Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research and Innovation⇛vol. 2 no. 2 (2024)

Ethical Protocols in Non-Positivist Research Traditions

Rajesh Shrestha

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The study aims to uncover the most efficient methods and challenges in maintaining ethical conduct and integrity in non-positivist research initiatives. The study utilized a qualitative research design to evaluate and analyze ethical protocols in the non-positivist research tradition. A content analysis was performed on articles, books, and relevant publications, using thematic coding to identify significant themes, trends, and challenges in ethical procedures. The findings reveal that researchers and participants must balance respect for subjectivity, reciprocity, collaboration, and fierce protection of vulnerable populations. The need for ongoing critical ethical inquiry to ensure informed consent through dialogue, navigate culturally sensitive power dynamics, and maintain privacy and confidentiality is clear. As studies progress, it is crucial to prioritize ethical considerations. The study has numerous implications, prompting researchers to prioritize the well-being of participants to enhance the credibility of research endeavors. Researchers in non-positivist traditions can conduct meaningful and respectful investigations that strengthen our comprehension of social phenomena by adhering to strong ethical guidelines. The ethical concerns within these research traditions are dynamic and require ongoing self-reflection and adaptation to protect the well-being and rights of participants.



References:

  1. Ahmed, S. M., & Palermo, A.-G. S. (2010). Community engagement in research: Frameworks for education and peer review. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1380–1387. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.178137
  2. Aldridge, J. (2015). Participatory research: Working with vulnerable groups in research and practice (1st ed.). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t8933q
  3. Alessandrini, M. (July 10-13). Non-positivist approaches to research in the third sector: Empowered policy-making. ISTR 10th International Conference, Siena, Italy.
  4. Arifin, S. R. M. (2018). Ethical considerations in qualitative study. International Journal of Care Scholars, 1(2).
  5. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Sommers, S. R. (2018). Social psychology (Ninth edition, global edition). Pearson.
  6. Badampudi, D., Fotrousi, F., Cartaxo, B., & Usman, M. (2022). Reporting consent, anonymity and confidentiality procedures adopted in empirical studies using human participants. E-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, 16(1), 220109. https://doi.org/10.37190/e-Inf220109
  7. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices (Second edition). Anol Bhattacherjee.
  8. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
  9. Blum, L. (2004). Stereotypes and stereotyping: a moral analysis. Philosophical Papers, 33(3), 251–289.
  10. Bos, J. (2020). Confidentiality. In J. Bos, Research Ethics for Students in the Social Sciences (pp. 149–173). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6_7
  11. Bukamal, H. (2022). Deconstructing insider–outsider researcher positionality. British Journal of Special Education, 49(3), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12426
  12. Bumbuc, Ş. (2016). About subjectivity in qualitative data interpretation. International Conference Knowledge-Based Organization, XXII (2).
  13. Cheek, J. (2008). Researching collaboratively: Implications for qualitative research and researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 18(11), 1599–1603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308324865
  14. Chiseri-Strater, E. (1996). Turning in upon ourselves: Positionality, subjectivity, and reflexivity in case study and ethnographic research. In Peter Mortensen & Gesa E. Kirsch (Eds.), Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy. National Council of Teachers of English.
  15. Ciesielska, M. (2017). Qualitative methodologies in organization studies - volume I: Theories and new approaches. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  16. Cippitani, R. (2023). Consent requirements: What are the terms and conditions of informed consent? In V. Colcelli, R. Cippitani, C. Brochhausen-Delius, & R. Arnold (Eds.), GDPR Requirements for Biobanking Activities Across Europe (pp. 97–108). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42944-6_11
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd ed). Sage Publications.
  18. Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  19. Cultural competence in research. (2010). The Harvard clinical and translational science center.
  20. Davis, M. (2020). The “culture” in cultural competence. In J. Frawley, G. Russell, & J. Sherwood (Eds.), Cultural Competence and the Higher Education Sector (pp. 15–29). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5362-2_2
  21. Diver, S. W., & Higgins, M. N. (2014). Giving back through collaborative research: Towards a practice of dynamic reciprocity. Journal of Research Practice, 10(2).
  22. Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. Esses, The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (pp. 3–28). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200919.n1
  23. Drapeau, M. (2015). Subjectivity in research: Why not? but…. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2002.1972
  24. Ebbs, C. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Inquiry: Issues of Power and Ethics. Education 3-13, 117, 217.
  25. Ederio, N. T., P. Inocian, E., I. Calaca, N., & M. Espiritu, J. G. (2023). Ethical research practices in educational institutions: A literature review. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 06(05). https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i5-02
  26. Edwards, D. J. (2015). Dissemination of research results: On the path to practice change. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(6). https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.v68i6.1503
  27. Empowering research participants: Carol Rippey Massat and Marta Lundy. (1997). Affilia, 12(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/088610999701200103
  28. Fassinger, R., & Morrow, S. L. (2013). Toward best practices in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research: A social justice perspective. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(2).
  29. Friesen, P., Kearns, L., Redman, B., & Caplan, A. L. (2017). Rethinking the Belmont report? The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(7), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1329482
  30. Gair, S. (2012). Feeling their stories: Contemplating empathy, insider/outsider positionings, and enriching qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 22(1), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311420580
  31. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708
  32. George, M. S., Gaitonde, R., Davey, R., Mohanty, I., & Upton, P. (2023). Engaging participants with research findings: A rights‐informed approach. Health Expectations, 26(2), 765–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13701
  33. Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 1025–1046). Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  34. Ghooi, R. (2011). The Nuremberg Code-A critique. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(2), 72. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.80371
  35. González-Duarte, A., Zambrano-González, E., Medina-Franco, H., Alberú-Gómez, J., Durand-Carbajal, M., Hinojosa, C. A., Aguilar-Salinas, C. A., & Kaufer-Horwitz, M. (2020). II. The research ethics involving vulnerable groups. Revista de Investigación Clínica, 71(4), 1932. https://doi.org/10.24875/RIC.19002812
  36. Gordon, B. G. (2020). Vulnerability in research: Basic ethical concepts and general approach to review. Ochsner Journal, 20(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.19.0079
  37. Graber, A., & Maguire, A. (2024). Clinical informed consent and ABA. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00902-0
  38. Griffin, R. W. (2013). Management (11th ed). South-Western Cengage Learning.
  39. Head, G. (2020). Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher development. European Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118796315
  40. Horsfall, M., Eikelenboom, M., Draisma, S., & Smit, J. H. (2021). The effect of rapport on data quality in face-to-face interviews: Beneficial or detrimental? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 10858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010858
  41. Imran, M., Samad, S., Maaz, M., Qadeer, A., Najmi, A., & Aqil, M. (2013). Hippocratic oath and conversion of ethico-regulatory aspects onto doctors as a physician, private individual and a clinical investigator. Journal of Mid-Life Health, 4(4), 203. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-7800.122232
  42. Institute for Work & Health Privacy Committee. (2020). Privacy, confidentiality and data security: Handbook of research policies and procedures. Institute for Work & Health.
  43. Kahn, H. J. (2000). Voluntary consent for participation in research in the twenty-first century. Brain and Language, 71(1), 110–112. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2226
  44. Kang, E., & Hwang, H.-J. (2021). Ethical conducts in qualitative research methodology: participant observation and interview process. Journal of Research and Publication Ethics, 2(2), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.15722/JRPE.2.2.202109.5
  45. Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308329306
  46. Ketefian, S. (2015). Ethical considerations in research. Focus on vulnerable groups. Invest Educ Enferm, 33(1), 164–172.
  47. Levine, C., Faden, R., Grady, C., Hammerschmidt, D., Eckenwiler, L., & Sugarman, J. (2004). The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. The American Journal of Bioethics, 4(3), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160490497083
  48. Ligocki, D. T. (2019). Viewing research for social justice and equity through the lens of Zygmunt Bauman’s theory of liquid modernity. In K. K. Strunk & L. A. Locke (Eds.), Research methods for social justice and equity in education. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
  49. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
  50. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
  51. Lippmann, W. (1997). Public opinion. Transaction Publishers.
  52. Lorenzetti, L. (2013). Research as a social justice tool: An activist’s perspective. Affiliate, 28(4), 451–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913505815
  53. Maksimović, J., & Evtimov, J. (2023). Positivism and post-positivism as the basis of quantitative research in pedagogy. Research in Pedagogy, 13(1), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.5937/IstrPed2301208M
  54. Marín-González, E., Malmusi, D., Camprubí, L., & Borrell, C. (2017). The role of dissemination as a fundamental part of a research project: Lessons learned from SOPHIE. International Journal of Health Services, 47(2), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731416676227
  55. Marshall, P. A., Adebamowo, C. A., Adeyemo, A. A., Ogundiran, T. O., Strenski, T., Zhou, J., & Rotimi, C. N. (2014). Voluntary participation and comprehension of informed consent in a genetic epidemiological study of breast cancer in Nigeria. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-38
  56. Meyer, S. S. (2008). Ancient ethics: A critical introduction (1. publ). Routledge.
  57. Mirza, H., Bellalem, F., & Mirza, C. (2023). Ethical considerations in Qualitative research: Summary guidelines for novice social science researchers. Social Studies and Research Journal, 5(11), 441–449.
  58. Mizock, L., & Harkins, D. A. (2022). Culturally competent methodology: Multicultural research theory. In Researcher race: Social constructions in the research process. EBSCO Publishing.
  59. Mumford, M. D., Higgs, C., & Gujar, Y. (2021). Ethics in coercive environments: Ensuring voluntary participation in research. In S. Panicker & B. Stanley (Eds.), Handbook of research ethics in psychological science. (pp. 113–123). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000258-008
  60. National ethical guidelines for health research in Nepal and standard operating procedures. (2011). Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC).
  61. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7. ed., Pearson new internet ed). Pearson.
  62. Nursey-Bray, M. (2020). Community engagement: What Is It? In D. Hes & C. Hernandez-Santin (Eds.), Placemaking Fundamentals for the Built Environment (pp. 83–105). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9624-4_5
  63. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96.
  64. Paasche-Orlow, M. (2004). The ethics of cultural competence: Academic Medicine, 79(4), 347–350. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200404000-00012
  65. Park, Y. S., Konge, L., & Artino, A. R. (2020). The Positivism paradigm of research: Academic Medicine, 95(5), 690–694. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093
  66. Peñaranda, F., Vélez-Zapata, C., & Bloom, L. R. (2013). Research from a Social Justice perspective: The systematization of an experience. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2013.6.1.37
  67. Polush, D. J., & Boltz, P. (2017). The ethics of critical inquiry: Educational research informed by Parrhēsia. Critical Questions in Education, 8(2), 82–100.
  68. Powell, K. M., & Takayoshi, P. (2003). Accepting roles created for us: The ethics of reciprocity. College Composition and Communication, 54(3), 394. https://doi.org/10.2307/3594171
  69. Practical and ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive topics with populations considered vulnerable. (2020). MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
  70. Publication and dissemination of research: A guide supporting the Australian code for the responsible conduct of research. (2020). National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia.
  71. Qualitative psychology nexus, Vol. II: The role of the researcher in qualitative psychology. (2002). https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.10336
  72. Ramos, M. C. (1989). Some ethical implications of qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 12, 57–63.
  73. Reason, P. (Ed.). (1994). Participation in human inquiry. Sage Publications.
  74. Resnik, D. B. (2018). Privacy and confidentiality. In D. B. Resnik, The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects (Vol. 74, pp. 149–163). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68756-8_6
  75. Savin-Baden, M. (Ed.). (2010). New approaches to qualitative research: Wisdom and uncertainty. Routledge.
  76. Shaw, R. M., Howe, J., Beazer, J., & Carr, T. (2020). Ethics and positionality in qualitative research with vulnerable and marginal groups. Qualitative Research, 20(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119841839
  77. Sigaud, C. H. de S., Rezende, M. A., Veríssimo, M. D. L. Ó. R., Ribeiro, M. O., Montes, D. C., Piccolo, J., De Souza, J. M., & Marins, S. S. (2009). Ethical issues and strategies for the voluntary participation of children in research. Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 43(Spe 2), 1336–1340.
  78. Starovoytova, D. (2017). Scientific research, writing, and dissemination (Part 4/4): Dissemination of scholarly publications. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(28).
  79. Strier, R. (2006). Anti-oppressive research in social work: A preliminary definition. British Journal of Social Work, 37(5), 857–871. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl062
  80. Sue, D. W. (2019). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (Eighth edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  81. Thomas, D., & Zubkov, P. (2023). Quantitative research designs. In quantitative research for practical Theology. Andrews University Press.
  82. Wang, S., & Zhu, P. (2013). The roles and responsibilities of the educational researcher. Education Research Frontier, 3(3), 92–95.
  83. Wiles, R. (2013). What are qualitative research ethics? Bloomsbury Academic.
  84. Wilkinson, S. (1988). The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology. Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(5), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(88)90024-6.
  85. WMA declaration of Helsinki-ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. (2013). 64th WMA General Assembly.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic