Ethics

The validity and credibility of social research hinges on the values, ethics, and care of the researcher. Your position as a practitioner in a social science field and/or as a researcher depend upon maintaining honest and ethical practices. Haneef and Agrawal (2024) stated, “there are numerous ethical issues which are threats to the quality, originality, novelty, and integrity of educational research. These issues should be kept in view before conducting the research” (p. 30). As an ethical researcher, it is your responsibility to exhibit care and transparency with all aspects of the research process from literature review, methodology, selection of participants, internal review, data collection, analysis of results, and recommendations. This chapter highlights the values and ethics of social research by prioritizing key considerations, beginning with the Belmont Report.

The Belmont Report

Ethical considerations for human research have evolved since the Nuremberg Code of 1947 to encompass a wider range of protections for human subjects, specifically from the publication of the Belmont Report by the  National Commission for the Protection of Human subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1979. The guiding principles of the Belmont Report (1979)  include respect for persons, beneficence, and justice but expanded in 1981 and 1991 to clearly define protocols for internal review boards and extend protections for human subjects such as with pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, and prisoners (Miracle, 2016). Institutions that host students or employees conducting research will generally have an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure proposed studies are ethical. Further, any changes to the study’s plan brought about by unanticipated problems or events, related to the participants or methods, should be reported to the IRB, allowing for complete transparency during the research process (Smith, 2024). Institutional review is required in organizations that receive federal funds, but it is normal even outside such settings. Most institutions will typically provide and require students to receive training on research ethics, most commonly through Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI), but this should not be the only safeguard to consider. As Serpico (2024) stated, “matters of ethical sense-making and problem-solving are unequivocally dependent on context and cultural responsiveness” (p. 567) and “protecting the rights and welfare of research participants we will never meet is an enormous responsibility” (p. 569).

Respect for Persons

The Belmont Report (OHRP, 2022) identified two ethical considerations for human research related to the respect for persons. First, human beings are autonomous. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves whether they would like to participate or not based on individual judgements which are suitable to their considered opinions and choices. Secondly, not all individuals are capable of self-determination. Illness, mental disability, age, or circumstances may severely restrict an individual’s liberty to decide for themselves. Differing situations or experiences could affect the voluntary nature of the research and the autonomy of participants. It is extremely important to provide all information to participants and reevaluate self-determination principles prior to the research of human subjects.

Beneficence

Beneficence is the ethical and moral obligation to protect participants from harm and secure their well-being. The Belmont Report (OHRP, 2022) offered two general rules in this regard: 1) do not harm, and 2) maximize possible benefits / minimize possible harms. Regardless of the benefit to the researcher or organization, protecting the individual(s) should be the guiding principle regarding human subjects. The researcher should clearly define and explain possible harms to participants, even when benefits may exist. For example, it is not uncommon for researchers to offer participants some sort of incentive for participating in a study but the incentive should never be significant enough to cloud the participant’s understanding of possible harms to self or others. Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring the beneficence of participants falls on the researcher(s), and so careful attention must be given by researchers to ensure the best possible outcomes for their research participants.

Justice

Researchers have an ethical obligation to be impartial with all human subjects involved in the research. Essentially, this is fair selection of participants (i.e., not taking advantage of disadvantaged groups, ensuring representative samples of the population being studied, etc.) and equally sharing the risks/rewards among participants. The Belmont Report defines how these burdens and benefits should be distributed: 1) to each person an equal share, 2) to each person according to individual need, 3) to each person according to individual effort, 4) to each person according to societal contribution, and 5) to each person according to merit (OHRP, 2022). An injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without good reason, or when some burden is imposed unduly.

Values

Values are the principles and beliefs that guide an individual’s behavior and decisions. They reflect what is considered important, meaningful, and worthwhile. This includes how individuals conduct research. Every step and every process involved in the research helps shape our actions, relationships, and choices. Individual values serve as a foundation for how we interact with others and make sense of the world, influencing both moral judgments and priorities. As a credible researcher, your actions should mirror the ethics of care by being transparent, objective, honest, and professional.

We recognize that there are many different values about research held by different researchers, and some areas can be quite controversial depending on one’s views and philosophical commitments. The content in this section represents some of the most commonly held positions on values related to research and those put forward here as my positions to consider.

Transparency

By practicing transparency and honesty, researchers promote trustworthiness in their work and contribute to the integrity of the scientific community, both in the research processes and the research findings (Haneef & Agrawal, 2024). Researchers should never intentionally fabricate or falsify any segment of the research. This applies to the participants, findings, data, procedures, and policies. For example, Muthanna et al. (2024) stated that publishing multiple papers from a single study does not contribute to the value of existing literature and raises ethical questions about transparency and the integrity of the research process. Further, the deliberate omission or addition of data, simply to produce favorable results, is unethical and questions the entire research process. An ethical researcher discloses all relevant information to participants, thus ensuring that the study is conducted in a transparent manner (Um, 2024). A transparent researcher conducts research in a way that is open, honest, and clear, ensuring that all methods, analyses, and findings are accessible to others (and often, raw data as well). This allows the scholarly community to evaluate, challenge, and build upon the research. Transparent researchers have nothing to hide and produce nothing which may cause questions of integrity to emerge.

Objectivity

Awareness of one’s biases is an integral component of being an objective researcher. Haneef and Agrawal (2024) stated, “by practicing objectivity, researchers can ensure the credibility and integrity of their findings and conclusions” (p. 32). Personal beliefs and biases should not interfere with the analysis of research data, especially when the findings do not align with the researcher’s personal values or convictions. Peer and/or blind reviews can help to minimize personal biases. Every effort should be made to maximize the credibility and validity of the data. Further, omitting certain pieces of data because they do not align with the researcher’s perceived values or beliefs changes the outcome and is an example of falsifying the results (Muthanna et al., 2024). The researcher should “aim for neutrality in all aspects of research, avoiding prejudice in planning, execution, and interpretation of experiments as well as in hiring choices and funding applications” (Pirani, 2024, p. 98). Objectivity in research means remaining neutral by setting aside personal preferences or preconceived notions when gathering data, analyzing results, and drawing conclusions. This approach helps ensure that the research is credible, reliable, and can be trusted by others.

Pure objectivity is not possible for humans. It is an ideal we strive for in research and should hold high, but it is never something we’ll perfectly achieve. Aristotle (350BC/1985) stated, “do not look for the same degree of exactness in all areas, but the degree that fits the subject matter in each area and is proper to the investigation” (p. 18). In other words, objectivity is never finalized. It is never complete. Objective researchers should strive for completeness while acknowledging that it is an ever-changing and evolving phenomenon when conducting human research.

Academic Honesty and Integrity

Integrity is about being honest and adhering to one’s moral principles by avoiding plagiarism and the misrepresentation of academic work. Muthanna et al. (2024) stated, “while research ethics are principles and regulations for researchers to follow in conducting scientific research, research integrity is the practice of these codes” (p. 1). Um (2024) clarified, “honesty’s moral ground is the respect for the ‘right not to be deceived’ (RND). Thus, an honest researcher would respect the subject’s RND at least to the extent that circumstances allow” (p. 3).

An honest researcher adheres to the truth by being transparent and not deceiving others. The researcher should be straightforward and authentic through sincerity of words and actions. Aristotle (350BC/1985) spoke to being an honest and ethical individual by encompassing the moral capacity for being virtuous “at the right times, about the right things, towards the right people, for the right end, and in the right way” (p. 44). Being an honest person with integrity means being consistently truthful, transparent, and ethical. This means avoiding unethical practices such as plagiarism or misrepresentation of data, especially in social research. Marco and Larkin (2008) clarified numerous examples of unethical practices:

• Inaccurate reporting of missing data points
• Not reporting all pertinent data
• Failing to report the number of eligible participants
• Failing to report negative  findings
• Being influenced by researched sponsors
• Inappropriately labeling graphs to magnify minor differences
• Reporting percentages rather than actual numbers with the intent to deceive
• Inappropriately apply gin statistical tests and reporting only the favorable results
• Reporting differences, although no statistical difference has been found
• Splitting data into multiple reports merely for the sake of increasing publications
• Using terminology without providing concise definitions, such as “rarely” or “commonly”
• Reporting conclusions that are not supported by data
• Exaggerating research results for publicity
• Ignoring previous work that challenges the conclusions

These examples are dishonest representations of social research and should be avoided. Honest researchers consistently practice an ethos of care for self and others by being responsible for their own work and the work of others. As a researcher, it is your responsibility to understand the importance of applying proper credit where credit is due. One of the most common unethical practices in social research is plagiarism. Even paraphrasing, often called “mosaic writing” becomes a problem when the intent is to deceive. Mosaic writing is the practice of changing certain words or phrases from a referenced work and weaving them into another author’s words (Muthanna et al., 2024). Paraphrasing or summarizing another author’s content into your own words is permitted if the researcher acknowledges the author and source. Again, transparency is key.

Dorbin (2023) found that students typically plagiarize for two reasons. One, students are disinterested in the topic or task, which results in a lack of commitment to academic integrity. Two, students plagiarize, because they do not understand what plagiarism is or what the policies of their institution are. To avoid plagiarism, it is essential to properly credit the original sources of ideas or data. Always cite references accurately according to the required citation style. Avoid copying and pasting directly from sources without proper attribution. Additionally, keep track of your sources throughout the research process to ensure you can attribute them correctly. By being diligent about citations and giving credit where it is due, you can help keep your work original and ethically sound.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education is sparking controversy, yet in business and private sectors it is seen as a useful tool. Why? There are numerous institutional policies about plagiarism, and there are countless references to a “code of ethics” at local, state, and national levels. A course syllabus explains the importance of Academic Honesty/Integrity by clarifying academic consequences for unethical practices.

As social researchers, our concern is with an honest and ethical process utilized in the creation of any product. It should be based on knowledge and skill obtained through research, instruction, and application, which are connected to relevant and meaningful educational settings for the good of our constituents. There is a measure of accountability for all stakeholders as a result.

Aristotle (350BC/1985) stated, “intelligence is a state grasping truth, involving reason, concerned with action about what is good or bad for a human being. Intelligence is concerned with action, not with production. For production has its end beyond it; but action does not, since its end is doing well itself, and doing well is the concern of intelligence” (p. 154). For example, writing a credible research paper that utilizes scholarly sources results in an “end” product. The product has its end beyond it since the process defines the intellect. The “action” or “process” is the measure of intelligence. Did the researcher seek truth in the “action” of developing the final product—the paper? This is key.

The use of AI can be a double-edged sword. With a basic skill-set, the use of AI can increase productivity and enhance the processes involved with scholarly writing. Alternatively, AI can pose risks for the researcher without proper guidance and understanding of their actions (Radday & Mervis, 2024). “Across disciplines, researchers face challenges in navigating ethical issues regarding emerging technologies and changing societal context. The dual challenge is that existing strategies for applying an ethical approach to achieving positive impact in research may not align well with emerging topics, and that there may not be clear consensus or established cross-disciplinary resources to support understanding and navigating the ethical dimensions of such work” (Knight et al., 2024, p. 2).

As AI becomes more and more robust, so does the likelihood that researchers will use artificial intelligence to enhance their research and scholarly writing (Gray, 2024).   In fact, the more AI is utilized, the more “intelligent” the software becomes. More publications equal more enhancement for AI, building a more comprehensive database. The more we use this software; the more AI compensates. Bowen and Watson (2024) stated, “does it make sense to teach students that the use of AI is wrong if that moral stance will change the minute they graduate? All students will need training in thinking with AI and an understanding of how AI can be used – in any situation – with integrity” (pp. 132-133). Kahn (2024), emphasized, “What’s more, used creatively, generative AI will be a boon to education, making it possible for every student to have a personalized tutor (Aristotle in your pocket), tailoring lessons to their individual pace and learning style” (p. 122). For example, students could use AI to find suitable sources for a research topic but should utilize their own intelligence and ability to synthesize the content to bring these materials together. The ethical use of AI will create a culture of honesty for the betterment of society (Doenyas, 2024).

Does this answer the question about what technological “tools” a person can or should utilize, when showcasing intellect and creating some “product?” Autocorrect in word documents and emails has been around for quite a long time. Technology that corrects grammatical errors works automatically. More recently, AI can summarize entire works and write in styles that the author specifies.

Yes, you can use AI. Yes, you can use Autocorrect. Yes, you can use Grammarly. (Of course, all as allowed by your course instructor and any other policies/ethical requirements to your setting.) These are tools that can help us learn, ultimately improving our skill. Credit must be given, however. Again, refer to Aristotle’s definition of intelligence (Aristotle, 350BC/1985). The product is not independent of the action used in the creation of the product. Are you seeking truth through proper reasoning? In what way do you hope to benefit, and for what reason? Are you plagiarizing and using AI for a grade, promotion, publication, recognition, or acknowledgement? Or, are you building your intelligence by using the resources available AND being honest throughout the process?

[Editor’s Note: Because of how rapidly AI is evolving, this section may be regularly updated without a new edition of the book in order to keep it current and accurate.]

Conclusion

Values and ethics in social research refer to the principles and moral guidelines that researchers follow when conducting studies involving people, communities, or societies. Values influence the goals and direction of research, reflecting the importance of integrity, respect, and fairness. Ethical considerations ensure that researchers prioritize the well-being and rights of participants, maintain confidentiality, and avoid harm. This includes institutional review, informed consent, transparency with research methods, and avoiding manipulation or bias. Upholding these ethical standards in social research fosters trust, enhances the credibility of the findings, and promotes responsible and humane practices in the research process.