What would a house look like if one were just to buy wood, nails, and tools, and were to start building that house without plans on how they were to build it? For the reason that a builder would not proceed in this manner, neither should the researcher. This chapter offered the basic information on experimental design and threats to validity—the tools one needs to conceptualize a plan for research. Having all the knowledge about experimental models offers little help if that knowledge remains on the pages in this handbook. It is hoped that in the manner that threats and designs were
presented that one will be able to conceptualize threats and designs. Atfirst, this may seem difficult, but do not give up at that point, or think it is impossible—you are just not used to doing it. Over time that will change. Nevertheless, if one is serious about research, one must conceptualize these models and be aware of the threats to those models. When these concepts are discernible, and an idea, problem, or question for research presents itself, devising a research design comes naturally. Finally, beingfluent in experimental design will give the researcher the confidence needed to defend their research in all environments.
EXERCISES
1. Describe different scenarios where reliability and validity differ. For example (as described within) the radar gun being reliable but not valid.
2. Conceptualize the relationship between independent and dependent variables within an experi- ment that uses a preexperimental design, classical experimental design, and a quasi-experimental design. Then, set up an experiment using each type of research design. Label each variable (X) and observation (OandRO) in the design with real-life examples. Then write a brief narrative explaining the experiment.
Example:
Classical experimental design: Pretest–posttest control group design
Narrative:
A random selection of mothers at the local community health station were chosen to test if there were differences in satisfaction levels between the random group of mothers who were in the experiment group and those in the control group.
3. In the above exercise, pick an internal and external threat to validity (if applicable) and describe the effect on the experiment.
ENDNOTES
1. There have been approaches to policy analysis that have disdained any type of positivistic approach, post- modernism being the most striking example. However, post-modernism in its detraction of positivism is even more contradictory, i.e., using logic to denigrate logic, etc.
2. Reliability testing methods are discussed in various texts. In Carmines and Zeller’sReliability and Validity Assessment, Sage, 1979, the authors present models of reliability. The retest method is where the same test is given to the same group of people after a period of time. The Alternative Form Method is similar to the retest but an alternative test is given after a period of time. The Split Halves method is where the test instrument is divided into two halves. The scores of each half are correlated to test reliability. The Internal
R O X O Experimental group
R O O Control group
Random mothers
Pretest
Nurse visit
Posttest for customer satisfaction
Random mothers Pretest
Posttest for customer satisfaction
Consistency method test reliability at the same time and without splitting or alternating tests. It uses Cronbach’s alpha formula:a¼N=(N1) [1Ss2(Yi)=s2x].
3. All titles for Preexperimental, Experimental, and Quasi-Experimental Designs are from Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research,Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston., unless otherwise noted.
REFERENCES
Bobrow, D.B. and J.S. Dryzek. 1987.Policy Analysis by Design, Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.
Carmines, E.G. and R.A. Zeller. 1979.Reliability and Research Assessment, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Campbell, D.T. and J.C. Stanley. 1963.Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Denardt, R.B. 1993.Theories of Public Organizations, Belmont: Wadsworth.
Durning, D. 1993. Participatory policy analysis in a Georgia state agency.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(2): 297–322.
Fischer, F. 1995.Evaluating Public Policy, Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Jones, R.A. 1985.Research Methods in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Sunderland: Sineaur Associates.
Kaplan, A. 1963.American Ethics and Public Policy, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lindblom, C.E. and D.K. Cohen. 1979.Usable Knowledge, New Haven: Yale University Press.
O’Sullivan, E. and G.R. Rassel. 1995.Research Methods for Public Administrators, White Plains: Longman.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blalock, H.M. 1964.Causal Inferences in Non-Experimental Research, New York: W.W. Norton.
Cook, D.T. and D.T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Dickenson, M. and G. Watson. 1976.Political and Social Inquiry, New York: Wiley.
Howard, G.S. 1985.Basic Research Methods in Social Science, Glenview: Scott Foresman.
Keppel, G. 1973.Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, Englewood Cliffs: Prentis Hall.
Patton, M.Q. 1990.Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rutman, L. 1984.Evaluation Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Spector, P.E. 1981.Research Designs, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
9 The Responsible Conduct of Social Research
Phyllis Coontz
CONTENTS
9.1 The Case of Professor Hwang Woo-Suk... 129 9.2 Norms of the Scientific Community ... 131 9.3 The Treatment of Human Subjects and the Evolution of the IRB... 133 9.4 Potential Harm to Human Subjects, Informed Consent and Privacy
and Confidentiality... 134 9.5 Conclusion ... 137 Key Terms... 138 Classroom Exercises ... 138 Case Study 1 ... 138 Case Study 2 ... 138 Case Study 3 ... 139 Case Study 4 ... 139 Exercise... 139 References ... 139 9.1 THE CASE OF PROFESSOR HWANG WOO-SUK
Until December 2005, Professor Hwang Woo-Suk of Seoul National University was a world renowned and highly respected stem-cell researcher. He had published three landmark articles in the prestigious journals Science and Nature reporting that he had successfully created human embryonic stem cells by cloning. Professor Hwang’s esteemed career began to unravel when members of his research team alleged that he had fabricated his data. In response to these allegations Seoul National University convened an internal review panel to examine his data. On December 23, 2005, the review panel reported that Professor Hwang had intentionally fabricated the results of his stem cell research (The New York Times, December 23, 2005). For a summary of the panel’s Final Report, go to www.geocities.com=giantdeli=art=CellNEWS_Hwang_clonging_th.html.
Professor Hwang’s misconduct was found to be so egregious that the panel stated that Hwang’s research deceived the ‘‘scientific community and the public at large’’ and mandated a ‘‘severe penalty.’’ In May 2006 Korean prosecutors indicted Professor Hwang on charges of fraud, embezzlement, and breaching the country’s bioethics law.
Professor Hwang’s misconduct represents an extreme case of ethics violations. At the same time it represents an example of what Babbie calls the‘‘politics of research’’(2001, p. 481). The politics of research refers to the political climate and public debate generated by controversial research. In this case there has been widespread public debate on stem cell research, especially with regard to the techniques used to create and use stem cells. At issue in this debate is the current state of the technology for starting a stem cell line because it requires the destruction of a human embryo or therapeutic cloning. Opponents of stem cell research equate the destruction of embryos with 129
destroying life. Because stem cells need to be extracted from existing stem cells (from the surplus of existing stem cells or frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization clinics) and the extraction process kills the embryo, opponents see the process tantamount to destroying life. They also claim that the research constitutes a form of experimentation on human beings.
Proponents argue that such research is medically worthy because it holds greatest promise for alleviating suffering from disease since the development of antibiotics. Because over 100 million Americans and approximately two billion humans worldwide suffer from diseases that could be more effectively treated with stem cells and possibly even cured (including heart disease, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and some forms of cancer), proponents argue that the research can eventually save hundreds of thousands of lives.
The political context of research is largely fueled by competing values and ideologies. Because values and ideologies vary by social and cultural contexts there is great variation around the world with respect to the way the public perceives stem cell research. For example, government funding of research on embryonic stem cells is currently authorized in the United Kingdom, France, Japan, South Korea, and other countries. It was halted in the United States when President Bush vetoed legislation that would have lifted prohibitions against federal funding for stem cell research (on September 24, 2005) because it‘‘crossed a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.’’
Beyond the political context of the research conducted by Professor Hwang is the issue of the ethics of research. The ethics of research deal with the methods researchers use in conducting research—is it true, i.e., does it correspond to reality;is it fair, i.e., has the researcher respected the rights of human subject, colleagues, and funding agencies; andis it socially responsible, i.e., does the research improve the human condition (Pimple, 2001)? Research ethics encompass how research is conducted and whether researchers have acted responsibly in accordance with scientific norms.
Public trust in science is built upon the truthfulness of the scientific community. Whenever that trust is violated, questions naturally arise about whether science is true, fair, and morally worth funding.
Professor Hwang had been awarded $33 million in government funding and an additional $6.4 million in private donations for his research (The New York Times, May 12, 2006). Although Professor Hwang’s misconduct has not lead to a moratorium on stem cell research, it has shaken the public’s trust in science. Society needs to have confidence that what scientists tell us is true.
Although the federal government has responded to some aspects of research misconduct with policies and regulations, it is the scientific community itself that regulates the conduct of researchers through an informal code of scientific norms. Because the PhD is a research degree, doctoral programs in universities and colleges have traditionally provided the apprenticeships for the next generation of scientists. It is during this experience that the majority of doctoral candidates learn about the accepted methodologies of good research and responsible research (Zuckerman, 1977).
Although scientists have relied on each other to safeguard the integrity of the research process, such informal oversight is becoming less and less viable as a vehicle for socializing young researchers.
This is because the research enterprise itself has changed dramatically over the last three decades.
Gone is the era of single-investigator projects. Today research is carried out in what can only be thought of as a‘‘research industrial complex.’’That is, researchers and their respective institutions are dependent on funding from governmental agencies, industry, and private foundations. Consider that in 1995 alone, federal allocations for research were estimated at $73 billion (Mervis, 1995).
The ‘‘complex’’ is made up of networks of researchers, institutions, government, and organiza- tions. Thus the research that takes place is conducted in multi-purpose, formal, competitive, and highly diversified environments that involve working on complex problems with teams of multi- disciplinary and multi-layered researchers dependent on outside funding.
Without systematic training in research ethics, students, postdoctoral fellows, technicians, and even junior faculty are left to learn about ethical research practices on their own. The aim of this chapter is to facilitate this learning process by providing an overview of what constitutes ethical research. I have organized this chapter into two broad ethical areas. Thefirst focuses on the norms of the scientific community and summarizes the responsibilities that researchers have for ethical
research. The second section reviews the policies and regulations that apply to the protection of human subjects in the United States and Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements that apply to all government funded research.