Research ethics are rules that are intended to help keep participants safe from harm, build trust with participants and ensure trustworthy outcomes from the research which will benefit society (Busher and James, 2012). This definition is mainly participant-centred. Walliman (2011), however, takes a much broader view to research ethics as he looks at the concept as covering honesty and integrity in the research process while at the same time also protecting the interests of the participants or respondents. In terms of honesty and integrity, Walliman calls on researchers to properly acknowledge reference sources used in their work hence avoid plagiarism, present truthful data, and also avoid bias in their interpretations. Walliman further calls to researchers to ensure that their respondents or participants are protected. The researcher’s conceptualisation of research ethics is based on the Walliman perspective.
According to Creswell (2013), the researcher has to contend with ethical issues at three main stages: during the collection of data in the field, during analysis, and during dissemination.
This is a view that is shared by Sieber (2009). Some research activities, and in other instances their outcomes, may cause physical, emotional or even economic harm to respondents.
Physical harm could result from injury whilst psychological harm could result from stress emanating from the data collection methods used or indeed stigmatisation from being associated with negative results of a particular study. Research results may also result in economic harm whereby, for instance, customers stop purchasing a particular product because of some publicised negative outcomes of a research study. This being the case, it is important that the researcher exercises extreme caution, and adhere to a strict ethical code of conduct throughout the process of the study. Among others, the researcher should identify vulnerable groups, if a study involves the study of human beings, and how sensitive topics could be tackled. This would ensure that research data are collected, analysed and disseminated in conditions that do not harm anybody. Adherence to good ethical principles would also benefit the researcher as research subjects would cooperate and freely give out the information the researcher is looking for.
Research ethics calls for respondents’ voluntary informed consent to participate in a study (Sieber, 2009). Busher and James (2012) says that fundamental democratic rights calls to researchers to gain participants’ voluntary informed consent to participate in any research exercise whilst guaranteeing them the right to withdraw at any time from it. Voluntary means
129
without threat or undue influence. In practical terms, the researcher is called upon not to tie participation in any study to benefits that the subjects may not afford such as health services, and stress that the participants are free to withdraw any time (Sieber, 2009). Informed, on the other hand, means knowing what a reasonable person in the same situation would want to know before giving consent, including who the researcher is and why the study is being done.
Research is meant to be of mutual benefit to researchers and participants hence researchers should make it clear to participants at the beginning of the project how they and other people might benefit from it (Robson and Robson, 2002). Finally, consent means explicit agreement to participate. It is important that researchers work towards gaining participants’ consent as this is a critical aspect in good research practice. Good interpersonal communication skills would help much in achieving this objective.
Besides voluntary informed consent, privacy, confidentiality and anonymity are fundamental aspects of the research process. Sieber (2009) summarises the three as follows: privacy is about people, confidentiality is about data and anonymity means no identifiers. The right to privacy from research inquiry is protected by the right to refuse to participate in research.
Privacy issues tend to arise mainly during the data collection exercise in the field. This being the case, the researcher is obliged to seek the participant’s voluntary informed consent to participate in the study. Failure to do this would lead to the infringement of the participant’s rights.
The researcher addressed research ethics in a number of ways. Firstly, by gaining the gatekeeper’s permission to enter the study site. This study was conducted at five educational institutions namely Mzuzu University, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Kamuzu College of Nursing, College of Medicine and The Polytechnic. The researcher was aware that failure to gain proper access to these institutions would have been tantamount to the invasion of privacy. Although the researcher already secured permission to conduct research at these institutions as a prerequisite for the issuance of the ethical clearance certificate by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Ethics Committee, he still notified relevant authorities or gatekeepers of his intention to collect data. Data was only collected when permission was granted. Secondly, the researcher and research assistants exercised courtesy during data collection. Academic staff that were sampled were approached in their offices during consultation or office hours only to minimise the disruption this exercise may have
130
had on their activities. Similarly, students that were sampled to participate in the study were approached outside class and practical hours to minimise disruptions to their academic activities. Thirdly, the researcher and research assistants sought voluntary informed consent of the respondents. Both academic staff and student respondents approached were introduced to the nature and objectives of the study, and later asked for their voluntary participation in the study. Those who agreed to participate were asked to sign the voluntary informed consent document attached to the questionnaire before responding to the research questions.
However, some of the respondents chose not to sign the voluntary informed consent form.
Reasons why others chose not to do this are not clear but others whom the researcher spoke to were either too busy to do it or did not want to be identified. Yet others indicated that they did not see the need for them to indicate their names on the informed consent form.
Confidentiality, Sieber (2009) writes, is an extension of the concept of privacy, and it is concerned about personal data and an agreement as to how the data are to be handled in keeping with the subject’s interests in controlling the access of others to information about themselves. In the voluntary informed consent document which the respondents were asked to sign before collection of data, the researcher assured respondents that the data they provided in the questionnaires would be treated with utmost confidentiality. The University of KwaZulu-Natal Ethics Policy has guidelines on how research data are to be handled. One of the guidelines is that data collected be kept at the researcher’s academic department after analysis, and these materials be shredded off after the expiry of five years. In keeping with this guideline, the researcher took all data sets to the Department of Information Science upon completion of the study, and will make provision for their destruction after the expiry of the five-year period.
Anonymity means that the names and other unique identifiers of the subjects are never attached to the data or known to the researcher (Sieber, 2009). Anonymity in research is pursued to protect the identity of respondents from possible negative effects such as stereotyping. This study collected data using questionnaires and interview guides. Although respondents wrote their names and signed the informed consent form accompanying the questionnaires, quantification of the data meant that there was no danger of identifying particular individuals. Furthermore, findings arrived at also made reference to the two study groups. The researcher also conducted interviews with university/college librarians and ICT
131
directors. During the interpretation of data and discussion of findings, the researcher made reference to these positions other than names of particular individuals to ensure anonymity.
Proper acknowledgement of reference sources, truthfulness in the way the researcher handles various aspects of the study and unbiased interpretation of data have been identified as hallmarks of ethical good conduct in research (Walliman, 2011). The researcher ensured that all these aspects were taken into consideration throughout the conduct of this study.
Therefore, all in-text reference sources, used wholesome or paraphrased, were properly acknowledged. Furthermore, all in-text reference sources were included in the reference list and vice versa. Moreover, the researcher endeavoured to be truthful at all times with the aim of upholding the integrity of the study. Furthermore, the researcher did not manipulate data sources collected but exercised objectivity in interpretation.