• The ethics quiz 92
• Informed consent 95
• Ethical guidelines 97
Some of the atrocities committed during the Second World War in the name of medical research prompted the development of a generally accepted code of research ethics which has spread from the medical arena to all other research disciplines. Unfortunately, the transfer of such codes to the business discipline has often been seen by researchers to be an imposition, unneces- sarily constraining their activities, and something better left in medicine. Such attitudes display an ignorance of the fundamental objectives of ethical guide- lines and the benefits that they can convey to all concerned.
The best-documented abuses by misguided researchers remain in the medical field. Thus Dooley (1995, p. 24) reports on the Tuskegee Syphilis study in the USA, where researchers conducted a 40-year longitudinal study, right up to the 1970s, of an isolated black community with high incidence of the disease. Even though effective treatment through penicillin was widely available, the researchers actively sought to prevent subjects from being treated, and to avoid the disclosure of deaths caused by untreated disease, because of potential distortion to their research findings.
This may be an extreme instance, but the potential for the researcher to act in a manner which is not in the interests of the participants exists in all disciplines, especially where the participant has little control over the events associated with the research. For example, in the accounting education sphere, it may be possible to devise a field experiment where two groups of students were taught in parallel using very different methods in order to eval- uate the relative superiority of techniques. But if this experiment were over an extended period (say ten weeks), and after week two it became clear that one method was vastly superior to the other, could we on ethical grounds
C H A P T E R C O N T E N T S
continue the experiment, when one group of students was clearly being disadvantaged? The natural focus would therefore be on business scenarios in which participants could be exploited in a manner that endangers their future welfare, but ethical considerations are much wider than this in prac- tice, and concern issues of honesty, trust and subjugation.
Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council specifies the scope of research ethics in terms of three underlining principles: ‘the protec- tion of the welfare and the rights of participants in research; to facilitate research that is or will be of benefit to the researcher’s community or to humankind; to provide a national reference point for ethical consideration relevant to all research involving humans’ (NHMRC, 2000, p. 3).
The ethics quiz
The following ‘ethics quiz’, inspired by Agnew and Pyke (1994, p. 273), aims to explore some of the confusion and misunderstanding that surrounds ethi- cal issues in accounting research. You have to determine whether the key figure in each of the following scenarios has behaved ethically or not.
Professor A has sought the collaboration of the CEO of DeltaCorp in the conduct of interviews with the workforce. The CEO has agreed, on the condition that no further separate permissions are sought from the work- ers; he has provided permission and the workforce will participate as part of its job. Professor A agrees to continue on this basis.
Candidate B is conducting interviews with accounting managers in Hong Kong. She suggests that the requirement to have interviewees ‘sign-off’
on completion of the interview is an insult to the participants, which will cause loss of face. Her supervisor, Dr C, agrees that the ethical guidelines need not be observed in this instance because of cultural differences.
Associate Professor D is applying for promotion and, in order to strengthen her case, has sought testimonials from graduate students under her control as to the quality of her teaching, research and supervision.
Professor E supervises a number of Masters and PhD students. Contact typically involves discussions prior to the commencement of the study (usually not exceeding five hours in total), some discussion concerning analysis of the results, and the review of one or two thesis drafts. Profes- sor E insists on co-publication of any research papers, where he is invari- ably the first-named author.
Associate Professor F used deception in her study of the impact of gender and self-esteem on accounting decision-making. Prior to partici- pation, all subjects are informed of the requirements and purpose of the experiment as much as possible, given the deception component, and
1
2
3
4
5
of their right of withdrawal. Following an initial accounting task, an assessment of gender-role orientation was conducted: all female subjects, irrespective of actual performance, were told they had exhibited a masculine orientation; all masculine subjects that they had revealed a feminine orientation. Measures of self-esteem and a second accounting task were then administered. On completion, subjects were thanked for their help and promised a detailed report of the outcomes of the study.
Two months later subjects received this report, which fully described the deception.
Dr G is conducting a field study examining the relationships between per- formance and management control systems at a number of different loca- tions of the same organisation. There is a friendly rivalry between the locations with each keen to be seen to be outperforming the others. Dr G does not disclose any performance or budgetary information, but he is willing to talk about differences in organisational structure and manage- ment style.
The Director of an Accounting Research Centre is aware that one of his most consistently successful grant-winners is behaving in a seriously unethical manner. Despite repeated warnings about violation of ethical standards, the colleague’s behaviour persists. The Director decides to take no further action.
A requirement for Dr H’s computer-based accounting course is partici- pation in an extended multiple-choice experiment. Minor electric shocks are to be administered to the fingers of students who make an error, in the belief that it will improve their subsequent performance. On learning of the nature of the experiment, one student seeks to withdraw, but his protests are waived aside by Dr H, who insists that participation is a course requirement.
Professor J is leading a team of researchers examining the achievement, motivation, creativity, personality and numeracy of Year 10 school students to determine their suitability for enrolment in an accounting undergraduate course. The Principals of some of the schools have requested copies of all the test scores for each of their students by name.
The researchers provided the information in the interests of preserving the continuing goodwill of participating schools.
Dr K has published the results of a large study examining the response of investment analysts to changing levels of accounting information disclo- sure. She subsequently receives a request from the Stock Exchange for access to her data so that they can re-analyse the data and confirm her conclusions. Dr K refuses the request on the grounds that a computer crash has caused the loss of part of the dataset.
Each of these practices is likely to be in breach of typical ethical guidelines for accounting research because they fail, in one way or another, to observe acceptable relationships with human participants.
R e s e a r c h E t h i c s i n A c c o u n t i n g 93
6
7
8
9
10
The principle of ‘informed consent’ is fundamental to the conduct of ethical research. It appears that the employees of DeltaCorp will have no opportunity to withdraw their participation, without threatening their continuing employment. Professor A should not continue to pursue the research project on this basis.
The transplanting of ‘Western’ guidelines to other cultures will inevitably cause difficulties. Where the data collection is being con- ducted offshore for a research degree in another country, then the ethi- cal guidelines of the host university should be observed, even though their implementation causes practical difficulties.
Testimonials should not be solicited from persons who, because of their particular circumstances (in this case as part of a close supervisor–supervisee relationship), are vulnerable to undue influence.
Publication credit should reflect the contributions of the parties involved. Unless Professor E made a significant contribution to the final version of the published paper, he should not receive co-authorship.
Where a paper is based on a thesis, the author of the thesis would nor- mally expect to be first author.
Although Professor F was sensitive to certain ethical issues, there was no attempt to detect and remove any potentially damaging consequences for the individual participants arising from the deception. Any anger or resentment arising from the eventual disclosure of the deception was apparently neither monitored nor evaluated.
Dr G has contravened his obligation to safeguard the confidentiality of the information obtained from the different locations of the organisation during the course of the research.
The Director has failed in his duty to bring these unethical activities to the attention of the appropriate committees on ethical standards and practices for the accounting profession.
The investigator must respect the individual’s freedom to decline to par- ticipate, or withdraw from, research at any time. The investigator should have provided the student in this case with a choice of alternative activi- ties to fulfil course requirements. The research may also breach require- ments associated with protecting the subjects from physical discomfort.
This form of reporting is unethical since there is no indication of any limitations on the information provided. There has apparently been no attempt to examine the potential misuse of the information supplied.
Once research results are published, the data should not be withheld from other competent professionals as long as the confidentiality of the participants is maintained and protected. The researcher is obligated to keep the data safely so that verifications of this nature can be carried out.
Although the scenarios above are hypothetical, they are close to many of the situations that arise in practice and that will cause concern to researchers, especially where they appear to be faced with a choice which means that they
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
either compromise their ethical principles or sacrifice the outcomes of a research effort.
Informed consent
Strict guidelines, based on the medical research model, are applied, and adherence is monitored in business research too, extending to written consent of respondents and a code of voluntary participation. Thus any research involving human participants would require approval of a university ethics committee. This would embrace research involving data collection by inter- views, questionnaires, focus groups and observation. Indeed, informal pro- fessional conversations with practitioners, while not normally requiring ethics approval, would do so if such conversations were systematically employed by the researcher as a means of collecting data. Even if there is no human participation, archival research which leads to accessing medical records, or other sources which are not publicly available, and contain sensitive infor- mation (e.g., identifying people by name) still requires ethics approval. Where the agreement of other organisations is necessary for the research to be conducted, then written organisational approval (from the CEO or similar) to access staff members, clients or proprietary information is necessary. This would extend, for example, to written permissions from Deans and/or Heads of School, as appropriate, to access students for research purposes – even though no harm will result from their participation. Informed consent and anonymity are paramount in the process.
Some of these situations can be extremely problematical. Even gaining access to a site in order to conduct research is becoming increasingly difficult.
Firms often need to be convinced that there is ‘something in it for them’
before granting permission for research to be conducted. While researchers need to be able to demonstrate such benefits, they must also be aware of the potential disadvantages for other participants that can arise. A number of examples from my experience are illustrative:
• A firm employs a research student to conduct a benchmarking exercise as part of a research degree. The student is asked to survey competitors to determine their current practices, but not to reveal their affiliation to the employing firm. This situation is one which could easily be represented as
‘industrial espionage’, especially where the base firm is unscrupulous in its use of the information gathered covertly.
• A firm grants permission for the conduct of staff interviews, with the view that it becomes ‘part of their job’. The boss has given permission and they will accede to his/her wishes. A researcher properly seeking the informed consent of the participants may be faced with both reluctant subjects (who feel they have to take part, even unwillingly) and the wrath of a boss who
R e s e a r c h E t h i c s i n A c c o u n t i n g 95
is not used to having his/her authority questioned (and who may consequently refuse any further collaboration).
• A firm willingly engages in research concerned with the implementation of new business processes, but its participation is part of a wider downsizing agenda. As a result, some of the subjects involved in the research may sub- sequently lose their jobs indirectly because of the responses they have made as part of the research.
• In order to gain access in the first place, Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) highlight the importance of the initial impressions created by researchers and the impact that these may make on the successful completion of research projects. Such impressions may secure comprehensive access, or cause access to be restricted or denied completely. They suggest that
‘impression management’ with respect to such issues as dress, gender, age, attractiveness, ethnicity, manner of speech and perceived level of expertise may all facilitate the conduct of the project. The creation of a favourable impression therefore contributes to the success of the process, but at what cost to ethical considerations? Such findings have implications for the use of minorities and for changing acceptable stereotypes, since to secure access we may have to provide ‘acceptable’ researchers, in a similar manner to the audit client requirements observed by Grey (1996), which restricted the opportunities for young female auditors.
Several of the preceding chapters, detailing the implementation of specific research methods, highlight particular ethical concerns. Those relating to complete honesty, and the disclosure of the whole truth, for example, gener- ate a number of concerns:
• The use of experimental methods identifies instances where completely honest disclosure is avoided in order to preserve the integrity of research outcomes. Smith and Taffler (1996) report the use of, arguably harmless, untruths in setting the task requirements in judgement decisions – telling participants that they are evaluating separate companies even where there is considerable replication – in order to induce unique decisions. Trotman (1996) emphasises that the researchers must make the purposes of the research clear to participants, but not in such a way that they might deduce the research hypotheses, since this would impact on the internal validity of the study. However, Gibbins (1992) warns that if research sub- jects have been deceived by researchers, this will alter the way in which they receive future requests to participate. Without straining the strict
‘letter of the law’ of ethical guidelines in terms of deception, some research, particularly experimental studies, cannot be contemplated.
• Involvement in field studies offers the possibility of covert research. Where researchers are involved in studies where other participants are unaware of their role and objectives, then both honesty and trust must be jeopar- dised. However, without stretching the ethical guidelines in this way, it is doubtful whether potentially important findings would emerge.
• The imposition of ethical requirements, and the subsequent interaction between ethics committee and candidate, may strain the traditional supervisor/
candidate relationship, especially where this may be construed as interfer- ence in the implementation of selected research methods.
Ethical guidelines
Ethical issues in business research extend from those concerned with the con- duct of the research through to the publications process subsequent to the research. Some of these issues remain hopelessly under-addressed in many uni- versities (those in the UK are a good example) especially compared to what is undertaken in Australian universities. An apparent conflict with the traditional all-embracing role of the supervisor may contribute to the problem, especially where ethics committees are perceived to be interfering unnecessarily.
However, some of the apparently acceptable US practices (e.g., those on co-authorship, see Coppage and Baxendale, 2001) may be construed to con- stitute academic malpractice in Australia. Typically, co-authorship of a paper would involve substantial participation from all authors in its construction, embracing allof the following conditions:
• conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data;
• drafting the paper or revising it critically for important intellectual con- tent; and
• final approval of the version to be published.
Clearly supervision or funding of the work are not grounds alone for append- ing one’s name to the work of a student!
Any consideration of the ethics of a research proposal would normally address at least the following issues:
• appropriate written permissions from participating organisations;
• eliminating opportunities for personal harm, physical or mental, to research participants, including the researcher;
• informing participants of the motives for the research;
• providing feedback of the results to the participants;
• gaining permission from participating individuals (other than for mail sur- veys, where return of the questionnaire is taken to imply permission);
• avoiding coercion in management settings;
• guaranteeing and delivering both confidentiality and anonymity to the participants;
• granting the right of withdrawal to participants at any time;
• guaranteeing the safe storage of research data, usually for a period up to seven years.
R e s e a r c h E t h i c s i n A c c o u n t i n g 97
As we will see, it is not always possible to satisfy all these conditions absolutely and still ensure the integrity of the research approach. Hartmann (2000) emphasises three issues which cause the greatest difficulty for researchers in securing ethics approval from their university scrutinising bodies:
• A clear view of how the research results will be used, especially in situa- tions where the research findings will be made available to the manage- ment of the host organisation, but which may be of restricted availability to the participants themselves.
• The issue of consent, especially in action research projects. The circum- stances of participation require a level of involvement, honesty and open- ness of communication unusual for both the organisation and the researcher. Hartmann observes that ‘guarantees by the researcher of con- fidentiality may be meaningless in the long term; such research is common and yet current guidelines mean that it cannot occur, or the usual consent procedures are meaningless’ (Hartmann, 2000, p. 6).
• The importance of issues associated with national and organisational cul- ture complicates the behaviour of both individuals and groups, and con- strains their actions in a manner that may invalidate the research outcomes. Some flexibility has to be imported to cope with cultural differences. For example, the requirement for written consent of individual interview participants, subsequent to the interview, causes considerable problems associated with ‘loss of face’ in South East Asia. Frequently, tight guidelines have to be relaxed because a formal ‘signing off’ is often seen to be insulting to those involved and too great an imposition!
We have a professional duty as academics to inform both our student and practitioner audiences of the outcomes of current research and their implica- tions for practice. Students should be placed in a position where they are able to question the whole research process by providing critical comment on alternative methods. For example, the running of quasi-experiments in class with the express intention of exposing their limitations rather than collecting data can be most rewarding, clarifying exactly what can go wrong while increasing levels of cynicism all round. Similarly, reviewing the survey instru- ments on which past publications have been based helps to expose both the ambiguity and uncertainty of this particular research process so that non- sensical outcomes become all the more understandable, though none the less palatable.
Honest and transparent reporting of research practice is an ethical duty of those participating in accounting research. Researchers should report everything that they did, why they chose that course of action, and how the procedures were conducted. Any doubts that are apparent at any stage of the research should be highlighted, along with their implications and the actions taken to overcome deficiencies, in the stated limitations to the research.
Where researchers appear to have been ‘economical with the truth’ in their