Research Essentials: An Introduction to Designs and Practices (Research Methods for the Social Sciences) - Softcover

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0470181095 ISBN 13: 9780470181096

Publisher: Jossey-Bass, 2009

Synopsis

This is an accessible and practical introduction to research that addresses the broadest spectrum of research methodologies of interest to the student or new research, from experimental and survey approaches to program evaluation and ethnography. Research Essentials includes key interpretive and qualitative strategies. The book shows the role that research plays in the social sciences and education, followed by an overview of research traditions. It offers practical examples and relevant resources across the disciplines. Other features include study questions, lists of relevant journals, web sites, and organizations.

About this title

About the Author

STEPHEN D. LAPAN, PHD, is professor in the College of Education at Northern Arizona University and directs its Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Program. He has conducted research, including program evaluations, and has developed and taught courses in statistics, tests and measurements, program evaluation, action research, introduction to research, and paradigms for research. Currently, he teaches introductory and advanced research courses.

MARYLYNN T. QUARTAROLI, EDD, is project director of the NEXUS Math/Science grant to Northern Arizona University project for Science Foundation Arizona. She teaches paradigms of research in education and advanced curriculum seminar classes for Northern Arizona University's Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Program.

From the Back Cover

Research Essentials: An Introduction to Designs and Practices addresses the broad spectrum of research methodologies for the student or new researcher in a practical manner.

The comprehensive approach of Research Essentials includes key interpretive and qualitative strategies. With contributions from experts in research, Stephen D. Lapan and MaryLynn T. Quartaroli offer an innovative discussion of sources of knowledge and explain the role that research plays in the social sciences and education. Their book explores research traditions, making explicit distinctions between disciplines of inquiry approaches or methodologies and data collection procedures techniques or methods and addresses topics such as ethics in research and conducting literature reviews. It includes an array of specific approaches used in designing research studies.

Each chapter includes the most pertinent and useful information about the research approach, addressing background, definitions, contrasting approaches, sampling and design alternatives, data collection and analysis, and appropriate uses of study results. The book is packed with practical examples and relevant resources from across the disciplines in the social sciences and education. Study questions placed throughout each chapter and lists of the most relevant journals, websites, and organizations enhance and provide support to student learning.

From the Inside Flap

Research Essentials: An Introduction to Designs and Practices addresses the broad spectrum of research methodologies for the student or new researcher in a practical manner.

The comprehensive approach of Research Essentials includes key interpretive and qualitative strategies. With contributions from experts in research, Stephen D. Lapan and MaryLynn T. Quartaroli offer an innovative discussion of sources of knowledge and explain the role that research plays in the social sciences and education. Their book explores research traditions, making explicit distinctions between disciplines of inquiry–approaches or methodologies–and data collection procedures–techniques or methods–and addresses topics such as ethics in research and conducting literature reviews. It includes an array of specific approaches used in designing research studies.

Each chapter includes the most pertinent and useful information about the research approach, addressing background, definitions, contrasting approaches, sampling and design alternatives, data collection and analysis, and appropriate uses of study results. The book is packed with practical examples and relevant resources from across the disciplines in the social sciences and education. Study questions placed throughout each chapter and lists of the most relevant journals, websites, and organizations enhance and provide support to student learning.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Research Essentials

An Introduction to Designs and Practices

John Wiley & Sons

Copyright © 2010 Stephen D. Lapan
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-470-18109-6

Chapter One

RESEARCH ETHICS AND THE USE OF HUMAN PARTICIPANTS

KRISTIN LARSON

KEY IDEAS

* All research involves ethical considerations related to the well-being of the participants.

* Ethical research practices are represented by a continuum, balancing the rights of the research participant (the deontological approach) and the benefits of the research (the utilitarian approach).

* Current ethical guidelines are based on events in the history of scientific research.

* Federal and organizational ethical standards guide researchers in the decision-making process.

* Institutional review boards review research projects for their justification and ethical procedures.

* Ethical standards direct researchers to minimize potential risks for participants.

* An informed consent document informs participants about the nature of the research and their right to stop participation at any time.

* Much of the research in the social sciences involves some level of deception.

* It is the responsibility of the researcher to debrief the participants by informing them of the true nature of the research study.

* Confidentiality and anonymity are key ethical practices insuring the privacy of the participant.

* Ethics extend beyond the study to publication and presentation of research.

* High ethical standards not only positively impact the participant, but also maintain trust in the research community on a societal level.

EDUCATIONAL AND social research are generally undertaken with the hope that our new discoveries will, in some way, contribute to our knowledge of the human condition and will ultimately benefit humanity. Although researchers may not be thinking in such lofty terms when developing a project, it is an important focus that underscores the need for ethically developed and applied research practices. Ethical considerations are the foundation of quality research that contributes to the body of knowledge and protects the population that researchers are attempting to benefit. Moreover, high-quality research is the first requirement of ethical practice. The lower the quality of a social science research study, the less justified researchers are in involving human participants.

All research inherently involves ethical considerations, from the researchers and their motivations for conducting studies, extending to the well-being, freedom of choice, and dignity of the participants. Yet concern for the participant must often be balanced against the desire for progress through research.

Although the social science community generally accepts this balance, a philosophical debate exists between the deontological approach, which emphasizes respect for the autonomy and rights of the participant, and the utilitarian approach, which emphasizes weighing the benefits of the research against the risks for the participant (risks are defined in more detail later in this chapter). Researchers on the extreme end of the deontological continuum would suggest that it is never acceptable to deceive a participant in any form or cause any kind of discomfort, even if the outcome of the research is of significant value. This position is rare. Most researchers who lean this way recognize the need for deception at times and make every effort to avoid risk and discomfort to the participants. Researchers who fall into the utilitarian category believe it is acceptable to deceive participants as long as the extent of the deception is justified by the significant value of the research outcome. These researchers are usually comfortable with risk and discomfort as long as it is temporary. Researchers generally do not fall at the extreme end of the utilitarian approach, considering any level of physical or emotional pain as acceptable. In addition, research review boards, scholarly publishers, and the social science community do not condone harming research participants. Although this chapter does not attempt to resolve the differences between these approaches, it will assist the reader of research in understanding the ethical issues inherent in research studies by covering in some detail the following topics: ethical standards, minimizing risk to participants, publication, and the social impact of unethical research.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. Which carries more weight for you, the rights of the participant or the benefits of the research?

2. To what degree can researchers accurately predict the potential impact of new knowledge through research?

3. At what point is the discomfort, deception, or embarrassment of a human participant unethical?

ETHICAL STANDARDS

Ethical standards are guidelines that attempt to provide direction for the decision-making processes and actions involved in conducting research. Typically government or professional organizations establish these standards. They are based on lessons learned through the history of research and on the experiences of professionals with the goal of minimizing risk to research participants. Ethical standards are the foundation for ethical decision making in research; wisdom and attention to detail complete the process.

The Genesis of Research Standards

The need for ethical guidelines in research was first acknowledged formally in response to biomedical experiments conducted on prisoners of war in Germany during World War II. The result was the Nuremburg Code, a set of ethical standards that emphasized that it is essential for researchers to have informed consent from their participants.

As a result of the Nuremburg Code, several professional organizations have developed ethical codes to guide research in the social sciences. The American Psychological Association (APA) first published the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct in 1953. The code was revised in 1972, 1992, and most recently in 2002. In addition, the American Sociological Association (ASA) and the American Educational Research Association (AERA, 2000) have developed codes specifically to guide research in their respective fields. Although organizational codes of ethics are mandatory for their membership, they are also considered the standard by nonmembers doing research in related fields.

Ethical codes have to provide for an enormous breadth of subdisciplines, topics, and methods. The authors of these codes have chosen to take a broad, all-purpose approach as opposed to publishing exhaustive volumes of guidelines in order to cover every potential risk. Consequently, they only provide minimal guidance in the decision-making process, using general admonitions (Sieber, 1994) including "[researchers] take steps to protect the prospective participants from adverse consequences" (APA, 2002, paragraph 8.04). In addition, codes can be open to interpretation, need to be revised to meet new developments in the field, and often do not address rare or unique circumstances. For example, those conducting research in an educational setting must be sensitive to the rights of parents, the agenda of the teacher, the vulnerability of the student, the political context of the school, and the privacy of the family.

Not only can codes be vague, but a study can be consistent with all appropriate codes and still raise ethical concerns, as seen in the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). In this landmark study of conformity, Zimbardo (1972) randomly placed participants in the roles of prisoner and guard in a realistic prison setting. The study had to be concluded prematurely due to harsh treatment by the "guards" and the psychological suffering of the "prisoners." Upon reflection of the study, Zimbardo described the SPE as ethical, because it was consistent with the guidelines of the American Psychological Association and the Human Subjects Review Board, which had given its approval (Zimbardo, Maslach, & Haney, 2000). Also, there was no deception, and no concern voiced by the many people outside of the study who witnessed the condition of the participants. Zimbardo went on to say it was unethical because "people suffered and others were allowed to inflict pain and humiliation on their fellows over an extended period of time" (p. 211). Ethically, the SPE study should have been terminated on the second day when one of the participants suffered a "severe stress disorder" (p. 211). According to Zimbardo, the study continued due to his dual role of principal investigator (responsible for ethical conduct) and prison superintendent, "thus, eager to maintain the integrity of [the] prison" (p. 212). The unanticipated behavior of the participants and the principal investigator illustrate that a study can adhere to the guidelines and still be ultimately unethical.

Federal Regulations for Ethical Research

In 1953, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a United States government agency responsible for biomedical research, created the first U.S. federal policy for the protection of human subjects, based on the Nuremburg Code (Office of Human Subjects Research, 1991). Events in the 1970s (most notably the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, summarized later in this chapter) provoked new concern for the welfare of human participants and led to enactment of the National Research Act of 1974. This act required the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to make its policies into federal regulations in 1974 and resulted in the formation of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (The National Commission).

In order to determine what ethical problems existed in human research, this commission held hearings in the Belmont Conference Center of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, from 1974 to 1977. In 1979, the commission published The Belmont Report, a document that called attention to the need for respect for persons, protection of autonomy, justice, and beneficence (The National Commission, 1979). Autonomy ensures that each participant is given an informed choice to participate or decline at any point in the research process. Justice is a complex responsibility, as it stresses fair distribution of costs and benefits among persons and groups. As mentioned later in this chapter, not all cultural groups are fairly represented in current published research, despite researchers' efforts. Just as challenging is beneficence, the duty to demonstrate that the risk to participants can be justified by the potential benefits provided by new knowledge.

The Belmont Report then became the foundation for federal regulations, which are legally binding in institutions that receive grants for their research. Therefore, it is important to understand which federal ethical regulations would apply to each research project. Grants that originate in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), a cabinet department of the United States government responsible for protecting the health of Americans, are regulated by two separate organizations. The Office of Human Research Protections (formerly the Office of Protection from Research Risks) oversees compliance with the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, which applies to any research that is supported by any federal agency or any research conducted under the approval of an institutional review board (45 CFR part 46). The Office of Human Subjects Research refers to the same regulations for research funded by the NIH. Figure 1.1 describes the relative position of these organizations.

There are also federal regulations for research funded by the Department of Education (DOE), through the Family Policy Compliance Office. This office implemented two laws in 1974 that protect the rights of students and parents: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 1974) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99); and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA, 1974) (20 U.S.C. 1232h; 34 CFR Part 98). Specifics of these laws can be found at their Web sites, listed at the end of this chapter.

Institutional Review Boards

The National Research Act (1974) requires that institutions receiving federal grants for biomedical or behavioral research create an institutional review board (IRB), a committee that reviews research proposals for their justification and ethical concerns and upholds the standards of related ethics codes. Institutional review boards are made up of at least five members representing researchers and administrators. Not all educational institutions will have an IRB (sometimes referred to as a Human Subjects Review Board). In institutions with an IRB, it is a requirement to submit a proposal prior to gathering data. This is typically a standard form with questions regarding the investigators, the purpose of the research, the method of the study, any risks to participants, and measures taken to minimize that risk. The board evaluates the proposal, weighing the benefits of the research against any risks and looking for undetected threats to participant well-being. In addition, researchers with an NIH grant are required to take an online tutorial on protecting human participants from research risks prior to submitting a proposal. Some academic institutions have adopted a similar requirement for all research regardless of the funding. The following lists experiences (though not exhaustive) that are potential risks for a research participant:

* A sense of obligation to participate in the project (for example, students in classes, children, employees in their work settings)

* Deception that leaves out information that may impact the participants' choice to participate

* Physical discomfort

* Situations resulting in stress

* A change in emotional state or mood

* A change in physiological functioning

* Potential loss of privacy, reputation, or dignity

* Distress from being induced into uncharacteristic or unexpected behavior

* Being a member of a vulnerable population, including children, the elderly, people with mental illness, people with a history of abuse, people with chronic or terminal medical illnesses, people who are incarcerated, and the homeless

The measures that researchers take to address these risks in a proposal can include (a) procedures that offset the effects of the risk, (b) a convincing argument that the risks do not exceed that which the participant might experience in daily living, or (c) a convincing argument that the benefits of the new knowledge justify the risk. The journal IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research has a plethora of discussions that illustrate ethical dilemmas and resolutions.

MINIMIZING RISKS TO PARTICIPANTS

Organizations, ethics codes, and IRBs provide guidance for research, but ethical research is ultimately up to the researcher. Following the ethical guidelines related to informed consent, deception, debriefing, confidentiality, and anonymity can reduce the risks to participants in a study.

Informed Consent

An informed consent form is a document that notifies the participant about the nature of the study, the risks involved, and the participant's right to quit the study at any time. The participants' signatures on the form indicate their understanding of the requirements of the study and their rights. Informed consent is required by organizational and federal codes for all research except that which would not cause any anticipated distress and falls into the categories of observation of public behavior, surveys that require no identifying data, research using archived or previously collected data, activities that would normally take place in an educational setting, and activities that would normally take place in a work setting (APA, 2002). The purpose of informed consent is to ensure voluntary participation and to provide the participant with accurate information regarding her experience in the research project. The elements of a complete informed consent form are listed below:

* The names of the researchers

* The purpose of the study

* The expected length of participation and procedures the participants will encounter

* The participant's right to decline participation or withdraw once the study has begun, without prejudice

* The foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing

* The foreseeable factors that may influence their willingness to participate in the study (including discomfort or adverse effects)

* Any potential benefits of the research

* Limits to confidentiality (such as access to data by research assistants)

* Incentives for participation (for example, extra credit, money, or free psychological treatment)

* The name of someone to contact to ask questions regarding participation

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Research Essentials Copyright © 2010 by Stephen D. Lapan. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Publication date: 2009
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0470181095
• ISBN 13: 9780470181096
• Binding: Paperback
• Edition number: 1
• Number of pages: 440
• Editor: Lapan Stephen D., Quartaroli MaryLynn T.