Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.1177/17470161231214636
A. Elgamri, Zeinab Mohammed, Karima El-Rhazi, M. Shahrouri, Mamoun Ahram, Al-Mubarak Al-Abbas, Henry Silverman
Arab researchers encounter formidable obstacles when conducting and publishing their scientific work. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 Arab researchers from various Arab Middle East countries to gain a comprehensive understanding of the difficulties they face in research and publication. We analyzed the transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. Our findings revealed several key challenges. First, Arab researchers struggle to conduct high-quality research due to limited resources, inadequate funding, and a lack of a supportive research infrastructure. Furthermore, a shortage of teamwork and mentoring diminishes research productivity. Perverse promotion policies, heavy teaching loads, and low salaries force many researchers to seek external income sources, leaving them with insufficient time for research. Regarding publishing in high-impact journals, Arab researchers confront challenges existing of insufficient scientific writing skills, underrepresentation on editorial boards, and unconscious biases against researchers from economically challenged areas. Finally, achieving research integrity is closely tied to lack of access to essential resources. To address these issues, our participants proposed targeted interventions at the institutional and external levels. For example, universities can implement mentoring programs, offer workshops on scientific writing and publishing, and foster a supportive institutional culture for research. Addressing the underrepresentation of Arabic researchers on editorial boards is crucial for equity in global scientific publishing. In conclusion, acknowledging and addressing these challenges will empower Arab researchers, elevate research quality, and promote equitable global scientific collaboration. Our findings provide guidance for universities, governments, and international donors seeking to enhance research and publication practices in the Arab Middle East.
{"title":"Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study","authors":"A. Elgamri, Zeinab Mohammed, Karima El-Rhazi, M. Shahrouri, Mamoun Ahram, Al-Mubarak Al-Abbas, Henry Silverman","doi":"10.1177/17470161231214636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231214636","url":null,"abstract":"Arab researchers encounter formidable obstacles when conducting and publishing their scientific work. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 Arab researchers from various Arab Middle East countries to gain a comprehensive understanding of the difficulties they face in research and publication. We analyzed the transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. Our findings revealed several key challenges. First, Arab researchers struggle to conduct high-quality research due to limited resources, inadequate funding, and a lack of a supportive research infrastructure. Furthermore, a shortage of teamwork and mentoring diminishes research productivity. Perverse promotion policies, heavy teaching loads, and low salaries force many researchers to seek external income sources, leaving them with insufficient time for research. Regarding publishing in high-impact journals, Arab researchers confront challenges existing of insufficient scientific writing skills, underrepresentation on editorial boards, and unconscious biases against researchers from economically challenged areas. Finally, achieving research integrity is closely tied to lack of access to essential resources. To address these issues, our participants proposed targeted interventions at the institutional and external levels. For example, universities can implement mentoring programs, offer workshops on scientific writing and publishing, and foster a supportive institutional culture for research. Addressing the underrepresentation of Arabic researchers on editorial boards is crucial for equity in global scientific publishing. In conclusion, acknowledging and addressing these challenges will empower Arab researchers, elevate research quality, and promote equitable global scientific collaboration. Our findings provide guidance for universities, governments, and international donors seeking to enhance research and publication practices in the Arab Middle East.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139005400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since its onset, scholars have characterized social media as a valuable source for data collection since it presents several benefits (e.g. exploring research questions with hard-to-reach populations). Nonetheless, methods of online data collection are riddled with ethical and methodological challenges that researchers must consider if they want to adopt good practices when collecting and analyzing online data. Drawing from our primary research project, where we collected passive online data on Reddit, we explore and detail the steps that researchers must consider before collecting online data: (1) planning online data collection; (2) ethical considerations; and (3) data collection. We also discuss two atypical questions that researchers should also consider: (1) how to handle deleted user-generated content; and (2) how to quote user-generated content. Moving on from the dichotomous discussion between what is public and private data, we present recommendations for good practices when collecting and analyzing qualitative online data.
{"title":"Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach","authors":"Tiago Rocha-Silva, Conceição Nogueira, Liliana Rodrigues","doi":"10.1177/17470161231210542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231210542","url":null,"abstract":"Since its onset, scholars have characterized social media as a valuable source for data collection since it presents several benefits (e.g. exploring research questions with hard-to-reach populations). Nonetheless, methods of online data collection are riddled with ethical and methodological challenges that researchers must consider if they want to adopt good practices when collecting and analyzing online data. Drawing from our primary research project, where we collected passive online data on Reddit, we explore and detail the steps that researchers must consider before collecting online data: (1) planning online data collection; (2) ethical considerations; and (3) data collection. We also discuss two atypical questions that researchers should also consider: (1) how to handle deleted user-generated content; and (2) how to quote user-generated content. Moving on from the dichotomous discussion between what is public and private data, we present recommendations for good practices when collecting and analyzing qualitative online data.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139225196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01Epub Date: 2023-06-15DOI: 10.1177/17470161231180449
Mohammad Hosseini, David B Resnik, Kristi Holmes
In this article, we discuss ethical issues related to using and disclosing artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and other systems based on large language models (LLMs), to write or edit scholarly manuscripts. Some journals, such as Science, have banned the use of LLMs because of the ethical problems they raise concerning responsible authorship. We argue that this is not a reasonable response to the moral conundrums created by the use of LLMs because bans are unenforceable and would encourage undisclosed use of LLMs. Furthermore, LLMs can be useful in writing, reviewing and editing text, and promote equity in science. Others have argued that LLMs should be mentioned in the acknowledgments since they do not meet all the authorship criteria. We argue that naming LLMs as authors or mentioning them in the acknowledgments are both inappropriate forms of recognition because LLMs do not have free will and therefore cannot be held morally or legally responsible for what they do. Tools in general, and software in particular, are usually cited in-text, followed by being mentioned in the references. We provide suggestions to improve APA Style for referencing ChatGPT to specifically indicate the contributor who used LLMs (because interactions are stored on personal user accounts), the used version and model (because the same version could use different language models and generate dissimilar responses, e.g., ChatGPT May 12 Version GPT3.5 or GPT4), and the time of usage (because LLMs evolve fast and generate dissimilar responses over time). We recommend that researchers who use LLMs: (1) disclose their use in the introduction or methods section to transparently describe details such as used prompts and note which parts of the text are affected, (2) use in-text citations and references (to recognize their used applications and improve findability and indexing), and (3) record and submit their relevant interactions with LLMs as supplementary material or appendices.
{"title":"The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts.","authors":"Mohammad Hosseini, David B Resnik, Kristi Holmes","doi":"10.1177/17470161231180449","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161231180449","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we discuss ethical issues related to using and disclosing artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and other systems based on large language models (LLMs), to write or edit scholarly manuscripts. Some journals, such as <i>Science</i>, have banned the use of LLMs because of the ethical problems they raise concerning responsible authorship. We argue that this is not a reasonable response to the moral conundrums created by the use of LLMs because bans are unenforceable and would encourage undisclosed use of LLMs. Furthermore, LLMs can be useful in writing, reviewing and editing text, and promote equity in science. Others have argued that LLMs should be mentioned in the acknowledgments since they do not meet all the authorship criteria. We argue that naming LLMs as authors or mentioning them in the acknowledgments are both inappropriate forms of recognition because LLMs do not have free will and therefore cannot be held morally or legally responsible for what they do. Tools in general, and software in particular, are usually cited in-text, followed by being mentioned in the references. We provide suggestions to improve APA Style for referencing ChatGPT to specifically indicate the contributor who used LLMs (because interactions are stored on personal user accounts), the used version and model (because the same version could use different language models and generate dissimilar responses, e.g., ChatGPT May 12 Version GPT3.5 or GPT4), and the time of usage (because LLMs evolve fast and generate dissimilar responses over time). We recommend that researchers who use LLMs: (1) disclose their use in the introduction or methods section to transparently describe details such as used prompts and note which parts of the text are affected, (2) use in-text citations and references (to recognize their used applications and improve findability and indexing), and (3) record and submit their relevant interactions with LLMs as supplementary material or appendices.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"31 1","pages":"449-465"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694804/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73171712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this study was to map the distribution of publications on plagiarism among higher educational institutions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Studies reviewed were based on 171 plagiarism related publications within a decade (2012–2022). Findings revealed that most plagiarism related articles were published in 2016. Additionally, a majority of the studies (53) were from Nigeria and Ghana (23). Most of the articles focused on students’ and faculty’s awareness of plagiarism, and institutional prevention of plagiarism, but were rather marginal on challenges involved in preventing plagiarism, as well as effects of plagiarism. Dominant forms of plagiarism were self-plagiarism, branded plagiarism and commission plagiarism. However, major causes of plagiarism comprised easy access to digital information and resources; poor supervision of students; pressure on academics to publish for promotion; and insufficient skills development regarding ethical academic writing. Additionally, plagiarism preventive software and policies on plagiarism were the main ways of preventing plagiarism. Finally, in fighting plagiarism, higher educational institutions in SSA encountered challenges such as lack of well-trained academic experts to detect and report plagiarism cases; reluctance on the part of technical administrative staff to investigate works for traces of plagiarism; and low plagiarism detection skills from project supervisors. Based on the findings, recommendations are made to stakeholders for future research, policy and practice.
{"title":"Plagiarism in Higher Education (PLAGiHE) within Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review of a decade (2012–2022) literature","authors":"Dickson Okoree Mireku, Prosper Dzifa Dzamesi, Brandford Bervell","doi":"10.1177/17470161231189646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231189646","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to map the distribution of publications on plagiarism among higher educational institutions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Studies reviewed were based on 171 plagiarism related publications within a decade (2012–2022). Findings revealed that most plagiarism related articles were published in 2016. Additionally, a majority of the studies (53) were from Nigeria and Ghana (23). Most of the articles focused on students’ and faculty’s awareness of plagiarism, and institutional prevention of plagiarism, but were rather marginal on challenges involved in preventing plagiarism, as well as effects of plagiarism. Dominant forms of plagiarism were self-plagiarism, branded plagiarism and commission plagiarism. However, major causes of plagiarism comprised easy access to digital information and resources; poor supervision of students; pressure on academics to publish for promotion; and insufficient skills development regarding ethical academic writing. Additionally, plagiarism preventive software and policies on plagiarism were the main ways of preventing plagiarism. Finally, in fighting plagiarism, higher educational institutions in SSA encountered challenges such as lack of well-trained academic experts to detect and report plagiarism cases; reluctance on the part of technical administrative staff to investigate works for traces of plagiarism; and low plagiarism detection skills from project supervisors. Based on the findings, recommendations are made to stakeholders for future research, policy and practice.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76173787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-31DOI: 10.1177/17470161231189602
Laura Cooper, K. Johnston, Marie Williams
Many countries, including Australia, have established a national scheme that supports the recognition of a single ethical review for multi-centre research conducted in publicly funded health services. However, local site-specific governance review processes remain decentralised and highly variable. This short report describes the ethics and governance processes required for a negligible risk national survey of physiotherapy-led airway clearance services in Australia. We detail inconsistencies in research governance document preparation and submission (platforms, processes, forms and signatories) and report the time cost and likely impact of these inconsistencies on health services research outcomes. Processes and strategies that facilitated success in this project are identified and summarised as helpful hints to other researchers looking to embark on negligible risk research in public health facilities.
{"title":"Planning a ‘negligible risk’ national health service survey? Counting the cost and strategies for success: a short report","authors":"Laura Cooper, K. Johnston, Marie Williams","doi":"10.1177/17470161231189602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231189602","url":null,"abstract":"Many countries, including Australia, have established a national scheme that supports the recognition of a single ethical review for multi-centre research conducted in publicly funded health services. However, local site-specific governance review processes remain decentralised and highly variable. This short report describes the ethics and governance processes required for a negligible risk national survey of physiotherapy-led airway clearance services in Australia. We detail inconsistencies in research governance document preparation and submission (platforms, processes, forms and signatories) and report the time cost and likely impact of these inconsistencies on health services research outcomes. Processes and strategies that facilitated success in this project are identified and summarised as helpful hints to other researchers looking to embark on negligible risk research in public health facilities.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76353285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-27DOI: 10.1177/17470161231187099
Kimberley Serpico
The quality of a research study application sends a distinct signal to the institutional review board (IRB) about the skills, capacities, preparation, communication, experience, and resources of its authors. However, efforts to research and define IRB application quality have been insufficient. Inattention to the quality of an IRB application is consequential because the application precedes IRB review, and perceptions of quality between the two may be interrelated and interdependent. Without a clear understanding of quality, IRBs do not know how to define quality and researchers do not know how to achieve quality. This position has not been systematically studied to date, and future research could provide much-needed empirical validation. This paper lays the conceptual groundwork for future investigation into what constitutes quality in an IRB application. It includes a landscape review of multidisciplinary research on quality, as well as a discussion of quality frameworks analogous to research with human participants that exist in the published literature. It also examines the background and significance of federal research regulations, regulatory burdens, researchers’ regulatory literacy, and the roles and responsibilities of IRB professionals within this ecosystem.
{"title":"Defining institutional review board application quality: critical research gaps and future opportunities","authors":"Kimberley Serpico","doi":"10.1177/17470161231187099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231187099","url":null,"abstract":"The quality of a research study application sends a distinct signal to the institutional review board (IRB) about the skills, capacities, preparation, communication, experience, and resources of its authors. However, efforts to research and define IRB application quality have been insufficient. Inattention to the quality of an IRB application is consequential because the application precedes IRB review, and perceptions of quality between the two may be interrelated and interdependent. Without a clear understanding of quality, IRBs do not know how to define quality and researchers do not know how to achieve quality. This position has not been systematically studied to date, and future research could provide much-needed empirical validation. This paper lays the conceptual groundwork for future investigation into what constitutes quality in an IRB application. It includes a landscape review of multidisciplinary research on quality, as well as a discussion of quality frameworks analogous to research with human participants that exist in the published literature. It also examines the background and significance of federal research regulations, regulatory burdens, researchers’ regulatory literacy, and the roles and responsibilities of IRB professionals within this ecosystem.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"374 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75122564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-25DOI: 10.1177/17470161231189843
R. Zur
Pregnancy is a frequently applied exclusion criteria for many forms of research. Common justifications for this exclusion include the potential for teratogenicity, as well as the potential for physiologic changes in pregnancy to impact the research itself. The systematic exclusion of pregnant persons from clinical studies has created a significant gap in knowledge regarding medication safety and efficacy in pregnancy, which continues to cause significant harm to pregnant persons in need of medical therapy. To produce meaningful data and facilitate effective knowledge translation to the clinical setting, special consideration to the pharmacology of pregnancy, as well as to outcomes of concern for this population is essential. The exclusion of pregnant participants from research is not ethically justifiable, as it violates the principles of autonomy, justice and nonmaleficence. While the inclusion of pregnant patients in research presents it’s own challenges, with appropriate methodological, ethical, and clinical considerations, we may be able to narrow the knowledge gap and improve drug availability and safety for pregnant patients and their children.
{"title":"Protected from harm, harmed by protection: ethical consequences of the exclusion of pregnant participants from clinical trials","authors":"R. Zur","doi":"10.1177/17470161231189843","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231189843","url":null,"abstract":"Pregnancy is a frequently applied exclusion criteria for many forms of research. Common justifications for this exclusion include the potential for teratogenicity, as well as the potential for physiologic changes in pregnancy to impact the research itself. The systematic exclusion of pregnant persons from clinical studies has created a significant gap in knowledge regarding medication safety and efficacy in pregnancy, which continues to cause significant harm to pregnant persons in need of medical therapy. To produce meaningful data and facilitate effective knowledge translation to the clinical setting, special consideration to the pharmacology of pregnancy, as well as to outcomes of concern for this population is essential. The exclusion of pregnant participants from research is not ethically justifiable, as it violates the principles of autonomy, justice and nonmaleficence. While the inclusion of pregnant patients in research presents it’s own challenges, with appropriate methodological, ethical, and clinical considerations, we may be able to narrow the knowledge gap and improve drug availability and safety for pregnant patients and their children.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"536 - 545"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73739519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-25DOI: 10.1177/17470161231188615
E. Fernandez, Todd J. McWhorter
Research in zoos is an important scientific endeavor that requires several complex considerations in order to occur. Among those many considerations are the ethics involved in conducting zoo research. However, it is not always clear how zoo researchers should go about resolving any research ethics matters, even determining when some type of research ethics committee should be involved in those deliberations. Our paper attempts to provide some resolutions for these issues, namely in three sections: (1) a brief history of human and animal research ethics, (2) general guidelines for zoo research ethics applications, and (3) theoretical, ethical dilemmas at the zoo. In each section, we consider pragmatic attempts to resolve any issues, as well as provide examples to illustrate our points. The primary focus of the paper is to facilitate consideration of the wide array of ethical factors any zoo researcher might encounter, as well as provide a basic set of ethical guidelines for zoo research. We also emphasize the importance of the welfare of the animals for all zoo research projects.
{"title":"Who reviews what you do at the zoo? Considerations for research ethics with captive exotic animals","authors":"E. Fernandez, Todd J. McWhorter","doi":"10.1177/17470161231188615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231188615","url":null,"abstract":"Research in zoos is an important scientific endeavor that requires several complex considerations in order to occur. Among those many considerations are the ethics involved in conducting zoo research. However, it is not always clear how zoo researchers should go about resolving any research ethics matters, even determining when some type of research ethics committee should be involved in those deliberations. Our paper attempts to provide some resolutions for these issues, namely in three sections: (1) a brief history of human and animal research ethics, (2) general guidelines for zoo research ethics applications, and (3) theoretical, ethical dilemmas at the zoo. In each section, we consider pragmatic attempts to resolve any issues, as well as provide examples to illustrate our points. The primary focus of the paper is to facilitate consideration of the wide array of ethical factors any zoo researcher might encounter, as well as provide a basic set of ethical guidelines for zoo research. We also emphasize the importance of the welfare of the animals for all zoo research projects.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"15 1","pages":"419 - 432"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91387319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-25DOI: 10.1177/17470161231188720
A. Lees, R. Godbold, S. Walters
While the need to protect vulnerable research participants is universal, conceptual challenges with the notion of vulnerability may result in the under or over-protection of participants. Ethics review bodies making assumptions about who is vulnerable and in what circumstance can be viewed as paternalistic if they do not consider participant viewpoints. Our study focuses on participant vulnerability in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research. We aim to illuminate students’ views on participant vulnerability to contribute to critical analysis of the role and processes of ethics review. Additionally, we aim to highlight the importance of seeking the views of participant communities, especially in research environments beyond ethics review’s medical origins. Thirty-four students from a health-related faculty at a university in Aotearoa New Zealand, participated in five focus groups. Participants discussed factors affecting their potential participation in research drawing upon a series of vignettes based on examples of published SoTL projects. Themes, generated using reflexive thematic analysis, built a participant-informed picture of vulnerability. Findings indicate that students do not generally consider themselves vulnerable and instead consider participation in SoTL research through an agentic lens. Students expect that participation will be voluntary, not negatively impact their grades, and not single them out so that others could judge them. Our study also highlights the value students place on relationships with one another and teaching staff and the implications these have for SoTL research participation and future professional practice. This research challenges research ethics committees to think further about vulnerability in the context of SoTL whilst highlighting the importance of providing opportunities for research participants more broadly to explore and vocalize their views as members of participant communities.
{"title":"Reconceptualizing participant vulnerability in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning research: exploring the perspectives of health faculty students in Aotearoa New Zealand","authors":"A. Lees, R. Godbold, S. Walters","doi":"10.1177/17470161231188720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231188720","url":null,"abstract":"While the need to protect vulnerable research participants is universal, conceptual challenges with the notion of vulnerability may result in the under or over-protection of participants. Ethics review bodies making assumptions about who is vulnerable and in what circumstance can be viewed as paternalistic if they do not consider participant viewpoints. Our study focuses on participant vulnerability in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research. We aim to illuminate students’ views on participant vulnerability to contribute to critical analysis of the role and processes of ethics review. Additionally, we aim to highlight the importance of seeking the views of participant communities, especially in research environments beyond ethics review’s medical origins. Thirty-four students from a health-related faculty at a university in Aotearoa New Zealand, participated in five focus groups. Participants discussed factors affecting their potential participation in research drawing upon a series of vignettes based on examples of published SoTL projects. Themes, generated using reflexive thematic analysis, built a participant-informed picture of vulnerability. Findings indicate that students do not generally consider themselves vulnerable and instead consider participation in SoTL research through an agentic lens. Students expect that participation will be voluntary, not negatively impact their grades, and not single them out so that others could judge them. Our study also highlights the value students place on relationships with one another and teaching staff and the implications these have for SoTL research participation and future professional practice. This research challenges research ethics committees to think further about vulnerability in the context of SoTL whilst highlighting the importance of providing opportunities for research participants more broadly to explore and vocalize their views as members of participant communities.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84931430","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-11DOI: 10.1177/17470161231186060
Julia Henning, Ana Goncalves Costa, E. Fernandez
The roles companion animals have played in our lives has dramatically changed over the last few decades. At the same time, the terms we use to describe both the people and animals in these human-animal relationships have also changed. One example includes the use of the terms ‘owner’ or ‘guardian’ to refer to the human caretaker. While preferences by society appear to indicate increased interest in referring to companion animal caretakers as ‘guardians’, others have cautioned against its use or attempted to restrict it. Additionally, the use of animal welfare terminology has direct implications for how we conduct both welfare research and practice. Our paper examines the use of ‘owner’ and ‘guardian’ with respect to (1) the implications for changing terminology on the function, clarity and uniformity of their use, and (2) the ethical and welfare impact that coincides with each term’s use. Our goal is to propose terminological considerations that could influence future welfare research, as well as help guide our interactions with companion animals.
{"title":"Shifting attitudes on animal ‘ownership’: Ethical implications for welfare research and practice terminology","authors":"Julia Henning, Ana Goncalves Costa, E. Fernandez","doi":"10.1177/17470161231186060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231186060","url":null,"abstract":"The roles companion animals have played in our lives has dramatically changed over the last few decades. At the same time, the terms we use to describe both the people and animals in these human-animal relationships have also changed. One example includes the use of the terms ‘owner’ or ‘guardian’ to refer to the human caretaker. While preferences by society appear to indicate increased interest in referring to companion animal caretakers as ‘guardians’, others have cautioned against its use or attempted to restrict it. Additionally, the use of animal welfare terminology has direct implications for how we conduct both welfare research and practice. Our paper examines the use of ‘owner’ and ‘guardian’ with respect to (1) the implications for changing terminology on the function, clarity and uniformity of their use, and (2) the ethical and welfare impact that coincides with each term’s use. Our goal is to propose terminological considerations that could influence future welfare research, as well as help guide our interactions with companion animals.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"49 1","pages":"409 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80719174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：