Annotated Bibliography - Ethics in Educational Research

Following the production of its Code of Ethics in 1993, the AARE Executive established an ongoing Ethics Committee. The role of the Ethics Committee was to promote further discussion of ethics in the educational research community, to consider ethics matters referred by members and, where necessary, to revise the code or provide additional resources or forums concerning ethics. Since 1993, the AARE has sponsored a regional conference on ethics in educational research; has published a new collection of work on this area (Ethics and Educational Research, edited by Martin Bibby, RARE No. 4, 1997) and has given further attention to the matter of research ethics relating to research involving indigenous people, and is recommending the use of the AIATSIS guidelines in this area. The commissioning of Karen Halasa to produce an annotated bibliography for reference by members was intended to provide a further and complementary resource on ethics for members.

Responses by members to publicity about the Ethics Committee in the AARE Newsletter indicated that they often had trouble finding references on ethics matters, and, at the 1995 AGM, it was agreed to set aside a small amount of money to produce an annotated listing of relevant resources. This bibliography, compiled by Karen Halasa, is the result of that decision. Because there is a relative paucity of readily available published materials in this area, Karen's search particularly extended to conference papers presented at annual meetings of the AARE, as well as the AERA and BERA. (The bibliography was being produced at the same time as RARE 4 and does not include reference to it or the other ethics material published by AARE, mentioned in my first paragraph). Karen Halasa's report includes an introduction which discusses what she found in the literature research, and this is followed by the annotated listing. For each reference there is a one sentence overview, and thenF a more detailed summary of the paper, chapter or book. We appreciate very much Karen's diligent and conscientious work on this matter.

The Annotated Bibliography is not intended to be an evaluation of materials listed or of particular approaches to discussions of ethics; it is presented as a service to alert members to materials and writers in this area. We hope that the present listing will be revised and will grow as members tell us of other useful materials in this area. (Please send suggestions for further listings to the Chair, AARE Ethics Committee.)

Lyn Yates
Chair
AARE Ethics Committee

Summary of Literature Search on Ethics in Educational Research

What has become apparent during the course of this search is that although there is a wealth of material on research ethics in general, in bio-ethics, the social sciences, in psychology and so on, there is not so much available on education research in particular. For this reason the focus of this research has been recent education conferences sponsored by AARE and AERA. Of the material which has been written on ethics in education, the focus has been on qualitative methods and on questions of confidentiality, informed consent and minimization of harm. There are many overlapping concerns between a range of disciplines and some of the issues for field work in other areas - sociology, anthropology, psychology - are relevant to qualitative work in education research. On the other hand, some authors have pointed out that what might be applicable in other disciplines may not have direct relevance in education. What follows looks at the salient issues as they arise in a range of fields.

Informed Consent and the Minimisation of Harm

Informed consent is discussed in Evans and Jabucek's (1996) overview paper. They see informed consent as the key issue in research with human beings. In the paper they discuss the traditional foundation of research ethics in Kantian philosophy, and also note recent challenges to that way of thinking from postmodern philosophy. Research codes of ethics put in place a certain universality which compels every person to recognise universal rights for all persons as a constant norm. However, emerging postmodern ethical norms raise new problematic issues, going beyond traditional basic concepts of research ethics where empirical universality is assumed to be the one appropriate approach.

Kantian moral philosophy, which guides much of the writing on research ethics allows that individuals cannot be used as a means to an end but there must be a respect of persons. Research conduct is judged by the extent to which it is aligned to moral agency recognising the principle of respect of persons. It is not ethically permissible to violate participants self-purpose or self-determination. Codes of ethics are useful where there are conflicts to be faced which need to be settled. This represents guidance from colleagues and direction from institutions which both have a responsibility to act as guardians.

This view allows the flexibility necessary to judge particular research on its own merits, while at the same time paying attention to certain universal principles such as the respect of persons.

Evans and Jakupec do acknowledge the conflict between the rights of the individual to privacy and the public's right to know. A book by Punch (1986) in qualitative methods in fieldwork sets out a strong case that in some instances covert research is justifiable depending on the public benefit to be gained. He uses the analogy of the social scientist being like an investigative journalist exposing a practice or organisation. Other writers on qualitative research argue for the centrality of a special relation between researcher and researched, and consequently reject covert research as an appropriate method. Punch's line of thinking seems to have little relevance for educational research and is both explicitly and implicitly challenged in much of the other literature.

Another article, by a feminist researcher who does take as a central issue the rights of subjects and the power relations of women in society, discusses an unusual case where she decided to use material collected in a non-research context. The situation was one where Fine (1992) uses an interview between herself as a volunteer rape counsellor and an emergency room patient. Ethical dilemmas arise because no research was originally anticipated. The subject was therefore not informed and information was given in a situation assumed to be private and confidential.

In answering the question of whether researchers then have a right to use such information, Fine gives the qualified response that it depends on the element of risk involved for the subject. There is also a question of how the subject would feel, what harm would be involved, if information provided confidentially turned up in a journal article. Other authors and education researchers would claim that this kind of what amounts to covert research is never justified.

An article by Kiegelmann (1996) is written from the perspective of a research subject. The article discusses the sense of betrayal of trust involved when the author was involved as a subject of covert research while undergoing analysis by a psychiatrist. A special relationship assuming confidentiality is developed in this situation and Kiegelmann shows that it is currently an accepted practice for therapists to conduct single-subject research without getting the informed consent of their clients. The author argues that this is in itself unethical and that retrospective disclosure is no answer to the initial betrayal. Clients may be manipulated into giving consent and one case is cited where although confessing that they failed to gain informed consent, some researchers went ahead and published anyway, gaining the advantages to their academic careers that this entailed.

Kiegelmann argues that research agendas need to be disclosed. This is particularly important in situations where the power imbalance puts the research subject at a disadvantage. In the teaching of qualitative research methods this is the only ethical method.

Another complaint of Kiegelmann about the content of current literature on ethics in research is a preoccupation with the possibility of damage to the discipline (Punch is cited). More important is the actual harm that is caused to the research participants who live in the field.

Kiegelmann concludes with a complaint that the literature on how to handle ethics in qualitative research is inadequate and stresses that foremost consideration should be given to the dignity of research participants and that covert research should be avoided. Researchers need to question the ethics of their own projects from these perspectives.

Informed consent is problematic because of the power imbalance between researcher and participant. How informed can participants be?

Ethical misconduct may be portrayed as a necessary or common aspect of field work by some researchers. (Punch, 1986). Kiegelmann argues that

'...the entire framework of a research project needs to be under ethical scrutiny, not just dilemmas that arise in the field...the choice of the research topic already is an ethical decision'

There are problems with obtaining prior informed consent in the case of qualitative and ethnographic styles of research as set out by Cassell (Seiber, 1982). It is, she claims, self-contradictory to secure informed consent before research is initiated, since the direction of and conclusions drawn from research are unknown at the beginning of the research. This is consistent with Fine's justification for using data collected before any research was anticipated. Cassell argues that a better approach ethically is to judge fieldwork in the context of respect for autonomy based on the fundamental principle that persons be treated at all times as ends in themselves and never merely the means to an end. This is not meant to replace minimisation of harms but to supplement it in situations where harms are relatively few and difficult to predict. The respect for autonomy should be extended to the autonomy of the group as well as the individual; fieldworkers need to respect and even attempt to augment the authenticity and independence of the communities they study.

That informed consent is open to a range of interpretations is raised by Raffe, Blundell and Bibby (Burgess 1989). They ask how fully should respondents be informed? What opportunity should be given to withhold consent? To what extent should researchers persist in relation to non-respondents with follow up questionnaires? The authors argue that there is a conflict between ethical and technical considerations in research and that codes of ethics are generally written by professionals for professionals who are motivated not just by concerns to protect the public but to leave the field clear for other researchers.

Burgess (1989) points out that informed consent occupies a central place in ethics literature and that it has a wider application than just field relations in ethnographic work but also applies to survey work, statistical investigation and action research. It is not a universal principle that is unproblematic to use in research investigations. When discussing his own fieldwork, Burgess (1989) points to a situation where some of the observation could be construed as spying by some teachers and points out that there are many 'grey' areas and that fieldwork often has to be interactionally 'deceitful' in order to survive and succeed. It involves compromise and negotiation and demands reflective practice.

Clark (1995) claims that informed consent of those who participate in research should be secured although there is some debate about how binding this requirement should be. Underpinning this requirement is the idea that participants should be respected as persons. There are some qualifications where studies are conducted in a public place such as a school playground, where parents of children need to be consulted and where informing the participants and obtaining their consent will effect their subsequent behaviour and so, the results of the research. Where it can be demonstrated that the results of the study will generate considerably more good than harm to the participants informed, consent may be withheld but Clark claims this is difficult to envisage being justified in an educational setting.

Bogdan and Biklen (1992) claim that ethics in qualitative research is dominated by two concerns; informed consent and the protection of subjects from harm. Here it is clear that in fieldwork in education the emphasis is on the relationship between participant and researcher. The issues involved in establishing and maintaining the rapport in this relationship are essentially ethical ones. Hollingsworth (1993) characterises the research relationship as collaborative, implying a mutual engagement with the research process on the part of teachers, students and researchers. Patterson and Thomas (1993) go further and claim a special relationship between classroom teachers and university-based researchers where the research needs to be designed with particular attention to including the voice of classroom teachers. This argument for a collaborative style of research places quite different ethical concerns at the centre of the research process and moves away from the older concerns about disinterested detachment on the part of the researcher. Ethical practice centres here upon the relationship between researcher and researched. Doig (1994) argues for an action research methodology which balances theory and teacher voice.

A problem which may arise in the development of collaborative control over data is what Jenkins (1993) has described in his critique of the Success and Failure and Recent Innovation (SAFARI) ethical statements. The right to know is often seen to be in conflict with the central rights of the individual. The proposed solution of the SAFARI project was joint ownership of data, where data is progressively negotiated between informants and researcher. Jenkins is suspicious of this rhetoric and believes it has the effect of seducing respondents into revelation because of the suggestion of rapport and the masking of real power relations operating.

This problem may be overcome if researchers are also teachers. Mohr (1996) claims that teacher researchers see themselves as doubly bound to ethical behaviour both as teachers and researchers. How students are treated is a measure of the quality of both teaching and researching. A teacher-researcher statement of ethics put out by the Fairfax County Public Schools Teacher-Researcher Network includes the following:

Teacher/researchers' primary responsibility is to their students. They are teachers first. They respect those with whom they work, openly sharing information about their research; consult with teaching colleagues and supervisors to review the plans for their studies, explain research questions and methods of data collection and update their plans as the research progresses; use data from observations, discussions, interviews and writing that is collected during the normal process of teaching and learning, secure principal's permission for broader surveys or letters and permission to use data already gathered by the school; may present the results of their research to colleagues in their school districts, are honest in their conclusions and sensitive to the effects of their research findings on others. Before publishing written releases must be obtained from the individuals involved in the research including parental permission for those under 18. The confidentiality of the people involved in the research is protected.

A more general point raised by Cornett and Chase (1990) is that the degree to which a study is ethical or unethical does not ultimately rest with the scientific research community, some abstract canon of ethics or even an ethics checklist. Rather it is the result of a process of continuous interaction between the researcher and participant. This process must be based on an element of trust which may be built up through the participant finding the researcher approachable, communication that is two-way, a sense that the researcher is 'human' and able to reveal personal aspects of him/herself and assurances of confidentiality. Trust is the foundation of an ethical study.

Naama Sabar (Undated) is concerned with the extent to which teacher participants in research contribute to the new knowledge construction through reflection, interpretation and explanation. Sabar goes beyond the idea that simple informed consent is all that is necessary in the relationship between research participants and researchers and argues that respondents should get information, power and the tools to use that power in saying how the information should be used.

While the guarantee of anonymity may protect participants from negative consequences, it also excludes them from public ownership of the data and input into its use. The power imbalance between researcher and teacher is thence accentuated and opportunities for a mutual collegial process lessened or missed. Although this process may be tedious and time-consuming it is essential when we think of education as a separate discipline with a code of ethics different from other domains such as psychology and sociology. Starting from this premise means that research ethics in education would include democratic and emancipatory principles by which teachers are listened to closely and involved significantly as partners.

Weis (1992) explores what it means for a researcher to work in a multicultural environment, an environment often far removed from the researchers own original cultural location. The ethical imperatives for such research in this environment include know who you are before going into the field . By this the author seems to mean that the researcher should have an identity outside, within the researching institution or body or else engage in 'true community studies' where researchers actually move into the area and conduct a full community study rather than a study in a school. In the latter situation, Weis claims there is less 'fracturing of the self' which comes about as a result of imposed definitions from those being researched. This may be considered an ethical as much as a methodological issue since as a researcher 'you will be what people in the field choose to define you as and you have little control over this since you are entering their cultural totality - they are not entering yours.'

A second critical imperative here is to acknowledge your perspective. In dealing with cultures not our own it is critical to be honest about where we are coming from theoretically and personally. This is important since all behaviour observed in field work is interpreted through this biographical lens, what leads one to 'see' things about others.

A third imperative is to exhibit integrity. This is both methodologically and ethically sound since people will talk to you as a researcher if they trust you. The length of time spent in the field will in part determine this relationship. It is important to establish oneself as a trustworthy member of the community before attempting to conduct interviews. Weis does not elaborate on what might be deemed ethical behaviour other than to stress that this trust must not be broken. Issues such as informed consent are not discussed but confidentiality in relation to the information shared with the researcher is stressed as central to ethical behaviour (even when the subject matter may be itself illegal or immoral). The researchers job is to record and later analyse, not pass judgement.

Osborne (1995) raises other kinds of questions about his position as a researcher in the Torres Strait. At the written policy level there is strong support for training and employing indigenous researchers to research indigenous education but Osborne believes that simple indigenisation of those who make representations is not enough and that the role of non-indigenous researchers should be one of speaking not about, not for, but with oppressed minorities.

Crotty (1995) argues that much of what passes for codes of ethical conduct is just professional etiquette and that to attempt to derive a code of ethics which is absolute is outmoded. Postmodernist theorists would assert that, looked at independently of context, nothing can be said to be true. Morality is a matter for conscience and, according to J. S. Mill, the law of the land is not about the enforcement of morality as such. Pluralism however causes problems for ethics committees. A new kind of ethics committee could find diversity within its ranks authenticating and enriching.