utoronto.ca/ethics/
  • Information Assistant, Office of Research Ethics
  • ethics.review_at_utoronto.ca, 6-3273
  • Coordinator, Social Sciences, Humanities,
    Education
  • bridgette.murphy_at_utoronto.ca, 6-5606
  • Coordinator, Continuing Review (amendments,
    renewals, completions)
  • marianna.richardson_at_utoronto.ca, 8-3165
  • Research Ethics Analyst Consultation Service
    Undergrad Liaison
  • dario.kuzmanovic_at_utoronto.ca, 6-3608
  • Research Ethics Officer, Social Sciences,
    Humanities, Education
  • dean.sharpe_at_utoronto.ca, 8-5585

20
References
  • Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS), tutorial,
    Social Sciences Humanities Working Committee
    (SSHWC) policy initiatives
  • pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/policysta
    tement.cfm
  • pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/tutorial/
  • pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/workgroups/sshwc.cfm
  • UT/ORE website and Guidelines and practices
    manual
  • www.research.utoronto.ca/ethics/
  • www.research.utoronto.ca/ethics/pdf/human/nonspeci
    fic/ERO_Guidelines_Manual.pdf
  • see UT guidelines on key informant interviews,
    participant observation, deception and
    debriefing, data security standards . . .
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com