What are the ethical dilemmas researchers need to consider when undertaking research in organisational settings?
What are the ethical dilemmas researchers need to consider when undertaking research in organisational settings?
Introduction:
Within the vast literature on ethical dilemmas for researchers there appears to be some agreement that the main ethical problems occur over attempting to conform to the principles of informed consent, safety, privacy, confidentiality, anonymity and respect. This is complicated further through the suggestion that responsible researchers should also aim to avoid deception, exploitation and harassment. One must also consider issues of legality and the responsibility the researcher has to the participants; and the researchers own hierarchy of importance between results and participants. The researcher also has to create a balance between all these issues, whilst still collecting reliable data.
Within the literature on research in organisational settings, these issues become particular to that setting under certain circumstances. Firstly, one must consider issues of funding and sponsorship. Clearly, this presents dilemmas of loyalty, but these issues become ethical when one considers debates such as ownership of knowledge under market economics, the researchers commitment to his participants and legal issues. Who is the researcher reporting too? Would they report information that may lead to someone losing their job? Would they feel able to report illegal behaviour? These are all ethical dilemmas, which become particular to the organisation if the researcher is commissioned or funded by the managers and the subjects are the 'powerless' employees.
Also individual to research in organisational settings is the position of the insider researcher/practitioner and the use of participatory or action research. I aim to present these dilemmas and draw comparisons with the position of the outsider researcher and the ethical dilemmas for both that arise over gatekeepers, unexpected results, their changing ethical positions in different organisational settings and the decisions they make over what data to use. In my view, the ethical dilemmas they face before, during and after the research are diverse. Mullins denotes three main ethical areas and approaches within organisation; firstly, deontological ethics, that which is guided by religious or moral beliefs. Secondly, ethics that are concerned with ends rather than means are referred to as teleological. Lastly, ethical relativism refers to beliefs that are specific to individuals and social groups. (Mullins, 1996 p.320)
'Ownership of knowledge:' ethical dilemmas faced in 'contract research':
David Bridges (1998) argues that educational and social science research has undergone a process of commodification in which the language of market economics and privatisation has become prevalent. Bridges places his argument within the organisation setting of a university. The first ethical question that is presented is the use of data after the research has been completed and the implications outside funding has on this. Bridges (1998) notes that there is an,
Increasing tendency in educational and social sciences research for researchers to find themselves entering funding regimes or relationships in which those providing the money see this as providing them with full proprietal rights over the research, or at least over its products, including in these the rights to hold the results of the research to themselves or to release information selectively. (p.594)
Within this dilemma the 'powerless' participants are removed even further from the research, as they may not even be eligible to gain access to the results. Through this transfer of control of the data, principles of privacy and confidentiality may be breached as it is no longer the ethical code of the researcher, which may have led to participants feeling comfortable to partake in the initial stages, that is to be adhered to. It is now up to the government, sponsors, university or management to decide how the data is implemented. For the researcher, prior to undertaking the research, this is perhaps merely a moral dilemma. However, once the participants become involved and their safety or privacy is questioned it becomes a question of ethics peculiar to that organisational setting.
Another ethical dilemma faced in this situation is the researchers adherence to discovering and publishing the 'truth' (if one considers that this could ever realistically be achieved.)
Social science research may, for example, readily reveal discrepancies between the claims made by the government or other sponsors of educational innovation and the evidence of the research. (Bridges, 1998, p.599)
This ethical problem concerns the position of the researcher, especially as an insider-researcher, who may not feel confident to report 'failures' or 'discrepancies' to senior management, with the implication that the temptation is perhaps to alter results. Yet there is also the question of the practitioner/researcher's commitment or responsibility to their profession and its improvement; should they allow the research evidence to be withheld by those who have 'purchased' it.
These ethical dilemmas are not merely created by the fact that the research is contracted or controlled by these in positions of power. They are also related to conflicts of interests over the original purpose of the research. That is whether it was merely contrived to support managerial claims or decisions; whether it aimed to objectively evaluate these, improve the profession or whether to the researcher and funder it simply aimed to get the desired results at any cost to the participant. Bridges continues this idea to suggest that in educational organisations 'contract research' is itself unethical as he suggests that educational research carries a moral banner and thus, I would argue that the participants are easily exploited in the stated pursuit of improving the profession. Bridges states that research, which was subjected to the criticism of academic peers, was part of the action of the investigation and perhaps guarded against its misuse. Whereas in this situation researchers are,
Gearing their work so as to satisfy the demands and expectations of their governments or corporation sponsors rather than the demands of their academic colleagues, whose critical scrutiny is no longer, perhaps, part of the process. (p.596)
The suggestion here being that the presence of an outside influence on research detracts from the organisation's inbuilt guards against unethical behaviour. In a later article Bridges develops this criticism of the 'property' (p.382) of knowledge and see it instead as a 'virtue' that can be easily disseminated without harm to anyone.
Gatekeepers and Informed Consent:
The presence ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Gearing their work so as to satisfy the demands and expectations of their governments or corporation sponsors rather than the demands of their academic colleagues, whose critical scrutiny is no longer, perhaps, part of the process. (p.596)
The suggestion here being that the presence of an outside influence on research detracts from the organisation's inbuilt guards against unethical behaviour. In a later article Bridges develops this criticism of the 'property' (p.382) of knowledge and see it instead as a 'virtue' that can be easily disseminated without harm to anyone.
Gatekeepers and Informed Consent:
The presence of 'gatekeepers' in accessing research databases or participants often cannot be avoided as their role can range from managers to head teachers, to a parents signature on a consent form.
Gatekeepers are those who give access to a research field. Their role may be in allowing investigators into a given physical space, or it may go further in granting permission for research to be conducted in a particular way. (p.329)
Often their presence can avoid unethical behaviour, but Homan (2001) warns against them being seen as a substitute to the researchers' moral judgement rather than an addition. There are many ethical dilemmas arising over the position of gatekeepers in authority or responsibility. A headteacher is in a position to give permission for a researcher to access children, where ethical issues of informed consent also come into consideration. Where managers act as gatekeepers, ethical issues of harassment and exploitation exist as non-participation would then become increasingly obvious to them. Homan () suggests that gatekeepers and researchers should be aware of the ethical issues of using the,
Power of group pressure by peers, especially if non-participation implies conspicuous behaviour such as leaving the room.
Ethical dilemmas over gatekeepers also occur when insider researchers act as their own gatekeepers. Homan (2001) suggests that this should never happen if the insider wishes the research to be ethical. Here the researcher faces issues over which data should be used.
They will be inclined to perceive that community as a public domain and suppose that they have an entitlement to all its data. (p.340)
The inclusion of the notion of informed consent within a code of ethics aims to avoid many of the ethical issues raised above. However, informed consent itself raises many ethical dilemmas. Homan (2001) defines informed consent as including the following principles:
. That all pertinent aspects of what is to occur are disclosed to the subject.
2. That the subject should be able to comprehend this information.
3. That the agreement to participate should be voluntary, free from coercion and undue influence. (p.331)
Mark (1996) includes in his definition of informed consent, that the participants should also be educated about the benefits of the research and that they should be aware of whom to contact if they have any worries during the investigation. Bell (1999) warns against claiming more than the project merits, and I would suggest that this becomes an ethical issue when these claims and the notion of informed consent itself are used to persuade or coerce subjects to participate.
Homan perceives informed consent as one of the most important ethical issues raising numerous dilemmas,
Homan directly attacks those researchers who merely pay lip-service to consent as an ethical issue and who seek, consciously or otherwise, to gain access to a site of research without addressing those whom the researcher wishes to investigate. (M.McNamee, 2001, p.311)
For Homan, simply using a gatekeeper or merely presenting the most basic of 'consent forms' is itself an ethical dilemma, as he sees this as an exploitation of the participants' rights to be fully aware of every aspect of the research. I would suggest the view that through utilising informed consent to build up a feeling of trust and protection between the researcher and the researched can be distorted to gain and then publish information that may not have been shared without its presence.
If privacy is to be defined in subject terms as the space or range of behaviour which an individual is entitled and disposed to assert for self-protection, there are serious ethical implications regarding the variation of this according to the degree of charm, empathy or friendliness evident in the conduct of the investigator. (p.327)
Clearly, the perspectives of whether this is an ethical dilemma would depend on the morals of the researcher; making it an issue of 'ethical relativism' personal to the researcher. For me, this raises questions over whether a 'good' researcher is one who respects the participant sat the expense of gathering data, or whether it would be a researcher who is able to build relationships of trust and use this to gain data? Perhaps a 'good' researcher would seek to find a 'middle ground' between the two extremes.
Ethical dilemmas faced by insider researchers:
I intend to approach the role of the insider researcher or practitioner researcher through the specific ethical dilemmas faced before, during and after the research has taken place. Within the setting of an organisation, the researcher often has the role, not only of being an insider, but also a practitioner. Also specific to organisational research is the use of action research and the ethical implications this approach may have. But I will also be considering the role of researchers after the investigation has been conducted.
While there are abundant guidelines regarding the treatment of participants before, and during a research experiment, researcher responsibility to their participants after the data are collected are less clean cut. (Wright, 1999, p.1107)
I have already gone someway to depict ethical problems faced after research, when the research is controlled from outside, but there are also many other problems specific to the role of the insider researcher.
Ethical dilemmas faced preceding the research project:
Different ethical issues arise over the distinct decisions made by the researcher prior to commencing the research. Smyth and Holian (1999) suggest that researchers who decide to research in their own organisations are often labelled as being 'subjective and anecdotal.' This becomes an ethical issue if researchers then alter paradigms or doctor results to rationalise their research, trying to make it 'fit into a 'scientific' quantitative paradigm or an accepted qualitative framework.' As an ethical, as well as a political issue, the researcher faces a decision between ethical research and outsider respect. However, as narrative approaches to research become increasingly recognised as a research paradigm this issue becomes less effectual. However, the ethical stance of the researcher is an issue that needs to be established prior to the research.
Tickle raises two main concerns over the ethical position of the research before beginning the experiment pertaining to their own personal goals for the research,
Those of the activist, intent on the pursuit of good educational [or organisational] practice and practical wisdom, and those of the action researcher, intent on uncovering evidence through the use of ethical research methods. (p.349)
Clearly, this is often an unconscious decision and it must be acknowledged that researchers cannot be beyond the stereotypes and prejudices common in society. Bridges (2001) continues to suggest that their training and experience should provide them with an 'above average' (p.376) awareness of any unconscious decisions they may be making. This is an ethical dilemma for a researcher who is aware that they are entering into an investigation with a prejudice or bias that may affect the results and this remains unstated. For example, it is seen as ethically possible for an insider to investigate the roles of others in their organisation. However, is their goal for organisational or participant improvement ethically possible if these two stances are in opposition? If there is a known 'clash of personalities' between researcher and colleagues, can they be ethically researched?
Ethical dilemmas faced during the research project:
During the research the insider faces ethical dilemmas over what data the researcher should use. In the course of working relationships we become aware not only of organisational data, but also personal information,
There is often the problem inherent in insider research that the investigator may draw upon data observed and banked, whether systematically or unconsciously in the cause of experience prior to the start of the enquiry. (Homan, 2001, p.330)
This raises ethical dilemmas over whether this information should be used, or whether it is even possible to avoid its use. This prior knowledge or experience may affect any observations made or interviews the insider conducts. The insider must also recognise that when observing a participant, whether their permission has been sought or not, many other colleagues will also come under scrutiny. If the researcher uncovers useful information from those who have not consented to be part of the research, I believe it would then be unethical to publish these results.
Smyth and Holian (1999) believe that there can be real ethical risks to the researcher and the research when it is conducted within their own organisation.
The greater risk may be that the insider gains access to organisationally sensitive information and risks exposing previously 'undiscussable' issues, disturbing arrangements that some particular people or purposes, confronting others with less than welcome observations regarding organisational practice and surfacing and naming ethical dilemmas.
They go on to discuss whether it is at these moments of disturbance that research can perhaps make more changes and potential for learning than at any other time. This presents an ethical dilemma that is confused further by the use of hindsight. Perhaps in some circumstances using sensitive information may have a positive outcome. However, just because it may result in a 'happy ending' does not necessarily make the use of material ethical. Moreover, the definition of 'sensitive' and 'undiscussable' could range from upset to illegality. To many researchers it appears that ethical behaviour is affected by the situation and constantly changes.
Ethical dilemmas after the research project:
Particular to organisational settings is the use of action research. The use of action research or participatory research occurs frequently in the literature on education and nursing. The main ethical dilemmas with action research involve the fact that ' it lends itself to the direct involvement and collaboration of those whom it is designed to develop' (Blaxter et al, , p.68). Thus these participants are more open to risks if they are not sufficiently protected by the researcher. Tickle (2001) suggests that after the research has been completed the researcher needs to adhere to the principles of 'openness, anonymity or confidentiality' (p.348) that may have attracted people to take part. 'Openness' involves access to the information after it has been gathered, and ensuring it can be easily disseminated. In ensuring 'anonymity' the researcher must ensure that none of the individuals can be recognised. 'Confidentiality' involves guaranteeing data will not be repeated to anyone else, however covertly (Tickle, 2001, p.348). Adhering to those principles is not only infinitely difficult, but also ethically problematic.
Tickle (2001) defines the main ethical issues faced after research as concerning the reinterpretation of data within the organisation or public domains and the other as dilemmas which depend,
On the relationships between the aims of the researcher and the methodological principles which are adopted in the conduct of research, especially with regard to power in the control, use and distribution of data (p.347).
Tickle uses his experience of educational action research as an example of this. Tickle's role was not only as an example of this. Tickle's role was not only as an action researcher, but also as an external support mentor for the newly qualified teachers (NQTs). In preparation for his research Tickle included a 'conditional consent' clause that allowed all information to be open unless the participants did not agree. This was included to protect the NQTs during their assessment in their probationary period.
A participant, who insisting on confidentiality, revealed she was having difficulties with her head teacher whose comments on her were unsubstantiated and resulted in her wishing to resign, approached tickle.
I was once again faced with the dilemma between the need to know what was occurring in order to understand the experience of new teachers, and the professional responsibility of acting on behalf of one of them in particular (p.354).
Through not revealing her story Tickle felt 'powerless' (p.355) to help others who may have been in the same situation, thus the principle behind action research broke down. Tickle tried to submit a report respecting anonymity, but it was rejected as others felt the school and head teacher could be identified. Tickle faced the ethical dilemma of the effect information release may have on a participant afterwards. In this case the participant felt that releasing the data would affect her future career. Tickle, ethically, respected her decision, yet in doing so withheld valuable information from his research.
The practitioner researcher has an integrated role as actor and as information gatherer... But the integrated role is particularly difficult where access to information and consent over its use depends on practitioners (p.349).
Tickle hoped that through his insider knowledge of educational politics and practices within institutions would be able to easily speak for the participants in his research. Yet, he found that ethical concerns altered his approach to research; considering the participants own wishes as more important than his wishes for them and his own research.
Ethical dilemmas faced by outsider researchers:
Within the relationship of the outsider researcher and the participants there is a clear power dichotomy; the disempowered participants and the outsider as 'powerful expert.' Bridges presents three main arguments supporting the resistance of outsider research, two of which are due to ethical problems.
. Epistemological arguments that an outsider cannot understand or represent accurately a particular kind of experience... [due to] inappropriate explanatory frameworks, which outsiders bring with them to their research.
2. Ethical arguments to do with exploitative or disrespectful behaviour of researchers.
3. Ethico-political arguments about disempowering effects of having others articulate your views for you.
The ethical argument in point 2. again refers to and is defined by the particular researcher. I would also suggest that it is possible for insider researchers to be exploitative and disrespectful. The dilemma faced in point 3. again would be specific to the individual researcher and organisational setting. It led me to consider whether it would be more disempowering to be represented by a responsible outsider than not to be characterized at all?
Bridges presents another critique of these arguments, which I would suggest demonstrates the philosophical depths that ethical arguments can reach,
These arguments, however, all risk a descent into solipism: if our individual understanding is so particular, how can we have communication with or any understanding of anyone else?... Rather it is in talking to each other, in participating in a shared language that we construct conceptual apparatus... which involves understanding differences as well as similarities (p.373)
Bridges continues to suggest that if an outsider is unable to adequately research one organisation, how is he/she able to understand this information as mediated through an insider. Bridges is here attempting to transform an ethical dilemma of the power relationship between researcher and participant to a politico-philosophical debate. Issues of exploitation and misunderstanding are perhaps, more prevalent in outside research, Bridges, (perhaps unconvincingly) suggests that it is in fact the participants who label themselves as disempowered. I would suggest that in an organisational setting often employees are powerless 'in the hands of' an outsider researcher, but just as with insiders, the researcher can protect the participants, if they are fully aware of the ethical dilemmas prior to commencing the research. Bridges ultimately suggests that this situation,
Requires of researchers an alertness to the prejudices that they bring to their enquiry and a reflexiveness, which will allow the enquiry itself to challenge these assumptions. (p.383)
If the research is conducted ethically then outsider research can enhance the understanding of all the parties involved and possibly develop the awareness of those reading the results.
Wright and Wright (1999) suggest that within organisational settings there are approaches to research that would protect against the ethical dilemmas faced by both insider and outsider researchers.
Baumrind identified the core ethical dilemma common to organisational research: researchers [whether insider or outsider] are continuously striving to balance [their] career and scientific interests against the interests of [their] prospective subjects (p.1108).
They present a solution to this ethical dilemma faced by insider and outsider researchers in organisations is the use of databanks. Here there is often no consent sought at all, informed consent is often not even considered. Again, the researcher may uncover sensitive information and will have to consider whether it is ethical to use or withhold this information.
There will be minimal contact between the researcher and employees of the organisation[s] involved... employees... unwittingly become participants [and] the study results often have potential consequences for the employees (p.1109).
Wright et al. (1999) continue to suggest that employees in this position are removed to being outside stakeholders and often they are not perceived as stakeholders at all. Ethically, this is a question, not only of informed consent, but also databanks may be created as a result of prior research, thus it is also an ethical issue of the control and use of data after it has been collected. Wright et al. suggest the use of committed-to -participant (CPR) approaches to research. In this approach,
The overall well-being of the research participants was a stated project goal... Unfortunately, this CPR approach does not appear to be widely used and, as a consequence, organizational research is often perceived as being out of step with the very needs of the people we propose to study (p.110).
I would also suggest that it is a result of this view that ethical debates and deliberations are becoming increasingly prevalent in organisational literature.
Do codes of ethics produce their own ethical dilemmas?
There is a tentative debate, which I referred to earlier, over whether codes of ethics are themselves 'ethical.' The researcher may use them to protect their own position and to persuade participants to take part in the research. Homan suggests that ethical codes or boards allow individuals to surrender ethical responsibility to a consensus. Ethical codes can never be final as with Tickle's experience of action research, in which he had to alter his ethical code to deal with unexpected results. Homan feels strongly that 'ethical codes, like other legalistic formulations, tend to set out procedures rather than stress the values which they are designed to safeguard' (p.325). Ethical codes may contain clauses over privacy, they may stress that in an interview situation the participant had the right to refuse to answer specific questions. I would suggest that this is virtually impossible to enforce. Homan believes that unethical behaviour in this situation is almost unavoidable,
But those who use open methods report as an achievement that their subjects forget that research is the basis of their relationship... Investigators report that some of their most valuable data were collected once participants forgot that they were speaking on the record (p.326)
If a privacy clause has been included in a code of ethics, I would suggest that it is unethical for the interviewer to use qualities of trust and charm to entice a participant to part with information. Ultimately, Homan believes that for ethical codes to be acceptable and for ethical dilemmas to be avoided and participants protected as a result, the moral codes behind the ethical ones need to be recalled.
Many suggest that codes of ethics and ethical boards are created to protect against ethical issues that the researcher may have overlooked. Small (2001) agrees with Homan in suggesting that they remove the moral responsibility from the researcher to conduct ethical research. Small also acquiesces to the views of Ladd, who states that 'a code of ethics may itself have harmful effects. Since it sets only a minimal standard of ethical conduct, people are likely to condone whatever is not expressly dealt with by its provisions' (p.391). The title of McNamee's article 'Whose ethics, which research?' demonstrates the shifting nature of ethical concerns to different researchers and in different research settings. McNamee suggests that if one perceives codes of ethics as only ever partially completed products. 'A code can at best represent some inelegant consensus and not a fully coherent theoretical structure awaiting application' (p.315). if a researcher views a code of ethics in this, which I would suggest is a more responsible light, they will have to consider individual ethical dilemmas as and when they arise and to seek the advice of others whist not surrendering responsibility to them.
Conclusion:
References:
J. Bell, (1999) Doing your research project (Buckingham, O.U.P.)
L. Blaxter, (2001) C. Hughes and M. Tight, How to research 2nd edition (Buckingham, O.U.P)
D. Bridges, (1998) 'Research for sale: moral market or moral maze?' British Educational Research Journal Vol. 24 no.5
D. Bridges, (2001) 'The ethics of outsider research,' Journal of the Philosophy of Education Vol. 35 no. 3
R. Homan, (2001) 'The Principle of Assumed Consent: the Ethics of Gatekeeping,' Journal of the Philosophy of Education Vol. 35 no. 3
R. Homan, () 'The Ethics of Open Methods,'
R. Mark, (1996) Research made simple (London, Sage)
E. McKenna, (1994) Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour (East Sussex, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.)
M. McNamee, (2001) 'Whose ethics, which research?' Journal of the Philosophy of Education Vol. 35 no. 3
L. Mullins, (1996) Management and Organisational Behaviour (London, Pitman)
R. Small, (2001) 'Codes are not enough: What philosophy can contribute to the ethics of educational research' Journal of the Philosophy of Education Vol. 35 no. 3
A.Smyth and R. Holian, (1999) 'The Credibility of the Researcher who does Research in their own Organisation,' Paper presented at the Association of Qualitative Research Conference, Melbourne.
L. Tickle, (2001) 'Opening Windows, Closing Doors: Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Action Research,' Journal of the Philosophy of Education Vol. 35 no.3
T. Wright and V. Wright, (1999) 'Ethical responsibility and the Organizational Researcher: A Committed-to- Participant Research Perspective,' Journal of Organizational Behaviour 20
Holly Bayliss/1