Research Ethics and Basic Ethical Theories Tools for reflection on and evaluation of educational research (?) Jon Magne Vestøl Department of Teacher Education and School Development

Status and challenge Research Ethics characteristics The challenge Concrete level: Normative, undisputed rules (guidelines or ”commandments”) Meta level: Historical surveys and reflections on specific topics Historical development driven by major research ”accidents”. The challenge Lack of theory based tools/concepts suitable for critical examination of a research process and research report.

Outline 3 cases Map of four ethical perspectives Short presentation of each perspective Ethical perspectives and cases

Case 1 Research project: Identity constructions among 2nd generation Pakistan-Norwegian teen age girls Method: Interview study Aspect of interest: Contact with potential informants who live secret ”double lives” Ethical conflict: Important information for authorities and scientific community. Potential publicity for researcher. Danger of identification as result of rumors and media focus

Case 2 Research project: Evaluation strategies among secondary school science teachers Method: Interview and observation Aspect of interest: Mapping ideological positions, from positivism to constructivism Ethical conflict: Importance of research topic: displaying a specter of positions among teachers Anonymous informants recognizable among own colleges. Risk of portraying teachers as ideologically out of time.

Case 3 Research project: Evaluation of an education program developed for the promotion of student’s participation in secondary school democracy. Method: Survey study Aspect of interest: Significant differences between schools. One school with particularly poor results. Ethical conflict Important knowledge for policy makers: major factors of influence. Vulnerable anonymity of school with poor results. Leaving out characteristics make results less valuable.

Four main traditions RELATION Values VIRTUE CONSEQUENCE Are basic aspects of trust maintained? Are all affected persons seen and heard? (Add-ons from developmental & educational research) Levinas Løgstrup Gilligan Noddings closeness person Aristoteles MacIntyre Bentham Mill Hare Values VIRTUE CONSEQUENCE Are the actions duly motivated? Are the actions likely to form a character (individually or collectively) of virtue (or vice)? Do the actions have positive results (produce the maximum common best)? distance matter DUTY/ PRINCIPLES Kant Habermas Rawls Kohlberg Are the actions in accordance with basic moral principles (justice)?

An African Perspective? (Source: Wikipedia) Ethno-philosophy Traditional wisdom Emotions instead of logic Persons ? Philosophical sagacity The reflections of the “sages” National-ideological philosophy Ideas ? Professional philosophy Kawaida: identity as dialog with African cultures

Ethics of principles/duties Immanuel Kant The categorical imperative Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end Jürgen Habermas Discourse ethics: The force of the better argument John Rawls Overlapping consensus Unbiased justice: ethical judgments independent of contextual circumstances. (The”veil of ignorance”) Kohlberg: the superiority of the universal perspective (not the particular and relational) Relevance for research ethics Research as a conduct of universal principles securing all participators mutual strength and balanced influence in a rational discourse. Critical questions Unbiased rationality – ideal or deception? (Positivism in disguise?) Rationality overriding relation? (Patriarchal power in disguise?) Universal or Western principles? (Cultural imperialism in disguise?) Kant Habermas Rawls Kohlberg

Ethics of consequences (utilitarian perspective) Jeremy Bentham Calculations of lust (quantitative evaluation) John Stuart Mill Utilitarian perspective: actions that promote the common best (qualitative evaluation) Richard Hare Utilitarian perspective focusing on preferences: actions that fulfill the wishes of the parts involved Relevance for research ethics The consequences of the research process and of the presentation of the research. Critical perspectives Individualism versus collective view (researcher, institution, local community, global community?) Analysis: quantity and quality, how to measure the results Definition of values (who define “the common best”: the researcher, the employer, the community?) Bentham Mill Hare

Ethics of relations/care Søren Løgstrup: The moral challenge: trust implies responsibility and power Emanuel Levinas: The absolute challenge of the Face of the Other Løgstrup and Levinas: The asymmetric relation Being totally handed over (“utleverthet”) A one sided challenge (“ensidig fordring”) : care without any promise of “reward” Gilligan and Noddings: care as a basic ethical value Relevance for research ethics The vulnerable position of informants Critical perspectives Is the challenge undisputable (ontological status)? Should the relational & individual override the interests of organizations and society? Løgstrup Levinas Gilligan Noddings

Ethics of virtues Aristotle Alasdair MacIntyre Good deeds are based in a good character: the joy of doing the right Alasdair MacIntyre Critical evaluation of ethical individualism Virtues based in community practice Examples: justice, courage, honesty Relevance for research ethics The implications of research for individual and societal virtues (or vices) Critical questions Research virtues as mirror of virtues of society, or a sort of “higher standard”? Individual virtues or community virtues (researcher and research community)? Could embodied/internalized research virtues compromise ideals of impartiality? Aristoteles MacIntyre

Research ethics - check list From Forskningsetisk veileder, published by Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for naturvitenskap og teknologi (NENT) i 1992 1. The goals and methods of the project Do the project contradict generally accepted values? (Manipulation, environment disturbance, military implications, violation of animal protection etc.) (Universal principles?) 2. The rights of participants/informants Informed and independent consent. (Universal principles?) 3. Data displaying personal information Anonymity to protect the security of participants. (Universal principles and relations?) 4. Risk and security Risk of damage to humans, animals or nature known and accepted? (Universal principles, consequences and relations?) 5. Whistle-blowing – built in warning system Will it be possible for participants to raise objections and will the objections be treated by an independent body? (Universal principles and relations?) (Lecturers comments on possible implicit perspectives. Be also aware of implicit values.)

Cases revisited

Case 1 Research project: Identity constructions among 2nd generation Pakistan-Norwegian teen age girls Method: Interview study Aspect of interest: Contact with potential informants who live secret ”double lives” Ethical conflict: Important information for authorities and scientific community. Potential publicity for researcher. Danger of identification as result of rumors and media focus Lecturer’s comments: Relations: care for informants versus neglect of informants Duties/principles: individual right versus truth? Consequences: individual goods versus needs of society Virtues: compassion versus neglect?

Case 2 Research project: Evaluation strategies of secondary school science teachers Method: Interview and observation Aspect of interest: Mapping ideological positions, from positivism to constructivism Ethical conflict: Importance of displaying a specter of positions among teachers Anonymous informants recognizable among own colleges. Risk of portraying teachers as ideologically out of date. Lecturer’s comments: Relations: care for informants versus neglect of informants Duties/principles: individual right versus search for truth? Consequences: individual goods versus valuable information Virtues: compassion versus neglect?

Case 3 Research project: Evaluation of education program to stimulate student’s participation in secondary school democracy. Method: Survey study Aspect of interest: Significant differences between schools. One school with particularly poor results. Ethical conflict Important knowledge for policy makers: major factors of influence. Vulnerable anonymity of school with poor results. Leaving out characteristics make results less valuable. Lecturer’s comments: Relations: care for informants versus neglect of informants Duties/principles: individual right versus search for truth Consequences: individuals versus society Virtues: compassion versus neglect

Additional info

1. The basic values of research Research Ethics: Guidelines for social science, humanistic studies, law studies and theology 1. The basic values of research Research should accept common principles like honesty and integrity, impartiality and awareness of own fallability. 2. The role of research for society, culture and language Research should be conducted to the benefit of society 3. The importance of independent research Institutions should respect and promote independent research and not restrict controversial research 4. Promotion and enforcement of principles of research ethics An obligation for institutions and individual researchers.

Research and individuals 5. Respect for human dignity and human rights 6. Respect for the integrity, autonomy and cooperation of informants 7. Protection of participants from danger and damage 8. Respect for participants’ right of proper information about the purpose, methods and financial sources. 9. Respect for participants’ right to free and informed consent. 10. Respect for the rules of registration and permission to handle personal information. 11. Awareness of the possible consequences for third parts 12. Awareness of the particular rights of children. 13. Respect for participants’ privacy 14. Respect for the principle of confidentiality 15. Awareness of restrictions concerning reuse of personal information 16. Principles of proper storage and time limits for storage. 17. Restrictions concerning research on people who are no longer alive. 18. Respect for peoples’ values and attitudes. 19. Information about the limitations of the results and the role of the researcher

Research and institutions 20. Paying respect to the legitimate secrecy of institutions. 21. Public institutions should be open to research 22. Paying respect to vulnerable groups 23. The researcher should maintain independence 24. The researcher should respect the protection of cultural heritage 25. Research in foreign cultures demands particular awareness 26. Respect for cultural differences should be balanced against the limitations defined by human rights

Research and the research society 27. Pay respect to scientific integrity 28. No accept of plagiarism 29. Decent use of references 30. Making research data available for further research 31. Evaluations should be fair and unbiased 32. Cooperation should contribute to fair and (self)critical research communities 33. Students and their work should not be misused for scientific or personal purposes 34. Supervisors and project leaders should not ignore ethical aspects of the project

Research on demand 35. There should be a balance between different kinds of research 36. Public and private Styring av forskningsoppdrag Både offentlige og private oppdragsgivere har en legitim rett til å fastsette rammene for forskningsoppdrag, så lenge de ikke er i strid med de øvrige krav som stilles til forskningen. Det fritar imidlertid ikke forskerne og forskningsinstitusjonene for medansvar for de avtaler som de inngår med oppdragsgivere. 37. Forskningsinstitusjonene og den enkelte forsker Forskere som inngår i større forskningsprosjekter har et medansvar for de prosjektene han eller hun er med på. Den enkelte forskers bidrag i forskningsprosjektet bør gjøres klart. 38. Forskeres og forskningsinstitusjoners uavhengighet Forskere og forskningsinstitusjoner skal sørge for å opprettholde uavhengighet i forhold til oppdragsgiver. 39. Informasjon om finansiering av forskning Det påligger både oppdragsgivere og forskere å gjøre offentlig kjent hvem som finansierer forskningen. 40. Bruk av forskningsresultatene Både oppdragsgivere og forskere har et ansvar for å hindre at resultatene av forskningen fremstilles på en misvisende måte. Det er uetisk å avgrense emnet for forskningen med sikte på å få frem særlig ønskelige resultater, eller fremstille resultatene fra forskningen på en bevisst skjev måte. 41. Rett til offentliggjøring Kunnskap er et kollektivt gode, alle forskningsresultater bør derfor som hovedregel publiseres. Det er også viktig for at resultatene kan etterprøves. For forskere er publisering viktig for meritering.

Forskningsformidling 42. Formidling som faglig oppgave Spesialiserte forskningsmiljøer skal sørge for at vitenskapelig kunnskap formidles til et bredere publikum utenfor forskningsmiljøet. 43. Krav til individer og institusjoner Det påligger forskningsinstitusjonene å legge forholdene til rette for en mangfoldig og omfattende forskningsformidling, preget av kvalitet og relevans.44. Tverrfaglig diskusjon og demokratisk allmennhet En viktig del av forskningsformidlingen i et moderne samfunn bør bestå i gjensidig popularisering (oversettelse) mellom spesialister fra forskjellige forskningsområder. 45. Deltakelse i samfunnsdebatt og ansvar for hvordan forskning tolkes Forskere bør bidra til det offentlige ordskifte med vitenskapsbasert argumentasjon. 46. Formidling og etterrettelighet Kravet om etterrettelighet er like sterkt ved forskningsformidling som ved forskningspublisering. 47. Krav om å tilbakeføre forskningsresultater Forskeren har en spesiell forpliktelse til å tilbakeføre forskningsresultatene til deltakerne, i en forståelig og forsvarlig form.