Ethics and Reflexivity in Research - Essay Example

?ETHICS AND REFLEXIBILITY IN RESEARCH Research is an important process in the various fields of the arts and sciences. It does not only contribute tolearning but also to understanding different discoveries especially in human behaviours and way of thinking. What is research? Are researchers by profession and/or just people who are conducting unpublished research following the principles and etiquettes that have been presented in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007)? Before further proceeding on the discussion of the ethics and reflexibility in research, there should be an agreed definition of the term research. As the National Statement which was released in 2007 stated, there is no agreed definition of what research is. However, according to Vyhmeister (2001, p.1), research was defined as “a method of study that, through careful investigation of all evidence bearing on a definable problem, arrives at a solution. To research a topic is to collect, organize, evaluate, and present data.” Nevertheless, the National Statement adapted the definition given by the British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). It stated that research, though in a wider scope: “includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce, industry, and to the public and voluntary sectors; scholarship; the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances, artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes, including design and construction. It excludes routine testing and routine analysis of materials, components and processes such as for the maintenance of national standards, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques. It also excludes the development of teaching materials that do not embody original research (Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, & Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland, 2005, p.28).” Reflexibility As a probable definition has already been laid down, one can continue on seeking what are the other components of research. One of the terminologies which will be frequently encountered on the paper would be the word reflexibility. According to Sultana (2007, p.376), “Reflexivity in research involves reflection on self, process, and representation, and critically examining power relations and politics in the research process, and researcher accountability in data collection and interpretation.” On the other hand, as Guillemin and Gillam (2004, p.274) stated, “Reflexivity in research is not a single or universal entity but a process—an active, on-going process that saturates every stage of the research.” Ethics There is another terminology in this paper that needs to be defined and this is ethics. Adapting the definition given by Merriam-Webster (2008), ethics is defined as “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.” Ethics however are further divided into 2 dimensions when it is applied in research (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004, p.263-5). These dimensions are named as “procedural ethics” and “ethics in practice.” Both dimensions however are involved in researches either simultaneously or separately. Procedural ethics ordinarily includes pursuant of authorisation from additional appropriate ethics committee. This is to carry out researches that engage with humans. The second dimension, ethics in practice, is the daily moral concerns that take place in the process of doing the research. Further expounding on ethics and its dimensions, as part of the procedural ethics, the research group should obtain an application form that needs to be completed in order to form a “research ethics committee.” The completion of the form however is considered most of the time as a formality of what are needed to be surmounted overcome and discovered by the research process. It is not just about writing responses towards inquiries in what is termed as “ethics-committee speak.” The reason why such is needed to be practiced is that researchers do need to assure that as a group, researchers can be trusted upon by the committee in carrying out a proper and respectful research process which will still achieve the most favourable result (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004, p.263-4). That goes for the first dimension, with regards to the second dimension or what is pertained as “ethics in practice,” refers to the daily ethical matters that commences during the research process. These are the events that will put the judgment of the researcher on the line. Others however consider this event as a dilemma as the research is commencing. As Guillemin and Gillam (2004, p.264-5) explained it, “It is certainly true that some of them are not dilemmas, if we take dilemma to refer to a situation in which there is a stark choice between different options, each of which seem to have equally compelling ethical advantages and disadvantages.” These jargons co-exist with each other as a research is being planned and performed. If these 3 concepts are observed in one process, there will be a harmonious and well-executed procedure that will result to better understanding and appreciation in the ways that humans think and behave. Research is aimed to further understand numerous questions that involve various subjects present in the different fields. Though intended to improve explanation and understanding, there are still instances where research is either abused or improperly used in obtaining what other researchers may pertain to as constructive results. However, implementing ethics in researches are not done as easily as it is being stated. Often, what is in the contexts are not being followed word by word. There are various factors as to why the implementation and application of ethics varies from one research to another. Just like any other dilemmas, there are things which are thought should be done and will be beneficial to a more favourable result for the research yet it will be breaking ethical standards which would not be as acceptable in the public’s point of view. Or the scenario can also work the other way around, an ethical action yet will not give any favourable result towards the research (Sultana, 2007, p.377-9). In addition, as Sultana concluded (2007, p.382), “it is critical to pay attention to positionality, reflexivity, the production of knowledge and the power relations that are inherent in research processes in order to undertake ethical research, especially in international field research contexts.” Advantage and Disadvantage of Reflexibility Further delving into the subject of reflexibility, one therefore can weigh in its advantages and disadvantages in the area of research. Could these factors have any effect towards the end result of the research? Are researches made biased because of these? Questions may arise as to why the research was done however; there are also questions towards how did the participating researchers reached a particular conclusion? There is also that slightest idea of the public that a particular research is not totally unbiased or done absolutely based on the guidelines that has been developed jointly by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC), and the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC). “Reflexivity involves critical reflection of how the researcher constructs knowledge from the research process—what sorts of factors influence the researcher’s construction of knowledge and how these influences are revealed in the planning, conduct, and writing up of the research (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004, p.275).” This is always present in the mind of every researcher who will conduct or currently conducting a study or an analysis. It can be pointed that the advantage of the presence of reflexibility in research is that a researcher is always endeavouring to achieve the most favourable outcome which will be beneficial to the majority of mankind and its future. Researchers always have the goal of improving the quality and validity of the research. It may not be the gauge of how the research was done however it will be a basis that a research was done with utmost accuracy, class and etiquette. Reflexivity and ethics is considered to be always closely related with each other in the world of research hence the presence of these 2 entities in a research process will make mankind’s future filled with better and brighter ideas and understandings. When there is an advantage, there is also a disadvantage with regards to reflexibility. Since reflexibility is not as prescribed like other guidelines or principles, often it has been skipped or over-looked by researchers as the research is being conducted. Researchers are more result-driven as the process is being conducted which might be one of the reason why reflexibility is being over-looked upon. Guillemin and Gillam (2004, p.277) added that “In the actual conduct of research, the reflexive researcher will be better placed to be aware of ethically important moments as they arise and will have a basis for responding in a way that is likely to be ethically appropriate, even with unforeseen situations.” Benefits, Risks and Limitations of the National Statement The NHMRC, the ARC, and the AVCC collaborated for the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research which was published in 2007. As any other statements, it was written and proposed for a number of reasons. These 3 organizations authored the statement which was intended to be used by the following institutions and individuals: “1) any researcher conducting research with human participants, 2) any member of an ethical review body reviewing that research, 3) those involved in research governance and 4) potential research participants (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.1).” As expressed in the National Statement, there are risks and benefits and limitations in a research that the administrations have stated. The manner that researches are being carried through in the country is regarded by its scientific principles, highly ethical, and the vulnerabilities that it has on participants is minimal. These characteristics bring the quality of research in Australia as one of the finest and in top quality. Sustaining the research standard and quality is the main goal as why the statement was published (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.15). What is the risk that is being pertained to in the statement? Is it the same risk that regular men know? Or does it have other connotations when applied in researches? As it has been expressed in the statement, risk is the probability of the presence of impairment, discomposure and/or awkwardness. It is not just the individuals who should be cautious of the probable occurrence of risks. Organizations should also be watchful of the risk which can occur as the research is being conducted. As communicated in the National Statement, evaluating risks is comprised of 3 factors. These factors that should be assessed are 1) the category of discomfort, inconvenience and harm that may happen, 2) the probability of harm, discomfort and inconvenience to occur and, 3) the seriousness of the occurrence that can be brought by any harm. In every action especially in researches, risk cannot be disregarded even if it is an indoor research. There are uncontrollable entities that can transpire which researchers, individuals or organizations, cannot control and cannot predict when and where or even how it will occur (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.15-6). There are 2 types of risk research that was stated in the National Statement. These are low risk research and negligible risk research. Low risk research is defined as those risks which can be predictable or can be foreseen. Therefore when such is known, there is only minimal harm or inconvenience done to the research or to the researchers themselves. An example of such risk is discomfort. There are guide questions or topics which will have different impression for different type of people. Even though it is predictable, it is often cannot be avoided as the answer to such will be pivotal to the research. There is an ethical issue present however the particular research phase is unavoidable (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.16). On the other hand, negligible risk research is schemed in research by the absence of any risk that can be anticipated. According to the National Statement (2007, p.16), the negligible risk research has the deficiency of “any foreseeable risk is no more than inconvenience.” Unlike the low risk research, in the negligible risk research nothing is certain towards what can occur during the process of the conduct of research. There are so many factors as to the occurrence of risks in a research. When risks however are uncontrolled or it has caused too much or can be threatening to the researchers, the organization or to the study itself, NHRMC et al (2007, p.17) have agreed that, “Where a researcher or review body judges that the level of risk in a research proposal is not justified by the benefits, either the research aims or the methods by which they are to be achieved, or both, will need to be reconsidered if the research is to proceed.” When there are risks, there are also benefits. Just like the term risk which has been uttered in the statement, the basic definition of the term benefit also applies in the world of research. The benefits of research may be comprised of but not restricted to acquisition of additional knowledge and understanding, improvement in communal and personal well-being, and further attainment of competences or proficiencies for individual researchers, organizations and/or institutions (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.17). This factor balances up the presence of the risks in a particular research. There are direct and indirect benefits that a research may contribute to the society and its education. Direct benefits are those which will aid a particular person that can be experiencing the topic or subject of the research. This can either be in the medical field which is in recent years being given more focused on with the emergence of new ailments which are more often than not life-threatening and transmittable (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.17). An example of an indirect benefit would be is that when a research is being participated by a person who is not suffering or experiencing anything related to the subject of the research yet more willing to be an instrument to further developing ideas which will aid in understanding particular topics. Though ethics will play a major role in indirect benefits, a research participant still has the freedom to decide whether he will partake in the probable discovery in the field of the research topic. Usually, ethics take part when the particular research involves the medical discipline as it is dealing with human lives. Dilemma will also be there, risk will also be there. It is not easy to weigh the pros and the cons especially when the person involve will not have any benefit in the research. However, when the research will push through, more people will be beneficial it may not be today or tomorrow but it can happen in the next few months or years (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.17). The latter paragraph can be supported by a proclamation expressed in the National Statement. It has been conveyed that “For ethical review bodies, there can be a profound tension between the obligation on the one hand to give maximum scope to participants’ freedom to accept risk, and on the other to see that research is conducted in a way that is beneficent and minimises harm” (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.17). Though an individual may join freely in a research process, it is not immediately accepted by the researchers as there is the presence of ethics. There might be issues that though a participant may have given their consent, there are other people who may negate or oppose a certain decision. In such occasions, it is more often that an organization or the researchers will not accept the voluntary involvement of a certain individual. As the Statement (2007, p.8) itself conveyed, “The term ‘participants’ is therefore used very broadly in this National Statement to include those who may not even know they are the subjects of research; for example, where the need for their consent for the use of their tissue or data has been waived by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC).” Would there be any violation of the human rights when researchers do such an act? Even if the HREC have waived any ethical issue on particular scenarios, does that justify that a person’s privacy and decision has been invaded? Just because they are a committee ruling on what is ethical and not, does such gives them the right to disregard an individual’s preference? Examining further the section, the Statement expressed “In addition, the conduct of human research often has an impact on the lives of others who are not participants. When this impact is reasonably foreseeable, it may raise ethical questions for researchers and for those ethically reviewing research.” Though there will be benefits towards other people, does the Statement gives the authority to researchers to conduct researches that can violate numerous privacy laws can either directly or indirectly affect an involuntary participant in the research? Risk will enter this scenario in achieving an indirect benefit. Limitations are also present in the National Statement. Though it is supported by more than one public organization, it still does not have the full concept and control of each and every research which is being or will be conducted. Even if the National Statement is used in setting the national standards in research to be used by any individual, organization or institution that are conducting human research., there is no actual data or proof that the statement is being followed in verbatim by these researchers. Just like any research or experiments, there is still that area for error to occur or be committed in the process whether it is with intention or without (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.7). As stated in the earlier stage of the paper, the 3 organizations, the NHMRC, the ARC, and the AVCC, agreed that there is no general agreement towards the definition of research. The statement adapted the definition given by the RAE. With the exclusion of procedural testing and analyses, there is a probability that a research may not constitute a uniform result that can be applied to different people. The definition also excludes the additional development of instructional resources which may further improve the result that the research had attained. This is another limitation for the statement as there is no certain definition that the whole document has been dependent on (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.7). Results achieved in human researches do not necessarily mean that it will apply to every human who is alive at present. There are factors, whether internal or external, which may affect the data and the outcome of the research. A result may apply to one person yet it will not be applicable to another. It may give a hundred percentage of improvement to a particular group however it may also give none to another. With the presence of ethics and dilemmas in researches, there is always that hint of biasedness present in researches. There are target participants who will not fully cooperate in the research will spell either success or disappointment in the process. Though beneficial to medical patients, it does not guarantee full participation of these patients in researches (NHMRC et al, 2007, p.8). Conclusion Researches are very vital especially in the field of medicinal science. Yet it does not gives an institution, committee and/or organization to violate and regulate ethics, rights and principles just to achieve the most desirable result. As much as researches are result-driven, there are factors that may work against it which will make the result either not as desirable as it was being hoped for by the researchers involved. Though there are institutions and organizations or even individuals who do not accept the fact that reflexivity and ethics goes hand in hand in researches, the 2 entities coexist with each other whether or not it is accepted consciously or unconsciously. There are also instances where ethics are considered as dilemmas and instances when it is considered not. Even if researchers admit the fact or not, ethics are dilemmas that can affect the outcome of the whole process. Dilemmas are often the pivotal point which decides whether one research will achieve the desired result or discontinue the whole process. Reflexivity in research goes hand in hand with ethics as to further understanding and making the research have an orientation towards the people who will be beneficial to it rather than just the achievement of certain results. The National Statement has been the guide of individuals and organizations when they try to seek further knowledge with regards to specific fields. However, it does not guarantee the researchers that a desirable process and result will be achieved once they follow the National Statement. There are issues that envelopes the statement as a whole. It should not give any person or organization the authority to violate any ethics principle or human rights just because the participation will give desirable result to the particular research. Bibliography Brown, J. (2006) Reflexivity in the Research Process: Psychoanalytic Observations. International Journal Social Research Methodology. Vol. 9, No. 3. Taylor & Francis. Campos, P. F., Schlag, P. and Smith, S. D. (1996) Against the Law. USA: Duke University Press. Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2004) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd. “Ethics” (2008) Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 11th Edition. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Gabriel, L. (2009) Relational Ethics in Practice: Narratives from Counselling and Psychotherapy. East Sussex, UK: Routledge. Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L. (2004) Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol.10. pp. 261-280. SAGE Publications, Ltd. Gregory, I. (2003) Ethics in Research. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Iltis, A. S. (2006) Research Ethics. New York, NY: Routledge. Kimmel, A. J. (2007) Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research: Basic and Applied Perspectives. Victoria, AU: Blackwell Publishing. Mauthner, M. L., Birch, M., Jessop, J. and Miller, T. (2002) Ethics in Qualitative Research. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Mauthner, N. S. and Doucet, A. (2003) Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis. Sociology. Vol. 37(3). pp. 413–431. SAGE Publications, Ltd. Mertens, D. M. and Ginsberg, P. E. (2009) The Handbook of Social Research Ethics. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd. May, T. and Perry, B. (2011) Social Research and Reflexivity. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, and Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (2007) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Canberra, AU: Australian Government. Penslar, R. L. (1995) Research Ethics: Cases and Materials. Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press. Sultana, F. (2007) Reflexivity, Positionality and Participatory Ethics: Negotiating Fieldwork Dilemmas in International Research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies. Vol. 6 (3). pp. 374-385. Vyhmeister, N. J. (2001) Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. Watt, D. (2007) On Becoming a Qualitative Researcher: The Value of Reflexivity. The Qualitative Report. Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 82-101. Read More