5 Research Ethics 

Learning Objectives for Chapter

• Identify and explain the problematic research practices and projects that have given rise to the research ethics codes and research ethics governance present today.

• Recognize the main principles governing ethical research in Canada.

Introduction

Researchers in Canada play a big role in discovering new things and helping society. However, with this important role comes a responsibility to do things in a fair and good way. This responsibility is called research ethics, and it is like a guidebook that helps researchers make good choices.

Research ethics is not just a bunch of rules—it’s like a moral compass that helps researchers do their work respectfully and honestly.  In Canada, like in other places, research ethics is becoming more important because people realise that doing research involves treating people well and being honest.

In this chapter, we will explore why research ethics is really important for researchers in Canada and why ethics needed to be codified due to past historical abuses. We will learn how research ethics helps to protect the rights of the people who participate   in research and how it builds trust.

Media professionals must understand research ethics because they play a crucial role in sharing information with the public. Just like researchers, journalists and broadcasters have a responsibility to report accurately and ethically.

Research on Humans: A Brief History

Research on humans hasn’t always been regulated in the way that it is today.

The earliest documented cases of research using human subjects are of medical vaccination trials (Rothman, 1987). One such case took place in the late 1700s, when scientist Edward Jenner exposed an 8-year-old boy to smallpox to identify a vaccine for the devastating disease. Medical research on human subjects continued without much law or policy intervention until the mid-1900s when, at the end of World War II, several Nazi doctors and scientists were put on trial for conducting human experimentation during which they tortured and murdered many concentration camp inmates (Faden & Beauchamp, 1986). The trials, conducted in Nuremberg, Germany, resulted in the creation of the Nuremberg Code, a 10-point set of research principles designed to guide doctors and scientists who conduct research on human subjects.

Today, the Nuremberg Code guides medical and other research conducted on human subjects, including social scientific research. Medical scientists are not the only researchers who have conducted questionable research on humans. In the 1960s, psychologist Stanley Milgram (1974) conducted a series of experiments designed to understand obedience to authority where he tricked subjects into believing they were administering an electric shock to other subjects. The shocks were not real at all, but some, though not many, of Milgram’s research participants experienced extreme emotional distress after the experiment (Ogden, 2008). A reaction of emotional distress is understandable. The realisation that one is willing to administer painful shocks to another human being just because someone who looks authoritative has told you to do so might indeed be traumatic— even if you later learn that the shocks weren’t real.

Around the same time that Milgram conducted his experiments, graduate student Laud Humphreys (1970) was collecting data for his dissertation research on the tearoom trade, the practice of men engaging in anonymous sexual encounters in public restrooms. Humphreys wished to understand who these men were and why they participated in the trade. To conduct his research, Humphreys offered to serve as a “watch queen,” the person who keeps an eye out for police and gets the benefit of being able to watch the sexual encounters, in a local park restroom where the tearoom trade was known to occur. What Humphreys did not do was identify himself as a researcher to his research subjects. Instead, he watched his subjects for several months, getting to know several of them, learning more about the tearoom trade practice and, without the knowledge of his research subjects, jotting down their licence plate numbers as they pulled into or out of the parking lot near the restroom. Some time after participating as a watch queen, with the help of several insiders who had access to motor vehicle registration information, Humphreys used those licence plate numbers to obtain his research subjects’ names and home addresses. Then, disguised as a public health researcher, Humphreys visited his subjects in their homes and interviewed them about their lives and health. Humphreys’ research dispelled many myths and stereotypes about the tearoom trade and its participants. He learned, for example, that over half of his subjects were married to women and many of them did not identify as gay or bisexual.

Once Humphreys’ work became public, the result was some major controversy at his home university (e.g., the chancellor tried to have his degree revoked), among academics in general, and among members of the public, as it raised public concerns about the purpose and conduct of public research. In addition, the Washington Post journalist Nicholas von Hoffman wrote the following warning about “sociological snoopers”:

We’re so preoccupied with defending our privacy against insurance investigators, dope sleuths, counterespionage men, divorce detectives and credit checkers, that we overlook the social scientists behind the hunting blinds who’re also peeping into what we thought were our most private and secret lives. But they are there, studying us, taking notes, getting to know us, as indifferent as everybody else to the feeling that to be a complete human involves having an aspect of ourselves that’s unknown. (von Hoffman, 2008)  

In the original version of his report, Humphreys defended the ethics of his actions. In 2008, years after Humphreys’ death, his book was reprinted with the addition of a retrospect on the ethical implications of his work. In his written reflections on his research and its fallout, Humphreys maintained that his tearoom observations constituted ethical research because those interactions occurred in public places. But Humphreys added that he would conduct the second part of his research differently. Rather than trace licence numbers and interview unwitting tearoom participants in their homes under the guise of public health research, Humphreys instead would spend more time in the field and work to cultivate a pool of informants. Those informants would know that he was a researcher and could fully consent to being interviewed. In the end, Humphreys concluded that “there is no reason to believe that any research subjects have suffered because of my efforts, or that the resultant demystification of impersonal sex has harmed society” (p. 231).

As should be evident by now, there is no clear or easy answer to whether Humphreys conducted ethical research. Today, given increasing regulation of social scientific research, chances are slim that a researcher would be allowed to conduct a project similar to Humphreys’. Some argue that Humphreys’ research was deceptive, put his subjects at risk of losing their families and their positions in society, and was therefore unethical (Warwick, 1973; Warwick, 1982). Others suggest that Humphreys’ research “did not violate any premise of either beneficence or the sociological interest in social justice” and that the benefits of Humphreys’ research, namely the dissolution of myths about the tearoom trade specifically and human sexual practice more generally, outweigh the potential risks associated with the work (Lenza, 2004). What do you think, and why?

This and other studies (Reverby, 2009) led to increasing public awareness of and concern about research on human subjects. In the United States federal guidelines known as the Belmont Report emerged in 1978. This report highlighted the principle of seeking justice, emphasising the need for fair distribution of risks and benefits among different societal groups in research. It played a significant role in shaping ethical research guidelines in both the United States and Canada (Price, Jhangiani, & Chiang, 2015).

In Canada, researchers and institutions follow the code of ethics outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2). The term “Tri-Council” refers to the three research agencies funded by the Canadian government:  the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) was first published in 1998, consolidating and replacing previous guidelines from individual agencies and institutions. The 2010 second edition (TCPS 2) further refined the principles, updated guidelines, clarified terminology, and defined the roles of institutional research ethics boards (REBs) (Price, Jhangiani, & Chiang, 2015). There was also a clarification in 2018, and one recently in 2022.

These guidelines are built upon the core principles of respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice. An online tutorial detailing the specific TCPS 2 guidelines is available here, requiring up to four hours for completion. Successful participants receive a certificate, often mandatory for research evaluation by research ethics boards (REBs) at universities and other institutions (Price, Jhangiani, & Chiang, 2015).

TCPS 2 outlines two levels of research ethics review. Full REB review is typically required for human-involved research, except for cases of minimal risk research where risks mirror everyday experiences. In minimal risk situations, the REB might delegate review to its members. Another exception is student course-based research, where relevant departments or faculties may oversee review (Price, Jhangiani, & Chiang, 2015).

At Mount Royal, the Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) guarantees that all research carried out within the institution prioritises the protection of participants’ rights, well-being, and confidentiality, adhering to the guidelines of the Tri-Council Policy Statement. HREB assesses applications submitted by MRU researchers, including research led by undergraduate students under faculty supervision, such as Honours theses and student directed projects. Additionally, HREB evaluates external applications from MRU researchers collaborating within research teams at other institutions and studies involving MRU participants that have been approved by other Canadian post-secondary institutions.

It may surprise you that REBs are not always popular or appreciated by researchers. Who wouldn’t want to conduct ethical research, you ask? In some cases, the concern is that REBs are most well versed in reviewing biomedical and experimental research, neither of which is particularly common within social science research. Much social research, especially qualitative research, is open ended in nature, a fact that can be problematic for REBs. The members of REBs often want to know in advance exactly who will be observed, where, when, and for how long, whether and how they will be approached, exactly what questions they will be asked, and what predictions the researcher has for her or his findings. Providing this level of detail for a yearlong participant observation within an activist group of 200-plus members, for example, would be extraordinarily frustrating for the researcher in the best case and most likely would prove impossible. Of course, REBs do not intend to have researchers avoid studying controversial topics or avoid using certain methodologically sound data collection techniques, but unfortunately, that is sometimes the result. The solution is not to do away with review boards, which serve a necessary and important function, but instead to help educate REBs members about various social scientific research methods and topics covered by social scientists.

Research in Canada: Core Principles

As noted for Canadian researchers, the Tri-council Policy Statement (TCPS2) has adopted a set of ethical principles intended to guide researchers ethically. The Tri-Council Policy Statement has three cores, overlapping principles each which will be outlined in more detail below.

• Respect for persons.
• Concern for welfare  
• Justice 

Respect for Persons

The Respect for Persons principle is about understanding how valuable each person is and treating them with the consideration they deserve. This idea applies not only to those participating in research but also to those who contribute their information or biological materials. This principle has two important parts: making sure people can make their own decisions and protecting those who might have trouble making decisions on their own. Respecting people’s ability to make choices and letting them decide without pressure is a big part of this. One crucial thing in research is getting agreement (preferably via written consent) from people to take part, and it has to be their choice, based on good information, and they can change their minds.

Some important points in this principle are letting people have control (autonomy), them choosing to join (voluntary participation), knowing what they’re choosing (informed decision-making), and their ability to decide (cognitive capacity). Each of these things shows how important it is to treat people well, let them make choices, and make sure their rights and well-being are protected while doing research.

When obtaining consent, researchers are expected to provide clear and comprehensive information to participants, allowing them to fully understand the research and its implications. Consent forms should enable participants to make an informed choice about whether to participate and to have the freedom to withdraw from the study at any time.

Concern for Well-being

A person’s well-being is about how good their life is overall, including their physical, mental, and spiritual health, as well as their living conditions, work, and social situation. Things like where they live, their job, their safety, their family, and how their involvement in the community can all affect their well-being. Two important things that affect well-being are keeping personal information private and controlling who knows about them. When people agree to be in research, they should be told about these things and agree to them. Research can also affect groups of people. It’s important to talk to groups that might be affected (like if they might be treated unfairly or their reputation might be hurt) to understand how research could affect them and figure out how to ensure bad effects are as small as possible.

Here are some key points about well-being in research:

• The risks should not be more than the benefits.
• There should not be any unnecessary risks.
• We need to think about how being in research could affect the person and their community.

Researchers are responsible for ensuring that participants’ personal data, responses, and identities are kept confidential and secure. Anonymity and confidentiality help to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information and maintain the trust between researchers and participants. Researchers must take appropriate measures to safeguard participant data, both during and after the research to uphold this principle and respect participants’ rights to privacy.

When describing data collection and data management procedures for research involving human participants, you will inevitably need to address anonymity and confidentiality. However, many novice researchers struggle to differentiate anonymity and confidentiality properly and often use these terms interchangeably. So, what exactly is the difference between the two?

Anonymity is when nobody, not even the researcher, can figure out who the participants in the study are. This happens by not gathering any personal information that could show who they are. This personal information includes names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, government ID numbers (like social insurance numbers), pictures, and computer IP addresses (Statistics Solutions, 2023). Survey research can generally preserve anonymity (Statistics Solutions, 2023). However, it can’t be anonymous if a study happens in person or over the phone.  This means most qualitative research with interviews (individual or in groups) can not be anonymous as the researcher generally knows who they are talking to (Statistics Solutions, 2023).

Confidentiality ensures that the researcher possesses knowledge of a research subject’s identity while taking steps to prevent others from discovering this identity (Evergreen, 2023). In most instances of human subject’s research, researchers gather signed consent agreements and personally identifiable data, granting them awareness of their subjects’ identities; in such cases, upholding confidentiality becomes crucial to safeguard private information (Evergreen, 2023).

To preserve confidentiality, researchers employ various strategies. They can prioritise secure record-keeping by utilising password-protected files, encrypting data during online transmission, and implementing physical security measures like locked doors and drawers (Evergreen, 2023). They can also adopt methods that unlink subject responses from identifying details, often using a unique code only known to them (Evergreen, 2023). Since subjects may be distinguishable by factors beyond names, researchers frequently present collective findings rather than individual-level data to the public (Evergreen, 2023).

This becomes even more confusing in the context of journalistic and broadcasting policies. In a media context, “anonymity” refers to not revealing the identity of a source or a person providing information for a news story. When a source’s identity is kept anonymous, their name and other identifying details are not disclosed in the published article or report. This is often done to protect the source from potential negative consequences, such as retaliation or harm, which could arise from sharing sensitive or controversial information. Anonymity allows journalists to gather and report important information while safeguarding the privacy and safety of their sources. Ethical considerations in journalism dictate that anonymous sources should be used sparingly and when there is a compelling reason to do so, and the decision to grant anonymity should be carefully weighed against the public’s right to know and the credibility of the information being reported (ONAethics, 2021).

In sum, maintaining confidentiality is how researchers might describe what newspapers do when they do not reveal a source’s information, though a journalist might label this source as anonymous.

Justice

The principle of justice is all about treating people fairly and equally. Fairness means treating everyone with the same respect and care. Equality means ensuring that the good things and hard things from research are shared out in a way that doesn’t put too much pressure on one group of people or keep them from getting the good things we learn. Treating everyone equally doesn’t always mean treating them exactly the same way. One big thing to think about when being fair and equal is vulnerability. Vulnerability can happen when someone cannot make choices easily or when they don’t have as much access to important things like rights, chances, or power. Both individuals and groups can be vulnerable, and they need special care to make sure they are treated fairly in research.  Being fair and equal is crucial when finding people to join a study. The eligibility criteria for participation should be reasonable, fair, and relevant to the study’s goals, without unfairly excluding certain groups or introducing unnecessary barriers.

In other words, the rules for who can join the study should be based on factors that are directly related to the research question and objectives, and not unnecessarily exclude certain groups or make it harder for them to participate.

The policy also wants to balance between getting good things from research and keeping people safe. This is why Research Ethics Boards make sure to check research projects and see how risky they are for the people taking part.

In Canada, providing research participants an honorarium may violate the ethical principle of “Justice.” This principle emphasises fair treatment and equal distribution of benefits and burdens among participants. Offering an honorarium to some participants but not others could create an imbalance and potentially lead to unequal treatment. Researchers must ensure that the distribution of benefits, such as honorariums, is done fairly and does not favour certain groups or individuals, maintaining the principles of equity and justice in research.

In summary, justice in research encompasses treating everyone fairly, sharing risks and benefits equally, protecting vulnerable individuals, making fair participant selections, and maintaining a balance of power. These key points underscore the importance of upholding ethical standards that prioritise equality and fairness throughout the research journey.

These three core principles allow researchers to achieve their goals while protecting participants from harm and ensuring the benefits of said research will equitably benefit participants. In practice, the Research Ethics Board Review plays a key role in evaluating each research study to ensure respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice are all addressed to protect participants from harm. As you might have already assumed, this process can be complex due to the unique nature of research studies covering new ground in any field of study, meaning precedents can exist, but research will always need ethical evaluation.

Indigenous Research and the TCPS

Traditionally, research involving Indigenous peoples in Canada has been shaped and conducted primarily by non-Indigenous researchers. Unfortunately, these approaches have often not aligned with Indigenous worldviews, resulting in research outcomes that may not adequately serve or empower Indigenous peoples or their communities. Consequently, there persists a degree of caution or scepticism among Indigenous communities, especially towards research originating externally.

Chapter 9 of TCPS2 focuses on conducting research involving the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities. It recognises that Indigenous communities within Canada possess distinct histories, cultures, and traditions while also embracing key values like reciprocity—where the act of giving back is fundamental to nurturing relationships that can be mutually beneficial.

The chapter notes that its purpose is as follows:

Serve as a framework for the ethical conduct of research involving Indigenous peoples. It is offered in a spirit of respect. It is not intended to override or replace ethical guidance offered by Indigenous peoples themselves. Its purpose is to ensure, to the extent possible, that research involving Indigenous peoples is premised on respectful relationships. It also encourages collaboration and engagement between researchers and participants. (TCPS 2, 2022, Chapter 9, para.5)  

Some key highlights include:

• Respect for Persons extends its scope to encompass the intricate connection between humans and the natural world. This expansion involves upholding and passing down ancestral knowledge and present-day innovations to future generations.
• Concern for Welfare broadens the research objective to enhance individual well-being and empower First Nations, Inuit, or Métis peoples to preserve their cultures, languages, and identities. In these contexts, collective welfare gains prominence alongside individual welfare, underlining the importance of community well-being.
• Addressing Justice acknowledges that significant social, cultural, or linguistic gaps between the community and external researchers may exist. Establishing engagement between the community and researchers prior to participant recruitment and throughout the research process can foster mutual trust, effective communication, and the identification of mutually beneficial goals.

Why media professionals should be concerned with ethics.

Media professionals need to understand research ethics because they are vital in disseminating information to the public. Just like researchers, media professionals are responsible for accurate and ethical reporting. This underscores the significance of comprehending research ethics in their line of work. Firstly, research ethics ensure the authenticity and veracity of information. Media professionals well-versed in research ethics are better equipped to authenticate facts, utilise credible sources, and present precise details to their audience. This foundation of accuracy builds trust and credibility, preventing sensationalism, bias, and misrepresentation that could tarnish the reputation of both the journalists and their media organisations.

Additionally, research ethics safeguard the confidentiality of sources. By respecting these principles, media professionals foster an environment where sources can share critical information without fear of backlash or harm. Similar to researchers, media professionals must consider potential harm to subjects when crafting stories, avoiding distress to individuals or communities.

Ethical research practices also foster balanced and unbiased reporting. Media professionals who apply these principles seek diverse viewpoints, avoid selective presentation of facts, and offer a comprehensive outlook on the subjects they cover. Transparency and accountability, inherent in research ethics, are equally crucial in the media. Disclosing conflicts of interest and sources of funding ensures accountability to the audience, providing a complete context for the news reported.

Moreover, understanding research ethics aligns with the social responsibility of journalism, contributing positively to society’s informed discourse. By embracing these principles, media professionals uphold their role responsibly, promote fair and accurate reporting, and acknowledge the public’s right to truthful information.

Research ethics also guide media professionals in avoiding plagiarism by emphasising proper citation and attribution. This practice demonstrates respect for the original information creators and maintains the integrity of reporting.

Research ethics offer a framework for ethical decision-making in navigating complex and sensitive issues. Media professionals acquainted with these guidelines approach contentious topics with sensitivity, respect, and ethical considerations.

In the rapidly evolving media landscape, where technology plays a pivotal role, understanding research ethics becomes even more vital. It equips media professionals to navigate digital platforms, social media, and emerging technologies while upholding ethical standards.

In conclusion, research ethics form a solid foundation for responsible and ethical journalism. Media professionals who embrace these principles contribute to a well-informed and ethically driven media environment, fostering trust, credibility, and ensuring the public’s right to accurate and reliable information.

The CAJ website is a great place to start exploring ethics for media professionals in Canada. They note:

The CAJ’s widely cited Ethics Guidelines are intended to help seasoned professionals and new journalists hold themselves accountable for professional work. While many specific questions are considered here, capturing all potential scenarios in a document such as this is impossible. Instead, it seeks to provide examples of the application of our general ethical principles, and to help journalists apply those principles and their best judgement when faced with scenarios not covered here. (CAJ, 2023)

We recommend you take a look at what these guidelines explore and consider how and why media professionals might treat ethical issues differently than researchers, if at all.

Reflection Question

Reflect on the challenges faced by media professionals in upholding research ethics in their reporting. How might the application of research ethics differ or align between journalistic practices and academic research? Document your thoughts in a 200–300-word post.

Key Chapter Takeaways

• Social scientists have violated ethics protocols in the past necessitating formalised codes and institutional research ethics boards (REBs).
• The Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) has developed a Code of Ethics to which Canadian researchers are expected to adhere.
• The three basic principles of the TCPS are: respect for people, concern for welfare and justice.
• Anonymity and confidentiality may mean different things to researchers and media professionals.
• The TCPS has had to be expanded when researching First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada.
• Ethics matters to media professionals just like it does to researchers.

Key Terms

The Nuremberg Code: A set ethical principles and guidelines that were established in 1947 as a result of the Nuremberg Trials, which were a series of military tribunals held to prosecute prominent Nazi leaders and doctors for their heinous medical experiments conducted on prisoners during World War II. The Nuremberg Code serves as a foundational document in research ethics and outlines principles for conducting medical and scientific experiments on human subjects.

Institutional Research Ethics Boards: REBs Ensures the rights and welfare of human research subjects.

The Tri-Council Policy Statement for Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS): A comprehensive set of guidelines and ethical principles established in Canada to guide research involving human participants. It provides a framework for researchers, institutions, and research ethics boards to ensure that research is conducted ethically and responsibly, respecting the rights, well-being, and autonomy of individuals and communities. The TCPS covers various topics, including informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, research with vulnerable populations, Indigenous research, and more. It aims to promote ethical research practices, protect participants, and uphold the integrity of research endeavours across various disciplines and contexts.

Respect for Persons: A TCPS core principle that upholds the dignity and autonomy of individuals by recognizing their right to make informed decisions and protecting those with limited autonomy. Fully informed consent is fundamental.

Concern for Welfare: A TCPS core principle that ensures the well being of participants and communities, balancing risks, and benefits to minimise harm and promote positive outcomes.

Anonymity: No one, including the researcher, has the ability to recognize the participants involved in the study individually.

Confidentiality: Refers to the ethical principle and practice of protecting the privacy and identity of research participants. It ensures that any personally identifiable information collected from participants, such as their names, contact details, or other sensitive data, remains secure and inaccessible to unauthorised individuals.

Justice: A TCPS core principle that ensures fair treatment, distribution of benefits, and protection of vulnerable groups, addressing power imbalances and promoting equitable research practices.

Further Reading and Resources

Evergreen (2023). Understanding confidentiality and anonymity. https://www.evergreen.edu/offices-services/institutional-review-board/confidentiality

Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

 Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. London, UK: Duckworth.

Lenza, M. (2004). Controversies surrounding Laud Humphreys’ tearoom trade: An unsettling example of politics and power in methodological critiques. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24, 20–31.

Nardi, P. M. (1995). “The breastplate of righteousness”: Twenty-five years after Laud Humphreys’ Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 1–10.

Ogden, R. (2008). Harm. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 379–380). Los Angeles, CA.

Price, P. C., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I. C. A. (2015). Research methods in psychology (2nd edition). BCCampus. https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/

Rothman, D. J. (1987). Ethics and human experimentation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 317, 1195–119.

Statistics Solutions (2023). What is the difference between anonymity and confidentiality? https://www.statisticssolutions.com/what-is-the-difference-between-anonymity-and-confidentiality/

Von Hoffman, N. (1970, January 30). Sociological snoopers. The Washington Post, p. B1.

Warwick, D. P. (1973). Tearoom trade: Means and ends in social research. Hastings Center Studies, 1, 39–49.

Warwick, D. P. (1982). Types of harm in social research. In T. L. Beauchamp, R. R. Faden, R. J. Wallace Jr., & L. Walters (Eds.), Ethical issues in social science research. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.