How can we respond to ethical problems?

In this section of their guide to research ethics Mark Israel and Iain Hay (Flinders University, Australia) offer some practical tips on resolving an ethical dilemma and dealing with the ethics committee.

How can researchers decide what to do when presented with an ethical dilemma? Most ethical difficulties might be resolved by reference to one of the three Belmont principles – justice, beneficence, and respect for others – that form the basis for most codes of research ethics. However, more serious dilemmas may arise if it becomes necessary to violate a basic principle in order to meet the needs of another.

In such situations decision making can be grounded in an appreciation of both normative approaches to behaviour. The teleological or consequentialist approach focuses on the practical consequences of actions, whereas deontological approaches reject the emphasis on consequences, suggesting instead that certain acts are good in themselves. These two positions underpin a strategy for coping with ethical dilemmas.

Steps to resolving an ethical dilemma

1. Identify the issues, identify the parties – ethical dilemmas rarely categorise themselves, so the first step is to identify the nature of the problem. It is also important to recognise the different stakeholders involved – who will be affected and how? We might think of stakeholders in progressively larger groupings, starting first with those immediately affected by a situation or decision, moving through the relevant institutions (for example university, employer, sponsor) to the communities of social science researchers, and finally to society more broadly.
2. Identify options – researchers may be able to respond to ethical problems in a range of ways, and it is important that possibilities are not discarded prematurely.
3. Consider consequences – researchers should consider the range of positive and negative consequences associated with each option:
   • who or what will be helped?
   • who or what will be hurt?
   • what kinds of benefits and harms are involved and what are their relative values?
   • what are the short and long term implications of any decision?
   • which option produces the best combination of benefit maximisation and harm minimisation?
4. Analyse options in terms of moral principles – investigators need to examine options against moral principles, such as honesty, trust, individual autonomy, fairness, equality and recognition of social and environmental vulnerability. In some instances, some principles may be regarded as more important than others.
5. Make your own decision and act with commitment – it is important to integrate consequences and principles to reach an independent, informed, thoroughly considered and justifiable decision. However, it is possible that all options will yield adverse consequences or violated principles. Ultimately, we may find ourselves choosing the lesser of several ‘evils’. It may be helpful to use casuistry to clarify the nature of the value conflict through analogies – are there any precedents – how have other similar cases been handled and what were the outcomes, is the issue similar to or different from the analogy, what if certain elements or individuals in the scenario were changed or if the ‘stakes’ were higher or lower? Several prompts can be used to reflect on the action that is about to be adopted – will I feel comfortable telling a close family member such as my mother or father what I have done, how would I feel if my actions were to attract media attention, how would I feel if my children followed my example, is mine the behaviour of a wise and virtuous person?
6. Evaluate the system and yourself – we owe it to our discipline, our colleagues and all those who are affected by research in our field to reflect on how the dilemma that we faced arose.

Dealing with ethics committees

The vast majority of committee members do not seek to obstruct research. For little reward, they invest considerable time to provide ethical oversight, and, in many cases, are able to offer constructive and practical suggestions to improve the quality of research proposals. However, in many institutions and in a great number of countries, academics have felt that the processes adopted by research ethics committees have been excessively bureaucratic and arbitrary. Social scientists have complained that committees have been found to be slow to respond or, even, entirely unresponsive to problems raised by researchers. In addition, researchers have discovered that some committees lack the expertise necessary to judge their work (Lewis et al, 2003).

Problematic ethical encounters can be minimised by good procedural regimes, and for many researchers committee review presents a useful opportunity to reflect critically on research practices. Unfortunately, some have found that in the review process ethical questions may be swamped by the need to meet bureaucratic demands or assuage the fears of those responsible for risk management.

How researchers prepare applications can depend – among other things – on the nature of the research, the composition, policies and practices of the relevant ethics review committee, and the local, national and professional regulations and codes that govern the research. Often, the nature of the review process will differ between institutions, countries and disciplines.

Some writers give straightforward advice to researchers preparing ethics applications (see, for example, Oakes, 2002; Israel & Hersh, 2006). Generally aimed at postgraduate students or early career researchers, they recommend that applicants think strategically in completing the application form, drawing on skills in research, networking and negotiation.

How to deal with the ethics committees:

• Consider the ethical aspects of your study from the very beginning – researchers need to be sensitive to the review requirements for their particular project in all relevant jurisdictions – both where they are employed and where they will be conducting research, and should be careful not to carry one community or jurisdiction’s formal and informal approaches to ethics into another.
• Identify the regulations that govern your work – a research project may also be subject to a wide range of review bodies that need to be dealt with in a particular order. For instance, some institutions require researchers to apply to a university research ethics committee, some to a departmental one, others to both. It may also be necessary to apply to the ethics committee of the institution where researchers are collecting their data.
• Find out how your local research ethics committee works – some committees have different levels of review – perhaps allowing an expedited review for research with minimal risks. Where this is the case researchers should ensure they apply for the right level of review: – too high and time is wasted preparing unnecessary documentation, too low and applicants may be asked to approach the right committee, answer more questions and supply further documentation, by which time they may have missed a meeting of the appropriate committee. Completing the documentary requirements for research ethics committee consideration can be a significant burden. Not only are applications typically lengthy and detailed, but some researchers bristle at questions that reflect a singular and inappropriate approach to their inquiry.
• Answer the committee’s questions in a simple and straightforward manner – members of research ethics committees have reported that some applications by social scientists are underprepared. In particular, legal researchers need to improve their ability to justify their methodologies and articulate the benefits of their research in terms that fit forms that may not be designed for the purpose, and research ethics committees that have little experience in such methodologies. Legal researchers may groan each time they are asked questions about their ‘human subjects’, ‘interview schedule’ or ‘experimental hypotheses’, but it is still generally worthwhile for us to answer such questions fully and courteously. It is often useful to seek advice from colleagues and read examples of successful applications. Law schools could maintain files of successful research ethics applications.
• Be prepared to educate your committee – find out what kinds of expertise your committee has – are you writing for social scientists or for medical researchers, or both? Are there legal researchers on the committee? In your application, explain why the research is necessary, justify your choice of methodology and explain how other researchers have used it without causing harm. The committee may know very little about the methodology that you propose to use, the topic or the population that you are studying, or the location for your research. Locate your research within past practice – who has used this methodology before – and explain to the committee why your proposal makes sense given the context within which you will operate.
• Talk to your local committee – if you have questions, telephone and talk to your research ethics committee administrator or chair. Find out how often the committee meets and when applications are due. In some cases, you may be allowed to or asked to appear before the committee and answer questions. If you disagree with a research ethics committee decision, read their regulations and then ask for a meeting.
• Be prepared for delays – some committees take a very long time to reach decisions. Australian social scientists and British health researchers reported waiting for almost two years for approval (Israel, 2004b; Nicholl, 2004). This can be because committees meet infrequently or proposal submission dates do not coincide with committee meeting dates, because committees raise objections to unaltered parts of submissions that had already been modified to meet an earlier set of objections, or because researchers have to shuttle between different committees. If you need approval from outside agencies, be prepared to wait. Some government agencies use delays in the processing of applications as a way of maintaining control over work in their institutions by external researchers. All this can be very distressing for students who are trying to complete their degrees.
• Be prepared to adapt your work – our experience in Australia, where researchers have greater familiarity dealing with university research ethics committees, suggests that few research proposals are rejected outright by committees. However, some projects would have been abandoned in the face of conditions that researchers felt could not be accommodated. The more usual outcome is a process of negotiation between committee and researcher – sometimes protracted, and at times fraught – after which approval is given, conditional upon modifications to the scope and/or methodology of the research. Clearly, it is to researchers’ advantage – as individuals and collectively – to be well prepared for any such negotiations.
• Contribute to reform – individual social scientists would do well to follow the advice of Bosk & De Vries (2004) to expand their knowledge of, and participation in, the review process, undertake empirical investigations of the ethics review boards, and educate board members. Collectively, social scientists could play an important role in advocating changes to the policies, procedures and systems adopted by particular committees. This might happen at the national level through the ESRC, or at a local level where, for example, researchers could put pressure on institutions to adopt helpful, consistent, transparent and appropriate practices.
  Professional associations also have a responsibility to encourage theoretically informed, self critical and perceptive approaches to moral matters. Our associations share responsibility with higher education institutions to ensure that material on ethics and ethical governance is integrated into undergraduate and postgraduate courses as well as into professional development programmes.

Professional bodies might also:

• monitor problems members have with research ethics committees
• lobby funding, host and regulatory agencies to support more appropriate governance
• engage with the processes of law reform so that legislators consider the impact of their activities on social research
• broker the development of ethics training materials, some of which could be used to help educate ethics committee members about discipline specific matters
• exchange information and resources with other professional associations across disciplinary and national boundaries

Last Modified: 4 June 2010