Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia 9819911524, 9789819911523

Citation preview

Mayling Oey-Gardiner Fandy Rahardi Canyon Keanu Can

Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia

Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia

Mayling Oey-Gardiner · Fandy Rahardi · Canyon Keanu Can

Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia

Mayling Oey-Gardiner University of Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia

Fandy Rahardi Prospera Jakarta, Indonesia

Canyon Keanu Can Columbia University New York, NY, USA

ISBN 978-981-99-1152-3 ISBN 978-981-99-1153-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0 Jointly published with Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia The print edition is not for sale in Indonesia. Customers from Indonesia please order the print book from: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia. ISBN of the Co-Publisher’s edition: 978-623-321-032-4 © Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

In memory of Peter Gardiner

Foreword

Scientific knowledge in social sciences is of value in and of itself. But its advancement and legitimacy to improve social conditions require a systematic quest for new and better insight about society and the way in which people behave and influence the world around us, including the unintended repercussions of their actions. Simply put, advancing knowledge to improve social welfare requires research. Yet, there are a number of important issues surrounding the conduct of social sciences research. One of them concerns the ethics of it. This is what the book tries to draw attention to. The lure of academic influences, celebrity, and related material or non-material incentives may persuade social science researchers to show the results of their work in ways that make them look worthy of publication or getting funded. They could also make the data appear more interesting. These researchers may cross the boundary, where their work is fraught with either biases or ethical pitfalls committed before, during, and after the research. Avoiding this requires some enforceable principles and rules. What they are and how they can be implemented in practice are what this book is about. Any researcher in social sciences who has come of age in the years since their first research activity came of age in an academic environment where scientific integrity is increasingly demanded. The problem is, the onward transmission of information collected in most social science research is likely to raise questions of ethics, even when the collected information is about issues that are fully public knowledge. The concern is greater if the research is done through the course of fieldwork. There is almost no field study in social science research, however judiciously prepared and carefully conducted, that has no effect on the researchers, the subjects, or both. On the other hand, it is imperative to endow readers or public at large to be in a better position to assess, interpret and be alert to the report’s likely biases. Some of the ethical issues in research are obvious, e.g. plagiarism and publishing bias information, failure to protect the dignity of subjects that include maintaining human safety, keeping privacy and confidentiality, and to uphold a nondiscriminatory approach while respecting plurality and diversity. But the list should include the less obvious issues, such as maximising the principle of beneficence and vii

viii

Foreword

minimising non-maleficence, guaranteeing the subjects’ freedom to participate and withdraw, as well as to cover the difficult-to-judge (grey) areas, e.g. social responsibility, treatment towards susceptible participants and communities, and disclosure of research main interest (e.g. the case of deception). The problem is, how to identify those issues in practice. Focusing on the case of Indonesia, the bulk of presentation in this book is concerned precisely with this problem. Readers will find that identifying and defining ethical issues arising before, during, and after the actual conduct of research are far from easy. Yet, those issues are increasingly surfacing in Indonesia, and so are the demands for documentation to be based on when attempts are made to hold institutions and individuals accountable. The documentation is expected not only to address the issues but also to help provide a clear understanding about the boundary which the research activities should not cross. As the scope and nature of the research become more complex—and most likely they will—such tasks will be even more challenging. From this perspective alone, the book’s publication is clearly well timed. But there is more. A well-stated problem is a problem half solved; even if the problem is clear, the solution is not. This is where the last chapter of the book should not be passed up. It tries to fill in the gap by offering a set of recommendations, in which the establishment of Ethics Board in Academic and Research Institutions stands out. I am sure the risks of creating another (supposedly independent from political power) institution in a country like Indonesia have been well thought of by the authors, including the risks of facing bureaucratic bottlenecks typically found in most developing countries. While the merits of having an Ethics Board have been articulated, some potential issues cannot and should not be undermined. First of all, the Board can be of little value to social science researchers if the members lack the professional competence necessary to review diverse forms of research activities. Also, its effectiveness could be constrained by a lack of interactions—hence communication—among the Board, administrators of university and research institutions, scholars, researchers, students, and the gatekeepers (who either act as an intermediary between researchers and potential participants, or have the power to grant or deny permission for access to potential research participants). The question about who will do the actual monitoring and be responsible for its transparency matters, and insofar as the Board ‘go over the board’ is not a remote possibility, so does the question of ‘who monitors the monitor.’ It is important for the Board and other principal components to consistently implement the agreed code of conduct. But it is equally critical to allow researchers to persuade the stakeholders including the Board members, to give fuller recognition to the kind of research they pursue and to how it differs from, say, clinical and biomedical research that directly involves and uses materials of human origin ( e.g. using blood to test the safety and/or effectiveness of drugs). Otherwise, there is a risk that important social sciences research cannot be conducted due to incomprehension or ignorance about the diversity of research nature.

Foreword

ix

The bottom line is, while problems of ethics in social sciences research should be constantly discussed and debated, and the tasks of finding the solution are unmistakably daunting, spelling them out is not only a first step in the right direction but also absolutely necessary. This book serves both purposes and thus deserves full attention from all principal components and stakeholders of this social inquiry process. Iwan J. Azis Professor, and ex Director of Graduate Study Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Regional Science CRP Cornell University Ithaca, USA

Preface

How It began Ignorance is bliss. That saying is most apropos to this book project. I did not expect the time to complete the project which started in 2017 and the challenges when I accepted the request from Dr. Hera Susanti, the then Chair of the Department of Economics of the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, to produce a book on Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, a timely longawaited source and guide for us in-country researchers. And why not, this is only a continuation of an earlier assignment from Professor Bambang Brodjonegoro, Ph.D., the then Dean of the faculty, who appointed me as Chair of the Ethics Committee in the faculty, where the team responded to complaints and reports from various stakeholders at the faculty, and when appropriate recommendations were submitted to the leadership. Ethical issues in social science research are increasingly surfacing and so is the demand for documentation and formalisation to hold institutions and individuals accountable. For this purpose, four undergraduate students were selected through an open recruitment for RAs (Research Assistants): Canyon Keanu Can, Fandy Rahardi, M. Anggada, and Nadia Mauli Arvinta. In general, the applicants belong to among the better students, who usually take on a very heavy load of studies as well as extra-curricular activities, and thus do not have much remaining time for conducting the research for this project. The next challenge came from the language of the relevant literature which is English, not the mother tongue of some of our RAs and thus constitutes a drawback, even though not unsurmountable. A further problem to handle was that half the team or two of four graduated and were therefore looking for a job, no longer able to allocate time to our project. Then there is a wealth of publicly accessible documentation issued by academic and professional institutions the world over, some are referred to as code of conduct. The reason for an international reliance comes from the paucity of similar documents issued by Indonesian institutions, which is not necessarily out of ignorance of international advancements but rather more likely documented as internal guides or rules and regulations. And lastly, this type of

xi

xii

Preface

desk-top research is time consuming and requires English language reading ability and at relatively high speed, given the amount of literature we knew was available out there. The authors hope that the book serves as a handbook, a guide on ethics in conducting social science research in Indonesia. However, not by design but rather as a consequence of the literature and language skills of the authors, it became more efficient to complete the first draft in English. It turns out, however, that this serves our intensions as a benefit instead. We hope to get a draft reviewed before publication. This will allow us to request both Indonesian and other international colleagues to serve as reviewers. It is only after the draft is to our satisfaction that we will put it out for translation into Indonesian as we had always planned for an Indonesian language book on ethics on social science research in Indonesia.

How We Did It Faced with the immensity of the task I reflected on my student days and how I was taught to be start with note taking from literature in the library. But then today it is many decades later when we are continuously reminded of the digital technology that has changed how we do things. I applied the principles of note taking on three (3) by five (5) cards I used to carry in a box walking around campus into a spread sheet, a matrix, with topics and sources serving as the rows and columns. The benefit of current technologies lies not just in storage of our notes but also volume and our practice of note taking. As a student the sources I accessed were limited to journals and books available in the university library. Today, with the internet and the Google search engine, there are practically no walls, no boundaries, with a global reach we can access sources from around the world and thus I had to place limits to focus on top institutions only. In our search from among universities, I divided the world into (1) the Americas; (2) Europe; and (3) Asia to Australia; recognising the need to also consider (4) International Agencies, and (5) professional associations. We were able to access information from numerous sources. I also changed the sequence from reading to hand-written note taking, to identifying sections relevant to the topics and sub-topics of our focus for verbatim copying by cut-and-paste into appropriate cells in the matrix. In this process, actual reading was done only after it was decided that we had covered sufficient ground and were ready to start writing. Materials for a particular topic or sub-topic are found in rows, waiting to be organised to create a part of the overall story being put forth throughout the book which is organised following a research process. Then came the much more difficult part of the project, that of creating a story in writing about ethics in social science research. Given that we are often characterised as favouring an oral culture, writing is not exactly a strongpoint of Indonesian academia in general, and some of our RAs are no exception. On the other hand, the project is saved by two exceptional RAs who like to continue towards an academic career with excellent English and writing skills who are willing to work hard, picking

Preface

xiii

up where others left off. To Fandy Rahardi and Canyon Keanu Can, I say “You are the future.” And thus, I have decided to acknowledge their contributions as co-authors to the book.

What Did We Learn? Our journey through the vast forest of literature on ethics in scientific research taught us many concerns, of which three aspects shall be reflected in this book. It all began with medical experimentation, often with helpless prisoners. The most prominent of which became known from the 1945–46 Nuremberg Trials when numerous German leaders, including medical doctors, were tried as war criminals for participating in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder. But then there were many others prior to and beyond these atrocities carried out with the assistance of and even actually conducted by scientists on helpless subjects. It is the fate of our sources of knowledge, our subjects, our respondents representing the wider community of humanity who should be protected by scientists, whether their direct physical well-being or even indirectly, as is more likely the case in social science research. We also quickly learned that ethics in social science research concerns not only plagiarism, often considered as the only moral, ethical offense or misconduct potentially conducted by social scientists. Instead, research misconduct also includes such actions as fabrication and/or falsification of data or information, carelessness, failure to report conflict of interests among participating researchers. As we show in the book, ethics is not a simple black-and-white issue, as a glass is half full and also half empty. While a researcher is required to protect their sources, there are times when one finds out that one or more of their sources provide false information with the potential of harming others. What should the researcher do? In the meantime, increasingly the scientific and public communities around the world demand a variety of values being upheld in the process. Some of these values include for instance: integrity, honesty, propriety, respect, fairness, transparency, and professionalism. Researchers are required to provide proper documentation on potential conflict of interest among researchers, sources of funds, and informed consent from their sources of information or respondents.

Organisation of the Book The team decided to organise the book according to the process of conducting research. And thus, the book starts with Chapter 1—Introduction—deals with the basic concepts and the history of research ethics which is closed with a view of the present and the future. In Chapter 2—Before Research discusses what a researcher should know about ethics and how to apply that in the design. This is followed by the practice of Ethics During Research presented in Chapter 3, which differentiates

xiv

Preface

between Duty of Protection, and Researchers’ Responsibilities. Ethics continue to have to be adhered to even after completion of a study at the Post-Research stage as described in Chapter 4, which discusses such issues as: Protection of Information, Use and Misuse of Research Results, References and Authorship, and Acknowledgements. In the next Chapter 5, the focus is on Research Misconduct, in which a few types of misconducts and weighted sanctions are highlighted. The last Chapter 6 in the book proposes Recommendations, the most important is the need for the establishment of Ethics Boards in Academic and Research Institutions.

Vote of Thanks The authors would like to thank Dr. Hera Susanti who, as Chair of the Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, for providing Departmental funding and trusting that the team will eventually complete this assignment to prepare this book on Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, which has taken the team some three years to bring to a conclusion. We also like to thank Dr. Teguh Dartanto, who took over the Chairmanship of the Department and supported the team to continue the assignment. Even though they were not able to see the project to its completion, we also thank two research assistants who regrettably could not see the project to its completion for they left the university after graduation in 2018—M. Anggada had to return to his hometown in West Java and Nadia Mauli Arvinta has taken a full-time job. We have requested a number of Indonesianists, both Indonesian and foreign, to review earlier versions of separate chapters. It was not a simple exercise. I realise that we do not have the stature nor the availability of Indonesianists willing to allocate some time to review single chapters. And thus, it took a while and several reminders before we received their queries and comments. As the senior scholar on the team, I took charge of ensuring we accommodated the comments and queries but we did not return our adjustments and amendments made as a result. We would like to thank all the reviewers, as follows: Aris Ananta is Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Indonesia; Iwan Jaya Azis is Professor at Cornell University & the University of Indonesia; Emeritus Professor Anne Booth is Professor of Economics at SOAS; Manneke Budiman is the Director of Academic Development and Learning Resources and Faculty Member, Literature Department, University of Indonesia; James J Fox is Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Professor Emeritus of the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University; DS Gabriel is Professor in Industrial Engineering at the Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia; Hal Hill is the H.W. Arndt Professor Emeritus of Southeast Asian Economies in the Arndt Corden Department of Economics, Crawford School, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific; Terence (Terry) Hull is Emeritus Professor of Demography at The Australian National University; Gavin Jones is Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University; Peter McDonald is Professor of Demography in the Crawford School, The Australian

Preface

xv

National University; Dr. Anuraj Shankar is Senior Research Scientist, Department of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA; Diana Stojanovic Wongkaren Ph.D., is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Technology and Adjunct Researcher at the Demographic Institute at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia; Riris K. Toha Sarumpaet is Professor of Literature, Faculty of Humanities, University of Indonesia; Iwu Dwisetyani Utomo is a Fellow and Ph.D. Convener at the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian National University. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, during the research and from IBER (Indonesia Bureau of Economic Research), ensuring proper publication and distribution of the book. Jakarta, Indonesia 2020

Mayling Oey-Gardiner Faculty of Economics and Business

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Definition and Scope of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Definition of Research Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 What Are Research Ethics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Moral Values in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Why Care About Research Ethics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 The Nuremberg Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 1950s to 1960s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 The Declaration of Helsinki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 1960s to 1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.5 The Belmont Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.6 1980s to 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7 2000s and Onwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Emerging Issues in Research Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Privacy and Big Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Internet-Based Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.3 Reproducibility of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 18 19 21 21 22 24 25

2 Before Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Research Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Fulfilling Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Violations of Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 Biases in Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Research Methods and Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Research Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 32 34 35 40 41 43 44 51

xvii

xviii

Contents

3 Ethics During Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Duty of Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Confidentiality and Participant Willingness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Protection of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Protection of Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Researcher Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Avoiding Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Prevention of Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Maintaining the Researcher’s Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Research Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 60 60 66 73 78 79 82 88 89

4 Post-research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Protection of Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Data Keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Confidentiality: Identifiability of Information Sources . . . . . 4.2 Research Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Manipulation and Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Misuse and Misinterpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 References and Authorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Referencing and Citation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Authorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Avoiding Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93 94 97 101 102 105 106 107 108 113 115

5 Research Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Prominent Issues of Research Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Research Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Other Type of Research Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Questionable Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Sanctions Against Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Light Sanction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Moderate Sanction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Heavy Sanction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Conclusion: Case of Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117 118 119 120 122 123 126 128 128 128 129 129

6 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 6.1 The Need for an Ethics Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

About the Authors

Mayling Oey-Gardiner is Emeritus Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia (FEB-UI), where she has taught for well over four decades. She also holds the Chair of the Social Science Commission of the Indonesian Academy of Science (AIPI). Fandy Rahardi was a student at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia. He currently works as Data Analyst at Prospera and Research Assistant at the Institute for Economics and Social Research FEB-UI (LPEM FEB-UI). Canyon Keanu Can was a student at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia. She now works as a researcher at the Faculty and at Bank Indonesia.

xix

List of Focus Boxes

Focus Box 1.1 Focus Box 1.2 Focus Box 1.3 Focus Box 1.4 Focus Box 1.5 Focus Box 1.6 Focus Box 1.7 Focus Box 2.1 Focus Box 2.2 Focus Box 3.1 Focus Box 3.2 Focus Box 3.3 Focus Box 3.4 Focus Box 3.5 Focus Box 3.6 Focus Box 3.7 Focus Box 3.8 Focus Box 4.1 Focus Box 4.2 Focus Box 4.3 Focus Box 4.4 Focus Box 4.5 Focus Box 4.6 Focus Box 5.1 Focus Box 5.2

Corrupt Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuremberg’s Prescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murders in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helsinki’s Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CIOMS in Social Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puppeteering Data Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Road to Redemption—Ethical and Regulatory Developments since 1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indonesian Research Ethics Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . A Life for a Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Confidentiality and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power and Paternalism in Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On the Basis of Sex—and Other Blind Spots . . . . . . . . . . . . Intimacy and Conflicts in Qualitative Studies . . . . . . . . . . . Privacy, Power, and Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bounded Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guidelines of Distributing Benefits and Burdens to Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Menace of Research Frauds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How BPS Practices Confidentiality when Distributing Raw Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principle of “Do No Harm” and Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . Ignorance of “False Positive” is (not) a Bliss . . . . . . . . . . . . Which Citation Format to Choose? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Author Versus Corresponding Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . Controversy of Self-Plagiarism/Auto-Plagiarism . . . . . . . . ‘If Research Misconduct is Not Equal to Ethical Violation, Then What Is It?’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conflict of Interest in Social Science and Financial Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 11 11 14 19 23 28 33 52 62 65 68 71 74 77 82 91 98 100 103 107 110 115 118 121

xxi

xxii

Focus Box 5.3 Focus Box 5.4 Focus Box 5.5 Focus Box 5.6 Focus Box 5.7

List of Focus Boxes

Controversy of Napoleon A. Chagnon: “Violent Group of Yanomamo” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Misconduct: Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism (FFP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FFP in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionable Research Practices: Misconduct or Not? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Misconduct in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123 124 125 126 130

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5

What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: fulfilling responsibilities . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: violations of human rights . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: biases in research design . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research methods and deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public finance balance of smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research transparency and misuse of research funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: confidentiality and participant willingness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: protection of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: protection of information sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: avoiding bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: non-discriminative behaviour . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: justice in research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: prevention of conflict of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: maintaining the researcher’s integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: data keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: manipulation and transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: misuse and misinterpretation of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: authorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 36 40 41 43 51 53 55 61 67 73 79 80 81 83 88 90 95 97 102 105 108 xxiii

xxiv

Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8

List of Tables

What to “Do” and “Don’t”: contributions and sequencing . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to “Do” and “Don’t”: acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110 113 116

Chapter 1

Introduction

The practice of that which is ethically best – what we call goodness or virtue – involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows, it repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence. —Thomas Huxley

As Indonesia approaches its one-hundredth year of independence, the Government of Indonesia is expending immense effort to improve Indonesia’s quality of human resources and research. Being a nation of more than seventeen thousand islands and with a population exceeding two hundred seventy million people as of 2021, Indonesia has always been a country with great potential. The government’s bid to push growth and development through infrastructure, education, and research has put Indonesia in the world’s spotlight. If Indonesia truly desires to rise to the occasion and become a competitive centre for future innovation and advancement, it must drastically improve in many aspects and must meet numerous international standards. Among those standards are ethical and legal requirements for research. Research funding from both domestic and international sources into Indonesia is increasing, alongside an increase in research publications by Indonesians and by foreigners about Indonesia. Globalisation, the internet of things, and big data have opened the floodgates to an uncharted world of research that affects the lives of everyone, regardless of where or who they are. Greater focus on academia has forced universities and educational institutions to begin transforming themselves for a digital future, where collaboration is indispensable and researchers, institutions, and professionals can no longer work individually. These converging trends, along with other shifts in the environment, demand that Indonesia reform its academic and research landscape to become more competitive so as to better serve the burgeoning and swiftly changing needs of the people and demands of the scientific community.

© Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 M. Oey-Gardiner et al., Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0_1

1

2

1 Introduction

Currently, despite already being regulated in some laws (undang-undang) and decrees (surat keputusan), awareness about research ethics in Indonesia is low, especially outside of the medical sciences. Few institutions have ethical guidelines for research, fewer have ethics boards, and fewer still have guidelines specialised for the unique needs of social science research. Thus, this book attempts to present the principles of social science research ethics in an Indonesian context, delving into the moral foundations which Indonesian ethical principles and laws are built upon and exploring the ethics of various Indonesian cases throughout history. However, due to an unfortunate paucity of literature and published work on research ethics and ethical incidents in Indonesia, this book also draws examples from international cases. It is hoped that those examples from abroad may shed light on how research and publication should be carried out, and that Indonesia may learn from the experience and precedents of other countries in its own journey towards better, more ethical scientific inquiry. Conversely, it is also hoped that foreign researchers interested in studying matters about or related to Indonesia may find value in this book through its discussions of Indonesian ethics and moral practices. The remaining sections of this chapter will be devoted to understanding what research and ethics in general and in Indonesia are, the history behind why the presence of research ethics is hard won and crucial, and the emerging issues in research and ethics which must be imminently addressed. Chapter 2 will proceed with an explanation of the ethical considerations required before research begins, followed by Chapter 3 which discusses the considerations required as research proceeds, and Chapter 4 which examines the necessary considerations after research is completed. Chapter 5 then summarises the research misconducts mentioned in the previous chapters while also providing the related sanctions. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes the book with recommendations on how to navigate the uncertain future. Though research ethics may seem to be an unnecessarily complex process, it is our first barrier of defence against a repetition of the atrocities of the past and against the dissolution of our personal rights, privacy, and intellectual property. Research and knowledge are not without cost—a cost once paid with the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Ethics ensures the balance between humanity and scientific advancement, and it also ensures that research results are used wisely, but what is wise and right may not be the same to all persons at all times in all places. This book illustrates these concerns through case studies found in Focus Boxes, which challenges readers to place themselves in the shoes of researchers and apply what they know of ethics to unravel various dilemmas. The Focus Boxes show that ethics is not as simple as it seems, and yet, not as tedious as it is made out to be. Before proceeding into the depths of research ethics, it is worth remembering that the results of research are used by multitudes of stakeholders. The social sciences, in particular, produce a great amount of research for policy-making. Therefore, while social scientists may be less likely to directly harm their research participants than medical scientists, social scientists have the potential to indirectly harm a far greater number of people with their research. Thus, despite the focus of research ethics being historically centred on medical research, it is no less crucial in social science research.

1.1 Definition and Scope of Research

3

Indonesia’s social scientists, as well as researchers from the world over, would do well to be aware that they do not operate in a vacuum, but rather, in communities of people with their own lives, hearts, and values.

1.1 Definition and Scope of Research Universities should be about more than developing work skills. They must also be about producing civic-minded and critically engaged citizens – citizens who can engage in debate, dialogue and bear witness to a different and critical sense of remembering, agency, ethics and collective resistance. —Henry Giroux

Many debates rage about what research ethics truly is, but before we delve into them, we must first muddle through the confusion regarding the definition of research. While the Oxford Dictionary defines research as the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions, governments use more technical terms to define research. Indonesia’s Law number 18 of 2002 as translated by the authors of this book defines research as: A systematic activity carried out according to rules and methods in order to obtain information, data, and descriptions related to the understanding and proof or disproof of the truth of an assumption and/or hypothesis in the field of science and technology, and also in order to draw scientific conclusions for the progress of science and technology.

Yet, as the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical & Behavioral Research, 1979) mentions, the definition of research is often blurred due to the unclear classification of experimental practices in medicine. Research, particularly in the social sciences, can also be confused with evaluation. LaVelle (2010) from the American Evaluation Association draws several distinctions between research and evaluation. The former aims to generate new knowledge by testing hypothesis and publishing results, whereas the latter searches for information to make decisions by answering key question and reporting answers to stakeholders. While evaluations are regulated by different codes of ethics, many of their ethical issues overlap with research, and evaluations involving human participants at more than minimal risk may be subject to the same rules as research. In this book, we use the definition of research given by the Indonesian government, and we limit our discussions to research in the social sciences. It is also worth emphasising that the scope of ethical considerations in research does not extend only to primary research, but also involves secondary research and all other forms of research. Research is not all about resting hypotheses, but it also attempts to build theories and search for new ones through various qualitative, quantitative, and experimental methods. Ethics is no less important in those forms of research. Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of literature focusing on the ethics of social science research, and, in Indonesia, there is little to no literature at all. Although it is

4

1 Introduction

impossible to entirely exclude biomedicine from our discussions or from the rules we write, it is our goal to create a book of research ethics for social scientist. By doing so, we hope to provide clarity regarding what good social science research entails and to propagate a transparent, accountable, and responsible research environment free of unethical practices. Biomedical research receives much attention because of its great potential for directly harming people, but social scientists, in their research and in the policies they make, have equal potential for harm. Their actions can directly and indirectly harm people and communities. Thus, throughout the book, we also provide case studies about dilemmas in social science research, and we highlight areas particularly vulnerable to unethical conduct, including plagiarism, authorship, harm to information sources, consent, and conflict of interests. Finally, resolving those dilemmas and behaving ethically requires an understanding of what ethics truly is. We explore the concept of research ethics in the next section.

1.2 Definition of Research Ethics Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good to maintain and further life; it is bad to damage and destroy life. —Albert Schweitzer

Ethics attempts to sort out right from wrong. Yet, questions immediately arise of what exactly is right or wrong and how to tell them apart. Further complications emerge when it becomes clear that while some moral principles are found almost universally around the world, other principles are specific to particular cultures. However, understanding the answers to the question posed above is crucial in conducting research, as research often has deep and widespread effects on individuals and societies, regardless of their participation. Ethics becomes a guide for researchers and a safeguard for their subjects. In this chapter, we first explore the influential ideas of philosophers who created moral and ethical frameworks. We then turn to the moral values in Indonesian cultures, and, finally, we discuss in greater detail the importance of research ethics.

Focus Box 1.1 Corrupt Ethics Imagine you are a social scientist studying the business practices of certain companies. You have promised to keep names and other details confidential, regardless of circumstances. However, during your tour of a company’s facilities, you found evidence that the company is falsifying their reports and bribing government officials to avoid being taxed or shut down for their unsanctioned activities in the area.

1.2 Definition of Research Ethics

5

Do you report the company, or do you honour your promise of confidentiality? Your answer would depend on which view of ethics you hold. Consequentialists would choose to report the company, while non-consequentialists would choose to stay silent. Who is correct? How do we choose the best course of action? Many researchers have been called to court for their staunch refusal to testify against various institutions and persons, while some researchers go to court to ask for justice and to stop corrupt activities. Ethical guidelines provide no clear direction to resolve some ethical dilemmas, and our human limitations mean that our responses to such questions are not infallible. We may not be aware of the framework which we use to decide whether an action is right or wrong, and we may never know which moral framework is most ethically correct. Still, we do know that moral framework exists, and in the following section, we explore the different views of people, and the justifications they give for reporting or not reporting a company’s unlawful activities.

1.2.1 What Are Research Ethics? Research ethics, at their very heart, attempt to analyse and provide moral soundness to the interactions between researchers and the people they study. However, research ethics today govern more than just those interactions. They also deal with issues of reporting, publication, dissemination, use of results, and data management. Generally, research ethics falls into the category of normative ethics. Three common frameworks of moral reasoning used in relation with research ethics are consequentialist ethics, non-consequentialist ethics, and virtue ethics. There is no one framework superior to all others, each having strong justifications and passionate critics. As such, when working through a dilemma, utilising multiple frameworks may turn out to be helpful, with each providing unique insights. Additionally, it should be noted that while regulations governing ethical research do exist, regulatory compliance and ethical conduct are not necessarily the same. Researchers often resent the burdens and constraints which such regulations impose, but they should remember that ethics go beyond, and sometimes even against, compliance. Consequentialist ethics. As its name suggests, consequentialist ethics judges whether or not something is right based on its consequences. The approach does not take into account the motivations behind an action or the methods used. For example, many view breaking a promise of confidentiality as wrong, but if a social scientist finds during their research evidence of secret and harmful activities, consequentialist ethics deems it morally right for the scientist to break their promise. By breaching confidentiality, the scientist would have put a stop to harmful activities.

6

1 Introduction

The most famous version of consequentialist ethics is utilitarianism, championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism finds that what brings the greatest utility to the greatest number of people is the ethically right course of action. Cost–benefit analysis may be justified with utilitarian arguments. Non-consequentialist ethics. This approach towards ethics rejects the notion that what is right can be determined from consequences alone. It takes into account motives and methods, stating that actions can be morally right even if it does not promote the greatest good. If we return to the example of the social scientist, the nonconsequentialist approach would recommend keeping confidentiality intact because a promise was made, even if doing so allows harmful activities to continue. The approach is reflected in Immanuel Kant’s works, and it emphasises the fulfilment of duty. Kant believed that you should act only in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action can become a universal law (Israel & Hay, 2006). In his view, to break a promise of confidentiality once would be to condone other breaches of confidentiality. Virtue ethics. It is self-evident that virtue ethics has virtue at the centre of its moral considerations. Virtue is a trait of character which makes whoever possesses it good, but virtue ethics also requires practical wisdom. For instance, well-meaning children often harm those they intend to benefit because they possess virtue but lack practical wisdom (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016). Virtue ethics has been criticised for its relativism, for the fact that moral values can become outdated, and for its conservatism due to its focus on established ways of being and doing (Israel & Hay, 2006). Again, returning to the example of the social scientist, virtue ethics believes that the virtuous scientist would find whether or not to breach confidentiality an easy question, as it would be naturally obvious to them. This short summary of the normative approaches in ethics is not meant to do them justice, nor are the approaches mentioned here the only ones which exist. It is only meant to provide a brief overview. Readers interested in understanding more should refer to the works of the authors mentioned, and to other sources. There is no one, single, most correct view of ethics, and indeed, each person adheres to different moral philosophies. This makes it even more difficult to solve ethical dilemmas and makes the understanding of research ethics even more vital. The different views of ethics can also be seen in some peoples’ belief in ethical relativism, or that acts in one society can be seen as ethical despite being seen as unethical in other societies. While it is true that different cultures have different values, and that ethical decisions are context-based, certain behaviours, such as murder and forced labour, are considered universally wrong and morally indefensible, irrespective of the belief systems of people who practice them (Israel & Hay, 2006). As such, just as human rights are universal, so too should values of ethics be universal. It is, after all, the recognition of the inherent dignity of all members of the human family that is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world (United Nations General Assembly, 1948).

1.2 Definition of Research Ethics

7

1.2.2 Moral Values in Indonesia There is an undeniable link between morals values and ethics. It is in fact, as mentioned previously, central to the normative approach of virtue ethics. Here, we try to explore the universal values which Indonesians uphold, as those values underlie the code of ethics found in this book. For a country with as many cultures, religions, languages, and ethnic groups as Indonesia, attempting to list the values which people adhere to can be a daunting prospect. However, there are two shortcuts available: the national ideology, and folklore. Pancasila: Literally meaning five principles, the Pancasila is the foundational philosophy of Indonesia and the basis from which the country’s Constitution was made. Its five principles are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Belief in the one and only God. A just and civilised humanity. The unity of Indonesia. Democracy. Social justice for all Indonesians.

When applied to ethics in research, the values found in the Pancasila would champion the same principle of justice that the Belmont Report insists upon, and the ideology incorporates the basic human rights each individual is entitled to. Meanwhile, the principle of a democracy based on the will of the people would translate into freedom of choice, and thus, into informed consent. Laws on research and publication must be in line with the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia, and as the Constitution is built upon the Pancasila, those laws stem from the Pancasila too. Thus, those five core values which unite the hundreds of millions of lives and communities in Indonesia are the foundations on which the Indonesian society grows and operates. One major influence on Indonesian values is religion. As the world’s largest archipelago and as the world’s fourth most populous nation, Indonesia’s immense diversity is linked together by shared history. Before Indonesia became the Muslimmajority country that it is today, it was home to sprawling Hindu-Buddhist empires, some of which were vast enough to include Cambodia and Southern Thailand. The entry of Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, and other religions into Indonesia in the recent centuries drastically changed the cultural landscapes across the country, as new values and beliefs meshed with existing ones. This amalgam of beliefs led to the first principle of the Pancasila, which now recognises six official religions in Indonesia. The strong religious roots in Indonesia have extensive ramifications on all aspects of life, from politics to law and even to research and academics. As we explore further the progress of ethics in the world and in Indonesia during the following chapters, the role of religious values will be examined in the context of how they influence people’s worldviews and thus the way they carry out their activities, particularly with regard to research.

8

1 Introduction

Folklore. Like many other cultures, Indonesian folklore exists in many forms, from oral stories to poetry to traditional puppet plays. They emphasise common values such as courage, sacrifice, filial piety, and solidarity. Initially, the connection which these values have with ethics, particularly research ethics, may not be obvious. However, when we turn to the other virtues which Indonesian folklore promotes— including honesty, justice, fairness, duty, responsibility, wisdom, leadership, caution, promise-keeping, compassion, cooperation, and respect (Kantor Bahasa Maluku, 2016; Nuri & Hutama, 2016)—the link becomes far clearer. For example, those values would insist that researchers always maintain their integrity, that research should always be fair, and that researchers have duties, responsibilities, and promises which they must not fail to fulfil. Furthermore, researchers should respect the rights and dignity of all persons with whom they interact, they should not neglect the importance of cooperation and consultation with other parties during all stages of research, and they should constantly exercise caution. These recommendations are not the full extent of desirable research conduct, but they provide an illustration of how familiar moral values within traditional folklores can influence what ethics sees as right or wrong. We base the code of ethics in this book on numerous sources from all over the world, and among those sources are the values which Indonesian cultures see as virtues. Our cultures are not the sole claimant to those virtues, but they are the virtues which guide everyday lives in Indonesia, including the lives of social scientists.

1.2.3 Why Care About Research Ethics? Scientists often protest that the various administrative and procedural burdens which research ethics imposes can be highly cumbersome and costly. In fact, an argument that ethics is unnecessary could be made, especially for the social sciences, where codes of conduct are largely imported—and thus have less particular relevance—from those of biomedicine. Most social scientists are able to do their research appropriately, and ethical violations are less rampant than history makes them out to be. However, ethical violations are also more common than what statistics suggest. Unreported misconducts and minor infractions can likely be found in any institution. Ethical regulations can be seen as rigid rules designed to promote morally good behaviour and to prohibit undesirable behaviour. Indeed, ethics is important because of its role in doing so, but it functions as more than a moral framework. Ethics in research first sprung up to protect the safety, dignity, and rights of participants, and since then, it has evolved to cover a far wider range of areas in research. Resnik (2015) identifies five reasons why ethics is crucial in research:

1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics

9

1. Ethical standards promote the aims of research. The forbidding of actions such as fabrication, falsification, and data misrepresentation, the standards promote knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. 2 Ethical norms nurture the essential values for collaborative work, including trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. 3. Ethics aids in maintaining researchers’ responsibility to the public. Research is often funded using money from the public, and regulations on ethical conduct help ensure accountability. 4. Public trust in the quality and integrity of researchers’ work helps build public support for research, which could potentially increase the funding available for future research. 5. Ethical norms in research ethics echo the norms and values in society. For instance, they encourage compliance to law, fulfilment of social responsibility, protection of human and animal rights, and concern for public health and safety. 6. By preventing harmful ethical lapses, codes of research ethics keep society safe, while also keeping the reputation of science intact. One other benefit which research ethics brings is the ability to navigate through ethical dilemmas, especially when tackling new issues in emerging areas of research. As questions of ethics become ever more complex, having a framework with which to think through various moral dimensions can be helpful. In the following section, we discuss the history of research ethics, providing an examination of several infamous cases throughout the past century. The severity of the harm which those experiments brought to those involved also serves as a compelling justification for the importance of research ethics.

1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics It seems that if you put people on paper and move them through time, you cannot help but talk about ethics, because the ethical realm exists nowhere if not here: in the consequences of human actions as they unfold in time, and the multiple interpretive possibilities of those actions. —Zadie Smith

It is widely regarded that the post-Second World War Nuremberg Trials were what first sparked the movement in research ethics, with the world first developing ethics in medical sciences, and eventually, also in the social sciences. The Nuremberg Trials, which resulted in the Nuremberg Code (see Sect. 1.3.1 The Nuremberg Code) were a series of trials held in 1945 to 1946, in which numerous German leaders were tried as war criminals. Among those trials were the Doctors’ Trials, where twenty medical doctors were tried and found guilty of conducting and participating in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder under the guise of euthanasia, responsible for the gruesome death of millions.

10

1 Introduction

Yet, the Nuremberg Trials were not the first trials which attempted to address war crimes and ethics violations against prisoners of war, nor was the Nuremberg Code the first code that governed medical experimentation. As early as 1891, of all places, Prussia (now Germany) had issued a directive on informed consent. Before this, human experimentation was often done by physicians on their own families and friends, on the basis of only trust. In 1931, amidst political criticisms, Germany created new guidelines which were based on the principle of beneficence, nonmaleficence, human autonomy, and a legal doctrine of human consent (Vollmann & Winau, 1996). None of those codes, nor any code of research ethics published after them, managed to end all forms of unethical practices in research. Atrocious acts committed by researchers continue to occur even today, with deep and long-lasting effects. Meanwhile, makers of ethical rules and regulations struggle to keep abreast of changing times. From Milgram’s obedience studies to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis trials, violations of ethics reveal how far we must still go in our efforts to balance scientific inquiry with considerations for human rights and justice. Research ethics in social sciences comes later in the story and is worryingly underdeveloped. As with the creation of the codes of ethics in medical sciences, the codes of ethics in social sciences were made in response towards highly controversial experiments. However, research ethics in social sciences is too heavily based on practices in medical sciences, and they thus fail to take into account cases specific to the social sciences. Efforts to bridge this gap have been made by various institutions and organisations, but the standardisation, implementation, and enforcement of research ethics in social sciences (and, even in medical sciences) remain lacking. The problem is exacerbated by new emerging issues in the field, such as dilemmas regarding internet-based research, big data, and the environmental impacts of research. Tackling the problems of the future requires an examination of the past. This section provides a short summary of how research ethics has developed in recent times, the experiments which sounded the alarm on the importance of ethical considerations, and the codes of research ethics made in the wake of the public outcry which followed. We begin with Nuremberg and end with the tales behind the making of this book. We then apply the lessons learned from this section on the challenges of the coming years.

1.3.1 The Nuremberg Code The Nuremberg Code, released in 1947, was aimed to prevent repetition of the extremely unethical human experimentation during the Second World War. It is significant in laying down the current thinking within the field of research ethics, providing the foundations for subsequent codes of ethics, including the Declaration of the Helsinki and the Belmont Reports. The Code served to bring international

1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics

11

attention towards the magnitude of the severity that research can pose for its participants, and it highlighted with greater emphasis the importance of ethical principles, particularly informed consent, in research.

Focus Box 1.2 Nuremberg’s Prescription The Nuremberg Code prescribed ten required elements for conducting research on human subjects. In summary, they are as follows: – – – – – – –

Voluntary and informed consent is essential. Risks should be justified by anticipated benefits. Research should be based on prior animal work. Precautions must be taken to protect experimental subjects. Only qualified scientists may conduct research. Physical and mental suffering must be avoided. Research in which death or disabling injury is expected should not be conducted. – Research subjects have a right to withdraw. – Researchers have a duty to terminate harmful experiments. However, the Nuremberg Code was problematic in several ways. First, the Code only applied to non-therapeutic research. Second, the Code was not enforceable by law. Third, it was not only the Germans who engaged in highly questionable experimentation before and during the Second World War. Yet, many saw the Code simply as a condemnation of cruel wartime experiments, with researchers believing that their work already implicitly followed the principles within it. As such, the Nuremberg Code had limited immediate impact (Israel & Hay, 2006). Nevertheless, the wake of the Nuremberg Trials saw closer examination of the relationships between researchers and their subjects, and spurred ethical concerns in some parts of the world.

Focus Box 1.3 Murders in Indonesia While the Nuremberg Trials brought into the spotlight some of the war crimes committed throughout the Second World War, other war crimes remain in obscurity even today and are becoming increasingly forgotten by the general public. Less commonly acknowledged and less extensively documented are the war crimes which occurred in Asia, and among them, in Indonesia. The Dutch Occupation of Indonesia inflicted massive pain on the nation, but the three-year Japanese Occupation from 1942 to 1945 resulted in the deaths of millions of Indonesians in a holocaust rivalling, and even exceeding, the atrocities addressed in Nuremberg. Among the recorded murders are those committed during careless and brutal experiments on helpless Indonesian prisoners and forced labourers by the

12

1 Introduction

Japanese Unit 731. During one occasion, over 900 romusha died in agony in a transit camp on the outskirts of Jakarta due to forced injections of experimental tetanus vaccines, and during another occasion, 21,000 people in Pontianak were murdered at random for no apparent reason. The killings are unethical on the most basic level, but the medical experiments done by the Japanese on Indonesians, for purposes of medical knowledge, advancing biological weaponry, and even sheer curiosity, were monumentally unethical and abhorrent. As Baird and Marzuki (2015) and Gold (1997) reveal, documentation exists of vivisections on conscious—and sometimes also pregnant—prisoners, of tying healthy prisoners to wooden posts spread out on open fields to measure the kill radius of explosives, of kidnapping ordinary citizens to be experimented on when they ran out of prisoners, and many other gruesome horrors. Those horrors were not only subjected to Indonesians, but also to other people in other Japanese-occupied regions. Many experiments were conducted without any technical care and without any specific purpose. Furthermore, Japanese officers, while sometimes concerned about the safety of their prisoners, believed that Indonesians were not intelligent enough to understand what would happen to them. As such, the officers did not bother explaining the experiment on their research subjects, much less seek their consent. The intricacies and the politics behind why the Japanese War Trials are not as famed as the Nuremberg Trials and why even until today justice still has not been achieved for the uncounted victims of those crimes are too complex and beyond the scope of this book. The clear and certain fact is that countless innocents died under inhuman conditions. Indonesia’s history, just like that of other countries, is mired by those abuses, and while forgiveness is the basis of peace, we would do well not to forget the terrors of the past. To forget would be to fail to learn, and the cruelty of the wars and tortures our forefathers experienced have much to teach us. Justice may no longer be attainable, but we may honour the dead by striving to be better and to reform ourselves so that such crimes will not be repeated. Among those reforms must be changed in how research may be done, and thus advancements in research ethics, both in medicine and in social science.

1.3.2 1950s to 1960s The 1950s and the early 1960s saw the commencement of highly controversial research, both in medical sciences and in social sciences. Among them were the Willowbrook hepatitis studies and Milgram’s obedience experiments. They were first in a long series of severe scientific misconduct, and they led to the creation

1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics

13

of more formalised and legally enforceable codes of research ethics, including the Belmont Report. Meanwhile, Pappworth’s paper on human ‘guinea pigs’ in experimentation gave fuel to further progress as public awareness of widespread unethical practice rose. Willowbrook hepatitis studies. The Willowbrook State School Study began in 1952 and ended in 1976. The study saw mentally challenged children deliberately infected with hepatitis on the premise that they would have contracted it anyway, and it would be safer for them to contract it under controlled conditions. When Willowbrook closed its doors to new students, the hepatitis programme continued accepting them. Parents were coerced into consenting their children to participate as the only way for their children to be admitted to the school, and they were not informed about the hazards involved. There are those who believe that the experiment did not violate ethical principles, citing that the benefits outweighed the potential harms. Researchers did not expose the children to greater risks than those they would otherwise have been exposed to as hepatitis was prevalent at the school. Others believe that the study used undue inducement, failed to acquire adequate consent, exploited vulnerable populations, and was unfair in the selection of participants. The School could have chosen from its 1,000 adult staff before involving children, and the prevalence of hepatitis in the School could have been prevented with better hygiene conditions. Milgram’s obedience experiments. During the 1960s, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted experiments to explore people’s obedience to authorities. Participants were led to believe they were administering shocks of increasing voltage to ‘learners’ when the ‘learners’ failed to achieve learning objectives. The ‘learners’ were actually collaborators of Milgram, and they were placed in a separate room so participants could only hear, but not see, them. ‘Learners’ would shout and pound at the walls and would ultimately stop making noise with the intent to convince participants that they were in pain and had, in the end, died. If participants attempted to withdraw, the supervising experimenter would order them to continue, up to four times, with increasing vehemence. Both the results and the ethics of the experiment sparked lengthy public debate. Participants wrote to Milgram of their gratitude for having been part of the experiment, volunteering to help in future experiments. Yet, critics pointed to the stress and trauma participants were exposed to, the difficulty for them to withdraw, and the inadequate debriefing process. As such, the experiment was responsible for the re-evaluation of deception in research. Pappworth’s ‘Human Guinea Pigs: A Warning’. Maurice Pappworth published a journal article in 1962 which exposed to the public two decades of harmful experiments, often conducted on vulnerable populations, and without appropriate consent. He then released, in 1967, an expanded version of the article in a book entitled Human Guinea Pigs: Experimentation on Man. Despite warnings not to do so, Pappworth named in the book those responsible for conducting unethical research, including the US government agencies’ studies on oblivious patients, children, and penal inmates. The huge public and professional debate which followed demonstrated that the Nuremberg Code’s principles were beginning to ingrain themselves into society.

14

1 Introduction

Pappworth’s article and book led to demands for greater compliance to proper scientific conduct, and resulted in stricter codes of ethics and the establishment of ethics committees, which would have come much later had it not been for the book. Trust, so important in pre-war research relationships, was giving way to a more symmetrical relationship of informed consent.

1.3.3 The Declaration of Helsinki As the Nuremberg Code’s failure in maintaining ethical principles in research became more apparent, there were those who sought to rectify the situation. The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, adopted in 1964, was one of the products of those efforts. It draws on the Nuremberg Code, but addresses the gaps left by the Code. The Declaration covers therapeutic research, introduces the concept of legal incapacity, and emphasises researchers’ responsibility for the well-being of their subjects in all instances. The Declaration of Helsinki is not legally binding in international law. Instead, it draws its authority from the degree to which it influenced, or was codified in, national and regional legislation and regulations (Israel & Hay, 2006). The Declaration was, in essence, responsible for setting up the Institutional Review Board process and is still referred to in codes of research ethics from numerous institutions, particularly journals.

Focus Box 1.4 Helsinki’s Responsibilities Since it was first adopted in 1964, the Declaration of Helsinki has been revised seven times. Each revision gives breath to the document as it adopts new clauses in response to changing times and needs. Its original version contained twelve basic precepts, and those central tenets remain unchanged. The latest version of the Declaration may be summarised as follows: – It is the highest duty of physicians and medical researchers to protect the health, well-being, and rights of their patients and research subjects. – Research subjects have a right to self-determination, privacy, confidentiality, dignity, and respect. – The responsibility for the protection of research subjects must always rest with the physician. – Ethical, legal, and regulatory norms and standards for research involving human subjects in relevant countries as well as applicable international norms and standards must be taken into consideration. – Research may only be conducted by qualified persons. – Research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subject

1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics

15

– Harm must be minimised. Appropriate compensation should be given to participants. – Groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research. All vulnerable groups and individuals should receive specifically considered protection. – Research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles. The design of the study must be clearly justified. – The research protocol must be submitted for consideration, comment, guidance, and approval to the concerned research ethics committee before the study begins. – Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. For research subjects incapable of giving informed consent, informed consent from the legally authorised representative must be sought. – Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations, and conflict of interests must be declared in the publication.

1.3.4 1960s to 1970s Public trust in research deteriorated further when, only two years after the Declaration of Helsinki was adopted, anesthesiologist Henry Beecher published an exposé similar to Pappworth’s Human Guinea Pigs. Beecher’s revelation of even more unethical practices, followed by some particularly contentious experiments in the early 1970s—among them the San Antonio contraceptive study, Zimbardo’s mock prison experiments, the Tearoom Trade study, and the end of the Tuskegee syphilis trials— resulted in the creation of the Belmont Report and more stringent monitoring of institutions and research. Beecher’s ‘Ethics and Clinical Research’. In 1966, Beecher wrote a paper which detailed twenty-two examples of research studies with controversial ethics conducted by reputable people and published in major journals. He noticed that excessive financial and professional pressure often caused researchers to behave unethically, and that standard ethical principles, such as those of the Nuremberg Code, were being systematically ignored by federally funded research in the United States. Beecher wrote of the importance of informed consent and the need for researchers to uphold their responsibilities. He also developed in the paper a calculus for risk–benefit analysis. Before Beecher’s paper was published, it was still generally believed that unethical research could not have been conducted in countries as highly developed as the United States. The idea that breaches of ethical conduct in experimentation were by no means rare, but also universal, rocked both the public and professional world (Harkness et al.,

16

1 Introduction

2001). The series of experiments which followed the paper did nothing to disprove Beecher’s claims. Although his paper was criticised for creating what was perceived as undue scepticism for scientific inquiry, Beecher himself wrote in the paper that “medicine is sound, and most progress is soundly attained,” however, if unethical research continues uninhibited, it “will do great harm to medicine” (Beecher, 1966). Laud Humphreys’ Tearoom Trade. Published in 1970, Humphreys’ book, and the study behind it, is a landmark case in social science research ethics. Setting out to document and study the behaviour of homosexual men, Humphrey posed as a voyeur and offered to be the ‘watchqueen’ in ‘tearooms’ where men often had anonymous, quick, and free intercourse with each other. ‘Watchqueens’ were volunteers who kept guard, alerting the men if anyone passed by the ‘tearooms.’ The ‘tearooms’ were usually public restrooms located near highways, and, unbeknown to the men he watched over, Humphreys would record their car licence plate numbers. He then lied to government agencies to obtain the addresses of his subjects. After waiting a year so he would not be recognised—a year during which Humphreys changed everything about himself and spied on his subjects’ houses and families—he posed as a social health worker. Under that guise, he sought to get information about the daily lives of his subjects (Warwick, 1973). The results of the study were significant, revealing for the first time the motivations of men who participated in impersonal sex. Long believed to be violent social deviants, Humphreys proved that those men lived ordinary lives. His work started a lasting dialogue about the ethics of research in social sciences and of various research methods. Some of the transgressions Humphreys was accused of are failure to obtain informed consent, deceiving government officials and research subjects, violating the privacy of research subjects, and risking grave damage to the psyche and reputation of his subjects (Holden, 1979). Yet, Humphreys defended himself, believing that his methods were aimed to minimise response bias. He argued that an area of study should not be avoided simply because of its inherent difficulty or socially sensitive nature, and that he would have gone to extreme measures to protect the confidentiality of the data. Indeed, the identities of his subjects remained protected, and the book did help wash away negative stereotypes associated with same-sex impersonal intercourse. Nevertheless, the ethics and justification behind Humphreys’ research are still debated today for the questions that it raises, among which is how far freedom of research should be allowed to go (Warwick, 1973). San Antonio contraceptive studies. In San Antonio, Texas, 1971, over seventy poor Mexican–American women participated in a research to determine the side effects of an oral contraceptive. After several weeks, researchers switched the contraceptive with a placebo, without informing participants. As a result, ten of the women became pregnant with unexpected children. The study has been criticised for exploiting vulnerable populations, for withholding essential information from participants, and for conducting research where the risks outweighed the benefits. The study used deception unjustifiably, yielded no useful results, and did not advance medical knowledge.

1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics

17

Zimbardo’s mock prison experiment. Conducted in Stanford University for six days during August 1971 by psychology professor Phillip Zimbardo, the mock prison experiment is infamous for its methods and results. The experiment was originally designed to last for fourteen days in order to explore the psychological effects of perceived power. It focused on the relationship between prison guards and prisoners, involving twenty-four male college students—ten ‘prisoners,’ eleven ‘guards,’ two reserves, and another who dropped out—each of whom were paid fifteen dollars. The ‘prisoners’ were treated as real prisoners: they were arrested in their own homes by the police without warning, taken to the police station to have their identities recorded, blindfolded on their way to the ‘prison,’ stripped searched, and given new identities. Three ‘prisoners’ were placed in each ‘prison cell’ and were watched by three ‘guards.’ Very quickly, participants had internalised their roles, with ‘guards’ being excessively abusive to ‘prisoners.’ ‘Prisoners’ starved themselves in protest and showed clear signs of serious distress (Zimbardo, 2007). As such, the experiment was terminated prematurely when an observer protested strongly against what participants were experiencing. The outcomes of Zimbardo’s experiment were important in demonstrating many psychological phenomena and were able to influence change in how prisons in the United States were run. However, its ethics is far less impressive. Zimbardo himself expressed concerns regarding the conflict of interests which could—and did—arise due to his multiple roles as researcher and as ‘superintendent’ of the ‘prison.’ He also did not anticipate that the experiment would escalate to such a level. Furthermore, the experiment exposed participants to physical, mental, and emotional harm, greatly restricted participants’ ability to withdraw, and did not obtain fully informed consent. Participants did not consent to be ‘arrested’ in their own homes, nor did they agree to be subjected to the humiliation and abuse which they went through (McLoed, 2017). Finally, although participants were debriefed, the debriefing process was inadequate and only occurred after a considerable length of time had passed. Yet, the experiment was approved by Stanford’s Institutional Review Board and funded by the United States Office of Naval Research. Thus, placing all blame for the violations of ethics in the experiment on the researchers alone would be to gravely overlook the failings of review boards. Zimbardo’s experiment is often used as an example of what not to do in research, but it should also serve as a reminder that review boards must be more vigilant in their duties (Tolich, 2014). Tuskegee syphilis trials. The Public Health Service initiated experiments to document the natural course of syphilis in impoverished African-American men. The trials began in 1932, when there was no cure yet for the disease. The hundreds of men who participated with the promise of treatment were told that the experiment would last only for six months, when, in fact, neither happened. The trials lasted for forty years and the men were never treated. Researchers only pretended to provide treatment, men from the control group who became infected were never informed that they had contracted the disease, and, even after penicillin was found to be an effective cure, the antibiotic was purposefully made unattainable to participants. By the time the

18

1 Introduction

whistle was blown on the experiment in 1972, numerous men had become disabled and died, and their wives and children were infected with syphilis. Again, the trials exploited vulnerable populations, used deceptive methods, failed to fully inform participants, did not protect participants from harm, and had little to no benefit. The Tuskegee syphilis trials involved the same misconducts as many before it did, but it stands out for its scale and greatness of harm. Its revelation caused such an uproar that the US government was forced to reform its institutions.

1.3.5 The Belmont Report In light of the series of scandals which emerged during the 1960s and the 1970s, it became clear to everyone that scientific misconduct was rife in many institutions and that existing ethical guidelines were inadequate to govern all types of research. As people’s outrage grew, in 1974, the United States was forced to form its National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research. The Commission was tasked to monitor Institutional Review Boards, to search for the principles which should underlie research, and to develop guidelines for ethical conduct. In 1979, the Commission published those guidelines in what it called The Belmont Report: Ethical Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research. While the Report referred to earlier codes of ethics, notably the Nuremberg Code, the Commission noted that such rules are often unable to tackle complex situations, are difficult to interpret and apply, and at times come to a conflict. Therefore, the Commission offered in the Report only three broad principles—respect for persons, beneficence, and justice—as a basis from which specific rules may be created. Indeed, the three principles are central in the development of research ethics and ethical governance, and the Belmont Report has become a required reading for those studying research ethics. The three principles may be broken down as follows: Respect for Persons: Individuals must be treated as autonomous human beings and not as a means to an end. To respect people’s autonomy is to give them freedom of choice, and, therefore, researchers must obtain voluntary and informed consent from prospective participants. Researchers must also respect the privacy of research subjects. However, the Belmont Report recognises that people’s capacity for autonomous decision-making varies from time to time. Extra protection must be extended to those with diminished autonomy. Beneficence: Researchers have a responsibility to do good and to ensure people’s well-being. Harm must be minimised in line with the principle of nonmaleficence), and benefits must be maximised. Research design must include adequate precautions to handle risks, and research may only be conducted if a favourable risk-benefit ratio is produced. However, it must be noted that maximising benefits does not equate to allowing the minority to suffer harm for the good of the majority; hence, the principle of justice.

1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics

19

Justice: The distribution of the burdens and benefits of research must be fairly distributed. In order to prevent exploitation of vulnerable populations, selection of participants must be equitable, following fair procedures.

1.3.6 1980s to 1990s The two decades after the Belmont Report was released saw rapid worldwide development in research ethics. Institutions, from the World Health Organisation to South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council, began publishing their own codes of research ethics. Furthermore, the Cartwright Inquiry in New Zealand gave strength to the movement towards greater respect for human rights, as changes took place to create a system for more accountability in research. CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. The World Health Organisation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation established the Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in 1949 to prepare advice on health and research ethics. In 1982, CIOMS proposed its Guidelines which were based on the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report. However, the CIOMS Guidelines differed from its predecessors in that it took into account countries’ diverse socio-economic conditions, cultures, religions, laws, and bureaucratic arrangements (Israel & Hay, 2006) and explored how ‘universal’ principles can be applied in developing countries. The CIOMS Guidelines bring up multi- and transnational research, examine the principle of justice to a greater extent, and focus on the exploitation of vulnerable populations and low-resource countries. It also emphasises the need for institutional review boards to be set up, with the boards comprising all stakeholders so that communities’ interests and cultural values are represented.

Focus Box 1.5 CIOMS in Social Science The consideration for diversity in all aspects, for multi- and transnational research, and for exploitation of vulnerable populations makes the CIOMS Guidelines highly relevant for social science research, which must indeed take into account the many facets of society. The Guidelines have been revised thrice since they were first released. Several of the principles included in it are: – Ethical justification and scientific validity must be provided for research involving humans. – Research should be submitted to and approved by ethics review committees. Externally sponsored research should be assessed also by local ethics committees.

20

1 Introduction

– Informed consent must be received from individual participants. Researchers must provide all essential information regarding research. – The risks of the study may not outweigh the benefits. The benefits of research must be distributed fairly. If research is done primarily in developing countries, it is those countries who should receive most of the benefits of research. – Research involving vulnerable persons, children, and people incapable of giving consent, women, and pregnant women should be subject to more stringent oversight. They must be treated with respect and should not be exploited as a means to and ends. – The confidentiality of data generated by research and the privacy of participants must be protected. – The capacity for institutions to conduct ethical and scientific reviews should be strengthened. The Cartwright Inquiry. When it was made public that New Zealand’s National Women’s Hospital had been conducting unethical research, the government began an inquiry, in 1987, to assess and respond to the revelation. It was found that the Hospital had been conducting a study since 1966 which ‘involved following women with major cervical abnormalities without definitively treating them, and without their knowledge or consent’ (Women’s Health Association, 2014). Twenty years later, many of the women had developed invasive cervical cancer and died. The Inquiry found that the accusations were true, and the Cartwright Report, containing findings and recommendations, was released in 1988. The recommendations in the Report were followed, and reforms were conducted not only in New Zealand, but also in other parts of the world. Patients were to be given respect for their human dignity, including respect for their right to fully informed consent and to decide which treatments to undertake. Ethics committees for the protection of human subjects were established—with equal representation—and a system was set up for patients to express their grievances. Although the Cartwright Inquiry has been criticised to be overly feminist, the changes which it created have been successful in better protecting the rights of both patients and research participants. By the end of the 1990s, the United States, the UK, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Australia, and several other countries had created their own codes of research ethics and systems of ethics review committees. Each country varied in their approaches. For example, Australia, in particular, had developed specific regulations to protect its vulnerable Aborigine populations. Norway was among the first to create codes of research ethics specific for the social sciences; it had established three national committees to monitor research in 1990, one of them being the National Committee for Research Ethics in Social Sciences and Humanities. Meanwhile, Denmark took the opposite turn. In the mid-1990s, Denmark had decided that codes of ethics for

1.4 Emerging Issues in Research Ethics

21

social sciences were not needed. However, it seemed that Denmark was not alone in thinking so. Until the mid-2000s, in spite of advancements in biomedical research ethics, research ethics in social sciences saw little to no development.

1.3.7 2000s and Onwards Much in the field of research ethics has focused on biomedical research. Indeed, codes of research ethics for social sciences borrow much from biomedicine. Still, while it is true that harm done by medicine is often more direct and more heavily publicised, misconduct in social sciences is not less harmful nor less unethical. Developments in social science research ethics are a reflection of this realisation by institutions all over the world, and the 2000s marked the start of those developments. The year 2003 saw Canada’s creation of its Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee. During the following year, the European Union released its RESPECT Principles for Ethical Socio-economic Research, an aspirational code of conduct for all countries in the region. In 2006, the United Kingdom’s Economic and Social Research Council’s Research Ethics Framework came into force. Universities, associations, journals, and other institutions also began drafting their own codes of research ethics, some with codes designed specifically for research in social sciences. Yet, research ethics do not end with scientific conduct only. It involves publication ethics, authorship, plagiarism, data storage, use of results, conflict of interests, and far more. Among the methods many countries have used to prevent ethical violations is the establishment of ethics committees and institutional review boards. However, even those attempts are flawed, as ethics committees are prone to corruption and selfish motivations. Ethics committees frequently wind up excessively following administrative protocols instead of observing ethical principles, and the lengthy administrative protocols are often put in place to protect the research institution from legal liabilities instead of the welfare of the participants of research. These concerns are thrown into further jeopardy as new, emerging methods and issues in research make ethics even more difficult to grapple with. Today’s codes of ethics do cover those concerns, encompassing more than just the protection of research subjects. Greater attention has also been directed towards the new methods of research that the digital age brings—an issue we raise in the next section.

1.4 Emerging Issues in Research Ethics There’s no question that as science, knowledge and technology advance, that we will attempt to do more significant things. And there’s no question that we will always have to temper those things with ethics. —Ben Carson

22

1 Introduction

Today’s media blasts out scandals and controversies in volumes louder than ever before, with lightning speed and global reach. Ethical misconducts do not only threaten the credibility and reputation of certain persons, institutions, or professions anymore; they also threaten the credibility of nations and governments. With watchers becoming more alert and ethical dilemmas becoming more complicated, researchers have a greater burden to ensure good, responsible scientific conduct, especially as the hype for social considerations, sustainability, and the like introduce new variables to consider. As social scientists, the new methodologies and considerations which come with these issues pose both shining opportunities and gruelling challenges. Big data and internet-based research open up new realms of possibilities for social research, as massive amounts of data, even to the personal level, become accessible at our fingertips. The extent of beneficial insights with such availability of data is seemingly boundless and powerful. Yet, simultaneously, the extent of harm which such data can bring is frightening—as we have all seen in recent events and uproars, as our privacy and right to autonomy become increasingly vulnerable. Critical issues regarding the quality of research and the potential for bias in an era of big data and digital research also arise. In this section, we discuss three of those emerging issues and the various ethical questions related to them. We hope that through this discussion, social scientists will become better equipped to navigate morally through the ethical dimensions of the new developments the world undergoes today. Although most researchers in Indonesia have yet to grapple with the issues discussed here, we believe that, as they are likely to become more common in the near future, some guidance would be beneficial. Cases regarding several emerging issues, such as big data and internet-based research, are also explored throughout the rest of the book. It is hoped that further analysis in the following chapters will lend clarity to the murkiness of the issues in this chapter.

1.4.1 Privacy and Big Data The European Union has recently enforced its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and America is still reeling from the Cambridge Analytica incident (see Focus Box 1.6. Puppeteering Data Strings). Elsewhere in the world, there is almost nothing standing between our privacy and the whole host of websites collecting, processing, and analysing our data, often without our consent or knowledge. This issue is clearly linked with big data. As the fourth phase of industrialisation unravels, the mass availability of data opens up an enticingly large number of research possibilities and has numerous implications for all sectors in the economy. Among the less nefarious uses of such abundant data is the detection of consumer patterns, but misuse of data can have far-reaching and harmful effects.

1.4 Emerging Issues in Research Ethics

Focus Box 1.6 Puppeteering Data Strings Data science is currently faced with intense suspicion. After Cambridge Analytica used millions of Facebook users’ data to manipulate voting outcomes during several instances—most famously Donald Trump’s presidency campaign—people have trusted the safety and privacy of their digital spaces less and less. People have blamed Facebook for failing to protect their users’ data, and, to an extent, they are not wrong. Cambridge Analytica is at fault too for breaching the terms they agreed to with Facebook, even if they rejected any allegation of wrongdoing. However, a question yet to be answered goes as follows: Should the data scientists and psychologists employed by the corporation also be made to answer for their work?

The whistleblower who alerted the public regarding Cambridge Analytica’s activities was Christopher Wylie, a data scientist employed by the company. In his interview, he expressed his regret for having participated in grossly unethical experiments involving whole countries (Cadwalladr & GrahamHarrison, 2018). Yet, despite his and some of his fellow employees’ regret for participating in dubious experiments, other technology firms are putting in considerable effort to hire Cambridge Analytica’s former employees (Sandler, 2018). Whether or not those working for Cambridge Analytica should be held accountable for their actions is a difficult question to answer, particularly as they may not have had the luxury to choose or the ability to report what they were doing. They may also not have been fully aware of what they were doing and the consequences of it, and reports by the media regarding the company’s activities may not be completely true. The blame for the massive violation of ethics in the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal cannot be placed on one party only. In their work for their employers, data scientists must certainly be more alert regarding the implications of their actions. But the government and other regulatory institutions are also to blame for their failure in creating and enforcing rules Europe’s GDPR is an improvement as it challenges the current status quo in the data and technology industry, and public outrage will serve as a potent driver in forcing governments to quickly adapt to the new terrain of big data. If anything, the scandal is a reminder that the days of unethical research have not been left behind in the past. It is a wake-up call for everyone that even in today’s advanced world where ethics has made much advancement, there is still a long distance to cover before regulators and ethics review boards may rest comfortably—and, perhaps, that distance may even be an infinite one as new developments force continuous adaptation to new ethical dilemmas.

23

24

1 Introduction

All research methods have their risks and promised benefits, and, as with all other methods, big data should be used with care and constant vigilance. Essentially, the concept of big data can be defined as: a term that refers to the enormous increase in access to and automated use of information: It refers to the gigantic amounts of digital data controlled by companies, authorities and other large organisations which are subjected to extensive analysis based on the use of algorithms. Big Data may be used to identify general trends and correlations, but it can also be used such that it affects individuals directly. —European Economic and Social Committee (2017)

The European Economic and Social Committee (European Economic and Social Committee, 2017) also adds that although the definition may be a useful starting point with which to understand big data, it fails to appropriately highlight the reuse of personal data and its secondary value. Most discussions on the ethics of big data focus on people’s privacy and right to manage personal data. Yet, the issues surrounding big data are far more diverse, including awareness and active consent, control, trust, ownership, surveillance and security, digital identities, tailored realities, risk of deanonymisation, and the digital divide (European Economic and Social Committee, 2017). There are also risks of manipulation of individuals’ behaviour, of abuse of informational reuse and unauthorised data, and of inaccurate conclusions drawn from big data. In short, big data requires close examination of those who have control over it (Herschel & Miori, 2017). Worryingly, however, data science is developing at a speed faster than governments and institutions can hope to catch up with, and, as displayed by recent scandals and uproars, they have yet to understand the legal, ethical, and cultural issues associated with collection, storage, and studying of big data (Saqr, 2017). Big data has the potential, and to an extent has already succeeded, to change the world. But whether it will make the world a better place depends on how various stakeholders tackle the ethical dilemmas regarding it. The same sentiment also echoes in our next discussion about internet-based research.

1.4.2 Internet-Based Research Much like big data, internet-based research has caused considerable stir in the scientific and ethics communities. In the past, internet-based research was highly data driven, but the evolution of the internet into a place and tool for communication and socialisation has given way to a more human-centred approach to internet-based research (Buchanan & Zimmer, 2016). This has made the internet an even more popular site to do research, as it is a quick way to gain access to a large number of respondents without having to spend much time or resources (Committee for Protection of Human Subjects, 2016). Yet, those developments have created new dilemmas on how to regulate internet-based research, and how researchers should uphold their

1.4 Emerging Issues in Research Ethics

25

duties of respect for persons, justice, and beneficence in various virtual scenarios, as well as their responsibilities to maintain the quality of research. Broadly defined, the internet-based research is “research which utilizes the Internet to collect information through an online tool, such as an online survey; studies about how people use the Internet, e.g. through collecting data and/or examining activities in or on any online environments; and/or, uses of online data sets, databases, or repositories” (Buchanan & Zimmer, 2016). Most ethical guidelines on internet-based research emphasise consent procedures and people’s right to privacy (Harriman & Patel, 2014). The nature of the internet brings confusion and questions on what public and private spaces are, on the role of active and informed consent, on data security, confidentiality and integrity, and on intellectual property rights. However, recruitment methods and measures of protection should also be of high concern in discussions about internet-based research. The disruption and discomfort which different recruitment methods pose on online communities and societies should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, because researchers have less control over situations in online environments, more rigorous attention should be put on ensuring that participants do not suffer from harm, particularly of the psychological nature. Unfortunately, the advent of internet-based research also challenges institutions, as they struggle trying to keep up with current technologies. Few institutions have regulations or guidelines to help direct researchers through internet-based research, and debates are still ongoing regarding the role of institutional review boards and ethics committees in such research. Their inexperience in dealing with cases regarding internet-based research undermines their ability to ensure ethical conduct. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the creation of one single policy to regulate internet-based research is highly unlikely as there is too much diversity in internet culture, values, and modes of operation for it to be possible (Convery & Cox, 2012). Nevertheless, it is not impossible to create guidelines for internet-based research. In fact, the Association of Internet Researchers (2012) published recommendations of considerations researchers must make when conducting such research. Listing the recommendations in question form allows for the flexibility required to deal with the diverse and dynamic array of situations and contexts found in internet-based research. Again, along with big data, internet-based research can reveal many startling, useful, and powerful insights on human behaviour and characteristics. Simultaneously, they can also be utilised for harmful or unethical purposes. Their contributions to the welfare of society will greatly depend on the morals of their users and uses.

1.4.3 Reproducibility of Results When high-level frauds and flawed statistical analyses were exposed and linked with popular journals in the field of psychology, heated arguments ensued. In response to those events, a crowd-sourced project was undertaken to attempt reproduction of

26

1 Introduction

one hundred research findings in psychology. Although there are critiques about the methods and criteria of reproduction, the project’s results suggested that only thirtynine published studies in psychology had key findings which were reproducible (Baker, 2015). Other projects on replication and reproduction of results suggested higher incidence of reproducibility—in economics, the reproducibility rate may exceed seventy per cent—but those higher rates are still less than desirable (Saxena, 2016). They indicate that the journal articles and results we rely on to make all types of decisions, from medicine to public policies, are, in truth, not to be trusted. Of course, it is unrealistic to expect that experiments conducted using different equipment by different people in different situations will always yield the same results. In fact, there are competing definitions of reproducibility, and they create even more confusion in an already turbulent discussion (Plesser, 2018). One definition of reproducibility, from the Association of Computing Machinery (2018), takes measures to distinguish the term from other similar terms: Repeatability (same team, same experimental setup): The measurement can be obtained with stated precision by the same team using the same measurement procedure, the same measuring system, under the same operating conditions, in the same location on multiple trials. For computational experiments, this means that a researcher can reliably repeat her own computation (Association of Computing Machinery, 2018). Replicability (different team, same experimental setup): The measurement can be obtained with stated precision by a different team using the same measurement procedure, the same measuring system, under the same operating conditions, in the same or a different location on multiple trials. For computational experiments, this means that an independent group can obtain the same result using the author’s own artefacts (Association of Computing Machinery, 2018). Reproducibility (different team, different experimental setup): The measurement can be obtained with stated precision by a different team, a different measuring system, in a different location on multiple trials. For computational experiments, this means that an independent group can obtain the same result using artefacts which they develop completely independently (Association of Computing Machinery, 2018). The variation in the findings of experiments during efforts to reproduce results suggests that in order to truly understand the effects or causes of phenomena, we must repeat experiments more times than previously thought and we must consider the different conditions during each trial (Lithgow et al., 2017). Experiments and results which cannot be repeated do not provide for a solid foundation to build on. Unfortunately, the heavy pressure to publish, selective reporting, poor use of statistics, and

1.4 Emerging Issues in Research Ethics

27

complicated protocols all lead to questionable research (Springer Nature, 2016), for example, editors’ reluctance to take appropriate action, unclear procedures, journals’ hesitance to retract publications and their indifference towards informal complaints, and lack of standard mechanisms to request data make review and corrections of existing research difficult (Allison et al., 2016). Additionally, the pervasive bias to publish only positive results and the skewed review process which prioritizes the novelty of findings over their truth further propagates an environment where misconduct goes unnoticed. For example, the peer review process of some journals mentions explicitly that at the initial stage of screening, even before they reach peer reviewers, papers which are not deemed or interesting enough will be rejected. Furthermore, statistical choices made on the whim of researchers give them the freedom to abuse experiments and data until they produce significant results (Yong, 2012). The threat which this “reproducibility crisis” poses towards the integrity and advancement of science in all fields of study—not only in psychology or medicine, but also in economics, business, and other fields of social science—should not be taken lightly. While it may not be as severe a crisis as the general media claims, failure to replicate results can have dangerous implications. The high prevalence of studies with poor designs and inadequate quality lead to unreliable results and stunted scientific development. In social sciences, unreliable results lead to bad policies, which in turn can have adverse impacts lasting many years into the future. Researchers have responsibilities they know they should fulfil, including to verify the truth of their work. But researchers are human, too. If research and science are to maintain their reputation as promoters and guardians of knowledge, institutions must reform their incentive structures to be more supportive of good conduct and reproducible research (International Economic Development Council, 2011). Throughout this book, themes from this chapter will rise again and again. As a whole, we have come this far in our efforts to promote good scientific conduct by responding to ethical violations. The lessons learned from history—such as what actions are considered unethical and what their consequences are—become the foundations for today’s codes of ethics, and the emerging issues around research provide a guide on how to move forward. Instead of merely responding to misconduct, we must try instead to prevent misconduct from occurring. As institutions all over the world attempt to adapt to the constantly changing world, so too must we try to be at the frontier of scientific excellence. Indonesia does not have a gleaming history of ethical research conduct. Even with laws regulating research put in place by the central government, rare enforcement has led to blatant unethical behaviour which is commonplace in many of the country’s institutions. This book is an attempt to remedy the situation, with the hope that it will spearhead an era of more accountable, transparent, and responsible research in the country. Scientific excellence requires excellence in all aspects, including that of ethics.

28

1 Introduction

Focus Box 1.7 The Road to Redemption—Ethical and Regulatory Developments since 1945 1945 1946 1947 1948 1956 1961 1961 1962 1963 1964 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1970 1971 1971 1972 1972 1978 1979 1982

1987 1987 1989 1990 1991 1991

Nuremberg Trials commence. Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal commence. Nuremberg Code released. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Willowbrook hepatitis studies commence. Milgram’s obedience experiments commence. Draft of Declaration of Helsinki released. Pappworth’s paper on human guinea pigs published. Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital cancer study conducted. Declaration of Helsinki adopted by World Medical Association. Beecher’s paper on unethical research published. First institutional research ethics committee in South Africa formed at University of Witwatersrand. Australia’s NHMRC publishes Statement on Human Experimentation and Supplementary Notes. Cervical cancer experiments commence at New Zealand’s National Women’s Hospital. Pappworth’s book Human Guinea Pigs: Experimentation on Man published. Laud Humphreys’ Tearoom Trade published. San Antonio contraception study conducted. Zimbardo’s mock prison experiments conducted at Stanford University. Tuskegee syphilis trials conclude, after running for 40 years. Willowbrook hepatitis studies conclude. Medical Research Council of Canada publishes Ethics in Human Experimentation. Belmont Report published. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) with World Health Organisation proposes the first International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Cartwright Inquiry commences. South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council publishes its Code of Research Ethics. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Norwegian Parliament approves establishment of three national committees for research ethics. Common Rule (CFR 46) adopted by 16 US federal departments and agencies. Interim Guidelines on Ethical Matters in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research released in Australia.

1.4 Emerging Issues in Research Ethics

1992 1993 1994 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000 2001 2002 2002 2003

2004 2004 2005 2006 2008 2010 2010 2013 2013

2013

Research Ethics Committees established in Denmark. Vancouver Protocol about authorship is published. US Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments formed. Canada’s three key research Councils release Statement on Integrity in Research and Scholarship. Australian Commonwealth Government releases Report of the Review of the Role and Functioning of Institutional Review Committees. US President Bill Clinton apologises to Tuskegee experimental subjects. Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans published. Australia’s NHMRC produces Human Research Ethics Handbook. Guidelines for Good Practice in the Conduct of Clinical Trials in Human Participants in South Africa published. United States Federal Policy on Research Misconduct published. Canadian Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) created. Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research published in Australia. Indonesia’s Law on the National System of Research, Development, and Implementation of Knowledge and Technology is released. Canadian PRE creates Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee to examine issues from Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans related to humanities and social science research. Canadian PRE releases its report Giving Voice to the Spectrum. Europe’s RESPECT Principles for Ethical Socio-Economic Research released. EUREC Declaration to establish a European Network of Research Ethics Committees. Britain’s Economic and Social Research Council’s Research Ethics Framework comes into force. Venkatesh’s book Gang Leader for a Day published. Lancet retracts Wakefield’s 1998 fraudulent paper linking autism to the measles vaccine. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. NIH launches initiative to respond to reproducibility problems in scientific research. Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) releases decrees on Researchers’ Code of Ethics and Ethical Clearance for Research and Scientific Publications. British Psychological Society publishes Ethics Guidelines for Internetmediated Research.

29

30

1 Introduction

2014 Reports that many published studies are not reproducible continue, journals and funding agencies take action. 2017 Noorbala and his colleagues publish works auto-plagiarised 31 times. 2018 Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal erupts. 2018 The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation comes into force. 2021 Ethics In Social Science Research In Indonesia is published, Indonesia’s first book on social science research ethics.

Chapter 2

Before Research

In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty [even] if he only thinks of doing so. —Immanuel Kant

Essentially, scientific research is a search for truth through the use of facts. What causes scientific research to be more reliable and valuable than the simple postulations and observations we make every day is its use of the scientific method and its fulfilment of standards of scientific quality. Science is both a system for producing knowledge and the knowledge produced from the system. The scientific method may be defined as: a standardized set of techniques for building scientific knowledge, such as how to make valid observations, how to interpret results, and how to generalize those results… The scientific method must satisfy four characteristics: replicability, precision, falsifiability, parsimony. —Bhattacherjee (2012)

Thus, for a study to be considered social science research, rigorous standards of quality are demanded. Studies of low quality cannot be rightfully called research. Among the standards of quality which must be fulfilled are ethical standards. Each and every stage of research from its preconceptions to its publishing—and even afterwards to its data-keeping procedures—is related to ethics and requires ethical considerations. In designing research, researchers must be aware of the purpose of research, what they are responsible for, the rights and laws they must respect, and the many biases which can cloud their judgements and lead to harmful and legal consequences. Doing so requires, among others, consideration of the research methods to be used, the risks involved, and the sources and use of funds. Moreover, much research is not carried out alone. Frequently, research involves a team of researchers, which may consist of a mix of research managers, supervisors, trainees, and students from different parts of the world. Although research managers and supervisors have greater responsibility in monitoring the whole research process and in ensuring ethical conduct, all researchers share those responsibilities. All researchers, as individuals and as part of a larger group, are obligated to behave © Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 M. Oey-Gardiner et al., Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0_2

31

32

2 Before Research

ethically. Thus, the researcher mentioned in this chapter—and this book—may be interpreted interchangeably as an individual researcher and as groups of researchers. Meanwhile, social science research requires sources of information. Often, those sources of information are people who are chosen to be research participants, either as individuals or as communities, or both. Research design involves the sampling and choosing of sources of information, and there are many ways to refer to them. In recent decades, there has been a shift in terminology from the more traditional ‘research subject’ to the more respectful ‘research participant,’ although both have the same meaning (Chalmers, 1999). Throughout this book, we also interchangeably use the terms ‘research subject,’ ‘research participant,’ ‘research respondent,’ and ‘research volunteer.’ Matters are further complicated by the fact that social science is an amalgam of many fields—from anthropology to economics, from psychology to politics—where each field has different practices and thus different approaches to and definitions of ethics. Culture also influences how ethics and research is carried out. As such, this book attempts to provide a collection of the general ethical rules in social sciences, using a broad range of reference material to present and discuss an ethical code for social science research in Indonesia. In this chapter, we explore the issues which must be taken up before research begins. Without strong ethical foundations underlying the research process, research can be damaging for everyone involved. We split the chapter into two sections, the first regarding issues which researchers must always be aware of throughout the entire research process, and the second regarding research designs and methodologies, with a brief note on research funding.

2.1 Awareness Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. —Samuel Johnson

Dismissing ethics as simple after a quick glance is often tempting, especially in a country where laws, regulations, and protection of rights are easily eluded and only sporadically enforced. The issues covered in this book may seem obvious, and there seems to be no point in spending hours reading a book on research ethics when we all know already the essence of it. Yet, if the principles surrounding ethics are familiar to us, why is it that violations of ethics—from plagiarism to larger scale atrocities—are still commonplace? This section on awareness attempts to make explicit the implicit and subconscious assumptions, understandings, and decisions researchers encounter. Researchers will, almost certainly, in the course of their work encounter ethical dilemmas and conflict of interests. By bringing these to the forefront of minds, it is hoped that deeper and more holistic ethical considerations can be made throughout the whole research

2.1 Awareness

33

process, but particularly during the planning and design stages, where much of the research direction is usually decided.

Focus Box 2.1 Indonesian Research Ethics Laws and Regulations Among the institutions with the greatest responsibility for research and ethics in Indonesia are the Ministry of Research and Technology, the Ministry of Education and Culture, the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), and the universities across the country. Although Fourianalistyawati et al. (2018) find that 52.5% of universities in Indonesia have some form of an ethics committee, they often have limited scope, lack control, and competence, are not independent, and are highly ineffective (Rachmawaty, 2017). Thus, although awareness of ethics is the first step to achieving ethical research, it does not guarantee achievement. Here, we briefly list some of the laws and regulations issued in Indonesia pertaining to social science research and ethics. Despite their existence, much more must be done to truly enforce them and ensure that they are properly adhered to in the spirit with which they were written. Otherwise, the communities in Indonesia will continue to be vulnerable to unlawful and immoral exploitation. – Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2019 tentang Sistem Nasional Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi (Law number 11 of 2019 on the National Knowledge and Technology System): replacing Law number 18 of 2002, this new law governs the practice, development, review, dissemination, and integration of research, innovation, knowledge, and technology. – Keputusan Menteri Negara Riset dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia Nomor 25/M/Kp/III/2013 (Decree of the Minister of Research and Technology number 25/M/Kp/III/2013): regarding guidelines on how codes of research ethics should be constructed in order to foster more productive, truthful, ethical, effective, objective, and useful research. – Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 41 Tahun 2006 (Government Decree number 41 of 2006): regulating the requirements and processes to obtain permits for foreign universities, foreign research and development institutions, foreign companies, and/or foreign individuals to conduct research and development activities in Indonesia. – Peraturan Kepala Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia Nomor 06/E/2013 (Regulation of the Director of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences number 06/E/2013): about the general code of ethics for researchers in Indonesia. Rules and principles are described, and procedures for the investigation and sanctioning of misconduct are also outlined and explained. – Buku Kode Etik Riset Universitas Indonesia (The Ethics Codebook of the University of Indonesia): an example of a university-level ethics regulation that applies to all research in affiliation with and/or conducted by members of the university. Each faculty is permitted, but not required, to construct

34

2 Before Research

their own code of ethics which are in line with the university’s code but more directed towards the unique demands of their science. Faculties may also refer to other faculties’ codes of ethics instead of the university-level rules. For example, as of 2020, the Faculty of Economics and Business, lacking their own specialised code of ethics, continues to use the Faculty of Public Health’s ethics procedure for their research. These are not the only laws or regulations governing research ethics in Indonesia; others exist, but they are scarce and difficult to be publicly accessed. However, a growing awareness of the need to adhere to ethics, in part due to rising numbers of international research and publications among Indonesian researchers and among research projects on Indonesia, mean that these codes of ethics are increasingly sought for. Those discussed above may provide a starting point for those wishing to explore or understand the legal and regulatory complexities in Indonesian research ethics.

2.1.1 Research Purpose All… research should preferably be undertaken with, and not merely on, the identified community… Research and the pursuit of knowledge should never be regarded as the supreme goal at the expense of participants’ personal, social and cultural values. —Human Sciences Research Council, Code of Research Ethics

Social enquiry is predicated on the belief that greater access to well-grounded information will serve rather than threaten the interests of society (Social Research Association, 2003). As the Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia puts it: researchers should, in their work, dedicate themselves to the search for scientific truth for the advancement of civilisation and the welfare of humankind. In that search, they should uphold the principles of good scientific conduct, including critical, open, logical, and empirical thinking (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, 2013) (Table 2.1). Thus, the purpose of research is the generation and dissemination of new knowledge to benefit society (UNSW Sydney Council, 2017) so that we may make Table 2.1 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research purpose Do

Don’t

Be transparent and clear about the purpose and findings of research

Violate the rights, interests, and values of individuals and communities

Increase knowledge and understanding of the world for the benefit and improvement of individuals and societies

Go against the principles of good scientific conduct

2.1 Awareness

35

better, more informed judgements and choices (American Psychological Association, 2017). If so, then the search for knowledge should not outweigh the rights, interests, and values of people and societies (Social Research Association, 2003; UNSW Sydney Council, 2017). Otherwise, the point of research would be moot (see Sect. 2.2.2 Research Risks; Sect. 3.1.2 Protection of Participants). Furthermore, because the generation and dissemination of new knowledge are at the heart of research, for research to achieve its purpose, the research process must be transparent so as to allow the truth and quality of claims and findings to be tested and challenged by others (UNSW Sydney Council, 2017). Some research is indeed aimed at attempting to replicate and/or reproduce the results found by other researchers, and their pursuit to challenge the claims and findings of other researchers are as equally valuable and necessary as research in new areas (see Sect. 1.4.3 Reproducibility of Results). Researchers should disclose the purpose of the research, its research questions, the uses of its results, and the necessity of the research project (School of Social Service Administration Institutional Review Board & Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2017) to make clear what the research truly intends to achieve (The British Psychological Society, 2014). Researchers should use the possibilities open to them to extend the scope of social enquiry and communicate their findings, for the benefit of the widest possible community (Social Research Association, 2003). As research in social science is often done with the help of participants and using public funds and resources, researchers owe the communities they work with. Therefore, researchers should strive to maximise the well-being of those communities and of the public.

2.1.2 Fulfilling Responsibilities The reliability and credibility of the results of scientific research require that research complies with good scientific practice. The responsibility for abiding by good scientific practice rests with the research community as a whole and with each individual researcher. —Research Ethics (University of Helsinki, 2018)

The moral weight and responsibility which researchers bear are immense. Some are of the opinion that researchers should be freed of such burdens, as the primary goal of science is the pursuit of truth and that goal is so important as to override any other concerns or obstacles which hinder researchers from attaining the truth. Researchers should not be hindered by moral, political, or social considerations, their responsibilities should only be centred around the search for knowledge, and they need not concern themselves with the impacts of the knowledge they generate (Douglas, 2003; Resnik, 2008) (Table 2.2). Yet, while many may defend those views using arguments such as freedom of science, the search for truth does not trump all other values, and knowledge is not passive:

36

2 Before Research

Table 2.2 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: fulfilling responsibilities Do

Don’t

Conduct research in a reliable, accountable, honest, transparent, and open manner in compliance with standards for economic, environmental, and social sustainability

Spend research funds for unplanned, unauthorised, corrupt, and/or criminal activities

Avoid conflict of interests, and report and minimise them should they arise

Neglect responsibilities to follow ethics review and evaluation protocols

Ensure the security, confidentiality, privacy, and good management of data

Fail to protect and respect the safety, rights, dignity, autonomy, interests, and welfare of participants and all other stakeholders

Promote the interests of academic freedom, research, and professionalism

Conduct research without the proper qualifications

Fairly credit all those who are involved in the Violate standards and regulations regarding research process, including student publication, authorship, and intellectual property researchers Produce work of the highest quality, and complete research within the set deadlines

Use improper scientific methods, inadequate/weak/uncertain/false evidence, and/or misrepresent the quality of research

Disclose failed experiments and have due diligence in interpreting results

Engage in fraud, deceit, prejudice, and/or discrimination

Promote a professional environment fostering good ethics, training, and guidance

Fail to observe, adhere to, and keep up with the local, national, and international rules, regulations, and practices regarding research

the potential implications of science go well beyond the applications of science… Outsiders to science cannot control a piece of research’s epistemic and ethical impacts after research is complete. Only researchers can exert such control by choosing to pursue particular research programs, or by framing the presentation of results, emphasizing some implications over others… in the fine tuning of methodologies, the characterization of data, or the interpretation of data. That the scientist makes these choices, with potentially important implications and potential consequences of error, may not even be apparent in the final report. —Douglas (2003)

Social scientists, in their work, make decisions and choices which affect people— whether it be only one person or a hundred thousand people indirectly. While research is being done, it is the researcher who should know best the potential implications, errors, and uncertainties in their work, and who are best suited to respond to them quickly. It is thus the responsibility of the researcher to not be reckless and/or negligent in their work. That is, researchers should not continue on with their work if risks and uncertainties are too high to be justified, nor should they proceed without evaluating the potential risks and consequences of their actions. The inherent power research and knowledge have over the welfare of individuals and societies means that not only do researchers have a moral obligation to consider the impacts of their research, they also have to fulfil other responsibilities to ensure that no one is harmed throughout the whole research process (and even after it),

2.1 Awareness

37

so that their research may bring the greatest good to society. Science is built upon freedom of enquiry and debate. However, that freedom must be tempered with ethical considerations (The British Psychological Society, 2014).

2.1.2.1

General Responsibilities

Ethical decision-making is a deliberative process, and in going through it, researchers should consult as many people and resources as possible (Markham & Buchanan, 2012). Researchers should be aware of, comply, and adhere to the highest standards of ethics, probity, integrity, honesty, propriety, respect, fairness, transparency, and professionalism, and must observe applicable laws, regulations, expectations, and practices of international, national, and/or subnational governments, cultures, and institutions (Asian Development Bank, 2017; International Monetary Fund, 2017; Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014; Population & Environment, 2018; University of Cambridge, 2016). Researchers should provide information on risk analysis, sources of funds, potential conflict of interests, and informed consent procedures (Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014). They should help promote effective mentoring and supervision of students, research trainees, and fellow researchers (London School of Economics & Political Science, 2018), and are, therefore, expected to report any suspected research misconduct. Misconduct refers to actions such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, carelessness, discriminatory behaviour, failure to report conflict of interests or conflicts of data, and other irresponsible research practices undermining the trustworthiness of research. Researchers are, after all, responsible for the reliability and quality of their research (University of Bologna, 2014). Researchers should not misuse their funds (see Sect. 2.2.3 Misuse of Research Funds), should adhere to anti-corruption rules (Governing Documents, 2017), and should not act in any way which threatens the credibility of the research profession (Australian Market and Social Research Society, 2017). It is also of utmost importance that researchers seek the appropriate ethical reviews and approvals before conducting their research (Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014; University of Helsinki, 2018), and that researchers manage and archive their data effectively and safely in accordance with relevant standards (London School of Economics & Political Science, 2018). Data access arrangements should have explicit rules and regulations to protect intellectual property, ethical considerations (i.e. privacy and confidentiality), and sustainable archiving. Long-term sustainability of infrastructure needed for data access is particularly important as it allows realisation of the maximum value from investments in research data, but the main responsibility for the preservation of data should lie with research institutions and governments (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007). Researchers must not only comply with the standards for good and ethical scientific practices during their planning and conducting of research, but they should also report, publish, and disseminate their results in an open and responsible manner

38

2 Before Research

(Markham & Buchanan, 2012; University of Helsinki, 2018). They should be particularly careful in using and assigning meaning to concepts, such as “statistically significant” and “causation” in their works (Data Science Association, n.d.). The finding of insignificant results is as important as the finding of significant ones. Yet, in Indonesia, failure to find significant results is commonly viewed as unacceptable. This frequently leads to data mining in order to find statistical significance. Although the practice stems from obligations to funders and/or employers, researchers are not absolved of the unethical practice of abusing methods and data to obtain the desired results (see Sect. 2.1.4 Biases in Research Design). Researchers should take reasonable steps to ensure that dissemination of results and conclusions is adequately supported by accurate and quality data (Australian Market and Social Research Society, 2017). As use of secondary data has risen alongside increased accessibility through the internet and growth in novel ways of data collection, greater scrutiny must be placed on the quality of data sets. Researchers should not blindly trust data sets; critical questions such as how the data was obtained and how surveys were administered must be asked, even if the data sets are offered by renowned institutions. Although many may see little purpose in worrying about data quality, miscalculation and misrepresentation of research results damage trust in the professionalism and endeavour of science (International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2018). Public trust is critical, as much research is funded by the public and involves the public as stakeholders. Moreover, research is often used for policy-making, and low-quality data may lead to wrong recommendations which can adversely impact the lives of millions. Finally, researchers must also adhere to principles of good scientific and professional conduct when reviewing others’ work.

2.1.2.2

Protection of Participants

As will be discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this book, the protection of research subjects and all those involved in the research is arguably the most important responsibility of the researcher. Good research is only possible if there is mutual trust between researchers and their participants. Guidelines on research ethics such as this can help clarify the responsibilities in and permissibility of research. However, researchers should remember that thinking is not optional, as no code of research ethics can ever replace the need for researchers to actively use their professional and ethical judgement in making the many decisions they face (The British Psychological Society, 2014). The primary responsibility for the protection of participants lies with the researcher (Office of the Vice President for Research Michigan University, 2005). Researchers must respect the autonomy of their participants and protect those with diminished autonomy. Informed and voluntary consent must be obtained and continuously ensured, and adequate compensation must be given to make up for the intrusion and burdens researchers impose onto their subjects and the community. Appropriate

2.1 Awareness

39

measures must be taken to minimise all possible risks and harm, to maximise all possible benefits, and to ensure confidentiality. Ethics also requires a consideration of individuals other than primary data sources, such as families, friends, and colleagues who may potentially be affected by research (The British Psychological Society, 2014). As such, protection must be extended to the other stakeholders of research too. Researchers must acknowledge and consider the diversity of general and public interests and values, and should, therefore, include in the whole research process the relevant perspectives and interests of all stakeholders, including society as a whole (American Evaluation Association, 2013). They must conduct research and communicate its results in ways which respect stakeholders’ dignity and self-worth, fosters social equity, benefits the community, minimises possible harm to the environment, and allows for sustainable development for future generations and researchers (American Evaluation Association, 2013; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2013).

2.1.2.3

Managers, Supervisors, Institutions, and Qualifications

Research is often associated with institutions as researchers frequently work for institutions and receive funding from institutions. Research institutions and researchers should create and sustain work environments which foster and encourage integrity, truth, quality, proper risk and financial management, ethics, and accountability. They should provide clear and accessible guidance on ethics and regulations, offer training to students, trainees, and staff, (University of Cambridge, 2016). Research managers, supervisors, and institutions should base their appointments based on merit and competence, and should be open in all their communications (United Nations Evaluation Group, 2008). Ethical conduct is an active process requiring conscious choices and decisions, and it is the responsibility of managers, supervisors, and institutions to be responsive, assist, and advice their staff, students, and trainees so that they may navigate through ethical dilemmas (International Monetary Fund, 2017). They must also seek to protect intellectual and professional freedom and promote professional relationships and working environments conducive to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge (British Society of Criminology, 2015). Furthermore, managers, supervisors, and institutions must impartially and fairly grant authorship and distribute their researchers and students (Seoul National University, 2010). It is also the responsibility of researchers to develop their professional competence with the appropriate training and experience to improve their knowledge, skills, and attributes, and to identify and deal with those factors which restrict and/or threaten to restrict their development and their professional integrity (British Society of Criminology, 2015). The appropriate qualifications and supervision are required in order to ensure the quality of research. There is a considerable amount of studies conducted with poor designs, leading to unreliable results and waste of resources. This goes against the essence of what research and science truly are, and abuses the public’s trust in the scientific community.

40

2 Before Research

Researchers are obligated to ensure that their qualifications, capabilities, and views are not misrepresented by others, to correct any such misrepresentations, to keep up with developments in ethics and methodologies, and to not accept or conduct studies for which they are unqualified (British Society of Criminology, 2015). Research must only be performed or supervised by those qualified by training, and where students are involved as researchers, supervisors must be assigned to monitor and advise on students’ ethical and research conduct, assess their scientific practice and theoretical abilities, and to safeguard the rights and welfare of their participants (Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013; Medical University of Vienna, 2017; Office of the Vice President for Research Michigan University, 2005). Researchers must understand that the relevant ethics committee can suspend ongoing research, and that rules—and thus the permissibility of research—can change due to developments in society and research (Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). Individual researchers have the duty to always be aware of such developments. It is also the responsibility of managers, supervisors, and institutions to continuously adapt to those changes and train their staff accordingly.

2.1.3 Violations of Human Rights Ethics is not just about the theories and the complex philosophical reasoning. Ethics is everywhere. In everything we do there can be an ethical component. Ethics is often misunderstood by researchers as hindering the scientific progress. While it is true that research ethics intends to put boundaries to what is and is not possible (under a certain perspective), it does not intend to regulate research or go against research freedom. —Ethics for researchers: Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7 (Directorate-General for Research & Innovation Science in Society, 2013)

Ethics and human rights are heavily linked with each other, with significant overlaps and influences on each other. While research ethics has unequal developments across different fields, the crucial importance of research ethics is equal in all scientific domains. As has been and will be mentioned repeatedly, the well-being of the individual research subject must take precedence over all other interests and is arguably the most important responsibility of the researcher (Table 2.3). Table 2.3 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: violations of human rights Do

Don’t

Protect and respect the dignity, autonomy, self-worth, and rights of research participants and communities

Be insensitive to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence in the research environment

Foster social equity, value the worth of all persons equally, and protect people’s right to justice

Fail to observe the applicable laws, regulations, and customs, and fail to protect participants’ rights

2.1 Awareness

41

Included in the well-being of individual research subject is the protection of their rights. Among those rights are human rights and legal rights. However, as the British Psychological Society (2014) writes: the existence of lengthy, detailed and prescriptive professional or institutional regulations raises the risk of researchers following the letter, but not the spirit, of the regulations and may in consequence lead to research being carried out that is ethically flawed. A solution to such serious issues is a return to ‘first principles’. Ethical research conduct is, in essence, the application of informed moral reasoning, founded on a set of moral principles.

Everyone has the right to respect for their physical and mental integrity, their private and family life, home and communications, and to the protection of their personal data. Everyone has a right to dignity, self-worth, equality, justice, fair treatment, privacy, autonomy, self-determination, and personal liberty (American Educational Research Association, 2011; American Evaluation Association, 2013; The British Psychological Society, 2014). Researchers must protect and respect those rights, and must be aware of the dynamics in society in order to ensure that protection. Furthermore, researchers should submit their research for review by an ethics committee to attain the appropriate approval needed (Population & Environment, 2018). Finally, as the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007) notes, data access arrangements should respect the legal rights and legitimate interests of all stakeholders in the public research enterprise. Access to, and use of, certain research data will necessarily be limited by various types of legal requirements. Researchers should be aware of these requirements and should remember that what is legally allowed may not be synonymous with ethical conduct.

2.1.4 Biases in Research Design It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold. —Peter Singer

As will be repeatedly discussed throughout the rest of this book (see Sect. 2.2.3 Misuse of Research Funds; Sect. 3.1.2 Protection of Participants; Sect. 3.2.1 Avoiding Table 2.4 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: biases in research design Do

Don’t

Always be aware of potential biases, whether from personal beliefs, external pressures, or research methods

Be overconfident that no biases exist in research

Be open-minded, non-discriminatory, transparent, and impartial

Over-generalise or contribute to over-researching of certain groups

42

2 Before Research

Bias; Sect. 3.2.2 Preventing of Conflict of Interests), it is of crucial importance that research is not skewed by biases, whether from researchers’ personal views and beliefs or from external pressures (United Nations Evaluation Group, 2008). Ensuring that research is free from bias begins at the very first steps of research and continues throughout the whole research process (Table 2.4). In planning and approaching their research, researchers must first question and be aware of the biases which they have. Biases may be in the form of discriminatory behaviour, but they may also come from the research methods employed which create statistical biases in their results. Awareness of the risk of biases helps ensure that those biases may be avoided, and that research results will not be misinterpreted and/or misused. Not only must they be aware of existing and potential biases, researchers also have a responsibility to be open-minded, and to make certain that the conceptualisation and design of research undertakings do not presume or determine an outcome and does not exclude unwanted findings from the outset (Hermann & Flecker, 2003) and does not exclude relevant individuals or groups. Researchers must not accept any contractual obligations contingent upon a particular outcome (Social Research Association, 2003) and should not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudice (American Psychological Association, 2017). Researchers have a moral and scientific obligation to go against stereotypes and negative attitudes built upon prejudice. They should promote equal opportunity, not just in the selection of their research participants, but also in their recruitment process and in all other aspects of their professional work (British Society of Criminology, 2015). Their actions and work should be universalistic, non-discriminatory, nonelitist, and transparent (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012), and make decisions impartially, fairly, and based on merit and good evidence. This includes an obligation to avoid over-generalising on the basis of limited data, and to be aware of the dangers of failing to reflect the experience of certain groups, or contributing to the over-researching of certain groups within the population (British Society of Criminology, 2015). Everyone has equal dignity and the right to be free of discrimination in all forms, both direct and indirect. However, reality is far from ideal, and it is often difficult to identify biases in research and we are all prone to overlooking our flaws. A thorough explanation of all the potential biases in research is outside the scope of this text, but may be found elsewhere in texts exploring research methods in detail. A basic knowledge and understanding of all those biases are critical so that researchers can understand better what they should avoid. Finally, there should be no nepotism or favouritism of any kind in the research environment, as those biases are also damaging to personal dignity, professional integrity, impartiality, and the recognition of individual merit and academic freedom (University of Bologna, 2014).

2.2 Research Design

43

Table 2.5 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research methods and deception Do

Don’t

Choose methods based on scientific standards, Be dishonest about the strengths and researcher competence in the method, and weaknesses of the methods used, or excessively appropriateness for the sample studied withhold details Provide thorough information and justification Systematically exclude certain populations/subpopulations on a basis other on research methods and accept critique and debate regarding research design than scientific reasons Submit research protocols to the appropriate ethics committees for approval before beginning research

Ignore concerns about harm to participants, to all other stakeholders, and/or to the quality of results

Obtain informed consent and always design measures to protect participants, especially those from vulnerable groups

Use deception unless absolutely necessary and unless certain requirements and approvals have been completed

Use adequate devices and measuring methods to ensure accurate understanding and interpretation of data

Utilise new research methods without appropriate qualifications, training, study, consultation, and supervision

2.2 Research Design Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. —Potter Stewart

The blueprint for research, found in its design and proposal, determines quite extensively the direction and methods involved in research. Although how research is actually conducted can diverge from the original designs, most research follows closely enough to the initial plans. Thus, the considerations involved in designing research can decide whether or not research will be ethical. It is also the research design proposal which is submitted into ethics committees for processing, which makes this stage of research even more critical (Table 2.5). Submission of research proposals to ethics committees is the standard requirement in many countries and in many international organisations. Indeed, an ethical review of research is increasingly demanded by all institutions—whether they are the government, funding agencies, academic associations, and so on—making it crucial that researchers evaluate extensively the ethical implications of their work and their choices. There are many considerations involved in choosing the methodology for research so that it matches researchers’ cost and risk constraints, and so that the benefits of research may outweigh its burdens. Literature reviews and an understanding of the characteristics of the research topic, research participants, and research methodology are crucial to ensure that researchers are not ignorant of the unique aspects they must address in order to make their research safe and of the highest quality: ethically and scientifically.

44

2 Before Research

In this section, we examine those considerations and delve into their complexities. We then end our discussion on the early stages of research with a note on transparency and the use of funds. Funding becomes a central issue as its scarcity can cause conflict of interests and misuse, and as changes in funding are often a reflection of political and social changes which can influence the biases in research.

2.2.1 Research Methods and Deception I had taken a course in Ethics. I read a thick textbook, heard the class discussions and came out of it saying I hadn’t learned a thing I didn’t know before about morals and what is right or wrong in human conduct. —Carl Sandburg

For research to remain beneficial to society, researchers must conduct their work responsibly with consideration of the moral and legal order of the society in which they practice (Social Research Association, 2003). It is a researcher’s responsibility to maintain the highest scientific standards in the methods they employ, to base their research on thorough knowledge of scientific literature, and to clearly describe and justify the design and performance of each research study (Social Research Association, 2003). They must strive to minimise risks and inconveniences to all stakeholders, to be efficient with the resources they have, and to maximise the benefits of research (Association of Clinical Research Professionals, 2017). In their collection and analysis of data, researchers must be impartial and transparent. Conclusions must be based on critical analysis of evidence, and the reporting, interpretation, and dissemination of results must be done fully and objectively (Nanyang Technological University, 2013). Researchers should outline a research protocol in which they describe and justify their designs, plans, objectives, and choices, provide information about funding, sponsors, institutional affiliations, potential conflict of interests, incentives for subjects, and information regarding provisions for treating and/or compensating subjects who are harmed as a consequence of participation in the research study. The document should then be sent to an ethics committee and approved before research may begin. Freedom is given to researchers in choosing their objectives and methods, but they must be aware of and heed the ethical limits to the freedom of research (ETH Zurich, 2011). They should not violate ethical standards regarding the health, safety, privacy, and rights of people and should seek to minimise the pain of any animals involved (Stanford University, 2018). Researchers must reflect on the potential economic, social, and ecological hazards their work may bring (ETH Zurich, 2011). They should choose their methods, techniques, and instruments based on the conditions of their participants, and should adjust them in light of evidence regarding the usefulness and proper application of the techniques (American Psychological Association, 2017).

2.2 Research Design

45

Social science uses a diverse variety of research methods, each with their own ethical considerations and design issues. For example, researchers conducting quantitative studies should also justify their design with a statistical basis, and should also provide information and justification regarding the planned duration of research, population, sampling frame, sample size, and sampling method used. The sampling of research participants should not systematically exclude certain populations unless absolutely required (i.e. it is a consequence of the research purpose to only study certain groups). This is not just due to statistical requirements to avoid sampling bias, but also because discrimination in sampling does not comply with the principle of justice. Meanwhile, researchers utilising qualitative methods should also justify their choice of sample, albeit on a more theoretical rather than statistical basis. Researchers should be open regarding the shortcomings and strengths of their methods and approaches, should maintain academic independence, integrity, transparency, and quality in the design and review of their research, and should allow scrutiny and debate on their methods and results (American Evaluation Association, 2013; Melbourne University, 2016; University of Cambridge, 2016). Methods, approaches, procedures, and limitations should be communicated accurately and in sufficient detail to allow others to understand, interpret, critique, and replicate and/or reproduce the research (American Evaluation Association, 2013; American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association, 2018; Elsevier, 2018). Should there be any perceived advantage of withholding details of techniques and findings, researchers must weigh those benefits against the potential disservice of such action to the advancement of knowledge (Social Research Association, 2003) and must ensure that it is permissible to withhold those details. High-quality research which fulfils requirements for good scientific research should have a robust and appropriate research design, detailed documentation of methods and outcomes, and honest and open reporting of findings (University of Cambridge, 2016). Finally, researchers should take care to disclose all relevant qualifications, underlying assumptions, theories, methods, measures, and other aspects of research design affecting the findings and interpretations of their work (American Sociological Association, 1999).

2.2.1.1

Ethics Review of Research Methods.

Although the presence of ethics committees can cause the research process to become highly bureaucratic, ethics committees and reviews act as a line of defence against research misconduct and against the harm that researchers can potentially inflict on the societies they work in. Researchers are required to submit their research protocol, as discussed above, for consideration, comment, guidance, and approval to an appropriate research ethics committee before commencing their study. While an ethics review is compulsory for all research, they are of particular importance for research involving human and/or animal subjects. The decision of an ethics committee to approve or reject a study should be independent of the researcher, the sponsor, or any other undue influence, and the

46

2 Before Research

decision-making process of the committee should be transparent and in line with local, national, and international laws, regulations, and standards. Research should only be approved if sufficient actions have been taken to anticipate and minimise risk of harm to participants and all other stakeholders and to ensure consent, confidentiality of information, and protection. Researchers who do not have formal ethics review committees should prove that their studies are in line with international standards of ethics and include in their output a statement that their studies do indeed follow those standards and principles (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2018; Taylor & Francis, 2018). Alternatively, they may seek other institutions with an appropriate ethics review committee to seek approval for their research, formal ethics reviews are often necessary and are increasingly demanded in order for a study to be allowed to proceed, to be reported, and to be published (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2018; International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2018). Yet, simultaneously, researchers should not be complacent merely because approval has been given by an ethics committee. Researchers cannot assume that all ethical problems have been resolved when they are given the green light to proceed. It is a researcher’s duty to continuously and routinely check their projects to ensure that their methods, techniques, approaches, and actions always meet ethical requirements (Social Research Association, 2003).

2.2.1.2

Changes in Research Methods.

Should any changes be made to the original plans, researchers must report and record all changes, the reasons behind the changes, and their possible impacts (American Evaluation Association, 2013). Such changes may be necessary to resolve any concerns related to procedures or activities likely to cause harm, to produce misleading evidence, and/or to compromise scientific validity. Researchers must always be alert to those concerns, and if it becomes clear that those concerns cannot be resolved, researchers should seek advice and consultation (American Evaluation Association, 2013). Researchers should take special care to inform their sponsors, funders, employers, and major users regarding any changes to the methods used. Researchers should alert them if it becomes clear that current methods are likely to fail or yield substantially unreliable results (Canadian Institutional Research & Planning Association, 2012), and should provide them with an impartial assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative methods (Social Research Association, 2003).

2.2.1.3

Sample Selection

It must be understood that random sampling is not merely choosing whoever you happen to meet to be your research subject. Researchers very often use samples and generalise from there. In doing so, researchers must understand and be transparent

2.2 Research Design

47

regarding the quality of their sample, and thus regarding the extent to which their results may be generalised. How samples are chosen—and the size of the sample(s) chosen—depend on numerous considerations, including the research purpose, scientific validity, type of research (i.e. quantitative vs. qualitative), availability of access, funding constraints, and risks involved. The burdens of research must be fairly distributed. Sample selection for potentially beneficial research should not be based on favouritism and less powerful groups should not be targeted for risky research (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2016). Research subjects should be chosen based on scientific, academic, and methodological relevance to the research (Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). For example, researchers may opt to recruit their participants by contacting an institution (i.e. a school, hospital, company) or through advertisements, as is commonly done in medical research. In the former case, the researcher must gain consent from the managers of the institution, who will then approach their members to ask about their individual willingness to participate (Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). Where students are required to be a research subject in a number of projects to gain practical experience, students must be given a pool of research projects to choose from so that they are not forced to join in a particular study (Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). During the process of recruitment, researchers need not report all information. However, it is necessary to disclose and make clear the characteristics of groups of individuals participating in the study, whether any taxing procedures will be involved, and whether there will be use of procedures or materials which can harm or are inappropriate for certain groups of individuals (Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). In approaching the lives and cultures of their research subjects, researchers should conform to the salient ethical norms and practices (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). More on the methods to gain informed consent are discussed in the next chapter. Finally, research methods such as randomised control trials also raise difficult questions. One issue is the fairness of giving potentially beneficial ‘treatments’ to only certain groups. Although the use of randomisation may introduce an element of fairness based on random chance, giving ‘treatments’ only to some people in a community can breed jealousy among them. Alternative methods which use two-step procedures to also give ‘treatments’ to control groups or which apply ‘treatments’ to groups who are in most dire need of help may alleviate this concern, but constraints such as costs and research robustness may prevent researchers from being able to do so. Thus, researchers must consider more than statistical quality when choosing their sampling design; they must also consider ethical and moral quality.

2.2.1.4

Measures of Protection

In planning and conducting all the stages of research, researchers must consider the potential consequences of their work for society at large, for their participants, and

48

2 Before Research

for possible future research (Social Research Association, 2003). Researchers should not promote uncritical research which in its design and execution furthers the power of some over others (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). Some groups and individuals are particularly vulnerable and may have an increased likelihood of being wronged or of incurring additional harm. Researchers must consider and design special measures to ensure their protection. Any research involving vulnerable populations (see Sect. 3.1 Protection of Research Subjects) must be justified with the benefits which those groups stand to gain from the knowledge, practices, or interventions that result from the research must be approved by the appropriate ethics committee, must only be carried out when research cannot be conducted with a non-vulnerable group (Human Sciences Research Council, 2018; University of Cambridge, 2016), and must abide with the regulations and procedures set out by the relevant authorities (United Nations Evaluation Group, 2008). Additionally, whenever feasible methodologically, researchers should allow research subjects to participate anonymously or under a pseudonym to protect subjects’ privacy (Human Sciences Research Council, 2018). If research involves observation in natural settings, researchers must respect and protect the privacy and well-being of individuals studied (The British Psychological Society, 2014). Consent must be sought in all cases except when observation takes place in public settings where those observed would expect to be observed by strangers and when observation involves the most minimal of intrusions. More on these issues will also be discussed later in the following chapter.

2.2.1.5

Deception in Research

Although truthfulness and informed consent should be prioritised and preferred, it is not always possible to be entirely truthful regarding a study’s design and/or purpose. For example, deception may be needed to gain a deeper understanding of social life, free of biases and pretence (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012) and to promote scientific validity (Education & Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board University Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). Deception involves providing participants with false and/or incomplete information about the research (Education & Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board University WisconsinMadison, 2016). Deception should only ever be used as a last resort and only with the appropriate approvals because while it can be effective in improving the quality of research, it raises significant ethical concerns about the autonomy of and respect for participants and regulatory issues about requirements for informed consent (Education & Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board University Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). It is permissible to use deception in research when its use is justified by the importance of the study, when it is not feasible to use non-deceptive methods (American Psychological Association, 2017), and when appropriate risk management and harm alleviation strategies are in place (The British Psychological Society, 2014). Additional measures of protection are required to safeguard participants’ well-being,

2.2 Research Design

49

autonomy, and dignity. For example, experimental designs using a placebo involves withholding information from research participants. This is permissible in most cases, as the deception poses minimal risk and scientific validity demands a control group. To address the question of equity, some researchers opt to use multi-stage designs where, in the second stage of the research, the control group will also receive the treatment in order to even out the benefits from the treatment (Neuman, 2014). Use of deception is barred in several situations. Deception is not allowed to be used if research can be accomplished using another method (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012) and if research is reasonably expected to cause severe physical pain or emotional distress (American Psychological Association, 2017). Moreover, researchers should not, unless absolutely necessary and justifiable, deceive their participants about the identities, qualifications, or affiliations of the researchers or sponsors of the research (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). As early as possible, researchers must explain to their participants any and all deception involved in the design and conduct of research (American Psychological Association, 2017; Canadian Sociological Association, 2012; Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). Debriefing must be carried out to eliminate all possibility of harmful after-effects (The British Psychological Society, 2014) and so that any harm caused during the research process can be discerned and corrected (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012; Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). Researchers must weigh the benefits of deception against the potential risk that participants may discontinue before disclosure and debriefing, and the resulting harm which may emerge (The British Psychological Society, 2013). Finally, after debriefing, researchers must give participants the permission to withdraw their data (Education & Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board University Wisconsin-Madison, 2016; Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). The option to allow participants to withdraw their data after debriefing and after the deception is revealed is a requirement of fully informed consent. Informed consent procedures can—and in many cases, must—be modified in the presence of deception (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012), but any alterations to the procedures must first be approved by an ethics committee. Allowing participants to choose whether their data may be used for further study is one such modification to informed consent procedures in the presence of deception (Education & Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board University Wisconsin-Madison, 2016).

2.2.1.6

Data and Anonymity

In choosing what data to collect, researchers should reflect on the benefits of the data, whether particular questions are really necessary, how the answers will be used to achieve a greater good, and, of course, whether or not we can reduce the burden of respondents by finding the data elsewhere. The answers to those reflections are important both ethically and methodologically. This is because it is often the case that researchers collect more data than is necessary for the research purpose,

50

2 Before Research

which raises the issue of proportionality. The collection of personal data should be relevant, adequate, and bounded by necessity. Indeed, personal data must often be collected because personal characteristics as critical to the understanding of why people respond and/or behave as they do. However, researchers must be cognisant of the sensitive and private nature of the personal data they collect, and thus should understand the duty to collect such data only on a need-to-know basis and to protect all data obtained. The collection of data should follow certain standards of quality, consent, and confidentiality. Only information which the research subject has voluntarily allowed to be recorded and used for research purposes may be recorded and analysed. Adequate devices and measuring methods should be used so as to allow accurate understanding and interpretation of data (Medical University of Vienna, 2017), and all steps in the treatment of primary data should be recorded appropriately and in detail so as to allow reproduction of the results obtained from the primary data (ETH Zurich, 2011). Any individually identifying information about research subjects should not be used in analysis and should be kept confidential and safe (Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam, 2013). If complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, researchers should disclose all such risks to research subjects when obtaining consent (Population & Environment, 2018). If data has been altered to protect the identity of research subjects, researchers must provide assurance that the modifications do not distort scientific meaning (Population & Environment, 2018).

2.2.1.7

New Research Methods

As technology continues to improve, the possibilities of research also expand. Ethics boards around the world are hard-pressed to keep up with the changing times, and researchers may also find themselves struggling with the murky understanding of the nature of new research methods. One of the most popular research methods which has emerged in the past two decades is internet-based (or internet-mediated) research. Broadly defined as remote acquisition of data from or about human participants using the internet and its associated technologies (The British Psychological Society, 2013), internet-based research is similar to other research designs, except for face-to-face co-presence. The distance between researchers and their research subjects reduces the capacity of researchers to control the research procedures and environment and to monitor, support, or even terminate the study if adverse reactions become apparent. This diminished level of control means that researchers must consider specific designs and measures of protection when utilising internet-based research methods. For instance, the use of deception in internet-based research carries additional risks as participants may not participate for the full duration of the study and therefore may not be properly debriefed. Big data is another new and increasingly used research method, sparking even bigger concerns and controversy than internet-based research. The issues of privacy,

2.2 Research Design

51

safety, autonomy, and consent loom heavily over the use of big data. When using these new research methods to conduct research, researchers must exercise particular care and consideration, especially when involving vulnerable individuals and populations. They should be cautious and aware of ethical dilemmas which can arise as a result of the use of novel methodologies, and should take special care to observe all relevant laws, regulations, and rules of conduct (British Society of Criminology, 2015). Before deciding to use research methods or techniques new to them, researchers should ensure that they have gone through the appropriate study, training, consultation, and supervision from those who are competent in those methods or techniques (American Psychological Association, 2017; Canadian Institutional Research & Planning Association, 2012). The choice of methods used should come from reliable sources. However, if research involves new methodologies where appropriateness cannot be confirmed due to lack of past literature or use, the validation of the new methodology becomes part of the research process, and researchers must demonstrate the method’s reliability with evidence (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2013).

2.2.2 Research Risks You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. —Harlan Ellison

Before research may begin, it is standard practice in many countries to submit research plans to institutional review boards or ethics committees, where the verdict is passed on whether research may be conducted or not. One determining factor of Table 2.6 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research risks Do

Don’t

Weigh societal benefits against risks of research

Conduct research when risks exceed potential benefits of research

Recognise ethical obligations to minimise Neglect responsibilities to follow ethics review risk and protect everyone involved from harm and evaluation protocols Thoroughly look for and take measures against all types of risks (i.e. direct, indirect, and hidden risks)

Withhold information regarding research risks from participants and/or fail to obtain informed consent

Always maintain constant vigilance for risks throughout the whole research process. Be ready to terminate research if risks escalate

Assume that consideration for research risks ends after planning stage is complete

Be sensitive to differences in age, gender, culture, religion, ethnic origin, and social class among participants and within society

Forget to protect student researchers and other fellow research collaborators

52

2 Before Research

research permissibility is the risks involved. This is because research risks are an ethical issue that is heavily connected with other topics, particularly the protection of participants and information sources. The principle of informed and voluntary consent involves full understanding of research risks, and consideration of risks include not only those against participants, but also against all those involved in the research. Researchers also have a responsibility to report any conflict of interests which can diminish their objectivity or capability to minimise risks (Table 2.6). As such, it is not surprising that research risks are also discussed in the first codes of research ethics, and are thus also highlighted in many codes of research ethics from all over the world. The recurring themes in this topic are minimisation, awareness, and beneficence—ignorance is inexcusable. Risk can be defined as the potential harm, discomfort, or stress to people— physical, psychological, social, legal, and/or economic—that a research project may generate (Office of the Vice President for Research Michigan University, 2005; The British Psychological Society, 2014). Researchers are responsible for ensuring that all stakeholders, from participants to fellow collaborators to surrounding communities, are kept safe from risks (Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014). This includes the responsibility to safeguard the reputation of institutions and of social science inquiry itself. Although determination of all possible risks before research begins is difficult, researchers should regardless strive to identify and assess all potential risks. In designing their research and choosing their methods, researchers must prioritise the development of protocols for risk management and should seek out appropriate levels of ethics review (The British Psychological Society, 2014). One central concept in fulfilling those responsibilities is risk analysis. Risk analysis involves the weighing of societal benefits, the principle of beneficence, and the minimisation of risks, and requires consideration for hidden risks, the vulnerability of certain populations, and the appropriate procedures required.

Focus Box 2.2 A Life for a Life Phillip Morris once commissioned a report on the effects of smoking on Czech Republic’s public finance balance. The report concluded that smoking saves the country millions of dollars a year, stating that the benefits outweigh the costs. Although public outrage at the conclusion caused Phillip Morris to later deny the legitimacy of the report, it still raises the question of how cost-benefit

2.2 Research Design

53

analysis should actually be conducted. Below is a table illustrating the report’s balance of benefits and costs (Table 2.7): Table 2.7 Public finance balance of smoking Positive effects

Negative effects

Direct positive effects

Indirect positive effects

Excise tax

Health care cost savings

Increased health care costs

Value-added tax

Pensions savings

Lost income tax

Corporate income tax

Housing to elderly savings

Absenteeism related costs

Customs duty

Smoke-induced fire costs

Source Arthur D. Little International Inc. (2000)

All research requires cost-benefit analysis, not dissimilar to the one shown above. Research involving human subjects requires even more rigorous analysis, and requires researchers to place a value on human life. Yet, how much is a human life worth? And, in the first place, how do we even decide on a value? Is it ethical to harmfully experiment on one person for the sake of gaining knowledge which may save another person? Would it be more ethical if the knowledge gained could save more people? Governments are one major user of estimates of the value of human life. There is no single method which they all agree upon to measure the value, but many often use the value of a statistical life in their cost-benefit analysis. Those estimates are usually based on probability of death and on people’s willingness to pay to reduce their chances of dying. Different institutions and different countries have come up with different values. For example, the United States’ Department for Transportation (2016) concluded that 9.6 million dollars is the value of a human life, while New Zealand’s Ministry of Transport (2017) placed the value at 4.14 million dollars. The disagreements on how to value human life, and, indeed, whether it is even possible to do so, illustrates the complexity of the decisions researchers must make with regards to the risks involved in research. There is no one right answer to the questions posed above, but it is precisely their lack of answers which makes research ethics crucial. In general, risk analysis involves two dimensions: magnitude of harm and probability of harm (School of Social Service Administration Institutional Review Board & Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2017). Minimal risks mean that the magnitude and probability of harm implied by participation are no greater than those which participants face in their daily lives (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). Research may only be conducted where its potential benefits outweigh its possible risks, and due diligence must be taken by researchers to create consent procedures suitable to the predicted level of risk. Furthermore, when research is done for a third party,

54

2 Before Research

researchers have obligations to inform users of the risks involved (Data Science Association, n.d.), and they must guard against conflict of interests (The Office of the Executive Vice President for Research, 2018). Finally, it is important to remember that internet-based research has specific risks not found in other research methods, and may require extra caution (The British Psychological Society, 2013). Different conditions and unpredicted situations can lead to rapid escalation of risk and harm, as experiments in the past have shown (see Sect. 1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics). Researchers should, throughout the entirety of the research and even afterwards, remain aware of any distress—potential or otherwise—suffered as a result of their research. They must consider the different needs which different people have and accommodate them as best as possible. And, if risks and harm escalate too much, researchers must not hesitate to end their study immediately (Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia, 2005). It is not yet common practice in Indonesia to have research reviewed by ethics committees before they are allowed to begin, but researchers and those they work with have a responsibility as scientists and as members of civilised society to uphold the safety, dignity, and rights of people (Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014) in their search for truth. Therefore, even with the lack of regulators or supervisors, it is a researcher’s duty to take seriously the risks which research can bring, to report harmful research, and to stop misconduct. However, international agencies operating in Indonesia often already comply with some ethical demands such as letters of consent. This is because requirements in their countries of origin frequently require an ethical review before research may be conducted, with more complex requirements if research is carried out abroad. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, Indonesia and her researchers must force themselves to reform the ethical and scientific landscape so that it may compete with the standards of other countries. Otherwise, they face the real risk of being left behind and of being entangled in extensive legal and social consequences.

2.2.2.1

Research Transparency and Misuse of Research Funds

It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare. —Mark Twain

We do not live in an ideal world where research may operate in a socio-political vacuum and where studies may proceed without any constraints or limitations. Research cannot escape the social norms and values which regulate behaviour in all communities. Their interactions, internalisations, and reinforcing natures affects the way science is practised and what types of research are conducted. Researchers are, after all, real human beings, with their own prejudices, egos, ambitions, and personal lives (Neuman, 2014). The numerous conflicting interests which that may bring makes transparency, honesty, and openness important in research (Table 2.8).

2.2 Research Design

55

Table 2.8 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research transparency and misuse of research funds Do

Don’t

Be open, honest, and accountable regarding Use research funds for activities not agreed research methods, the research process, results, upon, and/or for criminal/corrupt/misleading interpretations, quality, expertise, and all purposes conflict of interests Appropriately disclose and acknowledge sources of funds and/or employers

Squander and/or mismanage research funds

Ensure justice and accountability in the use of funds, especially public funds

Accept research contingent upon a particular outcome

Agree upon the respective rights and responsibilities of researchers and funders before the start of research

Neglect to be transparent to participants about the research conducted and/or misuse the information gained

Tensions between those conflicting interests can be especially high with regard to politicians and funding. Specific research findings can attract strong interests if it affects the advancement of government programmes, controversial issues, and/or political popularity, and researchers can be pressured into affecting the results to favour a certain outcome. For example, cost–benefit analysis may raise both political concerns as those who pay the cost may not be those who pay the cost (Neuman, 2014). Furthermore, governments may resist spending funds on research, particularly research regarding policy, because it slows down the decision-making process. This can make research funding scarce and constrain the areas in which research can be conducted. Yet, for equally political reasons, some research may continue even though the costs exceed the benefits and research is impractical. Additionally, the production of official statistics is also motivated by politics, social values, and funds. Which data is collected depends on priorities set by politicians and the pressure given by the public (Neuman, 2014). Data collection may also take place due to the obligations which institutions and governments have as part of larger agreements (i.e. data collection mandated by the United Nations). On top of funding for Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), Indonesia’s own government has allocated over 35 trillion Rupiahs of its 2019 national budget into research, and its endowment fund for research and education has grown steadily. This is important because the availability of data may affect which issues can be studied. Indeed, the collection of official statistics can stimulate public attention towards an issue, which in turn can stimulate more collection of statistics and expand the frontier of possible research. For instance, it was political activism which forced governments and society at large to recognise that there were neglected areas which warranted public attention, such as the collection of data of minority groups. Also, the ways government agencies define official measures can influence public policy and lead to outcomes different than those if an equally valid measure had been used (Neuman, 2014).

56

2 Before Research

It is important to understand and consider all the above issues before beginning research, and to make clear and explicit, among others, the ways in which conflict of interests, quality of data, and funding affect the research process and the research outcome. Research using secondary data is particularly susceptible to the biases and flaws in data which have been discussed above, but research involving primary data collection must also be transparent regarding, for example, how variables are defined and what sampling design is used, as they affect which groups are included and/or left out of studies. With regard to funding, various financial resources can give rise to conflict of interests. All conflict of interests, both financial and non-financial, must be reported, and researchers should strive to be aware of and to minimise them. As will be more extensively explored later in this text, financial conflict of interests—which may lead to misuse of research funds—can arise due to finances from employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding (Elsevier, 2018). Researchers should not accept any offer contingent upon the discovery of a certain outcome. Researchers must properly disclose and acknowledge their sources of financial support, transparently and conscientiously manage their funds, and reject research which sacrifices quality for speed and economy (All European Academies, 2017; London School of Economics & Political Science, 2018; Seoul National University, 2010). Disclosure should also include the role which funders play throughout the whole research process (Elsevier, 2017) and researchers must also provide information regarding any financial or other nonprofessional benefits which may result from the publication of the manuscript (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2018). Anonymity of sources of funds may be permissible when it is requested, but should be approved first by the appropriate ethics committee (University of Hong Kong, 2017). Also, researchers should specify explicitly and in advance to any clients or contractors that they will refuse research which compromises professional and/or academic integrity and freedom (American Educational Research Association, 2011; Hermann & Flecker, 2003). Researchers should agree with their funders or employers at the outset of research regarding their respective rights and obligations, and ensure that the relationship between them is clear and balanced (British Society of Criminology, 2015; Hermann & Flecker, 2003; Social Research Association, 2003). Funders and employers must be made to understand that researchers also have a responsibility to the society at large and to the wider research community (Social Research Association, 2003). In turn, researchers must understand that their funders and employers are entitled to honesty, openness, and impartiality regarding the extent of researchers’ expertise, the quality of data, and the options of research methods (Social Research Association, 2003). Where required, researchers must also inform their participants regarding the source of funds behind the study. Moreover, when researchers use public funds to conduct their studies, they must be accountable to the government and to citizens for their stewardship of public money and the extent to which they achieve their performance targets and objectives. If research using public funds leads to the discovery of applicable knowledge

2.2 Research Design

57

(i.e. processes, medicine), justice demands their applications provide advantages for everyone—not only to those who can afford them—and that the research should not unduly involve persons from groups who are unlikely to benefit from those applications. In Indonesia, research using public funds encounters another issue: the difficulty of conducting long-term studies. As the government’s budget is decided annually, allocation of funds for research by the government is also decided on a yearly basis. Consequently, publicly funded research projects which run for more than a year face the risk of discontinuation because funding allocation may be revised by the government in the following fiscal year. It has been previously mentioned that researchers are responsible for completing their work within the set deadlines. When the continuity of public funding for research projects is uncertain, a bias exists against longterm studies. Researchers, institutions, and the Indonesian government should be aware of this bias, as social science research often requires a long time to complete, and long-term studies have yielded many important and insightful results in social science. Researchers must also be open, transparent, honest, and accountable regarding the design, process, results, and interpretation of their research (All European Academies, 2017) and must not misuse the information they learn in the course of their work for their own personal gain at the expense of others. Finally, paid research may give rise to uncertainties about the ownership of research materials and data which will depend on the policies of various institutions and countries. Yet, regardless of where ownership lies, researchers must remember that maintaining confidentiality is as important a duty as maintaining transparency, and that participants must, in nearly all cases, be fully and transparently informed about the research—as we will see next.

Chapter 3

Ethics During Research

Without ethics, man has no future. This is to say, mankind without them cannot be itself. Ethics determine choices and actions suggest difficult priorities —John Berger

Social scientists generally do not have the luxury of a controlled laboratory, where all variables are easily monitored and adjustable. During their research, social scientists face complex and dynamic environments, where their diminished power over the turn of events increases the risks of research. It is their formidable task to fulfil their many responsibilities in spite of unpredicted changes and unprecedented situations. Researchers may find this prospect daunting, and rightly so, especially as failure to fulfil their responsibility can lead to great and long-lasting harm. In Indonesia and in many other developing countries, the prospect is both more and less daunting—the paucity of facilities, laws, and regulations in the country gives rise to uncertainties and difficulties in establishing necessary procedures, while simultaneously allowing researchers to evade their responsibilities as they face little to no sanctions for ethical violations. These complexities grow when they involve cross-border research, an increasingly common phenomena as technological developments and innovations in research methods allows the burgeoning of collaborative, multi-institutional, and multi-national studies. Debates regarding the exploitation of developing countries through excessive research, alongside difficulties to adhere to more stringent ethical requirements, can create conflict of interests and ethical dilemmas which are contextspecific and cannot be resolved through common guidelines. In this chapter, we provide guidance on how to handle such challenges, and we highlight what exactly are the responsibilities which researchers must carry out during their work. We split the discussion into two sections, the first covering only researcher’s duty to protect their research subjects, and the second covering researchers’ other responsibilities, including the avoidance of bias and conflict of interests, and the maintenance of integrity and research quality.

© Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 M. Oey-Gardiner et al., Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0_3

59

60

3 Ethics During Research

3.1 Duty of Protection You think the end justifies the means, however vile. I tell you: the end is the means by which you achieve it... Great ends cannot be attained by base means... The meanness and inhumanity of the means make you mean and inhuman and make the end unattainable. —Wilhelm Reich

Although it is often interpreted as a researcher’s duty to minimise the risks, discomforts, and harm which participants are exposed to, the protection of research subjects extends further than merely ensuring participants’ well-being. It also calls for the protection of people’s rights, wishes, and dignities, the preservation of natural and social environments, the use of proper data management techniques, and far more. Today, as new technologies and methodologies are created (see Sect. 1.4 Emerging Issues in Research Ethics), researchers must tackle greater complexities in making appropriate procedures to protect their participants and information sources. In the following pages, we explore the many facets of the protection of research subjects, and it will become evident why it is, arguably, a researchers most crucial responsibility.

3.1.1 Confidentiality and Participant Willingness I had taken a course in Ethics. I read a thick textbook, heard the class discussions and came out of it saying I hadn’t learned a thing I didn’t know before about morals and what is right or wrong in human conduct —Carl Sandburg

The many atrocities deliberately conducted before, during, and after the World Wars make it unsurprising that confidentiality and voluntary and informed consent are heavily emphasised in the first codes of research ethics. As those codes became, and are still, the foundation for research ethics, confidentiality, and participant willingness have special attention in the codes of ethics from most institutions in the world. Yet, in practice, the formality of processes, the discounting of coercive relationships, and the necessity for deceptive research make confidentiality and consent far from straightforward (Table 3.1). Ethical treatment of research participants requires seeking adequate consent proportional to the risks faced and the vulnerability of populations, ensuring the safety and security of participants, and keeping the confidentiality of participants sacrosanct (De La Salle University, 2011; The British Psychological Society, 2014). Procedures to seek confidentiality and consent should be multidimensional, recognising the singular and varying situations which different research faces, from the type of data collected to the range of people’s responses and sensitivities (The British Psychological Society, 2014). It has also been argued that such procedures should not be limited only to the beginning of research. Rather, they should be dynamic,

3.1 Duty of Protection

61

Table 3.1 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: confidentiality and participant willingness Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Fulfil responsibilities to develop and follow adequate and valid consent, confidentiality, anonymity, and fair treatment procedures

Mislead, coerce, pressure, or exploit participants, students, employees, clients, and/or others involved in research

Adjust consent and confidentiality procedures so as to be appropriate to the research topic, design, and methods, and to the vulnerability and sensitivities of peoples and populations

Fail to observe and adhere to the relevant laws and regulations governing consent and confidentiality procedures

Explain to participants, in a way meaningful and understandable to them, all potential risks and benefits they are exposed to and where the limits of confidentiality lie

Withhold crucial information which may alter people’s willingness to participate or use information obtained for uses other than those which participants have consented to

Protect the anonymity of participants and safeguard their identifying details and identifiable recordings

Disclose details about participants without their consent, unless absolutely necessary for their well-being (i.e. during life-threatening situations)

Seek consent whenever possible; forego consent only when consent would jeopardise research and/or approval has been granted by an ethics review board

Infringe the “private spaces”—the definition of which varies from culture to culture—of individuals and groups

When obtaining consent, consider people’s cultural differences, economic conditions, linguistic barriers, levels of education and literacy, and vulnerabilities

Regard group or passive consent as sufficient and disregard participants’ rights, interests, and potential dissent

continuous, and consistent throughout the entire research process as well as beyond it. Confidential information is information that a researcher creates, develops, receives, uses, or learns in the course of their work, either as an organisation’s employee or as an independent professional. Researchers must protect the confidentiality of all such information, regardless of its form or format (Data Science Association, n.d.), even after the end of their employment (International Monetary Fund, 2017). Also, they should uphold people’s right to freely withdraw from participation without facing adverse effects, and their right to anonymity and privacy. These considerations are linked with issues regarding institutional responsibility over research as well as intellectual property ownership, which will be discussed more thoroughly in the following chapters. Furthermore, researchers should not mislead participants when promising confidentiality and requesting consent. They should understand the laws and regulations which may limit or alter guarantees of confidentiality, and all relevant parties must be informed regarding any limitations to confidentiality prior to research (American Sociological Association, 1999).

62

3 Ethics During Research

Special care should be taken with participants’ identifiable details and recordings, including their personal information and any use of audio and video recordings. The use of identifiable data must be justified in terms of scientific necessity, and confidentiality procedures must be explained to participants (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2018; Population and Environment, 2018; The British Psychological Society, 2014). Should there be any need for third-party use or for the publishing of such data, further consent must be sought from participants (British Society of Criminology, 2015). Research subjects have a right to decide what will be done with all information they provide and to reject the recording of their data and information (American Educational Research Association, 2011). If data is used for purposes other than those which participants agreed to, where possible, researchers should approach participants again for their consent.

Focus Box 3.1 Confidentiality and the Law We have previously seen that the promise of confidentiality can bring about moral dilemmas when research uncovers harmful and/or illegal activities. When the law is mixed with those dilemmas, researchers can be hard-pressed to choose between breaking their promise of confidentiality or being incarcerated for contempt of court. One famous case is that of Rik Scarce, a sociologist who was imprisoned in a US federal prison for refusing to answer a grand jury’s questions relating to his research. In 1993, as a doctoral student, Scarce was researching about radical environmentalists at a time when the jury was investigating a university breakin by the Animal Liberation Front. When questioned about his relations with and knowledge about the radical environmentalists, Scarce resolutely withheld all information which he deemed to be related to his research work (Scarce, 2005). He reasoned that in line with scholarly confidentiality and the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics he could not give a testimony to the jury. Scarce suffered over 150 days in prison for contempt of court, but he was lauded by the American Sociological Association for his stance. Since Scarce’s time, laws have evolved and changed. Even the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics was modified in 1997 to state that although confidentiality should be upheld, researchers should pay attention to laws and regulations which may limit their ability to promise confidentiality (Babbie, 2010). After his release from prison, Scarce (1995) himself notes that certainly, there are cases—such as the discovery of an act of terrorism—where maintaining confidentiality becomes a crime far greater than contempt of court. Yet, in general, for studies in social science, Scarce reflected that: The [Code of Ethics] may indeed be useful in legal cases but, as the law stands today, it alone is inadequate to protect research subjects from harm arising from their

3.1 Duty of Protection

63

participation in research. To do that, in extreme cases sociologists must be willing to go to jail.

Scarce also discusses Traynor’s (1996) recommendations regarding how to approach the conflict which may arise between confidentiality and the law: – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Identify and justify the reasons for confidentiality. Give confidentiality assurances only as needed. Promise confidentiality only to the extent to which it can be maintained. Obtain government-recognised confidentiality certificates. Keep ‘identifying information’ separate from data. Comply with requirements from ethics boards. Promptly find an attorney if subpoenaed. Negotiate to limit or eliminate the subpoena. Request a protective order from the court. Notify participants and sources of information if data is subpoenaed. Think of appeal if court action cannot be avoided. Protect yourself from liability. Consider refusing to obey and going to jail for contempt.

The last step may seem extreme, and, indeed, few researchers face the dilemma between ethics and the law. Still, cases such as these highlight the fact that realworld complexities hinder ethical compliance and conduct, and that codes of ethics are still woefully lacking. Legal backing of research ethics is needed for an ethical research environment. The lack of such a legal backing is among one of the challenges found in Indonesia. The issue of confidentiality and the protection of information sources are at the centre of ethics. Existing laws may not be conducive to the upholding of research ethics, but as Scarce (1995) concludes: Our first duty is to provide for the well-being of our research subjects, and erring on the side of caution is the only ethically defensible position to take. If researchers do make absolute assurances of confidentiality, though, they should do so with the complete knowledge of what those assurances portend.

Indeed, informed consent demands full understanding of all aspects of research pertaining to the subject and implies a freedom to deny and withdraw participation. This ideal is found in the Belmont Report’s principle of respect for persons, which requires that participants, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. Only when adequate consent procedures are in place can people have that opportunity. As already mentioned above, there are many variables to consider when designing those procedures. Despite the undeniable need to obtain consent prior to research, what exactly is considered adequate is a matter of debate. Yet, in general, there are three widely accepted dimensions of informed consent: information, voluntariness, and comprehension (Institutional Review Board of Cornell University, 2014; Office

64

3 Ethics During Research

of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2016). Among the information usually required to be provided to participants include the identity of researchers and affiliated institutions, the purpose and significance of research, how data will be collected, analysed, and kept, the limits of confidentiality, the potential discomforts and risks involved, whom to contact for questions regarding research, participants’ right to decline and to withdraw, the foreseeable consequences of withdrawing, what incentives are given, and how research will be disseminated. Research subjects should be able to contact researchers without difficulty or expense (Australian Market and Social Research Society, 2017), in case of any need or question. Additionally, although compensation should be provided for the burdens which research imposes on subjects, voluntary consent entails that compensation should not be so large as to coerce participation (American Psychological Association, 2017; The British Psychological Society, 2014). Researchers should also remain cognisant to potential coercion—both explicit and implicit—due to institutional, community, and familial relationships and due to their authority as researchers (American Sociological Association, 1999). In particular, when students are included in research, it should be made clear that students have a choice of equitable alternatives and participation is not absolutely obligatory (American Psychological Association, 2017). Moreover, modifications to consent procedures are required when unconventional research methods are necessary, when conducting research involving vulnerable populations, and when conducting internet-based research. Unconventional research methods include the use of deception and observations in public places. Deception in research (see Sect. 2.2.1 Research Methods) demands more stringent ethics evaluations, whereas researchers conducting public observations may, in many cases, dispense of consent procedures. Even so, they must take care not to infringe on people’s private spaces (Social Research Association, 2003). Written consent may also be waivered under special circumstances, for example, when during illegal or politically sensitive settings, when it would violate anonymity or generate risks against participants, when research is deemed to have very minimal risks, and when permitted by law (American Psychological Association, 2017; Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). Meanwhile, when involving vulnerable populations, researchers must expend their best efforts to ensure that participants’ rights are protected and that consent is genuine and freely given (Social Research Association, 2003). In doing so, researchers may find that traditional consent procedures are inadequate and that physical, cultural, and legal factors may influence how consent is to be obtained. For populations who are unable to give legally competent consent, such as children, consent must be sought from both the person in question and from a legally authorised representative (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2016; University of California Berkeley, 2018). Participants’ assent must be continuously monitored, and researchers should be sensitive to any and all signs that participants are not wholly willing to continue with the research (The British Psychological Society, 2014). Researchers should always put participants’ wishes and interests at the forefront of

3.1 Duty of Protection

65

their thoughts, and, where possible, should avoid use of passive consent (American Psychological Association, 2017; The British Psychological Society, 2014).

Focus Box 3.2 Power and Paternalism in Research At the heart of research ethics is the relationship between researchers and research participants. The context in which research is conducted, the social characteristics of the researched and researcher, the methods and strategies employed, the conclusions reported, all have implications of power (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Critics of dominant ethical codes note that while the codes claim universality and objectivity, they actually represent the interests of powerful groups. As Humphries and Martin (Humphries & Martin, 2000) writes: “Definitions of ethics are framed in ways which contain the Western sense of the individual and of individualised property”. For instance, we may see this in consent procedures where it is seen as an individual’s right to give their own knowledge and to give their own consent. Community rights and cultural values are given little regard. Yet, it is important to understand and keep in mind that research participants should never be seen as passive providers of information, or as the victims of social and other forces—participants are to be interacted with, not experimented upon (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Consent procedures and ethics have evolved, and many codes of ethics now recognise the need for flexibility. However, we would do well to remember that approaching and studying people requires an understanding and respect for their individual persons, group identities, and cultural values. That much research still propagates the view of Western centrality can be seen in studies and ideas where ‘Other’ peoples are portrayed as inferior, passive, uneducated, oppressed, and powerless in comparison with Western peoples (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Studies such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the New Zealand National Women’s Hospital’s cancer experiments were ‘justified’ as furthering the public interest. Yet, it is worth reflecting that participants in both of those studies came from poor, undervalued groups whose rights and interests were excluded from ‘the public interest’ (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Certainly, ethics has also developed to include provisions for vulnerable populations, and the research and academic environment has become more inclusive. The principle of justice requires that the burdens and benefits of research be fairly distributed. As such, minority groups should not suffer disproportionately for ‘the public interest.’ The image of underdevelopment and inferiority of certain groups of peoples can be damaging, especially when wrongfully presented as a scientific fact. In seeking consent, conducting research, writing reports, and researchers must treat their participants as equal human beings. They should not use the

66

3 Ethics During Research

power they may have over their participants to coerce certain actions. Indeed, researchers must be aware of the relationships of power among themselves, their participants, and the community they work in, and should not misuse their powers. This is particularly relevant with regard to boundaries of privacy, as discussed in the next section. Finally, internet-based research poses greater risk for breaches of confidentiality. When conducting such research, informed consent requires participants’ clear understanding of how their data will be handled and the extent of potential risks due to researchers’ lack of full control over online activities (The British Psychological Society, 2013). Additionally, another challenge which internet-based research brings is ambiguity of private and public spaces. Although some consider that information posted online is considered public and therefore requires no consent procedures, others argue that people’s definition of what they consider private and public is always subject to change (Central University Research Ethics Committee, 2016; The British Psychological Society, 2013). Where risks are more than minimal, consent should regardless be sought using simple and non-technical language (Central University Research Ethics Committee, 2016). Researchers should adhere to the terms of usage of sites they use, and to the copyrights of owners and creators of online content (Central University Research Ethics Committee, 2016). Internet-based research is, like all other research, subject to strict ethics requirements and should only be conducted when adequate consent is given by participants. Both people’s willingness to participate in research and the information they generate are valuable assets. Protecting their well-being and maintaining the confidentiality of their information is necessary before research may begin, and is critical to researchers’ and institutions’ reputation for integrity (Data Science Association, n.d.). We next discuss further the two issues at the heart of confidentiality and participant willingness: protection of participants and protection of information sources.

3.1.2 Protection of Participants Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. —Thomas Edison

In spite of the creation of many codes of ethics, the world has failed to entirely eliminate the tortures, deception, exploitation, and gross manipulation used in numerous studies (see Sect. 1.3 A Brief History of Research Ethics). While the suffering of the few for the benefit of the many may, to an extent, be justified by the utilitarian moral framework, non-consequentialist ethics reminds us that using people as a means to an end is wrong because it would disrespect people’s inherent worth as human beings.

3.1 Duty of Protection

67

Table 3.2 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: protection of participants Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Protect and respect people’s welfare, dignity, self-worth, and right to self-determination, privacy, and safety

Use the pursuit and advancement of knowledge as a justification to override social, cultural, and moral values

Interact based on principles of equality and mutual respect, so as to create an environment free of discrimination, harassment, and/or bullying

Treat unfairly certain populations; disregard the disproportionality of burdens faced by vulnerable populations; ignore the role of local communities and other stakeholders

Be aware, receptive, and responsive to people’s needs and to changes in behaviour and in the research environment

Participate in, facilitate, assist, or otherwise engage in harmful, degrading, exploitative, cruel, inhuman, abusive, and/or offensive activities

When using animals for research, treat them with respect and care, and minimise their discomfort and harm

Disrupt the natural and social environments of communities studied, including social structures and the biodiversity of nature

Design appropriate safeguards to ensure consent, anonymity, confidentiality, data protection, and so on

Fail to follow the correct procedures, to undergo appropriate ethics review, and to adhere to the relevant laws and regulations

The pursuit and advancement of knowledge cannot justify disregarding social and cultural values (Social Research Association, 2003) (Table 3.2). Researchers must protect and respect people’s welfare, dignity, and self-worth, and people’s right to self-determination, privacy, and safety (American Evaluation Association, 2013; American Psychological Association, 2017; Carnegie Mellon University, 2016; Research Ethics Committee, 2009). Most research involves burdens and risks (see Sect. 2.2.2 Research Risks), and, even after consent has been given (Social Research Association, 2003), the responsibility for the protection of research subjects must always rest with researchers. In protecting their participants, researchers should be vigilant of the relevant national and international laws, and they should always abide by international human rights conventions and covenants regardless of local country standards. Researchers should not use their inequality of power over their students, employees, inmates, and participants to gain personal, economic, or professional advantage (American Sociological Association, 1999). Proper measures must be taken to prevent harassment and exploitation, whether consciously done or otherwise (Hermann & Flecker, 2003; Osaka Prefecture University Public Corporation, 2015). Harassment can come in many forms: verbal and non-verbal, sexual and racial, single occurrences and multiple attacks, deliberate and non-deliberate actions (American Sociological Association, 1999; Osaka Prefecture University Public Corporation, 2015). When interacting with their stakeholders, particularly their research subjects, researchers must base their actions on principles of equality and mutual respect (Hermann & Flecker, 2003). They must strive to foster an inclusive and tolerant environment free of discrimination, harassment, and bullying (Asian Development

68

3 Ethics During Research

Bank, 2017). Preventing discrimination includes having equitable participant recruitment processes and having a fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of research (Office of the Vice President for Research Michigan University, 2005). No group of society can be routinely excluded or included in research (Social Research Association, 2003). This is particularly relevant with vulnerable populations in research, who face greater threat of harassment, discrimination and exploitation. Social scientists, especially those whose research involves the development of regions, should not fail to report the progress of their research to their stakeholders. They should not exploit the misfortune of regions—for example, disaster-impacted regions (International Economic Development Council, 2011)—and should take special care when conducting research in developing countries. Research in developing countries raises greater ethical issues due to their populations’ greater burden of disease, poverty, illiteracy, lower levels of education, and lack of basic infrastructure. Furthermore, even if research does not harm them, people can still feel wronged (Social Research Association, 2003). Researchers must always be aware, receptive, and responsive to people’s needs and concerns, and should be adaptable to the various types of decision-making required during different logistical and social contexts. For example, allowance should be made for the fact that people’s ability to make autonomous decisions generally diminishes with old age. In order to better understand their research environment, researchers should, where appropriate, attempt to consult with key members, organisations, activists, and scholars from participants’ communities concerning the design, execution, and risks and benefits of research (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012).

Focus Box 3.3 On the Basis of Sex—and Other Blind Spots When gender equality becomes a topic of heated debate, it is generally to do with banishing stereotypes to promote equal rights and opportunities in workplaces, in households, and in society as a whole. However, there is one aspect of gender equality that is as crucial as women’s suffrage and equal pay, and it is equal representation in research studies. While oversampling certain groups of populations in order to better understand their characteristics is acceptable when the research objective calls for it, such actions are less acceptable when they continuously and systematically exclude certain groups. They are unacceptable for scientific reasons (biases lead to erosion of research robustness) and for ethical reasons. The widespread exclusion of women from many clinical trials, experiments, and scientific models has led to biases in research results. In turn, the biases have led to severe consequences for women, from chronic poverty to lifethreatening misdiagnoses and mistreatments (Albelda & Carr, 2014; Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Ethical and Legal Issues Relating to the Inclusion of Women in Clinical Studies, 1999).

3.1 Duty of Protection

Although not all research requires an equal sample of men and women, quality research should have a representative sample. The lack of women and the prevalence of men in scientific literature have created problems, most notably in medicine. An example may be found in AIDS. Because AIDS was seen as a disease of homosexual men, federal research enterprises were slow in responding to the increase of AIDS in women. The delay in examining how AIDS manifests itself in women meant that women were often denied treatment, that there is a lack of medication for female-specific manifestations of the disease, and that women have lower case survival rates (Mastroianni et al., 1999). This problem also extends to the social sciences. For instance, ADHD, being first diagnosed in young, white boys, has research centred almost entirely on them, and has treatment guidelines based on how it manifests in those boys. Yet, the disorder has different signs and symptoms for girls, and many psychiatrists still hold the belief that women cannot have ADHD because they do not exhibit the characteristics which their male counterparts do. This repercussion of biased research continues to result in significant underdiagnosing of ADHD in women (Anderson, 2016; Littman, 2012). Another example may be found in poverty alleviation programmes, and their connection with poor single-mothers. Calculations have shown that, in truth, the movement towards antipoverty policies which increases mothers’ employment and incomes has ambiguous effects. If mothers’ time during the day doing housework and caring for their children is valued at less than the hourly market wage, data suggests that those policies increase their welfare. However, if that time is valued far nearer to the hourly market wage, data actually suggests the opposite. This is because poor single-mothers, even without those policies, face time constraints between employment and their care responsibilities, which the rules of antipoverty policies may exacerbate. Such policies, which disregard the value and character of women’s role in society and in the economy, can lead to greater stress, worse poverty, and increased social instability, as children are also impacted by their mothers’ lowered welfare. The three illustrations given above highlight the dangers of excluding women from clinical trials and scientific studies. While there are some who would argue that there is actually no systematic underrepresentation of women in research (Labots et al., 2018), the real and mounting ramifications of past discrimination in participant selection are starkly felt today. Worst of all, women are not the only group of people to suffer from this problem. Research also regularly excludes certain races, ethnicities, cultures, and societies, for reasons not justifiable by scientific merit. Those groups suffer too from the misleading implications of biased studies. In Indonesia, those biases also exist. For instance, the very rich are seldom represented in government surveys. Consequently, the data used by the government to design plans and policies is skewed.

69

70

3 Ethics During Research

Researchers must remember that they have a responsibility to the communities and environments they interact with, not just the participants they study. Failure to equitably choose their participants violates researchers’ moral and scientific duties. Fortunately, improvements have been carried out to represent marginalised groups more. Nevertheless, as with all efforts striving for justice and for a better world, researchers and social scientists still have to face a long and gruelling road. Equal representation is only one example which shows how far we must go before we may truly achieve ethical research. Minimising participants’ discomfort and respecting their interests can also mean treading carefully around sensitive topics (Human Subjects Research Committee, 2013). Ethics is not meant to restrain academic freedom, nor is it supposed to slow down research in sensitive areas (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). However, the protection of participants should follow the principle of proportionality: the greater the risks, the greater the protection given should be. As the sensitivity of the research topic increases, and as the vulnerability of participants becomes more severe, so too should the measures of protection be more rigorous. Additionally, research subjects are not limited to humans only. Researchers regularly use animals in their studies. Although research on animals is not as heavily regulated as research on humans, researchers must still justify their use of animals to ethics boards and should extend due care and respect for their welfare. All researchers experimenting on animals should have adequate training in handling the species they use and must ensure reasonable measures to minimise animals’ discomfort and pain, as regulated by the relevant laws and regulations (American Psychological Association, 2017). Where possible, researchers should minimise their use of animals. Finally, during their work, researchers must also strive to minimise disruptions to social and natural environments, and to subjects’ relationships with those environments (Social Research Association, 2003). Researchers must carefully consider the consequences of their work (The British Psychological Society, 2013), as research will have different impacts and meanings to different people. Furthermore, as part of their social responsibility and in accordance with the rules and regulations in many countries, researchers should act in an environmentally responsible manner, monitoring too the impacts of their research on local environmental conservation and protection projects (World Bank, 2009).

3.1 Duty of Protection

Focus Box 3.4 Intimacy and Conflicts in Qualitative Studies Contrary to the straightforward nature of most quantitative research, qualitative research involves fewer standardised procedures and greater unpredictability. The diminished control researchers have in field studies heightens ethical concerns, as risks for both the participant and the researcher are escalated. Consequently, qualitative research requires deeper considerations, such as how to safely go through gatekeepers, what role the researcher plays, how to handle close relationships, what are the dynamics of power, and so on. Ethical guidelines emphasise leaving minimal disruption to society, but qualitative field research, particularly those spanning many years, necessarily involves creating relationships which may deeply affect both the researcher and their participants. Aluwihare-Samaranayake (2012) identifies five important considerations related to the ethics of qualitative research: – Nuances related to participant recruitment and decisions to participate. A variety of methods, from paying gatekeepers to using deception, have been utilised by researchers to gain access to the field and to participants. Yet, not all methods are ethical, and how participants are recruited impacts the relationship between the researcher and the participant. In turn, it affects the quantity and quality of data which researchers can obtain. – Involvement of vulnerable populations. It is important to consider the participant’s and/or guardian’s competence to give consent, and researchers must be alert to participants’ vulnerability to coercion, and any conflict of interests. For example, is it ethical for a parent to divulge their child’s secrets? Representation of the person, participant’s voice, and experiences. Researchers must also grapple with the difficulty of ethically representing a person’s reality in ways which respects and protects the person. Qualitative research often involves studying and writing about the complexities of people’s lives, and researchers’ own experiences and characteristics may cloud their interpretations, leading to misrepresentations. Managing risks and the process of dealing with the emotional content of research. Qualitative research can place great physical and emotional risk to researchers themselves when they face aggression from participants and gatekeepers, when they conduct fieldwork in unfamiliar locations, or when they divulge too much personal information about themselves. During interviews, researchers may also inadvertently trigger painful memories in either themselves or participants (or both), leading to distress (Aluwihare-Samaranayake,

71

72

3 Ethics During Research

2012; Orb et al., 2001). Researchers are therefore advised to also design procedures for debrief, withdrawal, and counselling for both themselves and their participants when dealing with research which can be emotional. – Research Ethics Boards (REB) and Peer Reviews of Qualitative Research. Ethical guidelines rooted in biomedical practices focus on the individual. They are ill-equipped to tackle the dynamics of social research. Standardisation is important, but researchers must remember to be critical and to justify their own moral judgement and reasoning, and to not blindly follow ethical guidelines. Many ethics boards have failed in their tasks—instead of protecting research participants, ethics boards inflict long, bureaucratic processes to protect themselves from legal liability, and to protect their institutional reputation. As Aluwihare-Samaranayake (2012) ponders: Perhaps there is a need for greater dialogue about the distinctions between individual behaviors and institutional practices, the practical nature of risk calculations, and the potential for institutional conflicts of interest in risk-averse academic environments.

Indeed, just as research is constantly challenged, so too must ethics also be continuously scrutinised so as to allow it to develop and improve. Among the most difficult challenges of qualitative field research are the emotional relationships involved. The immersion into another community can feel isolating and disorienting. Venkatesh (2008) describes his experience doing field research on gangs in the Chicago housing project: I was starting to feel schizophrenic... Increasingly I found that I was angry at the entire field of social science. ... I felt as though the other scholars were living in a bubble ... Rather than sharing my frustration... I just kept my experiences to myself… When I did try talking about my fieldwork, I felt awkward. In fact, I sometimes came off as defending gangs and their violent practices or as romanticising the conditions of the projects. ... I was growing quieter and more solitary. My fellow graduate students and even some faculty members thought of me as unapproachable...

In qualitative research, researchers play many different roles, and thus have great responsibilities. Sanjari et al. (2014) recommend that clear protocols be put in place so that both participants and researchers can use them if in distress. Before the commencement of research, researchers should lay out strategies for emotional distancing, plans for relationship development, and methods to end the research relationship. Furthermore, because of the difficulty to predict what situations may lead to distress, researchers should also be equipped with sufficient training in predicting and handling traumatic situations. Support programmes should be arranged for all researchers involved, including activities to improve psychological fitness, to provide opportunities for self-development and self-care, and to facilitate the process of self-reflection and self-monitoring (Sanjari et al., 2014).

3.1 Duty of Protection

73

In considering social and environmental factors, researchers may opt to place a value on them as part of their cost-benefit analysis (see Focus Box 2.2 A Life for a Life). While it may be desirable in some situations, researchers must be careful not to forget key non-financial matters and not to force their values on participants during the design of their studies. Researchers are indebted to the communities they study and to their participants (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). As cross-jurisdictional, crossinstitutional, and cross-culture research becomes more common, especially with the development of more targeted and multidimensional internet-based research, ethics protocols and review processes become more complex too. It is advisable for researchers to settle as early as possible the division of work, rights, and responsibilities among them (The British Psychological Society, 2014), but the responsibility to protect participants should belong to all researchers. While most harm in research is thought of in physical terms, social scientists should realise that their research is more likely to cause psychological, economic, and social discomforts and stress. In the next section, we discuss the final aspect to the protection of research subjects, which involves the protection of personal information, data, and privacy.

3.1.3 Protection of Information Sources If after I die, people want to write my biography, there is nothing simpler. They only need two dates: the date of my birth and the date of my death. Between one and another, every day is mine (Table 3.3). —Fernando Pessoa, Poems of Fernando Pessoa

Table 3.3 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: protection of information sources Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Handle data prudently with a respect for people’s individuality and rights, according to relevant ethical standards and laws

Release any personal information obtained during the course of research without the consent of the relevant person

Record all procedures, data, and observations Engage in untruthful and/or unlawful obtained from research activities; devote special methods of data collection, management, attention to ensure the safety and integrity of storage, use, and disposal information collected Retain data for an appropriate length of time to protect any intellectual property generated and/or to answer questions regarding the accuracy and authenticity of research

Transfer or allow access to data unless necessary protocols have been fulfilled and confidentiality and consent is ensured

Anonymise information sources and remove opportunities for traceability of data

Allow conflict of interests to distract from protecting information sources and participants

74

3 Ethics During Research

Social science often uses personal information such as sex, age, residence, education, and income as variables. As numerous high-level scandals have shown, the release of personal information and data can bring great harm to people, institutions, and communities. Researchers should seek to minimise the impacts of their research on their subjects, and protecting participants’ identities and the information they divulge is integral in doing so. Yet, being multidimensional and involving many variables, data protection is clearly not an easy task. As the European Commission (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Science in Society, 2013) puts it, Privacy can mean many different things in different contexts. Not all people have the same notion of the right to privacy, but most people want to maintain control over personal information and personal communications. Data protection is meant to guarantee our right to privacy. Data protection refers to the technical framework and security measures designed to guarantee that all personal data are safe from unforeseen, unintended, or malevolent use. Therefore, protection of data includes both measures with regard to access to data and the conservation of data.

In light of the importance of personal information and the need to handle it carefully, and in keeping with the principle of respect for individual personality and privacy, measures should be instituted to ensure appropriate management of data and information. All materials, data, and information related to research must be carefully handled and may not be released to third parties without participants’ consent (Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, 2007). Ethical data management involves ethical and truthful collection of reliable data, the ownership and responsibility of collected data, and the retaining and access sharing of data (University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, 2003). It also requires adherence to data protection laws and regulations (British Society of Criminology, 2015; Canadian Sociological Association, 2012; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Science in Society, 2013; Hermann & Flecker, 2003). The general rule is that it should be made impossible for other parties to trace, identify, and/or find individual participants through research data. Techniques such as anonymisation, use of pseudonyms, suppression of details, aggregation, and security measures should be used to mask the personal identities of research participants so that the information they provide cannot be linked back to them.

Focus Box 3.5 Privacy, Power, and Property The collection of research data frequently involves disruptions to participants’ lives and invasions of privacy, whether they be significant or minor disruptions. Yet, those disruptions and invasions are often defended for their role in gaining knowledge. Indeed, not all research incites the same level of disruptions (e.g. a five-minute survey is considerably less disruptive than a months-long randomised trial), and research planning requires a cost-benefit analysis: the decision to conduct a research implies that researchers view knowledge as more valuable than the harm and burden inflicted upon participants.

3.1 Duty of Protection

With regard to researcher responsibilities to protect their participants, privacy is unique. It is interesting to note that researchers are generally seen to hold more power and control than their participants, yet, for the issue of privacy, the power momentarily shifts to the participants. In most discussions about privacy, the bounds of privacy are defined by the participant, not by the researcher (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Researchers unfairly rely on participants’ sensitivities to protect their own privacy, justifying that participants will stop divulging information as soon as research becomes too intrusive. After all, individual characteristics range from economic background to disease history to criminal records and more, and the extent to which participants are willing to discuss aspects of themselves vary widely depending on numerous factors, from the nature of their experiences to the communication skills of researchers. However, Humphries and Martin (Humphries & Martin, 2000) argue that “this exonerates the researcher who might sometimes be more aware of how intrusive an investigation has become. Subjects of research may be oblivious to the intrusion, or feel unable to set boundaries which are comfortable for them. But the researcher is ‘off the hook’ by passing that responsibility to the subject’s judgement, and can then push for as much co-operation as she or he can get.” If privacy is defined as the participants’ mechanisms for self-protection, then the boundaries of privacy will vary with the characteristics of the interviewer and with the amount of choice participants believe they have (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Researchers must be aware of how their actions and their power influence participants’ willingness to divulge private information, and they should not abuse their ability to do so. Researchers should also set boundaries— they should only ask for information relevant to the research, and strive to ensure that their invasions of privacy are as minimal as possible. Another matter related with privacy is third-party sources of information. Is it ethical to interview a wife about her husband’s activities without the husband’s knowledge, or to question a parent about their child’s personal experiences without the child’s agreement? Who does the information belong to? These grey areas can be exploited by researchers to push for more information. Using third parties to enter others’ private worlds bypasses the need for gaining consent from the actual subjects of research (Humphries & Martin, 2000). For example, researchers may approach men in order to garner insight about their wives without the women’s consent. Julia Davidson (Davidson & Layder, 1994) used the converse of that method to explore the interactions of a sex worker—Desiree—with her clients. She listened in to Desiree’s conversations and interviewed Desiree about the behaviours of her clients. Davidson was untroubled about her intrusion to the clients’ private world because she believed that Desiree owned the knowledge and was entitled to do what she wanted with it. Davidson justified that

75

76

3 Ethics During Research

as the clients remained anonymous to her, she could not harm them with her knowledge, and Desiree’s willingness to divulge the information constituted consent. Another delicate matter is the converse case: participants of research may instead desire to forego anonymity and take credit for their role in the research. For instance, Scarth (2016) writes that during a research on thanatology, participants desired that their real names be used in the final output. Scarth (2016) proceeds to discuss the distinct features of confidentiality and anonymity, how anonymity does not necessarily ensure confidentiality, and how anonymity can be problematic when it fails to meet funding agencies’ requests. In many cases, research participants are proactive agents capable of making clear decisions of their own regarding anonymisation and their best interests. These concerns are in contrast with those regarding whether anonymisation is sufficient to ensure confidentiality. In many cases, members of communities where research took place are able to identify themselves and each other in the research output. This can be harmful, particularly in cases where research deals with sensitive topics (Wiles et al., 2008). These examples show that ownership and protection of information are not necessarily straightforward, and that ownership can be reinterpreted to legitimise the behaviour of researchers (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Codes of ethics are still unable to completely tackle these complexities. It is difficult to standardise researcher behaviour, but, in general, researchers should strive to respect privacy and seek to gain the appropriate consent. Being extravagant in one’s efforts to protect the rights and safety of participants is preferable to being negligent and/or ignorant. Most laws mandate the safe storage of data. Researchers must restrict access to data to only authorised personnel (Hermann & Flecker, 2003), using adequate physical, administrative, and technological safeguards, such as encryption to guard against external attacks and secure copies in case of data loss (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2013). Efforts must also be undertaken to protect the integrity of research data, guaranteeing its completeness, quality, truthfulness, and authenticity. A log should be created to trace the identities and actions of collectors and modifiers of data, particularly as they concern not only the integrity of data, but also the ownership of the intellectual property generated. Finally, researchers should take care so that data sets, and the equipment they are stored in, are not subject to environmental hazards, including heat, dust, and electrical surges (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007b). Consent forms should outline the procedures taken to ensure all of the above, and those forms are among the information and data which researchers must protect. When a researcher transfers a sample of their data to another party, the prime responsibility for its safety and confidentiality remains with the researcher. When they transfer an entire dataset, the burden of responsibility is shared between both

3.1 Duty of Protection

77

parties. However, in both cases, researchers should ensure that the other party can and will guarantee the safety and confidentiality of the data, and researchers should not allow access to data if they do not believe that the other party will be able to fulfil the guarantee (Hermann & Flecker, 2003). Before data can be transferred or shown to other parties, researchers are obliged to ensure that participants’ identities cannot be traced using research data (Social Research Association, 2003) and to suitably anonymise the data (Australian National University, 2014). Should researchers be unable to do so, written consent from participants must be obtained, and if participants object to the use of their data, researchers should immediately destroy the corresponding material (FEWEB Research Ethics Review Board, 2016). Meanwhile, the ownership of the data itself will depend on the nature of agreements between institutions, researchers, and communities. The minimum duration of data storage will also depend on the regulations of institutions and governments affiliated with the research (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012; Office of Research Compliance of Ohio State University, 2018; The Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education University Wisconsin-Maddison, 2018; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2013). A rule of thumb would be to store in sufficient amounts of research material and data, both published and unpublished, for a reasonable period of time in order to allow answers to any queries regarding the research’s accuracy, authenticity, primacy, and compliance to law (All European Academies, 2017; FEWEB Research Ethics Review Board, 2016; Medical University of Vienna, 2017; Office of Research Compliance of Ohio State University, 2018). Finally, it is important that researchers, and any who they allow access to their data, do not misuse the information they gain from their work. Furthermore, although it may not always be possible, it is desirable for researchers to allow open access to the data supporting their results and analyses, so that research transparency may improve and results may be reproduced (All European Academies, 2017; Human Nature, 2018; Taylor & Francis, 2018).

Focus Box 3.6 Bounded Access Some institutions allow access to the data they collect. This is true of national statistics agencies and certain private institutions, such as the Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) with their surveys, and the RAND Corporation with their Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS) data. Yet, the data released to the public is not data in its rawest forms, and not all their data is freely accessible. Privacy policies, restrictions on data, and requirements for use act as safeguards to ensure confidentiality and protect sources of information. The collection and handling of personal data are also governed by transnational laws and international organisations.

78

3 Ethics During Research

For instance, during each wave, before the IFLS is conducted, approval is sought from institutional review boards in both the United States— where RAND Corporation is based—and Indonesia. Interviewers approach the chosen participants to gain their consent, explain the purpose of the survey, ensure that all their personal information will not be disclosed, offer compensation for their time, and provide contact details for inquiries. The IFLS data which openly reaches the public have been anonymised, and users must agree to an access policy promising that no attempt will be made to identify the individuals, families, and/or households in the survey. More sensitive IFLS data, such as village-level codes and community-level coordinates, are available by request, but only on a restricted basis, with highly stringent requirements, rules, and sanctions. However, some data, including village names, are never released, even as restricted data, because of the high possibility for individual identification (RAND, 2019). After a rough history of being sanctioned by the United Nations for failing to protect the identities of survey participants, the BPS also follows similar policies regarding their survey data. BPS survey data at the individual level are not released to anyone, and even ministers are denied requests for such specific data. Even kecamatan- (subdistrict-) level data is highly restricted. The BPS only allows access to kabupaten/kota- (district/city or town) level data, and sampling techniques for survey participants are designed accordingly such that the kabupaten/kota-level data can be used to produce generalisable statistics. Hence, while open access to data is laudable as it helps support analyses and scientific developments, allowing the public access to all data is not allowed and is not recommended. Terms and conditions must apply and researchers must thoroughly observe them—as burdensome as they may be. Failure to protect research information, and the sources of the information, is a severe misconduct, and risks equally severe harm to all those involved. Researchers should strive to ensure that their responsibility to protect their research subjects and to promote the interests of society is not disrupted by other factors. This means that in order to preserve the quality and integrity of their studies, researchers must avoid conflict of interests and other sources of bias. It is these topics which we explore in the next section.

3.2 Researcher Responsibilities In the previous section, we have learned that a researchers’ duty of protection during research covers various aspects. However, as ethical principles cover a wide array of aspects, there are other responsibilities that have to be fulfilled in order to completely

3.2 Researcher Responsibilities

79

follow the standards. In this section, we will discuss the importance of avoiding biases in research, as well as issues of conflict of interest, researcher integrity, and research quality.

3.2.1 Avoiding Bias Science is the search for truth, that is the effort to understand the world: it involves the rejection of bias, of dogma, of revelation, but not the rejection of morality. —Linus Pauling

Not only in research preparation, a potential issue of bias (e.g. in the treatment of respondents from different backgrounds) can also arise during the process of conducting research. Different treatments of subjects or putting discriminatory criteria in evaluating potential participants is an example of bias that could arise during carrying out a research project. In general, researchers should always avoid bias, including personal considerations and favouritism, they should not affect performance in official matters (International Monetary Fund, 2017). Unlike research misconduct, however, bias is a subjective preference that exists in each person and is extremely difficult or impossible to eliminate (Sica, 2006). Hence, in addressing the issue of bias, the most critical condition is to ensure that personal preference does not influence professional judgement in research, or at least kept at minimum (Table 3.4). One of the simplest criteria about the extent of biases or external influences that may affect judgement is whether there is a scientific basis for the bias. As academic practitioners, researchers are operating in a context of academic freedom although complete independence from external influence is not always viable (Association of Universities in the Netherlands, 2014). However, it is possible for a researcher to be considered independent from biases as long as they only allow themselves to be affected by judgements which are based on scientific and scholarly arguments, not on other grounds, and they clearly state when the restriction of the freedom cannot be avoided. Being independent and unbiased also means that a researcher should not Table 3.4 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: avoiding bias Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Filter and choose appropriate external influences

Exclude all external influences when making personal judgements (e.g. do not reject the influence of scholars or experts who can strengthen the research)

Be affected by objective (scientific and scholarly) arguments (Association of Universities in the Netherlands, 2014)

Be affected by subjective reasoning (e.g. personal feelings, prejudice, or other non-scientific arguments)

80

3 Ethics During Research

be influenced by personal but unrelated judgements, including presumed perception, before a research is completed (Hermann & Flecker, 2003).

3.2.1.1

Non-discriminative Behaviour

In conducting research, researchers should always remember to take decisions impartially regardless of the participants’ differences and make sure they are fairly based on merit. Adhering to non-discriminative behaviour is not only helping to protect participants directly, but also related to the results obtained from the research. To ensure non-discriminative behaviour, researchers should ensure equal opportunity for participants and eliminate actions that could discriminate participants, such as giving stereotypes or having negative attitudes based on prejudice (British Society of Criminology, 2015) (Table 3.5). The criteria used to evaluate potential participants should be universal and nondiscriminatory (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). Social researchers are responsible to include every group who may be excluded due to religion, ethnicity, origin, and other reasons, if those are relevant individuals or groups in the research project (Social Research Association, 2003). Participants should be selected solely based on objectivity and the needs of the research, not because factors that are unrelated to the purposes of the research (Governing Documents, 2017). For example, exclusion of certain age groups may be required when conducting a study about children (e.g. limited only to those aged 0–18 years old), but participants should not be excluded because of unrelated reasons (e.g. their sexual orientation or religion). Social researchers should also not have any negative attitudes towards participants because of their prejudices on certain groups of people, for any kind of reason. Researchers should always be aware that there is a possibility of some groups being left underrepresented, even when they felt they have taken all the necessary Table 3.5 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: non-discriminative behaviour Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Make a decision (e.g. selecting participants) based on merit

Exclude groups of participants because of their disability, origin, etc. (when it does not affect the research)

Treat all groups of participants equally, regardless of their background and characteristics

Have a negative prejudice of a certain group of participants (e.g. because of personal history with people of different origin)

Be cautious and draw conclusions that reflect Be overconfident that all groups of participants true characteristics of involved participants are already represented and create an overgeneralised conclusion about the actual condition Learn about the participants’ background in order to be sensitive and aware of any differences

Learn about the participants’ background to exploit their status or prevent them from joining the research

3.2 Researcher Responsibilities

81

measures to ensure equal opportunity. Thus, researchers should avoid making conclusions that over-generalise due to limited data, do not reflect experience of certain groups, or draw biased conclusion based on experience of certain groups within the sample. In order to eliminate or minimise discriminative actions towards participants, researchers are obliged to be aware of cultural and individual, factors and the role of differences between participants. Researchers should understand the background of their participants, if necessary by studying groups of participants with distinct characteristics. Although it seems at odds with a fact that a researcher should be unaffected by non-scientific judgements, this awareness and understanding are vital to determine what action should be taken by a researcher. To promote equity, researchers should ensure that participants are treated equally. Only by adjusting their actions based on the participants’ characteristics, a researcher can guarantee that participants are being treated correspondingly fair.

3.2.1.2

Justice in Research

The principle of justice should also be held by all researchers. In general, justice means distributing benefits and burdens received by participants equally, regardless of their background (Israel & Hay, 2006). The principle of justice is related to research subjects, where the outcome of subject selection is coming from a fair selection process and based on moral requirements. Justice in the selection of subjects can arise in two different levels: the social level and the individual level (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979) (Table 3.6). At the social level, justice means drawing distinctions between participating groups in research based on their ability to receive burdens and appropriateness to placing additional burdens on them. An example of social justice is how to treat certain groups, such as institutional mentally infirmed subjects, with appropriate burdens. Researchers should draw a distinction between “normal” and those who are already burdened. By using this distinction, they should measure how to place Table 3.6 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: justice in research Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Include all groups of participants who deserve based on a fair selection process

Exclude certain groups of participants because of their shortcomings or weaknesses

Distribute the benefits based on the amount of contributions being made

Distribute benefits based on likes and dislikes

Treat participants accordingly, based on circumstances

Apply the same treatment to all participants regardless of their situation

Being conscious of the participants’ condition as unintentional misconduct is unethical

Neglect participants’ conditions and think it is acceptable because it is unintentional

82

3 Ethics During Research

their burdens for these groups of people, e.g. by not assigning tasks that are mentally exhausting and difficult. Meanwhile, at the individual level, justice means exhibiting fairness when choosing research subjects. The example of individual justice is to offer potentially beneficial research not only to those who are in the researcher’s favour. Focus Box 3.7 Guidelines of Distributing Benefits and Burdens to Participants As discussed earlier, distributing the benefit and the burdens to participants should follow the principle of justice. In reality, deciding how to distribute the benefits or burdens is much more difficult than what we may have assumed beforehand. As the participants’ characteristics are unique in each research, there is no single formula that can be used for all types of research. Thus, how can we determine the distribution of benefits and burdens in order to ensure justice? Although there is no universal formulation, there are several formulations that can be referred to when distributing benefits and burdens (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). These formulations include, but are not limited to: – – – – –

Distributed to each person on equal share. Distributed to each person based on individual need. Distributed to each person based on individual effort. Distributed to each person based on societal contribution. Distributed to each person based on merit.

It has to be kept in mind that to decide which formula to use, requires capability of the researcher to perceive the characteristics of the participants. For example, distributing burdens on equal share may not be appropriate in research that includes disabled people or those who are already burdened. Thus, the awareness of the researcher is required in order to adhere to the principle of justice.

3.2.2 Prevention of Conflict of Interest History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them. —B.R. Ambedkar

3.2 Researcher Responsibilities

83

Table 3.7 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: prevention of conflict of interest Do’s

Don’t (s)

Conduct research with external sources of funding that was already declared

Hide source of funding in a research

Evaluate potential conflict of interest before conducting a research

Be ignorant of conflict of interest and assume there are no potential conflict of interests

Accept external funding if it does not mislead Avoid all kinds of external funding (conflict of the purpose of the research or harm the interest is not avoidable but can be harmless) subjects Stop research activities when it is likely that conflict of interest can affect professional competency

Being ignorant to potential harm that can be caused by a conflict of interest

Always be aware of the possibility of conflict Be complacent of potential conflict of interests of interest, even after declaring after existing potential sources of threats Disclose real, potential, and perceived conflict Only disclose real conflict of interest of interest

Many research projects, especially those that require enormous amounts of time and money, involve other parties such as other scholars, institutions, and sponsoring donor(s), this cannot be denied. With so many parties involved, it is normal that each party has its own interest in the research. That being said, the diverse interests of each individual may be in conflict with the main interest of the research (Table 3.7). As a researcher, one of the concerns about Conflict of Interest is that the interest of another party could obscure a researcher’s judgement (De La Salle University, 2011; Osaka Prefecture University Public Corporation, 2015). Some conflicting interests may, in fact, heavily affect the professional judgement or decision of a researcher when it comes from “important” parties, such as sponsoring institutions. This deviation can be harmful to a participant for the following reason. For instance, the sponsoring institutions require the researcher to only publish results that are favourable to them. Such demands often occur in biomedical studies where the outcome tends to favour the sponsor’s product even when it has potentially significant impact on the public, including the participants (Lesser et al., 2007; Lexchin et al., 2003). Furthermore, it will decrease the trustworthiness of a research and reduce public confidence in the researcher’s reputation and scientific community. Researchers should be extremely cautious with Conflict of Interest issues and take the necessary steps, depending on the type and severity of the issue. It has to be noted that Conflict of Interests are not limited to problems that have already occurred (actual conflict of interest), but also include potential conflict of interest cases and also perceived conflict of interest cases (Melbourne University, 2016). The following will focus on Conflict of Interest cases that commonly exists between researchers and the procedure needed to deal with it.

84

3.2.2.1

3 Ethics During Research

Conflict of Interest: Financial Issues

In any research, the importance of financial support cannot be ignored. New avenues of inquiry and opportunities to test academic research can arise from productive relationships with commercial organisations (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018). Yet, at the same time, financial reasons or incentives are arguably one of the major causes of Conflict of Interest. Financial support given by external bodies may come along with the interest of the institution and could affect the professional judgement of a researcher. Therefore, this subsection will focus on the issue of Financial Conflict of Interest and the kind of external funding that can be classified as potential cause of Financial Conflict of Interest. First, as stated at the beginning of the subsection, financial support can hardly be separated from scientific research. There is a good variety of financial support components constituting grant funding like honoraria, employment, etc. in which completion and success of a research are highly dependent on its availability and accessibility. And thus, discussions about Financial Conflict of Interest are not to avoid external funding, but rather on how to maintain transparency and ensure that interests of the supporting parties do not affect professional judgement of a researcher and the objectives of the research itself. The primary rule in receiving external funding is that it does not cause a bias in the research design, sampling, or writing, thereby misleading the purpose of the research, and harming participants. Potential Financial Conflict of Interest that has been managed carefully and confirmed not to affect a researcher’s perspective can be harmless to participants. One of the methods that is frequently used to manage Financial Conflict of Interest is through disclosure, stating all financial interests towards supervising institutions (more in Section 3.2.2.4 on Disclosing Conflict of Interest). For researchers, this means the disclosure of sources of funding to institutions (e.g. research institutions or universities) and the public (Northwestern University, 2018). Although it seems to be simple, transparency is crucial to assure that the research will not cause any problem in the future (World Bank, 2009). For example, by disclosing the sources of funding to the public, researchers and sponsors should realise that they are being supervised, which will make it difficult to manipulate the results according to the interest of the sponsoring donor. Disclosure of financial support would also cause the public to be more critical of the method(s) being used in the research. If the financial interests were not disclosed, it is likely that the public will not be properly informed about potential issues of skewed results (in favour of the sponsors), even when the researcher did not deliberately write a biased report. Researchers should also be aware of public perceptions on funding sources. When financial support causes social disapprobation, the researcher is highly encouraged to avoid the funding, even when they are confident that the financial interests would not affect their professional judgement (Osaka Prefecture University Public Corporation, 2015). Without considering this factor, it can sway public perception against the research and cause them to be cynical of the results that benefit them.

3.2 Researcher Responsibilities

3.2.2.2

85

Conflict of Interest: External Parties

As mentioned above, research cannot be separated from financial backing. Numerous parties are involved, including clients, media, and at least the researcher’s institution of affiliation. With so many parties and interests involved in a research project, differences in interests between parties may become unavoidable, especially when participating parties have made significant contribution towards the research, e.g. clients who have given unstinting financial support. However, similar to the Financial Conflict of Interest, there is a “rule of thumb” to deal with this kind of issue: Conflict of Interest should be avoided at all cost, but not the involvement of other parties, as collaboration in research becomes the norm. In general, when dealing with a client or any external parties, researchers should always prioritise professionalism, morality, and ethical standards before the interests of external parties and make clear commitment to the funders, employers, or clients (Hermann & Flecker, 2003; Social Research Association, 2003). When dealing with clients who demand researchers to publish results in a certain biased manner, researchers have to reject the deal as it can jeopardise the professionalism and integrity of the researcher. This includes not only manipulating research data, but also limiting publication only for the result that is favourable to the client. Before making a deal with clients, researchers should warrant that there is no conflict of interest with the clients, especially if it has the potential to cause bias in the outcomes. In order to do so, researchers must ask the clients to give informed consent in writing (Data Science Association, n.d.). If necessary, researchers are obliged to publicise inappropriate interference and demands of clients (Hermann & Flecker, 2003) or report it to appropriate authorities (Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014). The same principle also applies to the media. Some researchers may have an opportunity to deliver their research results to the media. In doing so, the researcher will have to be aware that there may be conflicting interests between the media, the social community, or even with the researcher. Hence, a researcher will have to acknowledge if they are being paid and avoid contractual agreements if it requires them to alter the results according to the media’s demand and the community in the process (American Sociological Association, 1999). For researchers who are part of an institution, e.g. a research institution or community group, their representation as a member of an institution may affect the decision of a researcher. As a result, any involvement in an institution has to be declared thoroughly, whether it affects any part of the research design, result, or other related items or not.

3.2.2.3

Conflict of Interest: Personal Relationship

Conflict of interest often comes from reliance on people known to a researcher, like family, friends, and acquaintances, faculty and students, and other colleagues, who may well be invited to join as participants in a research project. One of the most common examples occurs when a researcher seeks help from people with whom

86

3 Ethics During Research

they once had a personal relation, like a professor or instructor who includes their students, a department head who includes his colleague, or a principal who includes their teaching faculty as participants (Education and Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board University Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). Although the request may not be coercive, the nature of past relationships can make the participant feel obligated to participate in the research. The main concern of this example is that there is an ethical violation, such as in the consent process and the loss of confidentiality, in which it could be harmful to the participant. At the same time, this could also cause a bias in the research results since research collaborators may answer in a manner that is desirable for the researcher. Therefore, a researcher is to refrain from entering into multiple relationships if it is expected to impair their objectivity and competency, either the researcher or participant, in research. If it is not possible to exclude potential participants who are related to the researcher, it should be declared that there is no conflict of interest between participants and researcher. As stated in the previous example, participants’ objectivity may be affected by their relationship to the researcher. On another perspective, it is also possible that the bias occurs instead with the researcher. By having a relationship with a participant, unknowingly the researcher may treat that participant unfairly causing harm or exploitation to other participants in the process.

3.2.2.4

Disclosing Conflict of Interest

Given the variety in types of conflict of interest conditions mentioned above, the question arises as to whether they can be avoided at all. Research involving people from several institutions is almost guaranteed to ensure there will be different interests among the stakeholders, some of which may well be in conflict with the purposes or objectives of the lead researcher or person in charge of the project. What is really important in the issue of conflict of interest is not trying to avoid the different interests but to eliminate or minimise the negative impacts that they may cause. It is best if all researchers disclose potential conflict of interests in their project. Such disclosure becomes a minimum requirement indicating a level of transparency adopted by the project thereby reflecting trustworthiness and an objective assessment of the research (University of Wisconsin Press Journal Division, n.d.). To maintain utmost transparency of a study, the researcher should not only disclose actual or existing conflict of interests, but also disclose potential conflict of interest, or even interest that they perceive could bias their judgement (American Sociological Association, 1999). In doing so, the researcher needs to be bold in disclosing any potential conflict of interest. For instance, when a client or contractor is interfering inappropriately and demand items or outputs that are not in alignment with the objective purposes of the project, the researcher is required to disclose the client’s interference to the public (see Sect. 3.2.2.3 on Disclosing Conflict of Interest). In disclosing an issue of conflict of interest, a researcher should give their judgement about the concern to ensure impartiality and minimise bias. For researchers in a university, this could mean reporting the conflict of interest to the university

3.2 Researcher Responsibilities

87

and let them assess whether it is still acceptable to continue the research or not. Although usually disclosure is required for reporting financial interests, researchers are encouraged to report other types of conflicting interests, such as personal relations, institutional, or other interests that may affect judgement as it could also affect the well-being of the participants. Conflict of interest, if possible, should be declared in any form of publication, including but not limited to proposals, research paper, or dissemination of findings (Comparative Political Studies, n.d.; Elsevier, 2018; Widyantoro, n.d.). All researchers are reminded that disclosure of conflict of interest is a continuous process of evaluation. Researchers should always be mindful of potential conflict of interests even after they have disclosed anything they felt could be characterised as such. This is important because naturally a researcher is biased by their own judgement and is limited to what they understand at a particular point in time. Hence, when they find potentially conflicting interests, they should report it as soon as possible to maintain the transparency and objectivity of a research (Qatar University, 2015).

3.2.2.5

Managing Conflict of Interest

In some cases, conflict of interest may arise even after a researcher is aware of all potential sources of conflicting interests and has disclosed all possible issues. This is possible because when conducting such a disclosure a particular researchers’ perspective is subjective, and potentially overlooks disclosing other potential conflict of interests amidst their highest efforts to prevent it. It is therefore important that researchers are to manage conflict of interests when they occur. It is also crucial to be understood by all researchers in order to minimise the potential harm that can affect participants in research or even the wider audience (American Psychological Association, 2017). An example of conflict of interest is caused by contractual agreements with clients, when only on a later date the researcher realises that there may be conflicting interests. As the general principle is that a researcher should attempt to resolve this conflict in a way that minimises harm, in this context, the main emphasis is on how to ensure that the participants or people who are affected by the research do not suffer from the contractual agreement. For instance, a researcher can discuss the terms of the contract to eliminate potential harm or at least lessen it. A researcher can also disclose the updated information of conflict of interest so that the affected people will take caution when inferring the results. However, in some cases when the degree of conflicting interests is serious and imposes a serious threat, the researcher should suspend the research immediately to prevent any further damage. If suspension is not possible, the researcher should ask an independent supervisor to ensure the fairness of a research (Seoul National University, 2010). It is also possible if research is conducted by a team and conflicting interests occurs with one of the members, that member should be excluded from the

88

3 Ethics During Research

project until it can be ensured that there is no conflict of interest and there will be no harm done to other people (Seoul National University, 2010).

3.2.3 Maintaining the Researcher’s Integrity Real integrity is doing the right thing, knowing that nobody is going to know whether you did it or not. —Oprah Winfrey

Integrity is the pillar of ethical conduct in a research (American Educational Research Association, 2011; American Psychological Association, 2017). A social researcher should always adhere to the highest standards of integrity in research, as the trustworthiness of a research depends on whether the researcher maintains their integrity throughout the research process (Australian Market and Social Research Society, 2017; Office for Research Integrity Northwestern University, 2018). A researcher should always be honest and consistent in their actions, values, thoughts, methods, expectations, and outcomes. At the same time, a researcher should also not criticise others without any justification and not abuse trust of participants for their lack of experience or knowledge (Australian Market and Social Research Society, 2017). Any attempt at being dishonest by making a false report or statement to mislead others should be avoided at all costs (American Sociological Association, 1999; Asian Development Bank, 2017) (Table 3.8). Research integrity itself covers many distinct aspects (National University of Singapore, 2008). One of the issues that a researcher should remember is how not to be affected by financial reasons. The basic requirement of integrity in financial aspects is to honestly communicate the costs needed (American Evaluation Association, 2013; United Nations Evaluation Group, 2008). If the research is being funded from external parties, then compensate participants suitably, based on their sacrifices made in order to contribute to the research (Human Sciences Research Council, 2018). The word “sacrifices” has to be distinguished from “contribution.” Some groups of people may be sacrificing more in order to contribute the same amount as the others. Table 3.8 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: maintaining the researcher’s integrity Do’s

Don’t (s)

Maintain the highest standard of integrity throughout the research

Abuse participants for their lack of understanding, experience, or knowledge

Compensate participants for their sacrifices (cost, time, etc.)

Use compensation to nudge participant’s judgements to “desired” result

State any limitation regarding the methodology Falsify, omit, or distort data either intentional or unintentionally or data State opinions only based on expertise or results of the research

Comments outside of the expertise or findings obtained from the research

3.2 Researcher Responsibilities

89

Any compensation being distributed, then, ideally should be decided based on their sacrifice and not on actual contributions being made. Financial compensation should also not be used to direct participants towards a desired research result. Integrity in research also means rejecting any funding sources, including grants or contracts, that could violate ethical principles of research (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012). All reports on financial flows should be transparent and accurately convey the information that it claims to represent. This means that a researcher should not try to mislead a financial report for the purposes of carrying personal transactions to obtain personal benefits or giving it to certain parties. Such fraudulent practice along with any attempt of corruption—offering, giving, and receiving directly or indirectly anything of value to influence other decisions—is a violation of a researcher’s integrity. Related to data, a researcher should not falsify, distort, or omit data in order to alter the research conclusion. In research, any limitation related to data has to be stated along the methodological and theoretical bases of the study (Hermann & Flecker, 2003). For any error discovered in published data, social researchers are obliged to take responsive action by correcting, retracting, or take any appropriate amendments to publication. If the data was requested from other researchers in order to verify the claims through reanalysis, the obtained data should only be used for the declared purposes (American Psychological Association, 2017). Even after the data has been treated with transparency and honesty, a researcher should also remember to maintain integrity in using their findings. Maintaining integrity in research findings means a researcher should only speak in public discussion based on their expertise and the findings (World Conference on Research Integrity, 2010). Researchers should avoid making comments beyond their expertise and should distinguish between their professional comments as a researcher and their personal views.

3.2.4 Research Quality The contribution of research in social science has been impacting people in society significantly. With the quality and impact of previous research, social researchers are responsible to maintain the quality of their research and the ethical standards. In order to ensure that high standards of research are being implemented, researchers also have to fulfil the quality necessary to do so. This section will focus on competency required for a researcher in order to fulfil the highest ethical standards and publish a good quality research, as well as explore the role of institutions, especially research institutions which are indirectly responsible to create good quality research (Table 3.9).

90

3 Ethics During Research

Table 3.9 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: research quality Do’s

Don’t (s)

Learn from the results of previous researches

Too reliant on previous research which will affect research originality

Only conduct research when a reasonable step Become too confident of one’s own knowledge has been taken to measure competency in a or competency and immediately conduct a research area research without having sufficient skills Prioritise quality of the research above speed or economic factors

Agree to compromise quality for the sake of speed and economic reasoning

Present an accurate amount of work performed Present a result with claiming work that he or she never been did in order to inflate the and objective discussion of significance significance Ensure the highest quality of research, including how it is written, using appropriate statistics, specify the limitation, etc.

3.2.4.1

Writing inaccurate statements and being rash in producing results by using improper language or inappropriate statistical measures

Researcher Competency

In order to adhere to the highest standards of research, discussions about researcher’s competency can cover many criteria. As research should be objective in presenting its work, researchers should always ensure that their competency enables them to present in an objective way. It means that social researchers should use appropriate measurements and statistical tools in research, distinguishing opinion and speculation from facts and findings, they should be able to write in sufficient detail in order to let others validate the work by replicating it. Had they felt they were not competent enough to do so, they should avoid jumping into research to prevent wasting resources and misleading others. These criteria, however, do not mean that social researchers are not allowed to hire research assistants to help them in doing some of the work, e.g. to look for any required data or administrative work. What is important is that the principal investigator of the research should have the necessary competency to control the quality of the research assistants’ work. Researchers should be able to make credible evaluation based on reliable data and observations (United Nations Evaluation Group, 2008). It has to be understood by all researchers that incompetency could lead to false evaluations and conclusions. Even when this is unintentional, it is also considered unethical behaviour in research as the published results can mislead others and put the public in harm’s way (The British Psychological Society, 2014). Hence, every researcher has to make sure that they are competent in their field before conducting the research. Any results that are published should be distinguished, between their findings, interpretation, and the conclusion being made in order to avoid confusion. To ensure objective research being carried out, researchers should also check the reliability of data (British Society of Criminology, 2015; Canadian Institutional Research and Planning Association, 2012). This is becoming very important in the era when researchers could instantly download references from the internet and many

3.2 Researcher Responsibilities

91

resources are not scientifically reliable. Researcher should be extra cautious with internet data. However, it does not mean that researchers can “relax” when they refer to more scientific-based sources, such as journals or published books. The mistake often made by researchers is that they feel the publications that they refer to are reliable and there is no need to re-check. However, issues such as fraudulent result in research can be fatal. If a researcher refers to the results in that research without checking it, such as the example in the Focus Box 3.8, the research validity will be doubted because it relies on a fraudulent publication. Hence, researchers should really understand what they are working on and what they are referring to.

Focus Box 3.8 The Menace of Research Frauds For some people, the issues of research fraud may be less important than other issues in the academic community, such as conflict of interest or plagiarism. Some people may think that research fraud only creates an academic problem that is not really significant to the point that it affects the public, especially as one fraud is insignificant compared to millions of research being written over the years. However, is it correct to have this kind of thought? The answer is definitely no, and for a researcher, the weight of the answer is even bigger. One of the notorious cases of research fraud is the case of Diederik Stapel, a Dutch psychologist who committed a fraud by fabricating and manipulating his research data for his publications. In total, there are more than 30 papers that have been retracted after the investigation, including one of his papers in the famous “Science” journal (Stapel & Lindenberg, 2011). Although this number seems a lot, there are bigger issues that come because of his actions. The bigger problem of research fraud is that it creates a “false knowledge.” As the paper continues to be cited, the impact can be described as “having a fruit from a tree in contaminated soil”; the research that follows draws incorrect conclusions, as it follows the assumption of the fraudulent research. As a result, the damage to the academic community is not only because of the original research, but subsequent research that cite the fraudulent original research. The problem will become worse if the result is being used as the reference for policy-making. Thus, in conducting research, it is extremely crucial to avoid making any attempt at research fraud. Researchers should assume that their research will be seen by others, be it academics or the public. Thus, they always have to strive for the highest quality of research. Yet, similar to the issue of conflict of interest, maintaining the quality of research is a continuous process. There will always be the possibility for improving particular research, especially as social science continues to grow. Hence, researchers should be aware of their research limitations. Being aware of the limitations does not mean the

92

3 Ethics During Research

researcher is being incompetent, however. It is practically impossible for research to be “perfect research,” therefore a limitation will always exist. Thus, what is important is to state the limitations clearly and constantly upgrade research competency so that in the future, it would be possible for them to conduct research that can overcome that limitation (Hermann & Flecker, 2003). Another principle that is also counted as a research ethic concerns efficiency. Efficiency can come in many forms. Financially, a researcher should design research that is cost-efficient without sacrificing the quality of the research (Economic Social Research Council, 2016). Time-wise, a researcher should also be consistent in meeting the deadlines and timetables. They have to be sure, however, that the schedule should not be unrealistic as it can lead to poor quality of research. When working with external parties, a researcher then should not accept a contractual agreement which prioritises speed and financial factors above the quality of research (Hermann & Flecker, 2003). In the case of Indonesia, for a research project funded by the government through the annual budgetary system, the time span for research is usually quite limited (mostly less than 1 year). Thus, when accepting funding, a researcher has to be really sure that the quality of the research project will not be affected by the short time span of the project. Researchers should be committed to the schedule set by external parties as reflected in the contractual agreement as long as it is not sacrificing the quality of the research and it is not caused by researchers’ fault.

3.2.4.2

Institution Quality

Not only researchers, institutions also have responsibility to create a research-friendly environment as they are indirectly contributing towards the quality of research. If a researcher is involved in an institution, they have a right to demand appropriate facilities and conditions from the institutions that allow them to achieve highquality research. Hence, institutions are responsible for the provision of research infrastructure and working environment (University of Bologna, 2014). Research institutions should also improve the quality of their researchers by giving them rigorous research training, such as research design, methodology, and how to create an analysis based on their current competencies (All European Academies, 2017). At the same time, training in ethics, regulation in research, and research integrity are also necessary to ensure that researchers are always operating within ethical boundaries and did not step out of that because of their lack of knowledge (American Evaluation Association, 2013).

Chapter 4

Post-research

Ethics in research is an endless process. Even after research has been finalised, ethical and scientific standards still govern researchers. After completion of a research project, the conduct of the researcher may still affect the quality and dissemination of the work itself and the well-being of the participants in the study as well as the members of the communities surrounding the project. One infamous example of the consequences of ethical violations after the completion of a research project is Venkatesh’s (2008) study on the underground earnings of the Chicago housing project’s residents. The naivety of the author, in which he shared the data about his participants to two very influential people in the neighbourhood, proved to be very costly and harmful to the residents of the housing project being studied became exploited by those people using the information shared. Such mistakes only hint at a small portion of ethics encountered in the postresearch stage. The ethical issues are not restricted to only maintaining confidentiality and data management, but also include, among others, the issues of result misinterpretation, quality, transparency, publication, authorship, and acknowledgements. This chapter will explore the matters surrounding the post-research ethical aspects and why it is vital for researchers to maintain vigilance and care even after conclusion of their studies.

4.1 Protection of Information Sources There are no secrets better kept than the secrets that everybody guesses. —George Bernard Shaw

Failure to protect information sources is a common mistake, as researchers often believe that their duty to protect their participants ends with the research. Yet, as we have seen, the ethical responsibilities of researchers do not conclude so swiftly, and there are numerous facets to the protection of information sources. © Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 M. Oey-Gardiner et al., Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0_4

93

94

4 Post-research

Earlier we discussed data-keeping techniques and requirements. It cannot be disputed that in today’s technology-dominated era, the value of data is ever rising. We can easily find numerous cases where companies have failed to safeguard their consumers’ data (or in the case of the researcher, their participants’ data) as they use the data to benefit themselves at the expense of people’s autonomy and privacy. It is necessary for researchers to comply with ethical data keeping, which includes but is not limited to, data storage, data management, and data sharing. Next, we focus specifically on confidentiality. As previously mentioned, the value of data is continuously increasing, and this phenomenon has led to well-founded concerns for the majority of people. Personal data, on a scale wider and more invasive than ever before, is being traded and exploited by undeserving parties. The distribution of confidential information to external parties without individuals’ active consent poses a great threat of harm. One simple example is the case of phone numbers in Indonesia, in which many people have been scammed through phone messages due to leaking of phone numbers by various parties, from individuals to institutions, for both nefarious and accidental reasons. If social researchers repeated such mistakes in their research, they can pose similar threats to society. Thus, this section aims to emphasise these issues to raise researchers’ awareness and allow them to prevent such misconduct in their works.

4.1.1 Data Keeping For a researcher, data obtained from participants is the most valuable asset for their research. Having a good database not only supports current research, but also serves to trigger and foster new avenues for future research. Simultaneously, research data can pose a threat for participants if data is not stored carefully. Personal information such as address, birth date, or income can be used by other parties to exploit participants. Therefore, in ethics, data keeping is indispensable to protect research participants from potentially harmful effects in the future. One potentially harmful effect of poor data-keeping practices is identity impersonation or pretexting as another person with the goal of obtaining specific information or access to a person, which is becoming more common in the internet-driven era (Table 4.1). There are many duties which a researcher should always comply with regarding data keeping. First, researchers must prepare the measures needed in order to protect their research data, including to secure data from potential leakages or cyber-attacks and to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their data. Those measures are especially important for research done by multiple researchers and/or conducted over a long period. In the case of research with multiple researchers, it is the responsibility of the principal investigator to make an orderly system and to clearly communicate the system of data organisation, access, and retention to all members of the research team. Meanwhile, for long-term research, the principal investigator must also prepare contingency plans and procedures for extraordinary emergency situations, and similar

4.1 Protection of Information Sources

95

Table 4.1 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: data keeping Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Devote specific attention to the supporting use of techniques and instruments to guarantee the security of research data (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007b)

Be careless and fail to do maximum effort to maintain the security of research data

Ask for written approval before transferring specific or full part of research data to another researcher

Don’t transfer data ownership to other parties if the recipient is not willing to guarantee the protection of the data (Hermann & Flecker, 2003)

Keep research data for a reasonable period (at least 3 years, or more if the study is deemed risky) after completing the research (All European Academies, 2017)

Immediately discard data when the research has been completed

Plan how to maintain research data in the cases Ignore the preparation for protecting research of emergency, such as natural disaster (Seoul data under emergency situations National University, 2010)

plans for short-term research are also strongly encouraged (The Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education University Wisconsin-Maddison, 2018). This is essential because during emergency situations, without any preparation, valuable data laboriously obtained over many years may be lost in a single moment, or even worse, it may accidentally fall into the hands of a person who may exploit it. Currently, a great amount of research data is stored electronically (i.e. in cloud services), raising many concerns. Researchers must be extremely attentive to the security of electronically stored data, accidental errors, or intentional external attacks (i.e. hacks or viruses) that can damage the stored data and release it to unsanctioned parties. In order to prevent data losses, researchers should always encrypt their data to prevent external attacks (Canadian Sociological Association, 2012), generate security copies periodically, and keep track of file changes. Should files or data be modified, past versions of the files and data must be kept so as to allow documentation of the whole research process and its replication (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2013). It must be conceded that in data keeping, there is no one single guideline on how long data should be stored after the completion of research projects, except that it should be kept “for a reasonable period.” Some universities have ruled that data should be kept for 5 years after the date of publication (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2013), while others state that it should be kept for at least 7 years (The Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education University Wisconsin-Maddison, 2018) or even 20 years for projects with major social importance (London School of Economics and Political Science, 2018). What is clear, however, is that there are several cases which require researchers to indefinitely store their data:

96

4 Post-research

– Data must be kept for as long as may be necessary to protect any intellectual property resulting from the work; – If any charges regarding the research arise, such as allegations of scientific misconduct or conflict of interest, data must be retained until such charges are fully resolved; and; – If a postdoctoral scholar or other trainee, graduate student, or undergraduate student is a Research Contributor, data must be retained at least until the degree is awarded, training is completed, or it is clear that the individual has abandoned the work (The Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education University Wisconsin-Maddison, 2018). Other than good storage and security of all research data, management of research data also requires that different types of data need stronger security measures than others. Taking the example of data classification by the University WisconsinMadison (The Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education University Wisconsin-Maddison, 2018), there are some guidelines on what security precautions should be taken for different classes of data: – Restricted: Data should be classified as restricted when the unauthorised disclosure, alteration, loss, or destruction of that data could cause a significant level of risk to the university, affiliates, or research projects. Data should be classified as restricted if: protection of the data is required by law or regulation or UW-Madison is required to self-report to the government and/or provide notice to the individual if the data is inappropriately accessed. – Sensitive: Data should be classified as sensitive when the unauthorised disclosure, alteration, loss, or destruction of that data could cause a moderate level of risk to the university, affiliates, or research projects. Data should be classified as sensitive if the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the data could have a serious adverse effect on university operations, assets, or individuals. – Internal: Data should be classified as internal when the unauthorised disclosure, alteration, loss, or destruction of that data could result in some risk to the university, affiliates, or research projects. By default, all institutional data that is not explicitly classified as restricted, sensitive, or public data should be treated as internal data. – Public: Data should be classified as public prior to display on websites or once published without access restrictions; and when the unauthorised disclosure, alteration, or destruction of that data would result in little or no risk to the University and its affiliates. Other than research data, one important document that also needs to be retained safely is the signed consent form. At all times, research participation in a project is confidential. Thus, it should only be accessed by individuals as outlined in the approved study. Consent forms should be stored in the appropriate storage such as locked file cabinet, depending on the study stated signed consent forms. Similar to keeping research data, consent form should be kept for at least 3 years, or possibly more if the study is deemed to be risky.

4.1 Protection of Information Sources

97

4.1.2 Confidentiality: Identifiability of Information Sources Confidentiality is a virtue of the loyal, as loyalty is the virtue of faithfulness. —Edwin Louis Cole

For social research that involves other people, confidentiality is one of the most important issues. The secrecy of personal information is really crucial to maintaining the well-being of participants, as there are many cases where participants are being harmed by leaked private data. Even more, for research about sensitive topics, personal data can be misused and exploited more than the customary research. Thus, researchers should always keep in mind to maintain confidentiality in their research or during publication (Table 4.2). Table 4.2 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: confidentiality Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Anonymise information in the data (Australian Forget to remove personal identification, e.g. National University, 2014) name or address, in the data set Minimise the possibilities of inferring personal Be complacent with the security of the data information from research data just because there is no personal information, e.g. name or address (Social Research Association, 2003) Convince participants that confidentiality will be maintained as much as possible and do the necessary steps to actualise it (University of California Berkeley, 2018)

Give assurance to participants about complete confidentiality

The first step that must be ensured to protect confidentiality is to anonymise personal information in the data (Australian National University, 2014). Any private information such as name or address must be removed from the data to prevent other parties identifying particular participants. In order to differentiate between participants, several methods can be used as long as they cannot be used to identify the participant, such as ID number and specific detailed address. In Indonesia this includes street address, village, and up to sub-district. Yet, keeping confidentiality does not end at removing personal and private information from the data. In several cases, information that on its own cannot be used to identify specific participants may eventually be used for identification when there is other information available related to the participants that may lead to their identification. For example, information of gender may be insufficient to identify specific participants. However, combined with age, status in the family, and job status, it could become sufficient to trace a specific participant. Therefore, researchers should not only remove personal information from the data, but also minimise the possibilities of inferring personal information from the existing data. One example is practised by Statistics Indonesia (BPS).

98

4 Post-research

Focus Box 4.1 How BPS Practices Confidentiality when Distributing Raw Data In Indonesia, Statistics Indonesia or Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) is a government agency responsible for conducting national population-related censuses and surveys. In academic or research communities, data produced by BPS are extremely valuable as the raw data is widely used for studies. Some of the examples of BPS’s surveys are Survei Angkatan Kerja Nasional (SAKERNAS) and Survei Ekonomi dan Sosial Nasional (SUSENAS), both being conducted annually. However, regardless of its benefits, there is an ethical question related to the data; how does BPS ensure that participant’s data remains protected, or at least minimise the potential of data leakages? The answer to the question above can be started with the BPS’s survey design. When conducting the survey, the sampling process is designed at the kabupaten/kota (district/city or town) level. In order to protect participant’s data, in the disclosed raw data, there should be no residential information below that level, which makes it extremely difficult to identify which participants are being shown with a specific observation in the data. Finally, researchers should never give assurance to participants about complete confidentiality. Although this condition seems to be an ideal scenario, complete confidentiality is impossible to realise. Take the example of the BPS data in Focus Box 4.1. One may argue that theoretically it is possible to identify a certain person from an observation in given existing data. Even by hiding the residential information at the district level, there is still a possibility (albeit extremely small) that participants can be identified, which by rule violates the confidentiality. Hence, what researchers should do is to convince participants that their confidentiality will be handled in the most professional way and do their best to fulfil that promise instead of promising complete confidentiality. Nevertheless, using the same case as an example, there is another question that could arise; why did BPS not increase the level of sampling, e.g. to the provincial or national level, in order to better protect confidentiality? The answer is that every decision will always have its own benefits and costs. Changing the sampling to the provincial or national level will have the benefit of better participant protection. However, it also comes with a cost; sampling at the provincial or national level will lead to a lower usefulness of the data since it limits the possibility to do analysis on lower level. For example, limiting the sample at provincial level will prevent a social researcher to conduct a study that focuses on differences between districts. At the same time, improvement of subject’s confidentiality tends to be relatively insignificant as it is already almost impossible to identify a certain subject, given the sampling at district level, let alone compare it to the benefits sacrificed in terms of research usefulness. Thus, in the case of BPS, the decision of limiting the sampling at the national level

4.1 Protection of Information Sources

99

is not necessary, considering the potential benefit foregone (less useful data) only leads to a small amount of benefit. After all the essential steps have been taken to ensure participant confidentiality, under certain circumstances it is possible that the confidentiality is being threatened. When this situation occurs, researchers are required to conduct any necessary practices to guarantee that participant’s confidentiality is maintained. One recent example is the case on Statistik Industri (translation: Manufacturing Industrial Statistics), a survey conducted by BPS that covers medium and big-scale manufacturing industry in Indonesia. Statistik Industri data is widely used by researchers to create numerous studies about the industrial condition in Indonesia. Although the data is publicly accessible, throughout the past years, BPS has made some efforts to protect the confidentiality of their respondents by anonymising the firm’s name and exact location. The information that could be used to describe one firm is limited to the geographical information at sub-district level and the sector they are operating in. Yet, even with the previous effort being made, it turns out in the recent years some firms reported a breach in their confidentiality, as some parties were able to exactly pinpoint a firm based only on the sector and the geographical information. This breach of information means that the associated parties are able to identify detailed characteristics of the firms, which were being exploited for marketing intelligence. Thus, the measures deemed sufficient in the past years are obsolete and have to be renewed. To address this problem, in 2019 BPS made an announcement that they decided to completely remove all geographical information of the firms and reduce the KBLI1 digit in order to make it harder to identify a specific firm. Although the changes are arguably quite drastic and come with a massive price, e.g. limit the scope of any future research that use Statistik Industri dataset, the procedures have to be taken as confidentiality of the participants are the priority of BPS. If, for example, BPS choose to neglect the participant’s complaints, it may cause future harm to the participants which will eventually reduce the participant’s trust towards BPS. Other than the example of BPS, one case where the importance of keeping confidentiality is crucial and unnegotiable can be seen in the Focus Box 4.2. The example below shows that although the context may be extreme, failure to keep confidentiality can result in fatal consequences to the participants.

1

Kode Baku Lapangan Usaha Indonesia (KBLI) is a coding system that is used for classifying economic activities into main industry categories. More digit number indicates more specific classification, whereas BPS has reduced the publicly available digit in Statistik Industri from 4 to 2 digits.

100

4 Post-research

Focus Box 4.2 Principle of “Do No Harm” and Confidentiality Theoretically, ethical guidelines should provide a crystal-clear guidance for researchers in performing their study. In real-life, however, the implementation often requires researcher’s awareness and ability to analyse the existing context. One interesting example is research done by Wackenhut (2018) on prodemocracy activism in post-uprising Egypt. In any ethical framework, one aspect that a researcher should always do prior to the research is to ask consent from their participants. Due to the rising amount of repressive threats for many civil society members in Egypt, however, the author decided not to have a written consent form. As any written consent can leave paper trails, she asked the consent verbally instead of sticking to the written form. Interestingly, out of the 69 semi-structured interviews conducted, only three interviewees explicitly asked to remain anonymous while only two objected to an electronic recording. Although most did not disclose their preference, in fact a number of the interviewees asked to have their real names in the material and publications. This request seems odd as participants usually request to have their name anonymised instead of stated clearly in an interview, especially when potential threats are imminent. In this case, however, the interviewees wished to make their own voices heard on the subject matter, which wouldn’t be possible unless their identity was being published. After the completion of data collection, however, the situation turned out to have deteriorated as more repression was implemented. As an example, Italian doctoral student named Giulio Regeni was tortured and killed after the fifth anniversary of January 25 uprising, since he was writing a Ph.D. thesis on the role of the unofficial labour movement and unionisation attempts in post-revolutionary Egypt. Because of this situation, ideally the author would contact the interviewees and let them assess the risk to decide if they are still willing to be named in the publication. Considering the surveillance by Egyptian government, however, it is infeasible to do so without potentially jeopardising their safety. This problem forced the author to choose between two options; should she respect the agreed consent during data collection process by explicitly represent the full name of the participants or completely anonymise the identity instead? One of the ethical problems of honouring the commitment of some interviewees at the data collection process, by using their full name in the publication, is that it may jeopardise their material, psychological, and physical well-being. Anonymising participant identities, on the other hand, also had its own ethical problem. Since some interviewees explicitly requested to be published in a full name. Anonymising their identity meant the author would violate the terms that had been mutually agreed, as well as depriving them of their voices. Based on the downside of each option, the author is faced with an ethical dilemma. In this particular case, however, the only feasible option was to anonymise the identities of all research participants. One fundamental principle in moral

4.2 Research Results

101

philosophy that identifies ethical duties is to avoid causing harm to others. Even at the expense of violating the informed consent, the avoidance of harm comparatively is more important, which the author has successfully executed. The author protects the confidentiality by completely remove all specific information of the participants, up to eliminating the five-digit ID code for each participant and replaced it with a name obtained from randomising the top 100 most common names in Egypt. The case on Egypt shows that researchers have to be able to carefully reflect the ethical implications of research, on top of being aware of the ethical guidelines such as ‘informed consent’ or ‘do no harm.’ Implementing ethical procedures may not be as straightforward as the guideposts due to real-life complexity. Thus, it is crucial to adjust the guidelines based on the circumstances faced by a researcher. One key thing to remember is that the procedures adopted for this project might not be applicable or generalisable to a different context, including in Indonesia. Hence, every researcher is obliged to carefully consider and engage with these issues at all stages of the research.

4.2 Research Results The long process of research is always concluded with a discovery, reporting, and publication of the results. Yet, when dealing with research results, such as the dissemination or publication process, researchers should not abandon ethical deliberations. The ethical aspects of research results are equally important because those results can have drastic impacts to society. For example, the results of a research on psychology may be used as a main reference for clinical psychology, and the results of social science studies may be used as a basis for nation-wide social policies. If a researcher delivers the results incorrectly and below the standards of scientific excellence, the impact may be counterproductive on society, i.e. causing false treatments to be administered, large sums of money to be wasted, and the well-being of thousands or maybe even millions could well be at stake. As such, researchers should be mindful of these issues, and must consider the broad implications, of assumptions used, and potential side effects of their research (American Evaluation Association, 2013). This section consists of two parts: problems regarding manipulation of results and those regarding results’ misinterpretation.

102

4 Post-research

4.2.1 Manipulation and Transparency To make a deliberate falsification for personal gain is the last, worst depth to which either scholar or artist can descend in work or life. —Dorothy L Sayers, The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers. Vol. 1, 1899–1936: The Making of a Detective Novelist

From the standpoint of research results, ethical violations can occur because of two reasons: (1) intentional or unintentional acts by the researcher and (2) the conduct of external parties in using the results which causes harm to society. This section discusses the former, while the latter will be explored in the next section (Table 4.3). Unlike other ethical violations, such as conflict of interests or discriminative behaviour, violation of transparency is extremely difficult for other parties to detect since only the researcher knows whether or not he or she is truly transparent with the results. For example, real data in research is often messy. However, once a researcher publishes a paper using the data, it is impossible to detect if there is any issue with the data, e.g. mistake in the input process, unless the researcher is willing to share Table 4.3 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: manipulation and transparency Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Consider negative results to be as valid as Only publish results which are desirable for positive findings for publication and researchers but do not reflect the reality dissemination (All European Academies, 2017) Discuss with the research leader when an error that devaluates the results is found, and immediately make revisions, or if necessary, withdraw the publication (Seoul National University, 2010)

Mask an error when it devaluates the results because no one else knows

Accurately represent procedures, data, and findings, and attempt to prevent or correct misuse of research by others (American Evaluation Association, 2013)

Attempt to falsify procedures, data, or findings just to achieve the “desired” results

Intentionally hide some parts of the research Keep good research records in order to allow others to do verification and replication of the method/process to prevent verification by work (Oslo and Akershus University College of other people Applied Sciences, 2014; World Conference on Research Integrity, 2010) Ensure the accuracy of public communications which include, but are not limited to, directory listings; personal resumes or curriculum vitae; or other published materials (Education and Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board University Wisconsin-Madison, 2016)

Make public statements that are false, deceptive, misleading, or fraudulent, either because of what they state, convey, or suggest or because of what they omit, concerning the research, practice, or other work activities or those of persons or organisations with which research/researchers are affiliated (American Sociological Association, 1999)

4.2 Research Results

103

the research data publicly. Unfortunately, the “advantage” of knowing more information than the reader can be exploited by researchers. For instance, theoretically a researcher is able to falsify the research data in order to manipulate their research results without being noticed by most readers, although this would be an extreme ethical violation. Researchers in Indonesia often overlook the fact that research is not only about finding positive and/or significant results. Admittedly, most researchers would crave to obtain significant results, especially after months or years of exhausting work. However, some researchers may go as far as manipulating their data and doing everything they can to obtain the desired results, particularly when working with clients or external parties. For example, it is not uncommon for researchers to disregard key indicators (i.e. statistical power; see references) just to meet the rule-of-thumb “5-percent significance value” for statistical conclusions in quantitative research. When researchers are too focused on such rules, they may fail to properly apply the appropriate procedures, thus leading to problems such as “false positives” (see Focus Box 4.3). It must be understood that statistically insignificant results and weak findings can also provide insightful and vital information about the world around us. Although such results may be contrary to the initial hypothesis or expectation, the concern lies in justifying why the results might be different from the hypothesis. As researchers, our goal is to explain the reality better, not to defend our hypothesis or try to convince others that it is correct when it is not supported by solid, scientific evidence. Meanwhile, in some cases, researchers may be “captured” by their clients’ interests, as they rely on their clients for funding. Some clients may demand researchers to obtain specific results in order to support and/or justify their interests. Yet, researchers must remember that they have a duty to help improve the world through honest studies of various phenomena, and, therefore, no justification exists for the sacrifice of transparency for the sake of clients’ interests.

Focus Box 4.3 Ignorance of “False Positive” is (not) a Bliss A false positive is a harmful mistake a researcher can make when he or she is too fixated with obtaining significant results. The question is: What is a “false positive” and why could it be harmful to society? A false positive is an error in data reporting in which a result incorrectly shows the presence of a phenomenon, such as a disease (i.e. the result is positive), when in reality it is not present. The easiest way to understand it is to remember the parable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” This story tells of a case where the error of false positive occurs: a shepherd boy misleads nearby villagers about the presence of attacking wolves, when there is actually none. In the end, when the wolves do attack the village, the boy’s shouts are ignored since the villagers believe that it is another false alarm.

104

4 Post-research

In the case of research, an example of false positive is an overdiagnosis of cancer. In a study conducted by Brodersen and Siersma (2013), it was shown that screening mammography (breast cancer detection test) often leads to false positive results, which means that the test detects cancer when there is actually none. Some people may think that false positive is not a big problem as it can serve as a precautionary measure. Yet, the study discovered that the false positive caused a long-term psychosocial harm to the people misled by the test. Hence, it is important for social scientists to be careful with the issue of false positives, as it can bring harm in social research as well. In order to achieve utmost transparency in research, all procedures, data, and findings must be represented accurately (American Evaluation Association, 2013). One reason why it is important to do so is because transparency enables others to replicate and verify the research. Unlike what some may think, replication is not similar to plagiarism. In fact, replication will increase the validity and reliability of research as well as determine whether the research can be generalised in different or broader situations. Researchers should not attempt to prevent verification by intentionally hiding the procedures, data, and findings (unless if doing so will bring harm to the participants of their research). Furthermore, researchers should ensure that the public statements they deliver are accurately based on their research. Researchers are strictly forbidden from giving statements which are misleading or deceptive about their work and their affiliations with certain individuals and or organisations (American Sociological Association, 1999). This is crucial as researchers’ affiliations with organisations or persons can limit their objectivity in presenting public statements. For example, researchers hired by private companies may be urged to mislead communities by making statements which benefit those companies. Such actions breach ethical guidelines for researchers, as not only can they bring immediate harm, but deceptive statements can also ruin future studies based on the research. Nevertheless, in some cases, mistakes or errors in research may be unintentional and may only be discovered after the research has been published. In those cases, researchers should be open with their mistakes and immediately revise their works. Under circumstances when the errors are substantial and can mislead society, it may be necessary to withdraw the published work (Seoul National University, 2010). Thus, researchers’ responsibility about the transparency and quality of research does not end when research is published but remains until it is confirmed that there are no mistakes made in the research. In other words, responsibility and ethical concerns over research last forever, just as endlessly as the impacts of their scientific findings.

4.2 Research Results

105

4.2.2 Misuse and Misinterpretation of Results As we have discussed in the previous section, research extends to beyond the data collection and writing processes. Although researchers may have fulfilled the required measures to responsibly conduct their research, maintain their transparency, and prevent any misleading statements in their public communications, it does not guarantee the fulfilment of all ethical aspects. One aspect which is even more difficult for researchers to surmount and control is how the public will perceive their research. Research that follows accurate procedures but is misinterpreted is not different from research which violates standards of excellence, since both may lead to harmful consequences. As such, the problem of misuse and misinterpretation of results is classified as an ethical violation, even if it may not be the researcher who directly commits the violation, because indirectly the misuse and misrepresentation are caused by the researcher (Table 4.4). In order to guarantee that research is not being misinterpreted, first and foremost, researchers should not make any deceptive statement (Social Research Association, 2003); their statements should always reflect their actual findings, and they should ensure that precision and high standards of quality are continuously maintained. Writing precise and clear statements will minimise the possibility of research being misinterpreted. Table 4.4 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: misuse and misinterpretation of results Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Create statements which reflect the actual findings, and minimise the possibilities of misinterpretation

Make public statements which are false, deceptive, misleading, or fraudulent (Social Research Association, 2003)

Be sensitive to the possible consequences of research, and, as far as possible, guard against predictably harmful effects (Social Research Association, 2003)

Be ignorant of the consequences arising from the results of research

Persuade clients to use data science2 appropriately, and take remedial measures if a party intends to, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the research (Data Science Association, n.d.)

Allow clients and/or other parties to use data science1 to communicate a false reality or promote an illusion of understanding

Make efforts to anticipate and prevent misunderstandings and misuse of reports by careful presentation and documentation in original reports (Canadian Institutional Research and Planning Association, 2012)

Be careless in presenting research results as it can lead to misunderstanding or misuse of reports

Scrupulously consider the possibility that research may be used against society’s well-being (Osaka Prefecture University Public Corporation, 2015)

Focus only on how to get the desired research result without considering the side effects of the research on the society

1,2

Data science is a discipline, a field of study

106

4 Post-research

Additionally, researchers should be sensitive to the consequences of their statements and writings. Researchers must always be aware of and prevent the harmful effects which their words and actions may bring about, especially when such effects can be predicted. It must be noted that researchers cannot anticipate or notice all statements which may perilously impact people and society. However, researchers can and should practice caution when presenting their research, and they should document in their original reports the precautions they take to prevent misuse and misrepresentation (Canadian Institutional Research and Planning Association, 2012). In cases where it is possible to predict whether or not research results may be misused or misinterpreted, researchers should first remind and persuade the relevant parties (i.e. clients, funders, etc.) that information should be used appropriately. When such a reminder or persuasion is not possible, researchers must prioritise the ethical conduct of research by taking remedial measures, such as withdrawing from the agreement or even disclosing the inappropriate conduct to official authorities. For instance, researchers may find themselves working with a client who has a clear intention to fraudulently use the research results or the data provided by the research (Data Science Association, n.d.). Researchers often encounter difficulties in going against the terms of their contracts. When encountering such situations, however, allowing fraudulent actions to continue threatens the well-being of people, the trust placed on science, and the reputation and integrity of research. Even minor infractions, as we will see in the next section, can have major impacts of unexpected magnitudes.

4.3 References and Authorship Among the most common issues occurring after the completion of research in Indonesia are those of referencing and authorship. Often, researchers violate ethical guidelines because of authors’ carelessness in referring to the sources used in their research. This issue is closely related with, but is not limited to, plagiarism. Besides the matter of referencing, researchers in Indonesia are also often found violating ethics because of the way they classify and order authors. Authorship credit is highly sought after in academia, not only for fame, but because those credits are used to determine one’s potential to gain promotion in the structure of academia, thereby affecting one’s position and therefore pay and prestige. Faculty members of Indonesian public institutions of higher education are part of the public sector bureaucracy, for whom promotion is judged by points achieved by an individual in a variety of components, including publication in reputable scientific journals. As Indonesian academia is to participate in a variety of international ranking systems which attach great value to research and publications, the Indonesian government has issued a ruling on its importance in evaluating lecturers for promotion. The value of a publication is judged by the ranking of the journal in available indexes, and for a particular author, it is the location in the order the authors are listed. The order of authorship in an article determines the number of credit points to be earned

4.3 References and Authorship

107

for a particular article. The first author is allocated 50% of the total points given for an article while the remaining 50% is distributed equally between all other authors. Consequently, it is easy to find cases where lecturers and professors are listed as authors of a scientific publication despite having made little or no contribution to the particular article or publication. Ethical violations have occurred with the combination of faculty having to earn credit points from publications as an indicator of their research activity and the same is true of graduate students who are subject to the requirement of publishing their final papers in reputable scientific journals. This has been a venue for some lecturers who served as supervisor to get their names listed as author with the student and even as first author. Such actions have been justified by supervisors who claim to be the originator of the topic and provided the student with a variety of ideas and assistance during the research. Such misconduct, while seemingly trivial compared to those discussed in the previous sections, cannot be condoned in ethics. We discuss here the many aspects and consequences of inappropriate referencing and choosing selection of authors.

4.3.1 Referencing and Citation In order to prevent ethical violation, proper referencing and citing resources that are used in the research are extremely important. Unlike what most people may think, the benefit of referencing is not only to give proper acknowledgement to previous research. Writing proper references will show the readers that the research has been properly done from the list of sources to obtain information. There are lots of citation formats that can be used in research (see Focus Box 4.4). This book, however, will not go deep into the details as there are numerous guidelines that can be found about each citation format.

Focus Box 4.4 Which Citation Format to Choose? There are numerous citation formats that can be used for referencing, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago format. However, is there a format that is better than the others? The short answer: “No.” When choosing which citation should be used in research, there is no single guideline which indicates that a certain citation format is better than others. Regardless of which citation format one chooses, e.g. APA and MLA, as long as the sources are properly cited, all of the formats will always lead to the same sources. In one article, the general rule to follow is that the only guideline that needs to be followed is the institution’s or publisher’s guidelines, as different journals or institutions have their own standards in order to maintain consistency. Thus, what researchers need to ensure in creating

108

4 Post-research

citations is only to keep consistency in referencing (there cannot be two or more reference in different formats, e.g. one source is cited using the APA format, while another is cited following the MLA format) and follow the institution’s or publisher’s guidelines.

4.3.2 Authorship It cannot be denied that authorship is an important component of research. Although it may not affect the research process directly, deciding which author(s) will be cited and the order of authorship significantly affect researchers. The benefits of authorship, ranging from workplace promotions to recognition from society, can be substantial. Not surprising researchers are prone to being tempted to use research and authorship for personal gain. There are indirect impacts when researchers go against the rules of appropriate conduct with regard to authorship, and those impacts can affect the quality and interpretation of research (Table 4.5). Table 4.5 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: authorship Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Limit authorship to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study (Elsevier, n.d.)

Give authorship on grounds which are not merit-based (i.e. honorarily or as a courtesy) (ETH Zurich, 2011)

Acknowledge in publications the names and roles of those who made significant contributions to the research, including writers, funders, sponsors, and others, but do not meet authorship criteria (World Conference on Research Integrity, 2010)

Exclude any person who has significantly contributed to the work and, vice versa, include someone who has not contributed to it (University of Bologna, 2014)

Get final approval from the author(s) before submitting a paper from publication or presentation (De La Salle University, 2011)

Mistake editors for authors (Board of Universiti Putra Malaysia, 2012)

For example, one of the responsibilities of authors is to constantly check the validity of their research before any publication or presentation (De La Salle University, 2011). If authorship is given to a person who does not understand the research itself, it will reduce the reliability of the research and threaten the research quality. Additionally, such “gift authors” (as will be discussed later), in their ignorance, can create false statements and therefore mislead the public about the results of research. As we have explored, misleading statements can bring great harm to many, and hence the need for ethical conduct in assigning authorship.

4.3 References and Authorship

109

The general guideline for authorship is that it should be given only to those who have made important contributions to the research, be it for the concept, design, execution, and/or the interpretation of the results (Elsevier, n.d.). Authorship should not be given honorarily or as a favour or a courtesy (ETH Zurich, 2011), which is one of the most common mistakes made regarding authorship is the case of students and their supervisors. In many cases, it is the student who contributes enormously to the research, but the student often ends up having to share authorship credit with their supervisor, despite the minimum involvement of the supervisor. If the supervisor does indeed aid the student in the writing process, then the supervisor may also be classified as an author. However, the same thing does not apply when the supervisor only gives the general idea to the student—even though ideas are the key to research, the “shape” of the research itself is determined by the actual design, execution, and interpretation of research. Giving ideas only is not enough to earn authorship credit. Thus, in the case of authorship, ethical guidelines distinguish between authorship and acknowledgement of all those who have contributed to the research. Essentially, those who made significant contributions to the research but do not meet the criteria to become an author should be mentioned in the “acknowledgement” section of the research report/publication (University of Bologna, 2014; World Conference on Research Integrity, 2010). Therefore, teachers, supervisors, students, and other persons who only assist in editing the research but do not significantly contribute during the process of the study should only be acknowledged as an editor, not an author (Board of Universiti Putra Malaysia, 2012). Further discussion about authorship is continued in the next three subsections. The first subsection will go in depth about the sequencing of authors, whereas the latter two will explore the two most common violations of authorship: the problems of “ghost writers” and “gift authors.” These ethical issues are prevalent in Indonesia, and they play a role in hindering the scientific progress of the country, both domestically and internationally, as dubious writing makes the quality and integrity of research papers questionable.

4.3.2.1

Contributions and Sequencing

One of the issues which may be overlooked about authorship is how to decide its order. As mentioned earlier, the sequencing of authorship can have significant impacts on the authors themselves, as the order can determine the credits earned and the academic recognition received. Unfortunately, because of this potential benefit, there are quite a number of cases where the order of authorship does not adhere to scientific standards of conduct (Table 4.6). Although the decision of authorship is usually finalised during the last stages of a research or publication, the topic should be discussed much earlier. Authorship sequencing should be discussed as early as possible, and a consensus should be reached during the early stages of research (although it may be later altered if, for example, the contribution of the person originally designated as the first author does not reflect the recognition). Any decision made regarding sequencing should not be

110

4 Post-research

Table 4.6 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: contributions and sequencing Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Discuss and obtain consensus among researchers regarding the sequence of authors (Hermann & Flecker, 2003)

Use hierarchical power to influence the order of authors for unfair purposes

Ensure that the principal authorship and other publication credits are based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved (American Sociological Association, 1999)

Decide the order of authorship solely based on status and/or power

based on hierarchical authority, and authors should not use their power to unfairly influence sequencing (Hermann & Flecker, 2003). Just as authorship is merit-based, the order of authorship and the publication credits given should be purely based on the relative contributions of individuals (American Sociological Association, 1999), rewarding the most recognition to those who do the most of the research. Violation of this rule can discourage researchers who contribute the most to research, and, if incentives to significant contributions to research disappear, the quality of research also declines. Another consideration which must be taken into account in deciding the sequence of authors is who should become the first author and who should become the corresponding author (see Focus Box 4.5). The corresponding author is the person who acts as the contact person for communication with the publisher of a journal to which the research report has been submitted. In most cases, the corresponding author is given to the research supervisor as they will hold the responsibilities for the paper. Yet, it does not erase the possibility that the student or research assistant who knows the research better to become the corresponding author. Consequently, the order of authorship, as well as its designation, should be handled case by case, with a merit-based criterion.

Focus Box 4.5 First Author Versus Corresponding Author When discussing the sequencing of authors, the terms “First Author” and “Corresponding Author” often arise. Indeed, the main question about authorship is who should become the first author and the corresponding author. In order to answer the question, we must start by identifying the characteristics of each type of author. The first author should be the person who has contributed the most to the work, which includes the writing of the research manuscript (Bhattacharya, 2010). Meanwhile, the corresponding author is the person who takes the primary responsibility for communication with journals during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication processes. It is also the corresponding author who typically ensures that all of the journals’ administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship and

4.3 References and Authorship

111

all other necessary disclosures (i.e. conflict of interests), are properly fulfilled (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2018). Based on those rules, the title of the first author should be given to those who conducted most of the work in the research, while the title of the corresponding author should be given to those who are most knowledgeable about the research. As a result, students publishing their theses should find themselves being the first author, while their supervisors are classified as the corresponding author. However, it should be remembered that this “rule” cannot be applied to all cases. For instance, because the student does the majority of the work, it is very likely for her or him to be more knowledgeable than their supervisor. If that is the case, it is possible for the first author to simultaneously become the corresponding author, and the supervisor becomes the second author as long as he or she did contribute to the paper.

4.3.2.2

“Ghost Writers”

One of the most common phenomena of ethical violation regarding authorship is the “ghost writer.” Ghost writer can be defined as a person who has actually made a significant intellectual contribution to the research but is not included as an author. Under the general principle of accountability, all authors in a research must give their final approval of the report before publication or presentation (De La Salle University, 2011). Since all authors share a responsibility to the published result, they have to give their consents for inclusion as authors in the research and should have made a significant contribution to the work (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, n.d.). Yet, there are some cases where a person, i.e. a ghost writer, who should be included as an author due to her or his contribution is excluded. For example, it is possible that an original author hires external parties to work on the research for their part. Yet, because of the desire to be recognised for the work, the original author decides not to mention the person responsible for the work as the real author. This kind of practice is prohibited by almost all journals, especially the reputable ones, as it violates ethical guidelines (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2018). Many journal regulations require that every person who contributes significantly to research has to be included as an author, whereas those who do not should not be mentioned as an author. If the contribution is less substantial, it does not mean that the individual can be entirely “ignored” from the journal. Instead, they should still be recognised but possibly in the acknowledgement section (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2018). In fact, acknowledging all those who made contributions to a particular research will affect the credibility, and help to improve the validity, of the research. Take as an example when there is a ghost writer. In this case, a ghost writer may know a

112

4 Post-research

lot more on what is written than the stated author(s), especially if the author(s) do not check what has been written by the ghost writer. If there is a criticism to the paper, e.g. during presentation or reviewing process, the inability of the listed author to respond properly will reduce the credibility of the work. Any mistakes made by the ghost writer that were not seen by the author(s) will also reduce the credibility of the research itself, as well as the author(s) reputation. Several international institutions have a rule that, unless the writer agrees not to receive any payment, then their name will not be listed as an author in the publication. In this case, the writer has the option to choose between the monetary incentive and the acknowledgement as an author. Although one may argue that monetary incentive does compensate a writer for her or his exclusion as an author, from the ethical point of view, being paid does not mean the writer should be denied the acknowledgement as an author.

4.3.2.3

“Gift Authors”

Simultaneously, gift authors—the “opposite” of ghost writers—also exist. Gift authors are authors who are given or demand authorship credit, but they do not actually deserve it. Usually, gift authors receive authorship due to their status, hierarchical position, or the nature of their relationships with the researchers. One example of this practice is students that give authorship credit to their supervisor, due to respect or the demand of the supervisor, when they did not contribute directly to the research. Gift authors violate the ethical guidelines because of the aforementioned rules of authorship. Among the criteria for one to be recognised as an author is that the individual must be involved in at least a combination of the following (Universiti Putra Malaysia, 2012): – Contribute to the concept and/or framework of the work/research. – Become the analyst or interpreter for the research data and information. – Contribute significantly to the writing and/or provide intellectual revision to the content. It should always be remembered that researchers should take the responsibility for what they contribute to the publication. In the case of gift author, since authorship is not based on merit, their contribution to the research is not significant, and, as a result, they may weaken the reliability of research. The danger is especially high during the review period, when most journals usually require authors to revise their work. The danger rises even more if the gift authors are also assigned as the corresponding authors because, without intimate knowledge of the work, they will not be able to appropriately respond to, and make adjustments based on, the feedback. Although some gift authors may argue that they deserved to be one of the authors by giving “passive academic contributions,” such as routine clinical work that allows other authors to carry on with writing up the work, most journals discourage these kind of practices (Bavdekar, 2012). Thus, gift authors are not desirable in any way similar to ghost writers; in fact, in some cases, gift authors may be worse for they may reduce the trustworthiness of the research.

4.3 References and Authorship

4.3.2.4

113

“Guest Writer”

In the previous two sections, we have discussed problems that may arise in research publication: ghost writers and gift authors. Beyond these issues, however, there is also one practice that is not commonly encountered in a scientific community, which is “guest writers.” Guest writers refer to senior authors who are included because of their seniority or influence in the hope that this will increase the likelihood of publication or impact of the paper once published (Harvey, 2018). By this definition, guest writers and gift authors are similar in the sense that that authorship is given to people who do not deserve the acknowledgement. Without having proper knowledge of the work, guest writers will not be able to make proper adjustment if any revision is required, which will reduce the credibility of the work.

4.3.3 Avoiding Plagiarism If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants. —Isaac Newton

Science develops through building on the existing pool of knowledge to expand our understanding. Using the work of others to help in our research is allowed, normal, and even necessary, so long as credit and acknowledgement are given. It is only when authors fail to give due acknowledgement that good conduct is breached (Table 4.7). Table 4.7 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: plagiarism Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Give proper acknowledgements to other works, use quotation marks for verbatim copying of material, and secure permissions for material that is copyrighted (Egré, n.d.)

Express all or any part of the research idea and/or data made by other researchers in a different way as if it were your own work (Seoul National University, 2010)

Clearly describe all policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publishing licences (COPE, 2018)

Use sentences written by any other person as if they were your own sentences (Seoul National University, 2010)

Provide appropriate citations for all usage of text, data, or figures from other publications, sources, or individuals, including from one’s previous publications. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is unacceptable (A*STAR, NTU, NUS, & SUTD, 2016)

Taking other person’s research(s) or sentence(s) and claim it as if they were your own (Seoul National University, 2010)

Obtain the necessary permission to reuse third-party material in your article (Tourism Geographies, n.d.)

Use material for which you do not hold the copyright without obtaining a written permission from the copyright owner (Tourism Geographies, n.d.)

114

4 Post-research

Plagiarism is an act of presenting others’ data, texts, or theories as if they were your own (Egré, n.d.). In research, plagiarism is one of the most common ethical violations, whether intentionally or otherwise. Intentional plagiarism usually happens when researchers purposefully do not cite references used in an attempt to present their research as original and frontier research. Meanwhile, unintentional plagiarism is a result of a researcher’s carelessness in not giving proper acknowledgement to other works used. Since each research is an original work and an intellectual property, proper acknowledgement should be given to others’ research (Egré, n.d.). However, plagiarism does not stop at failure to give proper acknowledgement at the end of the research. One of the aspects that researchers may overlook is that in some cases, others may choose to protect their works and prevent any citation without permission. Although rare, it means that every researcher should be aware of the intellectual property (e.g. copyright and the publishing licensed) related to the work. They should be aware of the limitations of using other’s works and should not break it (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2018). Of course, restriction of plagiarism does not mean that a researcher cannot use others’ works. In fact, it is implausible for research to stand on its own without any references. Even top-quality research always builds on others’ works, including ideas, data, or the methodology, thereby showing that he or she is aware of the ‘state of the art’ of a particular topic at a particular time. What is important in using others’ works is that a researcher should not jeopardise the originality of their own research. All research should place the research question or hypotheses within the context of a review of all existing literature on the topic thereby identifying a research gap which the proposed research is to fill. In doing so, it is really important for a researcher to correctly indicate the sources or citations, besides also stating that the researcher is aware of all the scholars interested in the topic and the positions they hold. There are several acts that a researcher should stay away from, such as (Seoul National University, 2010): – Using all or part of other scholars’ research ideas and outcomes by only paraphrasing AND claiming them as their own intentions and findings. – Copy somebody else’s sentences and treat them as one’s own. – Copy the writings of others with only minor changes, such as reordering some words and/or substituting some words with synonyms. Nevertheless, it does not mean that a research should blindly declare which sources they are referring to or cited from. In some cases, a researcher may be required to ask for permission before declaring the source of the information. One of the examples is for information that is obtained privately, such as from conversation, correspondence, or discussion with other parties. Without obtaining written consent, this kind of information should be reported explicitly (Elsevier, 2017). If the researcher is careless in reporting privately obtained information, they may jeopardise the well-being of the respondent, even when the researcher feels that the information is not sensitive, because the researcher cannot perfectly predict the impact of disclosing specific information.

4.3 References and Authorship

115

Focus Box 4.6 Controversy of Self-Plagiarism/Auto-Plagiarism One of the most debated topics regarding plagiarism is whether or not selfplagiarism (recycling or reusing one’s own specific words from previously published texts) is ethically allowed. Technically, conducting self-plagiarism is not equal to plagiarism as the researcher does not claim others’ works as their own. However, self-plagiarism carries dangerous potential of misuse. In general, as an author, a researcher (or an employer or an institution) has certain rights to reuse their own works. As long as the researcher cites the previous work when they use it in the current research, it is not classified as an unacceptable practice (All European Academies, 2017). In fact, theoretically, it is almost impossible for a researcher to create new research without using knowledge from past research, as the researchers’ previous work will always impact their future works. Yet, this does not mean that there is no limit to using previous works. Philosophically, the rationale behind avoiding self-plagiarism is to maintain the integrity of the research. Each published research or work is expected to introduce new knowledge to society. However, in some cases, the practice of self-plagiarism is usually related to the problem of “salami slicing.” One of the worst abuses of this practice is the work done by Noorbala et al. (2017), in which the authors “self-plagiarize” their work 31 times. Although the number is alarming in and of itself, the main problem is the number of papers they produced; the violation lies in how they “slice” their main paper into 31 different parts. From a summary of mental health surveys in Iran, Noorbala and his fellow authors split the information into 31 “smaller” papers, each discussing the survey result of one province, and each of them cited the main summary paper. Ethically, this kind of practice is unacceptable since it creates an impression that the summary is being supported by the “smaller” papers, while in truth, the smaller papers are only parts of it. Therefore, social science researchers should avoid self-plagiarism if there is no strong rationale behind it. In some cases, self-plagiarism is acceptable if the more recent work brings new information and knowledge to science. However, self-plagiarism should never be used to merely benefit oneself (i.e. to increase the number of citations) in ways which do not contribute to science.

4.3.4 Acknowledgement Although, for the most part, authors have a major role in determining the quality of research, it is entirely wrong to assume that only the author plays a part in the research. To make remarkable research, the contributions and support of multiple

116

4 Post-research

Table 4.8 What to “Do” and “Don’t”: acknowledgement Do(s)

Don’t(s)

Engage in research in a fair manner and respect others’ rights, including their copyrights recognised in written articles such as academic papers, evaluation of contributions made upon announcement of research findings, and patents awarded to the fruits of research (Research Ethics Committee, 2009)

Fail to acknowledge anyone who contributes to the paper, even if he or she does not meet the criteria of authorship (Wiley Online Library, n.d.) Give acknowledgement to contributors without asking for permission (Wiley Online Library, n.d.)

parties and persons are often required. The help of research assistants in collecting data, of sponsors in funding the research, and aid from editors who control the quality of research papers, should not be cast aside. Just as researchers must recognise the works of others to avoid plagiarism, it is only ethical that the time, effort, and work assistants, sponsors, editors, and other parties have put into research are also recognised. Hence, it is mandatory to acknowledge all those who have contributed to the research (Table 4.8). As has been noted earlier, all of those who have contributed to the completion of the research but who do not fall under the criteria of authors should be included in the acknowledgement section. For example, a teacher or student who has contributed in editing the author’s manuscript should be acknowledged as an editor, and should not be recognised as an author because he or she did not contribute to the technicalities of the research and are not responsible for the content of the manuscript (Universiti Putra Malaysia, 2012). However, before acknowledging the contributions of others, the permission of the contributors should first be gained. Should contributors, such as sponsors or funders, decline to be acknowledged for their assistance, authors of the research should respect their wishes. However, when permission has been granted, authors are required to declare the organisation that funded their research (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2013), as disclosure about sources of funds is crucial to maintain research transparency and prevent suspicions regarding conflict of interests. Indeed, as we have seen and will see, transparency, absence of conflict of interests, openness, integrity, and accountability are central in maintaining research quality and in ensuring that research meets the standards of both scientific and ethical excellence. The lingering ethical concerns which arise and last even after the research is completed are no less important than those concerning the research methods and processes. Misconduct and ethical violations in any stage of research cannot be tolerated, and sanctions exist to discourage and punish misconduct. Yet, what is considered as misconduct and ethical violation may differ, and it is this last issue which we tackle in the following chapter.

Chapter 5

Research Misconduct

When a wise man is advised of his errors, he will reflect on and improve his conduct. When his misconduct is pointed out, a foolish man will not only disregard the advice but rather repeat the same error. —Gautama Buddha

In earlier chapters, we have noted a number of cases where the researchers’ behaviour or actions are at odds with the core principle of research ethics. Unfortunately, as research misconduct is often described in a very confined definition, there are some acts that are not considered as misconduct even if they are at odds with research ethics. For example, research misconduct means actual or attempted acts of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or deception when proposing, conducting, or reporting results of research, or deliberate, dangerous, reckless, or negligent deviations from accepted practices in carrying out research (Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014). Yet, throughout this book, it has been shown that there are far bigger violations than only fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and deception. This book has also shown that there is no “misconduct” that can be taken too seriously. For example, from Chap. 4, we learned that small issues that seems trivial, such as the order of authorship, could bring huge implications where a mistake has been found in the paper or article. Thus, this chapter aims to “break” the overly-narrowed definition in order to give a researcher, especially those specialised in social studies, more awareness about what kind of act is classified as research misconduct, what is the implication of deviating from acceptable practices, as well as the potential sanction that could arise by learning from the example from other institutions and/or countries. The chapter will close with the conclusion that although preventing misconduct is necessary, it is not sufficient from ethical perspective.

© Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 M. Oey-Gardiner et al., Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0_5

117

118

5 Research Misconduct

5.1 Overview Research misconduct can be defined in many ways. According to the University of Helsinki (2018), research misconduct is part of the violation of the responsible conduct of research, in which the misconduct itself includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and misappropriation of research results. A different source also defined research misconduct to include the intentional unauthorised use, damage to, or removal of, research-related data such as materials, writings, and data (Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014). At a glance, this definition is identical with ethical violation. Thus, what differentiates research misconduct from ethical violation? Although the definition looks similar, there is one key difference between research misconduct and ethical violation; “intentional act.” Certain practices in research are only considered misconduct when done intentionally, thus making the definition of research misconduct more specific than an ethical violation. Poor practices, such as weak record-keeping, or minor infractions without any evident intention to deceive are not classified as research misconduct because they can be corrected and prevented by training, mentoring, education, and guidance (London School of Economics & Political Science, 2018). Furthermore, honest errors and differences in design, execution, or judgement in evaluating research are also not classified as research misconduct because they are not intentional (Personnel Services University of Oxford, 2014). Focus Box 5.1 ‘If Research Misconduct is Not Equal to Ethical Violation, Then What Is It?’ In Sect. 5.1, we explained that there are some differences between research misconduct and ethical violation, implying that not every ethical violation is considered misconduct. Then, is there any other example of what practices are classified as research misconduct? From the guidelines of All European Academies (All European Academies, 2017), research misconduct includes these unacceptable practices, but is not confined to – Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications. – Re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘selfplagiarism’). – Citing selectively to enhance one’s own findings or to please editors, reviewers, or colleagues. – Withholding research results. – Allowing funders/sponsors to jeopardise independence in the research process or reporting of results so as to introduce or promulgate bias.

5.2 Prominent Issues of Research Misconduct

119

– – – – – – –

Expanding unnecessarily the bibliography of a study. Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way. Misrepresenting research achievements. Exaggerating the importance and practical applicability of findings. Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers. Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity. Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions. – Establishing or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research (‘predatory journals’). Focus Box 5.1 lists a number of examples of research misconduct. Knowing different kinds of research misconduct surely helps us to understand what misconduct is, but it is not sufficient to really understand what research misconduct actually is. If we take a look at the examples above, some practices can be done without any intention, e.g. exaggerating the importance of findings, which imply that it is not a misconduct. Can this classification be used as the justification if a researcher unintentionally, genuinely believes her/his findings are more important than they are? At the end of the chapter, a reader should be able to see why the answer to the question above is “No.” Avoiding research misconduct is only part of adhering to ethical guidelines, and researchers should really understand not only the consequences from research misconduct, but also the repercussions from unintentional acts that deviate from ethical principles.

5.2 Prominent Issues of Research Misconduct As mentioned before in the Overview of Research Misconduct and Focus Box 5.1, research misconduct covers various unacceptable practices. Yet, from all of the possible types of misconduct, there are certain types that can be classified into one group due to their similarities. The next two subsections will cover the type of misconduct which is often practised: (1) conflict of interest and (2) transparency in research. This section, however, will not only restrict the discussion in those two subsections. In the final subsection, other issues of research misconduct will also be shown as there is no misconduct that can be treated lightly.

120

5 Research Misconduct

5.2.1 Conflict of Interest In the discussion on conflict of interest (CoI) in Chap. 3, there are several types of conflict of interest and how they violate ethical aspects of research. All cases of the conflict of interest, such as financial conflict of interest or conflict of interest with external parties, are classified as research misconduct because more often than not, many ethical guidelines already covered the issues of conflict of interest. Unlike in social science, the issue of conflict of interest had been discussed and questioned for a more extended period in medicine. Yet, there are a lot of practices in social science that can be considered as conflict of interest as well. As one of the most well-known cases of conflict of interest, these are the examples that can be regarded as financial conflict of interest (FCoI) and may lead to research misconduct, such as: – Failure to submit a timely disclosure; – Submission of an incomplete, erroneous or misleading initial, updated or annual disclosure; – Failure to disclose information as required by the university policy; or – Failure to comply with prescribed management plans (Northwestern University, 2018). Other than FCoI, several practices can be considered as a potential conflict of interest, such as: – Having research sponsored by a party who might benefit by, or who contracts with external organisations that might have an interest in, a particular result being achieved (University of Southern Queensland, 2018). – Accepting gifts of value, grants, or favours from persons or associates who would be seen to benefit from the making of these gifts (Monash University, 2019). – Doing a peer review a colleague’s work or provide consultancy for a company that also funds their research (University of Queensland, 2019). Although the example above does not necessarily mean research misconduct, it has the potential to blur a researcher’s professional and objective judgement. For instance, there is no wrongdoing for a researcher to peer review another person’s work if the review process was done justly. However, the personal relation of the reviewer with the author of the paper or research may cause the review process to be biased and more favourable to the author. To prevent this situation, a researcher at the very least has two options. They can avoid the activity entirely or instead leave the judgement to external parties to determine whether it can distort the researcher’s objectivity. To address potential conflict of interest during a review process, some journals use a method known as “double-blind” peer review. Unlike “single-blind” review, whereas the reviewer knows the author identity but not the other way around, the identities of both author and reviewer are concealed from each other’s throughout the review process in a “double-blind” review. This method ensures that the review

5.2 Prominent Issues of Research Misconduct

121

process can be done more objectively by minimising biases from personal conflict of interest. Some people may conceive if a conflict of interest in social science does indeed occur; its consequences are much less severe than if it happens in medicine. However, even in social science, conflict of interest can have an enormous effect, such as shown in Focus Box 5.2.

Focus Box 5.2 Conflict of Interest in Social Science and Financial Crisis Due to its less clear cases, it can be challenging to think of a situation where conflict of interest in social science can have a significant impact. For example, in the field of medicine, conflict of interest between doctors and pharmaceutical companies may alter the treatment that was given to the patient, which is something that can be identified easily. On the contrary, social researchers that received funding from a party that has a particular interest is relatively more difficult to identify, let alone analyse the impact. However, there is one example of a potential conflict of interest in social science that its implications may be comparable or even exceed those conflicts in medicine: Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008. After the GFC in 2008, a movie by Charles Ferguson’s called Inside Job raised a troubling possibility where academic financial economists had a lucrative connection with private financial firms. These economists, however, did not disclose it to the public, even when they are offering public policy advice on financial matters. A study by Carrick-Hagenbarth and Epstein (2012) has investigated the potential interest among academic economists. The authors try to identify the financial affiliations of 19 prominent academic financial economists that were associated with two economist groups proposing financial reform measures. The paper explained that private affiliations are common among these economists; 15 of the 19 economists worked, in some capacity, with private financial institutions. However, disclosure of their affiliations was done infrequently and inconsistently; from 2005 to 2009, 13 fail to disclose any ties in any academic publications reviewed by the authors. Another evidence suggests a similar pattern in a larger study. A study by Reuters shows that one-third of the academics that give testimonies, as lawmakers debated the overhaul of financial regulation, fail to disclose their private financial affiliations (Flitter et al., 2010). These kinds of examples do raise public concern. Although having private affiliations on their own is not misconduct, it raises a question of whether their affiliation does cloud policy advice. At best, the crisis may be only a result of poor policy advice and ideological differences instead of conflicting interests, although it decreases public confidence towards economists. On the

122

5 Research Misconduct

other hand, in the worst possible condition, the crisis is a product of advice that arises because of several people’s interests. In a lot of cases where there is a suspicion of conflict of interest, a university or institution should go through a comprehensive review process. In the cases where a conflict of interest has been proven to create a significant bias in the research design, conduct, or reporting, the researcher should take steps to mitigate the effect of the biases within the allowed period to proceed with the research (Northwestern University, 2018). However, failure to comply with the rules regarding conflict of interest, depending on the degree of the violation, can be punished with further sanction. The issues of the sanction will be discussed in the latter part of this chapter.

5.2.2 Research Transparency The second prominent issue in research is about research transparency, including transparency in design, data collection, and reporting results. Along with the conflict of interest, transparency is one of the major issues in research. There have been many cases where a researcher is not being transparent with their research as they want to achieve certain things, such as generating results that they think desirable, hiding bad practices during the research, or other similar reasons. This kind of misconduct should be avoided since the main principle of research is to obtain the truth with integrity and honesty. Furthermore, maintaining transparency in social sciences may impact society in a bigger way than we think. Some people may think that research transparency is more important in pure science (e.g. chemistry, medical) because of its explicit impact, such as the side effects from medicine. However, this kind of thinking is extremely inaccurate as this type of misconduct in social research can impact people’s well-being seriously. Take the example of Zimbardo’s “Stanford prison experiment” (Zimbardo, 2018). In the experiment, Zimbardo aimed to see people’s behaviour by conducting an experiment where participants took the role of prisoners and guards in order to see psychological effects of perceived power. The main problem with the experiment is that the researcher did not explain the purpose clearly as Zimbardo only claims it as a demonstration, while some may argue that it is necessary to obtain results that reflect reality. However, what the research leads to is abusing the well-being of the participants, especially their psychological condition, as they were too immersed with the role during the experiment and its effects on their daily lives. Some of the prisoners were in fact being traumatised by the treatment of the “guards.” However, the effects occur sometime after the research; in some ways, it is more dangerous because there is no immediate action that can be taken to mitigate the impact. The likelihood that misconduct is less likely to occur in the social sciences compared to

5.2 Prominent Issues of Research Misconduct

123

medical research (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009) does not correlate with lesser impact created by it. In the case of publication, misconduct of research transparency is usually carried out with full investigation (Population & Environment, 2018). If there are valid concerns regarding the research, some journals will contact the author in order to make some changes to address the issues. However, in different cases where the misconduct cannot be tolerated, the article can be rejected and returned if it is still under consideration, and even if it is already published online, there could be an erratum or retraction of the article which will be reported to the author’s institution or organisation. To some extent, fabrication or making up results or reporting it also closely related to misconduct in research transparency.

5.2.3 Other Type of Research Misconduct Although it has been mentioned that conflict of interest and issues of transparency are two of the most commonly occurring misconducts, there are many cases that cannot be classified into one of the categories. One of the examples in social science, although debatable and some may consider it only as controversial instead of misconduct, is Napoleon A. Chagnon’s research in 1960s. Focus Box 5.3 Controversy of Napoleon A. Chagnon: “Violent Group of Yanomamo” Napoleon A. Chagnon, an anthropologist from America, is widely known for his ethnographic field work on Yanomamo an indigenous tribal society that lives in the border between Venezuela and Brazil. However, because of his work, Chagnon is being accused of misconduct during his research, such as by Patrick Tierney (2000) in his book, “Darkness in El Dorado,” and by other anthropologists such as Brian Ferguson and Bruce Alberts. What did Chagnon study in his research and why do many people accused him of the misconduct? In the upper Siapa and upper Mavaca Rivers, Venezuela, Chagnon conducted fieldwork to analyse violence among tribal people. In his study, he noticed that the reality he found during fieldwork is different from theories he had been taught. He noted that raiding and fighting were endemic among the Yanomamo. Later in his publication, he described that the Yanomamo society encouraged fierceness thereby reinforcing the male’s success (Chagnon, 1968). This has brought a lot of controversy and accusation, including from fellow anthropologists. One of the most severe accusations against his work is that the depiction of Yanomamo as violent people has resulted in increased hostility by settlers and colonists against the Yanomamo (Ramos, 2004). Other critics of his work include the accusation that Chagnon has directly contributed to escalation

124

5 Research Misconduct

of violence among the tribes as he offers weapons to selected groups in order to elicit their cooperation (Ferguson, 2001). It must be noted that most of the accusations against Chagnon were rejected by the University of Michigan’s Provost office, which has cleared him off the accusation of misconduct (Cohen et al., 2005). However, in the perspective of research ethics, given the impact of Chagnon’s research, it is difficult to say that his practices follow the guideline of responsible conduct in research, and so by definition they should be classified as research misconduct. Another example of misconduct is a case of plagiarism that has led to a dispute between Carolyn Phinney and Dr. Marion Perlmutter, both psychologists in which the latter one stole the work of the former. Initially, Phinney spotted that her work had been stolen by Perlmutter at Michigan University. Unfortunately, when she raised the issues to the university in order to find justice, she was unable to obtain satisfactory results. Unsatisfied with the university’s decision, she decided to turn to the court for relief.1 After a long process of trial and appeal, the court decided the university had failed to handle Phinney’s appeal properly and Phinney was compensated by $1.6 million for the damage caused by the theft of intellectual property and research proposals.2 Focus Box 5.4 Misconduct: Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism (FFP) One of the definitions of research misconduct is violation of the responsible conduct of research that includes fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. The key question is, however, what is the meaning of each terms and what kind of practices are considered as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism? From Science Europe (2015), fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are defined as follows: – Fabrication of data (F): making up results and recording or reporting them. – Falsification of data (F): manipulating research, materials, equipment, or processes; changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. – Plagiarism (P): the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving due credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals and manuscripts.

1

Gordon, G. (1993). Misconduct costs U-M $1 million. Detroit News. Another newspaper report on Perlmutter. 2 Hilts, P. J. (1997). University pays $1.6 million to researcher. New York Times, August 10, p. 10.

5.2 Prominent Issues of Research Misconduct

125

Fabrication includes, but is not limited to, unacceptable practices such as adding data that never occurred during the experiment or data collection process in order to smooth a plot and create claims based on a data that never existed. Meanwhile, the example of falsification includes the use of software to enhance the data to make it more consistent with the original claims. What about plagiarism? There are a lot of examples of plagiarism; one of the cases, however, is shown in the previous paragraph about the dispute between two psychologists, Carolyn Phinney and Marion Perlmutter. In Indonesia, “Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism” arguably is one of the ethical violations that has brought public attention. There have been numerous cases about plagiarism in Indonesia, including two of the most recent cases described in the Focus Box 5.5.

Focus Box 5.5 FFP in Indonesia Although ethical awareness in Indonesia is lacking compared to other countries, cases of plagiarism arguably dominate the cases of ethical violation in Indonesia. These are two cases of plagiarism that have been analysed and are still running, with one of them causing a heavy sanction after a long review process. —Plagiarism on Dissertation at the Universitas Negeri Jakarta3 (Sept 2016–Sept 2017) In 2016, Ministry of Research, Technology, and the Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (Kemenristekdikti) received an inquiry to investigate the graduate programme at the Universitas Negeri Jakarta (UNJ) on the doctoral degree granted to Nur Alam, former governor of Southeast Sulawesi. Following this report, Kemenristekdikti formed an independent team to investigate the accusation. Based on the investigation, it was found that 5 dissertations including one by Nur Alam were suspected to copy other study. In response to these findings, Kemenristekdikti issued a recommendation to retract the doctoral degree given to 5 students. The sanction from Kemenristekdikti was not limited into that; in September 2017, Ministry of Kemenristekdikti terminated Prof. Djaali and Moch. Asmawi from the positions as Rector of UNJ and Director of Graduate Program of UNJ, respectively. —Accusation of Plagiarism on Rector of UNNES4 (2019)

Similar to the case of plagiarism in UNJ, in 2018 there was a letter submitted as a complaint to Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) on Fathur Rokhman, Rector of Universitas Negeri Semarang’s (UNNES) dissertation. The letter argued that Rokhman has copied one of his student’s undergraduate thesis, when he was in the position of thesis adviser. Following this accusation, an independent investigation shows there are some similarities with his student thesis. In the report, Rokhman was also accused of copying Nefi Yustiani’s work as well his other students. According to the same publication, there are at least 10 parts of his dissertation that were alleged to copy Nefi’s thesis due to its

126

5 Research Misconduct

resemblances, where 6 informant answers and 4 narratives are imitated. On top of the plagiarism accusation, Rokhman was also indicted to manipulate his research data. To address these accusations, UGM has followed the steps taken by Kemenristekdikti in 2016 by creating an independent investigation team. The investigation, however, is still in progress and verdicts are yet to be given. Beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, there are also some practices that are classified as misconduct due to their intentional nature, such as the following acts (Oslo & Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, 2014): – Deliberate suppression of undesirable results. – Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods. – Deliberately misleading information about who contributed to the research and the number of contributors. – Deliberately or through gross negligence withholding details of methodology. – Deliberate misinformation about academic qualifications in applications. – Deliberate destruction of research information to hamper investigation in the event of suspected fraud.

5.2.4 Questionable Practices Compared to general ethical principles, guidelines on research misconduct are usually more restricted as the criteria on which practices should be treated as misconduct are more complex. Because of this, unlike ethical guidelines, there are a lot of practices which remain debatable as to their status of misconduct. Some cases may be more obvious than others; for example, poor research design and not keeping research data are some of the practices that cannot be treated as misconduct. However, what about the practices in the “grey area”? What is an example of practice in the “grey area”? The answer to the question will be further explained in the Focus Box 5.6.

Focus Box 5.6 Questionable Research Practices: Misconduct or Not? In the Focus Box 5.4, we have learned that there are several practices that can be strictly treated as research misconduct. However, spotting an obvious case like in the Focus Box 5.4. can be dealt with ease. The problem tends to

3 4

https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/indonesia-41416802. https://tirto.id/dugaan-plagiat-disertasi-rektor-unnes-di-ugm-efYy.

5.2 Prominent Issues of Research Misconduct

127

arise when researchers face an issue which may be ambiguous as to whether it violates responsible conduct or not. What are some of the examples of the Questionable Research Practices? According to Science Europe (Hiney, 2015), Questionable Research Practices (QRP) can be classified into 5 different groups: – Research practice misconduct: poor research design; using inappropriate (harmful or dangerous) research methods; experimental, analytical, or computational errors. – Data-related misconduct: not preserving primary data; poor data management and/or storage; withholding data from the research community. – Publication-related misconduct: claiming undeserved authorship; denying authorship to contributors; artificially proliferating publications; failure to correct the publication record. – Personal misconduct: Inadequate leadership/mentoring of next generation of researchers and scholars; inappropriate personal behaviour and harassment; insensitivity to social or cultural norms. – Financial and other misconduct: Peer review abuse, non-disclosure of a conflict of interest, misrepresentation of credentials; misuse of research funds for unauthorised purchase or for personal gain. If we take a look at some of the examples, there are some practices that are closer to misconduct rather than the “grey area,” such as harassment, nondisclosure of conflict of interest (given the broader definition of misconduct), and inappropriate personal behaviour. However, how should we deal with more questionable practices, such as poor research design or computational errors? According to Jens Oddershede, who became the chair of the 2015 national report on research misconduct in Denmark, the general advice for these kind of cases is “to use common sense” (Jex, 2016). For example, common sense in social life is to be always aware of social or cultural norms. Thus, the same should be applied to research. All researchers, not only social researchers, should be sensitive to existing norms. It has to be noted that when we follow this advice, we start to relax the restricted definition of research misconduct to become one step closer to the ethical guideline. Therefore, this principle further emphasises why social researchers should not only avoid research misconduct, but also use their common sense in order to adhere to ethical conduct.

128

5 Research Misconduct

5.3 Sanctions Against Misconduct Sanctions against misconduct are generally decided on a case-by-case basis. That means that the decision of a sanction is determined by the board’s perception (or any institution that is responsible to give judgement) of a particular case. However, based on the references we have collected, the imposed sanctions can be categorised into three groups: light, moderate, and heavy sanctions. Please note that there are no strict guidelines on the classification. For example, it is completely valid to argue that disclosure to the public should be treated as light sanction instead of moderate. The purpose of this classification is not to answer that kind of debate, but it serves to give general knowledge about different types of potential sanctions in the easiest way possible.

5.3.1 Light Sanction A light sanction is usually given for misconduct whereby its impact is considered not really significant to the society or can be fixed through training. Then, there are those practices that stand at a borderline between misconduct and questionable research practices (e.g. poor research practices). Most of the sanctions can be described as sanctions that do not affect the researcher’s reputation in the public and do not impact the research significantly, which include but are not limited to: – Formal reprimand (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018). – Written warning (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, 2013). – Correction in the form of errata in the case of publishing (American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association, 2018) or correction plan to a research, including modification to protocol or subject inclusion/exclusion (University of California Berkeley, 2018). – Requirement to undergo additional training (University of California Berkeley, 2018). – Requiring subject to be re-consented (University of California Berkeley, 2018). – Requiring more frequent review of the research (University of California Berkeley, 2018).

5.3.2 Moderate Sanction The second category of the sanctions contains a different kind of sanction that was given to a more serious type of research misconduct. The sanction in this section can be described as punishment which affects the research significantly but not permanently and put a dent in the researcher’s reputation, which include but are not limited to:

5.4 Conclusion: Case of Indonesia

129

– Suspension of membership (International Economic Development Council, 2011). – Public disclosure of the misconduct (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, 2013). – Disapproval of the publication of the article/paper (Asian Society of Human Services, 2016). – Suspension of enrolment of new subjects (University of California Berkeley, 2018). – Suspension of research procedures in currently enrolled subjects (University of California Berkeley, 2018). – Suspension of the entire study or determination of approval (University of California Berkeley, 2018). – Limiting the investigator’s human subject research privileges (Stanford University, 2018). – Provision of additional information to past participants (Stanford University, 2018).

5.3.3 Heavy Sanction The final category contains the heaviest type of sanction. This is given to the type of misconduct that is extremely harmful to the participants, done in a malicious way, potentially causing a rift in the scientific world, and disrupts society’s trust in the academic community and other practices that are considered as unacceptable practices. The sanction in this category includes the following examples: – Terminate approved human subjects research (University of California Berkeley, 2018). – Withdrawing the university name and sponsorship from pending abstracts and papers (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018). – Revocation of tenure of the faculty member (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018). – Termination of employment (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018), membership, or removal from Board of Directors in the institution (International Economic Development Council, 2011). – Retraction from professor title inauguration (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, 2013).

5.4 Conclusion: Case of Indonesia Throughout this chapter, we have learned about different aspect of research misconduct. In general, research misconduct can be classified into two different groups (Hiney, 2015): (1) fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP); and (2) questionable research practices (QRP). FFP counts as serious misconduct that can affect the

130

5 Research Misconduct

research record. For QRP, although it is considered to be less serious, it does not mean that it goes unpunished as it has the potential to be costly to society, damage the reputation of researchers, and ultimately societies’ trust in the research community (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007). Nevertheless, it has to be noted that although poor research and unpremeditated error are not classified as research misconduct, from an ethical perspective, it may adversely affect the subjects’ or participants’ well-being. As mentioned in the previous chapter, researchers should uphold their standard and try to minimise any potential errors. Preventing any misconduct is necessary but not sufficient from an ethical perspective. Thus, beyond having an awareness of what kind of act is considered as misconduct, researchers should also be well-versed in conducting a research so they can prevent not only research misconduct (and sanctions that may follow, such in the case of Perlmutter and Phinney), but ethical violation as well. At the end of this chapter, there is one important question that remained unanswered; what is the example of research misconduct or QRP in Indonesia, the sanction, and the potential consequences of that misconduct? Several examples of research misconduct in Indonesia will be explained in the Focus Box 5.7, which will serve as the reminder for social science researchers to avoid any kind of research misconduct and the final part of this chapter.

Focus Box 5.7 Research Misconduct in Indonesia Researchers in Indonesia, especially those in social science, may not be completely aware of ethical requirements in research since most of ethical guidelines are more focused on research in medical science. However, it does not mean that research misconduct in social science is less harmful than those in medical or other natural science. Research misconduct in social science also has the potential to bring undesirable impact to academic communities and more importantly, society. These are some of the examples of research misconduct which occur in Indonesia or were conducted by Indonesian researchers and have been reported publicly. – Plagiarism and duplication of research paper According to Retraction Watch Database, in the past 9 years, there have been 12 papers in social science journals that have been retracted because of plagiarism or duplication, damaging researcher reputation in the process.5 In the more severe cases, in 2000, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) retracted the doctorate degree that was given to a graduate student due to plagiarism.6 – Debate of ethics violation in the study on Indonesia’s Bajau tribe In 2018, a team of scientists from Denmark and the United States conducted research on Bajau people about their genetic adaptation. However, this paper has drawn critique as it was deemed to breach several ethical rules.7 First, it fails to involve local researchers in the study. The problem that is more commonly known as “helicopter research” is considered as ethical violation since it prevents the knowledge spillover to local researchers, which if it occurs may benefit the local people in the future. In this case, the Bajau

5.4 Conclusion: Case of Indonesia

131

people may be unable to experience the benefit they could obtain had local researchers been able to improve their knowledge. Second, according to Indonesian officials, the scientist fails to obtain ethical approval from the local review board and transferred the DNA samples out of the countries without the required paperwork. This action is considered ethical violation since it increases the potential risk the respondent may face in the future (due to leakage of personal information) and violate the guidelines of CIOMS, whereas every researcher should obtain approval from the local review board before conducting their research in that area.

5

http://retractiondatabase.org. http://lii.go.id/berita/ilmuwan-indonesia-lakukan-plagiarisme/35. 7 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/did-study-indonesian-people-who-spend-their-daysunder-water-violate-ethical-rules. 6

Chapter 6

Recommendations

Every art or applied science and every systematic investigation, and similarly every action and choice, seems to aim at some good; the good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim… Virtue lies in our power, and similarly so does vice; because where it is in our power to act, it is also in our power not to act… —Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

As social scientists and as researchers, it is our goal to search for knowledge and the truth, so that we may use what we learn for the betterment of the societies we study, interact with, and live in. Yet, often times our pursuit of truth goes against the welfare of people: research by social scientists has not always led to better societies, researchers have intentionally or unintentionally harmed participants, and research has been co-opted to unpleasant ends (Israel & Hay, 2006). Throughout this book, we have seen the plethora of issues surrounding the morality and ethics of social science research. The development of the awareness of those issues began slowly, as social scientists initially shared the view that biomedical violations of research ethics had no relation to their work. However, as scandals were increasingly revealed in both the biomedical and social sciences, the discussion and enforcement of ethics began to creep into the social sciences. Thus, while the movement of research ethics as a whole was catalysed by the Nuremberg Trials, the progress towards more ethical social science research was slower. Even today, ethics has not caught up with the advancements in social science research. New methods and concerns such as big data, internet-based research, reproducibility of results, and environmental protection make it far more difficult for institutions and regulators to ensure ethical conduct in research. It is worth noting again that all research should preferably be undertaken with, and not merely on, the identified community. Research and the pursuit of knowledge should never be regarded as the supreme goal at the expense of participants’ personal, social, and cultural needs and values (Human Sciences Research Council, 2018). However, although it is the general consensus among social scientists that ethical conduct should be promoted, researchers often face difficulties in fulfilling their

© Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 M. Oey-Gardiner et al., Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0_6

133

134

6 Recommendations

responsibilities. It is not rare for researchers to find that their obligations go against each other, especially as their numerous duties demand a great deal of considerations, decisions, and resources throughout all stages of research. Researchers must set their priorities and plan their research well to ensure their research is ethical. As we have explored in preceding chapters, researchers are responsible for conducting research reliably, accountably, honestly, transparently, and openly, in compliance with standards of professional scientific conduct and with local, national, and international rules. They should protect and respect the safety, rights, dignity, autonomy, interests, and welfare of participants and all other stakeholders. In order to do so, researchers must choose carefully the methods they use, weigh the benefits of research against the potential harm, and place safeguards to guarantee safety. This means that in the design of research, researchers must be particularly vigilant in their choices, as the design plays a central role in determining the path and quality of research. Researchers should not use improper scientific methods and evidence, and should not engage in fraud, deceit, prejudice, or discrimination. The latter is of singular importance, as biases in research design have hurt over-included and over-excluded groups, especially as those groups usually belong to vulnerable populations. Furthermore, biases in research adversely impact the quality of findings, and generalisations made from biased studies have led to misleading and dangerous conclusions (see, for example, Focus Box 3.3 On the Basis of Sex—and other Blind Spots). Different research methods will have varying potential for biases and will involve different risks. For instance, research using deception will carry greater risks, thus requiring more stringent ethics evaluations. It is crucial that researchers do not carry out research unless they have the appropriate qualifications, training, supervision, and permissions. Should researchers persist without enough understanding about the research, they risk exacerbating the potential harms. Different settings and contexts are also associated with varying risks, and researchers should be sensitive to differences in age, gender, culture, religion, ethnic origin, and social class among participants and within society. As stated in the Belmont Report, research should be carried out according to the principles of respect for persons, justice, and beneficence. Research must therefore be free of bias and discrimination, where the notion of bias is determined by the topic of research. Furthermore, research may only be carried out when the benefits exceed the risks and risks are minimised. The minimisation of risks is an extension of researchers’ responsibility to protect their participants and stakeholders—arguably the most important responsibility researchers have. The protection of participants and information sources includes the compensation given to participants, the seeking of informed and voluntary consent, and the ensuring of confidentiality, privacy, anonymity, and good management of data. Researchers should adjust consent and confidentiality so as to be appropriate to the research topic, design, and methods and to the vulnerabilities and sensitivities of peoples and populations. They should not mislead, coerce, pressure, or exploit participants, students, employees, clients, or others to participate in research.

6 Recommendations

135

Moreover, the protection of participants requires the prudent handling of data, with respect to people’s individuality and rights, and according to relevant ethical standards and laws. As data science and digital technology advances, researchers must be alert to new threats against the security and integrity of data, and must also be aware of new uses of data. In a world where massive amounts of personal information are being collected daily, researchers must ponder the ethical consequences of using such data, and the potential abuses and harms arising from such use. Furthermore, a more interconnected world means that research projects are no longer bounded by national borders. Much research has been carried out by groups of researchers, frequently involving combinations of research managers, supervisors, trainees, and students. However, the transnational and diverse reach of research today has resulted in even more ethical concerns and requirements. The distinct issues of international, multi-disciplinary, large, and broad-scoped research are among the looming questions in research ethics. No panacea exists to resolving the highly contextualised issues of such studies. Nevertheless, it is clear the duty of researchers to protect the interests of not only their participants, but their stakeholders too, which includes their own research team, funders, employers, clients, and the general public. In managing the multiple interests they face, researchers are susceptible to conflict of interests, whether from financial, institutional, personal, or other sources. These conflict of interests compromise researchers’ integrity, professionalism, and ability to produce quality work. Consequently, all conflict of interests, both existing and potential, should be disclosed to maintain transparency. Still, it must be remembered that disclosure is not equal to solving conflict of interests. Minimising and managing conflict of interests may require renegotiation of contracts, the involvement of independent supervisors, and, should conflicts escalate, the suspension or termination of research. In Indonesia, researchers often face conflicts of interest due to pressure to publish and limitation of funds. Maintaining integrity in research means that researchers should not accept projects which are contingent on certain outcomes, sacrifice quality for speed, and falsify, fabricate, or manipulate data for the purposes of finding significant results. Too often researchers produce subpar work in their chase for publication credits. The quality of research is where the reputation of social science academicians, institutions, researchers, and the science itself rests. Public trust in the endeavour of researchers depends on how knowledge is produced and used. Keeping the reputation of social science intact is important as much research is funded by the public and as it promotes the interests of academic freedom. Research institutions are also held as responsible as researchers in maintaining that reputation. They should foster environments and infrastructure conducive to the making of high-quality, ethical, and responsible research, promoting the training of researchers in both the technical and ethical aspects. From ethics classes to ethics boards, methods to tackle this challenge have been implemented by institutions worldwide, though they are, as yet, still unable to entirely surmount the problem.

136

6 Recommendations

Ethics is a perpetual process of decision making which lasts throughout the whole research and even after it. Although less emphasised in many codes of research ethics, the reporting and publishing stage of research is especially prone to misconduct. Standards of good conduct require researchers to fairly credit all those who are involved in the research process, including student researchers, to disclose failed experiments, and to have due diligence in interpreting results. The terms ‘causation,’ ‘correlation,’ and ‘significance’ should not be used lightly. Researchers should also adhere to standards and regulations regarding publication, authorship, and intellectual property. Violations of those standards are rife in Indonesia, especially those involving plagiarism, ‘gift-writers,’ and ‘ghost-writers’. The giving and ordering of authorship should be based only on merit and contribution, not on seniority or as personal favours. Proper citations, references, and acknowledgements should be included in the research paper, and the appropriate permissions to use others’ information, works, and other intellectual properties should be obtained. The write-up of the research paper itself should be transparent, detailed, accurate, and clear, so as to allow others to replicate or reproduce the results obtained to verify or challenge the claims made. Researchers should attempt to anticipate and prevent misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and misuse of research results. They should consider the possibilities of how their representation and publication of results may be used against society, and should guard against possibilities of harmful use. Finally, data keeping arrangements are required to retain research data for an appropriate amount of time. The collection of data from society is a costly and intrusive process, making data a valuable resource. Therefore, data keeping is an issue which must be embedded in the research design, and discussions regarding the handling and security of data should precede discussions of publication. As the public becomes more aware of the potential harms of data collection, agencies, and institutions, including international funding agencies, all around the world are now insisting for tighter regulations and monitoring on research. Among their demands are ethics compliance. The ethics creep which began slowly in social sciences has spread far and wide, and while it is still a long way from perfect, social science research ethics are, today, a global standard. If Indonesia is to advance in its research, then it must adapt to the changing times and its negligence of ethics must be monitored and curtailed by professional associations and research institutions. The absence of enforcement of ethics in Indonesian social science research reduces the amount of international funding and publication opportunities for Indonesian research, which leads to a deterioration in domestic scientific inquiry. The lack of scientific inquiry has in turn led to massive research gaps regarding important social phenomena in Indonesia, and thus to neglect and lack of knowledge. While it is true that the incentive structures in Indonesian research institutions make it difficult for researchers to behave ethically, it does not diminish the responsibilities researchers have, as individuals and as communities, to promote the welfare of societies. After all, it is our duty not only as researchers, but first and foremost as decent human beings capable of thought, to act ethically and morally.

6.1 The Need for an Ethics Board

137

Researchers and research institutions in Indonesia must jointly make the effort to review their processes of regulations and enforcements so as to promote better and more ethical research. One way to do those reviews is to establish ethics review committees or ethics boards. Although those committees are not a panacea for the rampant violations of good scientific and ethical conduct, they are a stepping stone towards more accountable, transparent, and responsible research in Indonesia and in our own institution.

6.1 The Need for an Ethics Board In the final analysis, ethics is less about what we do, and more about who we are. —Wayne R. Bills

There are very few who would argue against ethics in research, yet, when codes of ethics and ethics approval processes are enforced, there is often a collective groan about the burdens imposed by ethics boards. Although it is true that some ethics approval processes are time and resource consuming, it has been noted that researchers who conduct research for self-regarding purposes are those who find research ethics most burdensome (McKenna & Gray, 2018; Sellman, 2016). Meanwhile, those who engage in research for the sake of the true spirit of research are less likely to view ethics processes as a burden (Sellman, 2016). Too often do we identify unethical behaviour as having to do with the extraordinary and with others’ actions rather than our own ordinary, everyday behaviour (Williams, 2016). Yet, as we have seen, there are numerous misconducts and dilemmas all researchers are prone to. Resolving ethical dilemmas is not an easy task. Research requires ongoing values-based choices leading to real consequences, particularly for powerless and vulnerable populations. Failure on the part of research and evaluation commissioners, funders, and practitioners to consider ethics can lead to opposite results intended by research: they can actually worsen the situation for participants, for their wider communities and even for the researchers themselves, as the reputation and integrity of the scientific profession are called into question (Williams, 2016). Ethics is not meant to stifle or hamper research, but rather to guide it. In fact, the emergence of ethical supervision was based on the informal system in many academic institutions where senior members of staff, as part of their roles as mentors and advisors, assessed junior members’ projects before they were allowed to be initiated. The system was formalised to rebuild public trust in research after numerous research scandals came to light in the wake of the Second World War (Holm & Irving, 2005). Ethics boards, also known as research ethics committees and institutional research boards, are responsible to approve or reject, monitor, and review research involving humans. These boards and councils are found in institutions all across the world, and in some countries, they are mandated by the government. They are intended to protect participants’ well-being and rights, to ensure the quality of research projects, and to add public legitimation to research projects. The latter purpose arises because

138

6 Recommendations

research as a social practice involving human beings relies on social acceptance of both its goals and methods for it to continue and flourish (Holm & Irving, 2005). Thus, ethics also serves to foster academic and scientific freedom. Yet, just as rules and regulations on ethics are not the same in all countries, the makeup of ethics boards (i.e. how many members, requirements to be members, etc.) also varies across countries. Various studies have noted that there is no set universal standard adopted by ethics boards, and that the standards to which ethics boards hold themselves vary greatly (Eksioglu et al., 2015; Fauriel et al., 2004; Williams, 2016). Ethics boards also differ in their performances as many of them generally find difficulties in uniting all their members, in ensuring equal representation of different groups, in managing the number of dossiers involved, and in harmonising the training of their members (Fauriel et al., 2004). Consequently, the vast contradictions found among ethics boards within and between countries mean that we cannot provide one single, complete prescription of what an ethics board in Indonesia should mirror. We can, however, briefly discuss some of the roles and responsibilities of an ethics board so as to provide a clearer picture of what one should resemble and of why they are needed. Research ethics boards must fulfil three obligations to confirm the ethical standards and scientific merits of research involving humans (Gelling, 1999): – Ensure the protection of the rights of participants. This includes evaluating informed consent procedures and risk management strategies of research. In many institutions, ethics boards are responsible for providing informed consent forms and forms to declare the absence of conflict of interests. – Ensure the protection of communities. Researchers owe society for the resources they provide for research, and society is ultimately affected by research. Therefore, ethics boards must also assess and monitor the post-research stages of reporting and publishing, as ethics and potential for harm exist in all stages of research, including beyond the period of data collection. – Ensure the respectful and fair treatment of researchers and their research proposals. The responsibility of ethics boards is not only to protect, but also to impartially evaluate research. To do this, ethics boards require members from different fields of studies and who represent different groups of society. These ethics review processes do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of larger networks and systems. Mutual influences exist between local processes and resources, and national- and international-level concerns about research conduct (Jackson, 2018). Sufficient institutional resources are vital to foster ethical research, including good leadership, ethics training, and open channels of communication (Jackson, 2018; Wolf, 2010). Open communication, such as giving researchers opportunities to raise questions and discuss issues with members of ethics boards, encourages better relationships between ethics boards and researchers (Wolf, 2010) and allows for constructive developments and transparency. This is of particular importance as audit of ethics is a central part of the process of ethical supervision (Caras & Sandu, 2013).

6.1 The Need for an Ethics Board

139

Ethics boards are not all free of internal corruption and misconduct, and their decisions are not always perfect. The imperfection of ethics boards is further exacerbated by the truth that ethics in theory and ethics in practice are different, and that, in the field, researchers often face unexpected, difficult ethical dilemmas with seemingly no right course of action. Still, despite the failure of ethics boards to entirely prevent unethical research, and although ethics boards have been criticised due to the increased bureaucratic costs involved and how they may slow down research in sensitive areas, the presence of ethics boards has been found to be generally effective in ensuring ethical research and in promoting welfare. Not only do they ensure compliance, ethics boards also serve to help guide researchers through their ethical dilemmas and to standardise ethical practices throughout institutions. In this, their role is equally powerful and important, as different choices can lead to drastically varying results, particularly with regard to vulnerable populations, emerging issues, and new areas of study (Williams, 2016). Like the evolution of policy frameworks, practices of open publishing and changes to the technological landscape have added additional layers to procedures intended to protect participant data. The many changes involved have resulted in increased uncertainty among members of ethics boards (Jackson, 2018) and pressure has mounted for ethics boards to modify rules of ethics so as to grapple with these new issues. Thus, Indonesia faces a massive challenge of both establishing ethics boards and ensuring that those boards are able to quickly learn and adapt to the dynamic times of the current digital revolution. However, in the end, we must remember that ethics is a matter of character. Ethics boards can help guide and ensure good scientific conduct, but ethics itself rests on the individual decisions of each researcher. Ethical conduct goes beyond ethical compliance. Just as the legacy of past horrors echo today, our collective actions today will define the future. The road towards more ethical and accountable research is difficult but not insurmountable, especially if each of us makes the effort to encourage and conduct research responsibly. Whether we succeed in reforming the Indonesian research landscape will be a reflection of who we truly are as a nation, as scientists, and as human beings.

References

A*STAR, NTU, NUS, & SUTD. (2016). Joint Statement by A*Star, NTU, NUS and SUTD on Research Integrity Relating to Scholarly Publications. Author. Albelda, R., & Carr, M. (2014). Double Trouble: US Low-Wage and Low-Income Workers, 1979– 2011. Feminist Economics, 20(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2014.886125 All European Academies. (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Author. Allison, D. B., Brown, A. W., George, B. J., & Kaiser, K. A. (2016). Reproducibility: A Tragedy of Errors. Nature, 530(7588), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/530027a Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D. (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research: A View of the Participants’ and Researchers’ World from a Critical Standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(2), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100208 American Educational Research Association. (2011). AERA Code of Ethics: American Educational Research Association Approved by the AERA Council February 2011. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11410403 American Evaluation Association. (2013). Guiding Principles for Evaluators. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Author. American Sociological Association. (1999). Code of Ethics and Policies and Procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. Author. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). Authorship and Publication Ethics. Anderson, J. (2016). Decades of Failing to Recognize ADHD in Girls Has Created A “Lost Generation” of Women. https://qz.com/592364/decades-of-failing-to-recognize-adhd-in-girls-has-cre ated-a-lost-generation-of-women/ Arthur D. Little International Inc. (2000). Public Finance Balance of Smoking in the Czech Republic. Prague. Asian Development Bank. (2017). Administrative Order No. 2.02: Code of Conduct. Manila. Asian Society of Human Services. (2016). The Code of Ethics for the Asian Society of Human Services. Association of Clinical Research Professionals. (2017). Code of Ethics. Association of Computing Machinery. (2018). Artifact Review and Badge. Association of Universities in the Netherlands. (2014). The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice. The Hague. Australian National University. (2014). Code of Research Conduct. Australian Market and Social Research Society. (2017). Code of Professional Behaviour. Sydney. Babbie, E. R. (2010). The Practice of Social Research-Guided Act (Twelfth). Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Baird, J. K., & Marzuki, S. (2015). War Crimes in Japan-Occupied Indonesia. https://doi.org/10. 2307/j.ctt1d989sc © Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 M. Oey-Gardiner et al., Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0

141

142

References

Baker, M. (2015). First Results from Psychology’s Largest Reproducibility Test. Nature. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17433 Bavdekar, S. (2012). Authorship Issues. Lung India, 29(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-2113. 92371 Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and Clinical Research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–1360. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196606162742405 Bhattacharya, S. (2010). Authorship Issue Explained. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 43(2), 233. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0358.73482 Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices (2nd ed.). USF Tampa Bay Open Access Textbooks Collection. Board of Universiti Putra Malaysia. (2012). Universiti Putra Malaysia Research Rules. Author. British Society of Criminology. (2015). British Society of Criminology Statement of Ethics for Researchers. Author. Brodersen, J., & Siersma, V. D. (2013). Long-Term Psychosocial Consequences of False-Positive Screening Mammography. The Annals of Family Medicine, 11(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10. 1370/afm.1466 Buchanan, E., & Zimmer, M. (2016). Internet Research Ethics. Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). The Cambridge Analytica Files. The Guardian, pp. 6–7. Canadian Institutional Research and Planning Association. (2012). Code of Ethics for Institutional Research. Author. Canadian Sociological Association. (2012). Canadian Sociological Association Statement of Professional Ethics. Author. Caras, A., & Sandu, A. (2013). Ethical Evaluation of Social Services and the Need for Ethics Committees. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.sbspro.2013.08.650 Carnegie Mellon University. (2016). University Policy-Research. Carrick-Hagenbarth, J., & Epstein, G. A. (2012). Dangerous Interconnectedness: Economists’ Conflicts of Interest, Ideology and Financial Crisis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ber036 Central University Research Ethics Committee. (2016). Internet Based Research (IBR). Author. Chagnon, N. A. (1968). Ya, nomamö: The Fierce People. In Natural History. Chalmers, I. (1999). People Are “Participants” in Research. Further Suggestions for Other Terms to Describe “Participants” Are Needed. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 318(7191), 1141. Cohen, E., Nissenbaum, H., Mitcham, C., Cutcliffe, S. H., Durbin, P. T., Arnhart, L., … Weil, V. (2005). Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Ethics vol. 4. In Science and Engineering Ethics. Thomson Gale. Committee for Protection of Human Subjects. (2016). Internet-Based Research. Berkeley, CA. Committee on Publication Ethics. (2018). Core Practices. Comparative Political Studies. (n.d.). Ethics and Responsibility. Convery, I., & Cox, D. (2012). A Review of Research Ethics in Internet-Based Research. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 6(1), 50–57. Data Science Association. (n.d.). Code of Conduct: Data Science Code of Professional Conduct. Davidson, J. O., & Layder, D. (1994). Methods, Sex and Madness. Routledge. De La Salle University. (2011). Code of Research Ethics and Guide to Responsible Conduct of Research. Author. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Science in Society. (2013). Ethics for researchers: Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7. Publications Office of the European Union. Douglas, H. E. (2003). The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions Between Autonomy and Responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(1), 59–68. Economic Social Research Council. (2016). Code of Practice for Members of the Economic and Social Research Council. Author.

References

143

Education and Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board University WisconsinMadison. (2016). IRB Guidance. Egré, P. (n.d.). Instructions for Authors (for Review of Philosophy and Psychology). Eksioglu, S., Sezer, H. B. M., & Cicek, F. G. (2015). Ethics Committees in Turkish Universities. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2882–2890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro. 2015.01.1024 Elsevier. (n.d.). Guide for Authors (for Applied Geography). Elsevier. (2017). Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publications. Elsevier. (2018). Guide for Authors (Journal of Memory and Language). ETH Zurich. (2011). Guidelines for Research Integrity and Good Scientific Practice at the ETH Zurich. Author. Ethics Committee of University of Amsterdam. (2013). Ethical Review Procedure for Research at the Department of Communication Science. Amsterdam. European Economic and Social Committee. (2017). The Ethics of Big Data. Fauriel, I., Moutel, G., Duchange, N., Callies, I., François, I., Huriet, C., & Hervé, C. (2004). Improving Protection for Research Subjects in France: Analysis of Regional Ethics Committees. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 40(3), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph. 2004.08.003 Ferguson, R. B. (2001). Materialist, Cultural and Biological Theories on Why Yanomami Make War. Anthropological Theory, 1(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/14634990122228647 FEWEB Research Ethics Review Board. (2016). Research Ethics Regulations for Researchers. Author. Flitter, E., Cooke, K., & da Costa, P. (2010). Special Report: For Some Professors, Disclosure Is Academic. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-academics-conflicts/special-report-for-some-pro fessors-disclosure-is-academic-idUSTRE6BJ3LF20101220 Fourianalistyawati, E., Uswatunnisa, A., Mahdiannur, M. A., Saleky, A. P., Soebandhi, S., Reni, A., & Kurniasih, N. (2018). Research Development in Indonesia: Ethics Committee in Open Science and Collaboration Era. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1114, 012069. https:// doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1114/1/012069 Gelling, L. (1999). Ethical Principles in Healthcare Research. Nursing Standard, 13(36), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns1999.05.13.36.39.c2607 Gold, H. (1997). Unit 731 Testimony: Japan’s Wartime Human Experimentation Program (1st ed.). Tuttle Publishing. Documents, G. (2017). Research Code of Conduct. Technical University of Munich. Harkness, J., Lederer, S. E., & Wikler, D. (2001). Laying Ethical Foundations for Clinical Research. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79(4), 365–366. Harriman, S., & Patel, J. (2014). The Ethics and Editorial Challenges of Internet-Based Research. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0124-3 Harvey, L. (2018). Gift, Honorary or Guest Authorship. Spinal Cord, 56(2), 91. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41393-017-0057-8 Hermann, C., & Flecker, J. (2003). Code of Professional Conduct in Socio-Economic Research, and Database of Professional Bodies. The Institute for Employment Studies. Herschel, R., & Miori, V. (2017). Ethics & Big Data. Technology in Society, 49, 31–36. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.03.003 Hiney, M. (2015). Research Integrity: What It Means, Why It Is Important and How We Might Protect It. Brussels. Holden, C. (1979). Ethics in Social Science Research. Science, 206(4418), 537–538. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.11643505 Holm, S., & Irving, L. (2005). Research Ethics Committees in the Social Sciences. In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (pp. 397–402). https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00370-4 Human Nature. (2018). Instruction for Authors. Human Sciences Research Council. (2018). Code of Research Ethics.

144

References

Human Subjects Research Committee. (2013). Procedures for Obtaining Ethics Approval for Research with Human Subjects. Author. Humphries, B., & Martin, M. (2000). Research in Social Care and Social Welfare: Issues and Debates for Practice. In B. Humphries (Ed.), Disrupting Ethics in Social Research (pp. 69–85). Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2016). Virtue Ethics. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Ethical and Legal Issues Relating to the Inclusion of Women in Clinical Studies. (1999). Women and Health Research (A. C. Mastroianni, R. Faden, & D. Federma, Eds.). https://doi.org/10.17226/2343 Institutional Review Board of Cornell University. (2014). IRB Principles, Guidance & Resources. International Economic Development Council. (2011). Policies and Procedures for IEDC Code of Ethics Enforcement. Author. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. (2018). Author Guidelines. Wiley Online Library. International Monetary Fund. (2017). Ethics Framework: IMF Updates Standards for Staff Conduct. Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research Ethics for Social Scientists. https://doi.org/10.4135/978184 9209779 Jackson, B. (2018). The Changing Research Data Landscape and the Experiences of Ethics Review Board Chairs: Implications for Library Practice and Partnerships. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(5), 603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.07.001 Jex, C. (2016). Is Scientific Misconduct a Bigger Problem Than We Think? Kantor Bahasa Maluku. (2016). Pemanfaatan Cerita Rakyat Maluku dalam Pembelajaran Anak di Sekolah. Retrieved from https://kantorbahasamaluku.kemdikbud.go.id/2016/08/pemanfaatancerita-rakyat-maluku-dalam-pembelajaran-anak-di-sekolah/ Labots, G., Jones, A., de Visser, S. J., Rissmann, R., & Burggraaf, J. (2018). Gender Differences in Clinical Registration Trials: Is There a Real Problem? British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 84(4), 700–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13497 LaVelle, J. (2010). John LaVelle on Describing Evaluation. Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. (2013). Peraturan Kepala Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia Nomor 06/E/2013 tentang Kode Etika Peneliti. Author. Lesser, L. I., Ebbeling, C. B., Goozner, M., Wypij, D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2007). Relationship Between Funding Source and Conclusion Among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005 Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome and Quality: Systematic Review. BMJ, 326(7400), 1167–1170. https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 Lithgow, G. J., Driscoll, M., & Phillips, P. (2017). A Long Journey to Reproducible Results. Nature, 548(7668), 387–388. https://doi.org/10.1038/548387a Littman, E. (2012). The Secret Lives of Girls with ADHD. Attention, pp. 18–20. http://drellenli ttman.com/secret_life_of_girls_with_adhd.pdf London School of Economics and Political Science. (2018). Code of Research Conduct. Author. Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia. (2005). Ketetapan Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia No. 007/TAP/MWA-UI/2005. Author. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Association of Internet Researchers. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2018). MIT Policies & Procedures: A Guide for Faculty and Staff Members. McKenna, L., & Gray, R. (2018). The Importance of Ethics in Research Publications. Collegian, 25(2), 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2018.02.006 McLoed, S. (2017). Zimbardo—Stanford Prison Experiment. https://www.simplypsychology.org/ zimbardo.html

References

145

Medical University of Vienna. (2017). Ethics in Science and Research Guidelines of the Medical University of Vienna. Author. Melbourne University. (2016). Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy (MPF1318). Ministry of Transport New Zealand Government. (2017). Social Cost of Road Crashes and Injuries 2016 Update. Wellington. Monash University. (2019). Conflict of Interest Examples and Actions Guidelines. Monash University. Nanyang Technological University. (2013). NTU Policy on Research Integrity and the Responsible Conduct of Research. Singapore. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. United States Government Printing Office. National University of Singapore. (2008). NUS Code & Procedures on Research Integrity. Singapore. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Pearson New International Edition: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Pearson Ne). Pearson International Limited. Noorbala, A. A., Bagheri Yazdi, S. A., Faghihzadeh, S., Kamali, K., Faghihzadeh, E., Hajebi, A., … Ghafarzadeh, M. (2017). A Survey on Mental Health Status of Adult Population Aged 15 and Above in the Province of Tehran, Iran. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 20(11 Suppl. 1), S115–S118. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29481144 Northwestern University. (2018). University Policies. Nuri, F. I., & Hutama, F. S. (2016). Nilai-nilai yang Terkandung dalam Pertunjukan Wayang Topeng Sri Kresna (Studi Kasus: Desa Lumutan, Kecamatan Botolinggo, Kabupaten Bondowoso). FKIP E-PROCEEDING. Retrieved from https://jurnal.unej.ac.id/index.php/fkip-epro/article/ view/5830 Office for Research Integrity Northwestern University. (2018). Research Integrity: Policies and Guidelines. Office of Research Compliance of Ohio State University. (2018). General Research Policies. Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. (2016). Regulatory Compliance & Safety. Office of the Vice President for Research Michigan University. (2005). U-M Standard Practice Guide. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in Qualitative Research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007a). Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct. Tokyo. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007b). OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Spending. Paris. Osaka Prefecture University Public Corporation. (2015). Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Author. Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences. (2014). Ethical Guidelines for Research at Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences. Author. Personnel Services University of Oxford. (2014). Academic Integrity in Research: Code of practice and procedures. Plesser, H. E. (2018). Reproducibility vs. Replicability: A Brief History of a Confused Terminology. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 11(76). https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2017.00076 Population and Environment. (2018). Publishing Ethics. Qatar University. (2015). Policies and Procedures: Conflict of Interest. Rachmawaty, R. (2017). Ethical Issues in Action-Oriented Research in Indonesia. Nursing Ethics, 24(6), 686–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733016646156 Ramos, A. R. (2004). Reflecting on the Yanomami: Ethnographic Images and the Pursuit of the Exotic. Cultural Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1987.2.3.02a00020 RAND. (2019). Obtaining Indonesian Family Life Survey Restricted Data. https://www.rand.org/ content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/FLS/IFLS/IFLS_RESTRICTED_DATA.pdf Research Ethics Committee. (2009). Keio University Code of Research Ethics. Author.

146

References

Resnik, D. B. (2008). Scientific Autonomy and Public Oversight. Philosophy of Science, 5(2), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1742360008000336 Resnik, D. B. (2015). What Is Ethics in Research & Why Is It Important? Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University. (2007). Research Code of Ethics. Author. Sandler, R. (2018). Here’s Why a Cambridge Analytica Employee Says Recruiters Are Trying to Hire All the Engineers from the Scandal-Plagued Firm. Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F. K., Shoghi, M., & Cheraghi, M. A. (2014). Ethical Challenges of Researchers in Qualitative Studies: The Necessity to Develop a Specific Guideline. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 7, 14. Saqr, M. (2017). Big Data and the Emerging Ethical Challenges. International Journal of Health Sciences, 11(4), 1–2. Saxena, R. (2016). Social Science Reproducibility: Not Great, But Not as Bad as Reported? Retrieved from Ars Technica website: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/social-sciencereproducibility-not-great-but-not-as-bad-as-reported/ Scarce, R. (1995). Scholarly Ethics and Courtroom Antics: Where Researchers Stand in the Eyes of the Law. The American Sociologist, 26(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692012 Scarce, R. (2005). Contempt of Court: A Scholar’s Battle for Free Speech from Behind Bars. AltaMira Press. Scarth, B. J. (2016). Bereaved Participants’ Reasons for Wanting Their Real Names Used in Thanatology Research. Research Ethics, 12(2), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/174701611559 9569 School of Social Service Administration Institutional Review Board, & Chapin Hall Center for Children. (2017). Guidance for Researchers on Human Subjects Research. Author. Sellman, D. (2016). The Practice of Nursing Research: Getting Ready for ‘Ethics’ and the Matter of Character. Nursing Inquiry, 23(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12102 Seoul National University. (2010). Seoul National University Research Ethics Guidelines. Seoul. Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research. In Responsible Conduct of Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368246.001.0001 Sica, G. T. (2006). Bias in Research Studies. Radiology, 238(3), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiol.2383041109 Social Research Association. (2003). Ethical Guidelines. Author. Stanford University. (2018). Research Policy Handbook. Stapel, D. A., & Lindenberg, S. (2011). Retraction. Science, 334(6060), 1202–1202. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a Taylor & Francis. (2018). Instructions for Authors (Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience). The British Psychological Society. (2013). Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research. Author. The British Psychological Society. (2014). Code of Human Research Ethics. The British Psychological Society. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. (n.d.). Policy on Research Conduct and Integrity. The Office of the Executive Vice President for Research. (2018). Research Policies and Handbook. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. (2018). The Quarterly Journal of Economics: Journal Policies. The Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education University Wisconsin-Maddison. (2018). Research Policies. Tierney, P. (2000). Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon. W. W. Norton & Company. Tolich, M. (2014). What Can Milgram and Zimbardo Teach Ethics Committees and Qualitative Researchers About Minimizing Harm? Research Ethics, 10(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1747016114523771 Tourism Geographies. (n.d.). Notes for Authors: How to Submit Academic Papers to Tourism Geographies.

References

147

Traynor, M. (1996). Countering the Excessive Subpoena for Scholarly Research. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(3), 119. https://doi.org/10.2307/1192126 U.S. Department of Transportation. (2016). Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses—2016 Adjustment. Washington, DC. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 18 Tahun 2002. (2002). Sistem Nasional Penelitian, Pengembangan, Dan Penerapan Ilmu Pengetahuan Dan Teknologi. Jakarta. United Nations Evaluation Group. (2008). UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. Geneva. United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Paris. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. (2013). Code of Good Practice in Research Ethics. Author. University of Bologna. (2014). Ethical Code of Behaviour. Author. University of California Berkeley. (2018). CPHS Guidelines. University of Cambridge. (2016). University of Cambridge Policy on the Ethics of Research Involving Human Participants and Personal Data. Author. University of Helsinki. (2018). Research Ethics. University of Hong Kong. (2017). Policy on Research Integrity. University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics. (2003). A Guide to Research Ethics. Author. University of Queensland. (2019). Conflict of Interest. https://research-integrity.uq.edu.au/areas-res earch-conduct/conflicts-interest University of Southern Queensland. (2018). Examples of Conflicts of interest. https://www.usq.edu. au/hr/empcond/conflicts/conflict-examples University of Wisconsin Press Journal Division. (n.d.). Journal of Human Resources Online Manuscript Submission and Review System. UNSW Sydney Council. (2017). UNSW Research Code of Conduct. Venkatesh, S. (2008). Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets. Penguin Press. Vollmann, J., & Winau, R. (1996). Informed Consent in Human Experimentation Before the Nuremberg Code. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 313(7070), 1445–1449. Wackenhut, A. F. (2018). Ethical Considerations and Dilemmas Before, During and After Fieldwork in Less-Democratic Contexts: Some Reflections from Post-Uprising Egypt. The American Sociologist, 49(2), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-017-9363-z Warwick, D. P. (1973). Tearoom Trade: Means & Ends in Social Research. The Hastings Center Studies, 1(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527471 Widyantoro, D. H. (n.d.). Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Journal of ICT Research and Applications. Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008). The Management of Confidentiality and Anonymity in Social Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701622231 Wiley Online Library. (n.d.). Author Guideline (for Philosophy Compass). Williams, L. G. (2016). Review of Ethics Principles and Guidance in Evaluation and Research. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/524635/Ethics-principles-report-2016.pdf Wolf, L. E. (2010). The Research Ethics Committee Is Not the Enemy: Oversight of CommunityBased Participatory Research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(4), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2010.5.4.77 Women’s Health Association. (2014). The Cartwright Inquiry. https://womens-health.org.nz/con sumer-representation__trashed/the-cartwright-inquiry/ World Bank. (2009). Living Our Values: Code of Conduct. Washington, DC. World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Yong, E. (2012). Replication Studies: Bad Copy. Nature, 485(7398), 298–300. https://doi.org/10. 1038/485298a Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House. Zimbardo, P. G. (2018). Stanford Prison Experiment.

Index

A Acknowledgement, 107, 109, 111–116, 136 Ambedkar, B.R., 83 Ananta, Aris, xiv Anggada, M., xi, xiv Animal rights, 9 Aristotle, 133 Arndt, H.W., xiv Association of Computing Machinery, 26 Association of Internet Researchers, 25 Authorship, 4, 21, 36, 39, 93, 106, 108–113, 116–118, 127, 136 Auto-plagiarism, 115 Azis, Iwan Jaya, xiv

B Basic human rights, 7 Beecher, Henry, 15, 16 Belmont Report, 3, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 63, 134 Beneficence, 10, 18, 25, 52, 134 Berger, John, 59 Bhattacherjee, A., 31 Biases in research design, 41, 134 Big data, 1, 10, 22–25, 50, 51, 133 Bills, Wayne R., 137 Booth, Anne, xiv Bounded access, 77 Brodjonegoro, Bambang, xi Buddha, Gautama, 117 Budiman, Manneke, xiv Bullying, 67

C Cambridge Analytica, 22, 23

Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee, 21 Can, Canyon Keanu, xi, xiii Carson, Ben, 22 Cartwright Inquiry, 19, 20 Citation, 107, 108, 113–115, 136 Code of conduct, 21 Codes of ethics, 3, 10, 14, 18, 20, 21, 27, 34, 60, 63, 65, 66, 76, 137 Coercive relationships, 60 Cole, Edwin Louis, 97 Common mistakes, 93, 109 Confidential, 4–6, 16, 20, 25, 36, 37, 39, 46, 50, 57, 60, 61, 96, 124 Confidential information, 61, 94 Conflict of interest (COI), 79, 83–88, 91, 96, 119–123, 127 Consequentialist ethics, 5, 6 Corrupt ethics, 4 Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), 19, 131 Cross-culture, 73 Cross-institutional, 73 Cross-jurisdictional, 73

D Dartanto, Teguh, xiv Data keeping, 31, 94, 95, 136 Data management, 5, 60, 74, 93, 94, 127 Deception, 13, 16, 43, 48–50, 64, 66, 71, 117, 134 Deceptive research, 60 Declaration of Helsinki, 10, 14, 15, 19 Democracy, 7 Digital

© Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2023 M. Oey-Gardiner et al., Ethics in Social Science Research in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1153-0

149

150 future, 1 research, 22 revolution, 139 technology, 135 Disclosing conflict of interest, 86 Discrimination, 36, 42, 45, 67–69, 134 Dutch Occupation, 11 E Edison, Thomas, 66 Ellison, Harlan, 51 Equal pay, 68 Equal representation, 20, 68, 70, 138 Ethical aids, 9 considerations, 2, 3, 10, 31, 32, 37, 45 dilemmas, 5, 6, 9, 22–24, 32, 39, 51, 59, 137, 139 governance, 18 norms, 9, 14, 47 principles, 2, 11, 13–15, 21, 78, 89, 119, 126 regulations, 8, 9, 39 relativism, 6 reviews, 37, 46 scientific inquiry, 2 standards, 9, 14, 31, 44, 73, 85, 89, 93, 135, 138 supervision, 137, 138 violation, 8, 10, 17, 21, 23, 27, 32, 59, 86, 93, 102, 103, 105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 118, 125, 130, 131 Ethics board, 2, 50, 63, 70, 72, 135, 137–139 committee, 14, 15, 19–21, 25, 40, 41, 43–46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 137 protocols, 73 review, 19, 20, 23, 36, 45, 46, 51, 52, 61, 67, 137, 138 European Economic and Social Committee, 24 European Union, RESPECT Principles for Ethical Social-economic Research, 21 F Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), 37, 117, 118, 124–126, 129 False positive, 103, 104 Favouritism, 42, 47 Folklore, 7, 8 Fox, James J., xiv

Index Freedom of choice, 7, 18 Freedom of research, 16, 44

G Gabriel, D.S., xiv Gender equality, 68 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 22, 23 Ghost writers, 109, 111–113 Gift authors, 108, 109, 112, 113 Giroux, Henry, 3 Global standard, 136 Guest writers, 113 Guide for researchers, 4

H Heavy sanction, 125, 128, 129 High quality, 45, 92 Hill, Hal, xiv Hull, Terence (Terry), xiv Human autonomy, 10 consent, 10 dignity, 20 rights, 6, 10, 19, 40, 41 Huxley, Thomas, 1

I Identifiable, 61, 62 Indonesia Bureau of Economic Research (IBER), xv Indonesian Research Ethics Laws and Regulations, 33 Information sources, 4, 52, 60, 63, 66, 73, 93, 134 Informed consent, 7, 10, 11, 14–18, 20, 25, 37, 43, 47–49, 51, 60, 63, 66, 85, 101, 138 Institutional Review Board, 14, 17–19, 21, 25, 51, 78 Institution quality, 92 International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, 19 International human rights conventions and covenants, 67 International standards, 1, 46 Internet-based research, 10, 22, 24, 25, 50, 54, 64, 66, 73, 133 Internet of things, 1

Index J Japanese Occupation, 11 Johnson, Samuel, 32 Jones, Gavin, xiv Justice, 5–8, 10, 12, 18, 19, 25, 40, 41, 45, 55, 57, 65, 70, 81, 82, 124, 134

K Kant, Immanuel, 6, 31

L Laud Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade study, 16 Leadership, 8, 127, 138 Legal, 1, 10, 13–15, 21, 24, 31, 34, 41, 44, 52, 54, 62–64, 72 consequences, 31, 54 doctrine, 10 rights, 41 Light sanction, 128

M Manipulation, 24, 66, 101, 102 McDonald, Peter, xiv Milgram’s Obedience experiments, 12, 13 Misconduct, 2, 8, 12, 18, 21, 22, 27, 33, 37, 45, 54, 78, 79, 81, 94, 96, 107, 116–124, 126–130, 136, 137, 139 Misinterpretation of results, 105 Misuse of research results, 136 Moderate sanction, 128 Moral philosophies, 6, 101 Moral requirements, 81 Multidimensional, 73

N Nadia Mauli Arvinta, xi, xiv National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research, 18 National Committee for Research Ethics in Social Sciences and Humanities, 20 Nepotism, 42 Newton, Isaac, 113 Non-consequentialist ethics, 5, 66 Non-discriminatory approach, vii Non-maleficence, 10, 18 Non-therapeutic research, 11 Normative ethics, 5 Nuremberg Code, 9–11, 13–15, 18, 19 Nuremberg Trials, 9–12, 133

151 O Oey-Gardiner, Mayling, vii Oversampling, 68 P Pappworth’s ‘Human Guinea Pigs’, 13–15 Participant willingness, 60, 61, 66 Passive consent, 61, 65 Paternalism in research, 65 Pauling, Linus, 79 Personal data, 24, 41, 50, 74, 77, 94, 97 Personal information, 62, 71, 73, 74, 78, 94, 97, 131, 135 Pessoa, Fernando, 74 Plagiarism, 4, 21, 32, 91, 104, 106, 113–116, 124–126, 130, 136 Policy-making, 2, 38 Post-research, xiv Principle of ‘Do No Harm”, 100 Privacy, 2, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22–25, 36, 37, 41, 44, 48, 50, 61, 66, 67, 73–77, 94, 134 Professional integrity, 39, 42 Protection of information, 63, 66, 76 Protection of participants, 38, 52, 66, 67, 70, 134, 135 Public debate, 13 health and safety, 9 trust, 9, 15, 38, 135, 137 Publication credits, 110, 135 R Rahardi, Fandy, xi, xiii Referencing, 106–108 Reich, Weilhelm, 60 Religious values, 7 Repeatability, 26 Replicability, 26 Reproducibility, 26, 133 Research data, 37, 41, 74, 76, 77, 85, 91, 94–97, 103, 112, 126, 136 design, 18, 32, 43, 45, 50, 84, 85, 92, 122, 126, 127, 136 ethics, 2–6, 8–10, 12–16, 18–21, 32–34, 38, 40, 45, 52, 53, 60, 63, 65, 117, 124, 133, 135–138 frauds, 91 funding, 1, 9, 32, 55, 83 methods, 16, 24, 31, 41–46, 50, 51, 54–56, 59, 64, 116, 127, 134

152 misconduct, 37, 45, 79, 117–120, 123, 124, 126–130 participants, 2, 20, 32, 40, 42, 43, 45, 49, 60, 64, 65, 72, 74, 76, 94, 100 protocol, 15, 43–45 results, 2, 38, 42, 68, 80, 85, 86, 101, 102, 105, 106, 118 risks, 51, 52, 59, 67 subjects, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, 21, 38, 47, 48, 50, 59, 60, 62–64, 67, 70, 73, 78, 81, 82 transparency, 54, 77, 119, 122, 123 volunteer, 32 Researcher competency, 90 Researcher integrity, 79 Respect for persons, 18, 25, 63, 134 Risk management, 48, 52, 138 Romusha, 12

S Sample selection, 46, 47 San Antonio contraceptive study, 15 Sanctions, 2, 33, 59, 78, 116, 117, 122, 125, 128–130 Sandburg, Carl, 44, 60 Sarumpaet, Riris K. Toha, xv Sayers, Dorothy L., 102 Schweitzer, Albert, 4 Scientific community, 1, 39, 83, 113 development, 27, 78 reason, 43, 68 Self-plagiarism, 113, 115, 118 Sequencing, 109, 110 Shankar, Anuraj, xv Shaw, George Bernard, 93 Singer, Peter, 41 Smith, Zadie, 9 Social justice, 7, 81 life, 48, 127 science researchers, 115, 130 sciences research, vii–ix scientists, 2–6, 8, 22, 36, 59, 68, 70, 73, 104, 133 welfare, vii

Index Source of funds, 56, 83 South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council, 19 Statistical conclusion, 103 Stewart, Potter, 43 Susanti, Hera, xi, xiv

T Tetanus vaccine, 12 Theory of existence, 1 Transparency, 37, 44, 45, 54, 57, 84, 86, 87, 89, 93, 102–105, 116, 122, 123, 135, 138 Tuskegee syphilis trials, 10, 15, 17, 18 Twain, Mark, 54

U United Kingdom’s Economic and Social Research Council’s Research Ethics Framework, 21 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 19 Universal law, 6 Utilitarian arguments, 6 Utomo, Iwu Dwisetyani, xv

V Violations of human rights, 40 Virtue ethics, 5–7 Voluntary consent, 38, 52, 64, 134 Vulnerable population, 13, 16, 18, 19, 48, 64, 65, 67, 68, 134, 137, 139

W Willowbrook hepatitis studies, 12, 13 Winfrey, Oprah, 88 Women’s suffrage, 68 Wongkaren, Diana Stojanovic, xv

Z Zimbardo’s mock prison experiment, 15, 17