Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Research Ethics

No description

Robert Moncrief

on 11 January 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Research Ethics

Research Ethics Case
Robert Moncrief
Ethics Workshop
April 2014
Ethical Conflict?
Courses of Action and Possible Outcomes
Rights and Responsibilities
Case Outline and Parties
1. The Head Researcher (
Professor X
A. Online study
B. Over 500 participants, 30 questions each.
C. Massive amount of data
2. Enlists the help of Research Assistant(s) (
Group Y

A. Mainly does 'grunt-work' i.e., statistical analysis
3. Credit?
= gets the Lion's share=makes all the 'major' connections and meta-clusters and thus publishes the research in his name.
= is upset because they receive only cursory credit for their contribution(s).

1. Should fully inform assistant(s) of terms (duties and outcome of work) - including scope of credit.
2. Has the right to get the main credit, if the research assistants agree to terms and take on tasks.

1. Has the right to refuse the terms.
2. Has the right to tell the head researcher if they feel the terms were not clear or equitable (also if research already completed or currently being undertaken.

1. Continues with publication (and)
a.) takes this into account for next time
b.) explains more completely tasks and outcome
2. Amends credits to more fully include and acknowledge research assistant(s) contribution(s).
3. Does own busywork or at least offers to do a portion of the share.
4. Abandons publication and/or restarts research.
5. Gets some new research assistants.
6. Does nothing.

1. Points this out (complains?) and
a.) gets more or sufficient credit
b.) there is no outcome and/or
c.) loses status/relieved of duties
2. Accepts situation for what it is and hopes for better next time...
a. more clearly asks for defined tasks and outcome.
b. recognition of 'pecking order' (welcome to academia!).
c. longs for day when they are in power (may or may not do the same).

Appropriation or Collaboration?
both quantitative and qualitative

Head Researcher
1. Should at least take into account ethical principals and moral guidelines (even if theirs is different).
2. Should FULLY inform assistants of research scope, duties and outcome.
3. Could try and work out something mutually agreeable.

1. Should know what they are getting into.
2. Should ask more questions, for more information if not happy or satisfied.

University at Large
1. Recognize the 'problem'-at least appear to be 'proactive'.
Full transcript