Essential Principles, Policies and Realities

Moyra Keane
 Why did I choose What to eat?
the research
I am doing?

How do we make everyday decisions?

What to wear?
Why did I join this workshop?
The supervisor is vicariously liable for the
actions and omissions of the students being
supervised
The supervisor retains full responsibility for
the nature and quality of intervention
Responsible to:
• train
• delegate
• observe
• feedback
• monitor

Student is accountable to supervisors, must

accept reasonable authority and guidance
 Ethics policies, ethical dilemmas and moral
decisions

Where do ethics come into research? What are

the key ethical issues?

Level 1: Ethics in protecting the researcher, the

researched and the university

Level 2: Ethical issues and dilemmas in research

purpose, design, data collection and reporting
In what senses in research political?

Level 1: Personal, researcher and respondent

Level 2: The research community / university
Level 3: Societal level – wider and global academic space
A framework for ethical considerations:
Ethics are often defined in terms of three ‘ethics’:
•truth (getting it ‘right’), integrity
•care (human dignity, love, no harm), and
•justice (what is fair).
Each of these concepts is complex and contestable in itself. Further,
the requirements can be contradictory, in that for example, actions
to enhance care reduce truth.
Another approach to ethics is to think in terms of the
consequences of the research (and participation in the research)
for different individuals and groups…
 Principles of Ethics in Research
• Autonomy – voluntary informed participation

• Beneficence – researcher acts in the best interest

of the participant. Care.

• Non-maleficence – do no harm

• Justice - Distribution of resources and access to

benefits, fair distribution of risks and benefits
• Beauchamp and Childress specified 4 principles of biomedical ethics (1985)-
Autonomy
• Can you think of examples where autonomy is not
possible in a research study? What can be done in
this case to ensure ethical research?

• Can you think of an example where autonomy is

not relevant in a research study?
 Beneficence
• How may participants benefit from your study?
Can you think of examples where beneficence
does not underpin the research?

• Can you give an example differentiating between

doing no harm (non-maleficence) and acting in
the participant’s interest (beneficence)? Are
there studies that do one but not the other?
Non-malfeasance
Consider:
• How do you ensure that your students’ studies
do no harm?

• What measures do you take in research design

to do no harm?
Justice
• Who is included and who is excluded? Who is
the population and why are they the focus of
the study? Who is selected for the sample and
how are they selected?

• How do you ensure that your students’

research is just?
Making moral decisions

https://www.ted.com/talks/michael
_sandel_what_s_the_right_thing_to
_do

https://www.ted.com/talks/michael
_sandel_what_s_the_right_thing_to
_do?utm_campaign=tedspread&ut
m_medium=referral&utm_source=t
edcomshare
The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity was
developed as part of the 2nd World Conference on Research
Integrity, 21-24 July 2010, in Singapore, as a global guide to
the responsible conduct of research. It is not a regulatory
document and does not represent the official policies of the
countries and organizations that funded and/or participated in
the Conference. For official policies, guidance, and
regulations relating to research integrity, appropriate national
bodies and organizations should be consulted.

Available at: www.singaporestatement.org

Singapore statements of Research Integrity

• Honesty in all aspects of research

• Accountability in the conduct of
research
• Professional courtesy and fairness in
working with others
• Good stewardship of research on
behalf of others
 Responsibilities
1. Integrity: Researchers should take responsibility
for trustworthiness

2. Adherence to Regulations: Researchers should

adhere to regulations and policies.

3. Research Methods: appropriate, conclusions based

on critical analysis of the evidence and report findings
and interpretations fully and objectively.
4. Research Records: Researchers should keep clear, accurate
records of all research in ways that will allow verification and
replication of their work by others.
5. Research Findings: Researchers should share data and
findings openly and promptly, as soon as they have had an
opportunity to establish priority and ownership claims.
6. Authorship: Researchers should take responsibility for their
contributions to all publications, funding applications, reports
and other representations of their research. Lists of authors
should include all those and only those who meet applicable
authorship criteria.
7. Publication Acknowledgement: Researchers should
acknowledge in publications the names and roles of those who
made significant contributions to the research, including writers,
funders, sponsors, and others, but do not meet authorship
criteria.
8. Peer Review: Researchers should provide fair, prompt and
rigorous evaluations and respect confidentiality when reviewing.

9. Conflict of Interest: Researchers should disclose financial and

other conflicts of interest that could compromise the trustworthiness
of their work in research proposals…

10. Public Communication: Researchers should limit professional

comments to their recognized expertise

11. Reporting Irresponsible Research Practices: Researchers

should report to the appropriate authorities any suspected research
misconduct, including fabrication, …and other irresponsible
practices …carelessness, improperly listing authors, failing to report
conflicting data, or the use of misleading analytical methods.
12. Responding to Irresponsible Research Practices:
Research institutions, as well as journals, professional
organizations and agencies that have commitments to
research, should have procedures for responding to
allegations of misconduct and other irresponsible research
practices and for protecting those who report such behavior
in good faith. When misconduct or other irresponsible
research practice is confirmed, appropriate actions should be
taken promptly, including correcting the research record.
13. Research Environments: Research institutions should
create and sustain environments that encourage integrity
through education, clear policies, and reasonable standards for
advancement, while fostering work environments that support
research integrity.
14. Societal Considerations: Researchers and research
institutions should recognize that they have an ethical
obligation to weigh societal benefits against risks inherent in
their work.
 NQF outcomes

Ethics and professional practice

•Level 10
–to identify, address and manage emerging ethical issues
–to advance processes of ethical decision-making, including
monitoring and evaluation of the consequences of these
decisions.
•Level 9
–to make autonomous ethical decisions which affect knowledge
production, or complex organisational or professional issues
–to critically contribute to the development of ethical standards
in a specific context.
 Infamous studies
Tuskegee syphilis experiment - infamous clinical study conducted
between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to
study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African
American men who thought they were receiving free health care
from the U.S. government. Doctors failed to obtain informed
consent from the subjects.
When Jean Heller broke the story in 1972 over one hundred of
the infected men died and others suffered from serious syphilis
related conditions.
University research requires
(1) approval of the research design and
(2) ‘ethical clearance’ for the plan and the instruments.

The process concerns ethics of truth, care and

justice – aimed not only to ensure the research is
ethical, but that ‘subjects’ in the research, the
researcher, and the university are all protected.
These are matters of legal responsibility and
protection as a matter of ‘quality’ and ethics.
Activity 1:

· Imagine and describe situations (for you as a

professional) where ethics of truth, care and/or
justice are incompatible.
· Imagine a research situation (for you as a
researcher) where ethics of truth, care and/or
justice are incompatible.
Research in never ‘standard’….
Your research may encounter difficulties with the University
approach to ‘ethical clearance’ as defined by the form.
1. Research projects hardly ever go to plan – partly because of
‘disruptions’ that cut across the management, and partly
because, in the light of information gathered during the
research, the plan needs to be changed. Has ethical clearance to
be renegotiated with the university for every change made?
2. The extent to which research can and should be
‘preplanned’, the ethical appropriateness of ‘confidentiality,
anonymity, privacy, and voluntary withdrawal’, and the meaning
of ‘informed consent’ depend on research purposes and
paradigms.
Ethical Clearance
• What is the purpose of the Ethical Clearance
process?
• Who is served by it?
• What are the strengths and shortcomings of the
ethical clearance process in your university?
• Does it take the context of the study and the
principles of ethical research into account or is it
generic?
• Does it allow for disciplinary norms?
What is included in an application for ethics clearance?

•A well- developed proposal that provides a justification for

the study and research design
•Application for ethics clearance, approved by the HOD,
departmental research chair and/ or supervisor
•Details of funding sources and possible conflicts of interest
•An information sheet about the research in appropriate
language and a brief introduction of who the researcher is.
•The data collection instruments: interview schedules,
questionnaires
•An informed consent form which spells our benefits and
risks for participants, what will be required of participants,
and an assurance of confidentiality, anonymity and
voluntary participation.
• Code of Academic and Research Ethics.pdf (113.041 KB)
• Policy on Intellectual Property.pdf (63.393 KB)
• Policy on the Protection, Management and Commercial
Exploitation of Intellectual Property.pdf (186.984 KB)
• Research Policy and Strategy.pdf (147.205 KB)
• Strategy for the Identification and Commercialisation if
Intellectual Property.pdf (45.957 KB)
• Student-Supervisor Relationship Policy.pdf (63.238 KB)

•UJ Ethics: https://www.uj.ac.za/about/Pages/Ethics.aspx

The politics of research
In broad terms, politics is about
the distribution and use of
power.
 Is it “right” and does it “count” (Adler and Lerman, 2003)

1. On whose behalf is the research advocating?

2. What is the research for?

3. Does it incorporate an insider’s perspective?
4. Is it reflexive?
5. Does it take care of those being researched, especially
avoiding oppression?
6. Does it draw on refined notions of consent?
7. Does it draw on refined notions of autonomy?
8. Does it draw on refined notions of privacy?
Activity:
· In what ways does a researcher have power? What about
various subjects – a Principal, a teacher, a learner, a parent…. Think
in terms of research purposes, processes of data collection,
interpretation, reporting…Is it possible that the research changes
power? Whose?
· In what ways does ‘the participant’ have power? In what ways
might the research alter power relationships?
· In what ways does ‘the academy’ have power?.
· At the ‘macro’ level, are government policies and common
practices, issues of development and equity, etc. Might the research
change relationships and power in the broad sphere of government
and society?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyF8UzDMNsw

Keane, M. (2018). ‘The importance of ethics: but whose ethics?’ Quality in

postgraduate Research (QPR): Impact, Engagement, and Doctoral Education, 17-19
April, Adelaide, Australia.

Miller D.G. and Karen l.J. (2016). Six ways to teach ethics. CMA
Available at: https://sfmagazine.com/post-entry/may-2016-six-ways-
to-teach-ethics/.

Pretorius, K. (2019). Controversial Stellenbosch study on coloured

women ‘reinforces stereotypes’. Available at:
https://www.iol.co.za/weekend-argus/news/controversial-
stellenbosch-study-on-coloured-women-reinforces-stereotypes-
22620317

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipMGtYXsqjI