Activity 2: Codes of Conduct
Compare and contrast the different Codes of Conduct between those cited by Babbie and the Australian National Statement. To what extent do these agree in intent? How do they differ?
Ethics deal with our belief of what is right and wrong. In order for Educational Research to be ethical it must take into consideration a number of things. Babbie (2008) lists five ethical considerations in social science research, the Australian National Statement on ethics (2007) lists four main value considerations in research. Although named and explained differently these two Codes of Conduct essentially cover the same things.
Babbie (2008) sites ‘Voluntary participation’, as a major ethical consideration in social science research. He explains that because social research often involves an intrusion into peoples lives and disrupts their regular activities their ‘participation must be voluntary…no one should be forced to participate.’ (Babbie, 2008, p. 67) The Australian Statement also states ‘…consent should be a voluntary choice.’ (p. 19) Under the value of ‘Justice’ it states, research that is ‘just’, insures the ‘process of recruiting participants is fair.’ (p. 12)
Babbie’s second consideration is ‘No harm to participants’ (p. 68) He states that ‘social research should never injure the people being studied.’ In educational research the biggest consideration is psychological harm. Under the value of ‘Beneficence’ in the Australian Statement it explains that researchers are responsible for ‘designing the research to minimise the risks of harm or discomfort to participants.’ (p.13) Babbie (2008) talks of informed consent – where participants need to fully understand the risks involved in the research. This is dually noted in the Australian Statement it reads that consent ‘… should be based on sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the proposed research and the implications of participation in it.’ (p.19)
Anonymity and Confidentiality deal with the release of a participants details as sited in Babbie (2008) This fits under the value of ‘respect’ in the Australian statement it adds more to this consideration by stating that ‘Researchers and their institutions should respect the privacy, confidentiality and cultural sensitivities of the participants and, where relevant, their communities.’ (p. 13)
Babbie (2008) discusses deception and how it is often needed in the context of social science, however, the ethical implications of this mean that ‘debriefing’ participants is essential. (p. 73) This is referred to under the heading of ‘Justice’ in the Australian statement that ‘research outcomes should be made accessible to research participants in a way that is timely and clear.’ (p. 12)
The first value listed in the Australian Statement is that of ‘research merit and integrity.’ Under this umbrella falls the statement that researchers should have a commitment to ‘disseminating and communicating results, whether favourable or unfavourable, in ways that permit scrutiny and contribute to public knowledge and understanding.’ (p. 12) This is the same principal explained in Babbie (2008) under the heading of analysis and reporting, that ‘researchers have an obligation to make…shortcomings known to their readers.’ (p. 73)
It would seem that although stated using different terminology and identified under different headings the basic values, codes of conduct or ethical considerations, sited in Babbie (2008) chapter 3 and The Australian National Statement on Ethical conduct in Human Research are essentially the same. In both cases the authors identify that the benefit of the research needs to out way the risk. Voluntary participants should be made fully aware of these risks and the proposed outcomes of the research. At all times the participant needs to be valued and research conducted with honesty and integrity. Both Babbie (2008) and The Australian Statement site that their guidelines don’t cover all ethical considerations and in all research situations ‘it is important that all those involved … bring a heightened ethical awareness to their thinking and decision-making.’ (NSECR p. 13)
Compare and contrast the different Codes of Conduct between those cited by Babbie and the Australian National Statement. To what extent do these agree in intent? How do they differ?
Ethics deal with our belief of what is right and wrong. In order for Educational Research to be ethical it must take into consideration a number of things. Babbie (2008) lists five ethical considerations in social science research, the Australian National Statement on ethics (2007) lists four main value considerations in research. Although named and explained differently these two Codes of Conduct essentially cover the same things.
Babbie (2008) sites ‘Voluntary participation’, as a major ethical consideration in social science research. He explains that because social research often involves an intrusion into peoples lives and disrupts their regular activities their ‘participation must be voluntary…no one should be forced to participate.’ (Babbie, 2008, p. 67) The Australian Statement also states ‘…consent should be a voluntary choice.’ (p. 19) Under the value of ‘Justice’ it states, research that is ‘just’, insures the ‘process of recruiting participants is fair.’ (p. 12)
Babbie’s second consideration is ‘No harm to participants’ (p. 68) He states that ‘social research should never injure the people being studied.’ In educational research the biggest consideration is psychological harm. Under the value of ‘Beneficence’ in the Australian Statement it explains that researchers are responsible for ‘designing the research to minimise the risks of harm or discomfort to participants.’ (p.13) Babbie (2008) talks of informed consent – where participants need to fully understand the risks involved in the research. This is dually noted in the Australian Statement it reads that consent ‘… should be based on sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the proposed research and the implications of participation in it.’ (p.19)
Anonymity and Confidentiality deal with the release of a participants details as sited in Babbie (2008) This fits under the value of ‘respect’ in the Australian statement it adds more to this consideration by stating that ‘Researchers and their institutions should respect the privacy, confidentiality and cultural sensitivities of the participants and, where relevant, their communities.’ (p. 13)
Babbie (2008) discusses deception and how it is often needed in the context of social science, however, the ethical implications of this mean that ‘debriefing’ participants is essential. (p. 73) This is referred to under the heading of ‘Justice’ in the Australian statement that ‘research outcomes should be made accessible to research participants in a way that is timely and clear.’ (p. 12)
The first value listed in the Australian Statement is that of ‘research merit and integrity.’ Under this umbrella falls the statement that researchers should have a commitment to ‘disseminating and communicating results, whether favourable or unfavourable, in ways that permit scrutiny and contribute to public knowledge and understanding.’ (p. 12) This is the same principal explained in Babbie (2008) under the heading of analysis and reporting, that ‘researchers have an obligation to make…shortcomings known to their readers.’ (p. 73)
It would seem that although stated using different terminology and identified under different headings the basic values, codes of conduct or ethical considerations, sited in Babbie (2008) chapter 3 and The Australian National Statement on Ethical conduct in Human Research are essentially the same. In both cases the authors identify that the benefit of the research needs to out way the risk. Voluntary participants should be made fully aware of these risks and the proposed outcomes of the research. At all times the participant needs to be valued and research conducted with honesty and integrity. Both Babbie (2008) and The Australian Statement site that their guidelines don’t cover all ethical considerations and in all research situations ‘it is important that all those involved … bring a heightened ethical awareness to their thinking and decision-making.’ (NSECR p. 13)
No comments:
Post a Comment