Week 8: Research Considerations

Reflections

Surprisingly, this was quite an interesting week. I’d previously thought of the ethics review process as a cumbersome and frustrating hurdle to overcome. I’ve deduced that although it may be complex, it is certainly worthwhile, and the case studies and scenarios we’ve explored helped reiterate this idea. I’m interested in mental health and learning difficulties, both of which are considered high-risk topics when conducting research (Falmouth University 2019). I was initially surprised to learn of their high-risk classification; however, it became clear that there’s the potential to cause harm and distress without the appropriate mechanisms for mitigation.

It’s become apparent that research proposals should undergo a thorough evaluation before any work commences. This is to safeguard the participants as well as the researcher and the institution or business for whom they may be working. Concerning my research ideas and proposals, my perspective has shifted after learning of the various considerations and complex planning that may be required. However, I won’t be deterred from recording possible proposals, but I now feel more informed about how I might approach them in the future. I’d consider this a positive outcome for my development and am glad that the need for thorough investigations has been reiterated. In the past, I’ve struggled with communicating the finer details in my writing, and this is now something I can concentrate on with my Study Support Tutor going forward.

Spark Forum Activity

Prior to exploring this week's reading material, we were tasked with analysing some case studies from the persepctive of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB consider aspects such as the legal, moral and ethical issues relating to research.

Case Study 1

Tyrone wants to study the impact of violent games on people’s attitudes toward violence in real life. He plans to test 14-16-year-olds because he believes they are still young enough to be highly impressionable. He will solicit volunteers to come after school. Half will be assigned to play one hour of a violent game, while the other half will play an hour of a game that involves no violence. After the hour, all participants will fill out a questionnaire about their attitudes toward violence.

What additional information might you want to know about the study in order to decide whether or not it should be approved?

What data corroborates the claim that 14-16-year-olds are highly impressionable?
How will you seek the parents’ permission?
Where do you intend on conducting the research?
What games do you intend on using?
What is the age rating of each game?

What are the benefits that might result from this research? What are the potential harms?

Depending on the result, children could be prevented from playing violent games if it is clear that they increase violent thoughts and attitudes
It could introduce the participants to non-violent games that they were otherwise unaware of. This could be seen as a positive outcome in the event that participants had been introduced to violent games prior to the research.
It could introduce the participants to violent games that they were otherwise unaware of. This could pose negative connotations for the study with complaints from participants or their caregivers. For example, participants might have nightmares or act out the violence they saw in the game.
If the violent game is found to increase violent thoughts, behaviours or attitudes, the participants could become a danger to one another

If you were on an IRB reviewing this proposal, what would your recommendation be?

It would be possible to conduct the research if:
- It is carried out in a controlled environment under the supervision of academic staff
- Permission had been sought from the participants’ parents
- Sufficient notice was given to the parents regarding the games that would be used in the study, along with the option to remove their child due to these if necessary

Case Study 2

Charlotte wants to research the effect of labelling students (gifted vs struggling) on their achievement in the first year of Higher Education. She proposes that students be divided into reading groups in which ability levels are evenly mixed. One group will be told they are gifted readers, another group will be told that they are struggling readers, and a third group will be told nothing at all. Charlotte’s hypothesis states that the students in the ‘gifted’ level group will outperform those in the ‘struggling’ group on the same reading test by the end of the year.

What additional information might you want to know about the study in order to decide whether or not it should be approved?

Have students already been categorised into gifted vs struggling? How was this conclusion reached?
Specifically, how long will the study run for?
Will the teacher/educator know which participants are in which group, along with their actual ability level?

What are the benefits that might result from this research? What are the potential harms?

Could prove that labels are not helpful and can create a predisposition about one’s capabilities
Could help struggling readers to build their confidence and improve their skills
It doesn’t seem morally acceptable nor helpful to provide school-age children with false information about their abilities. This may benefit future students, but would likely have a detrimental effect on the participants involved
Doesn’t take learning difficulties into account, i.e dyslexia, therefore could verge on disability discrimination
Depending on the length of the study, the falsification of the participants’ abilities could cause mental distress and further problems later in life or education

If you were on an IRB reviewing this proposal, what would your recommendation be?

I’d recommend conducting more research into related fields/areas before continuing
The research could be beneficial but, at present, the costs outweigh these. It seems morally wrong to lie to children about their abilities at such an important stage of their education.

Challenge Activity

Based on the risk classifications outlined in Falmouth University's Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook, we were given three scenarios to analyse and classify.

Scenario 1

A researcher plans to interview eight artists / curators / designers for her thesis. She offers a letter of introduction about the project, gains written informed consent for the interview from each interviewee, later checks the contents of the transcription with each interviewee, allows the interviewee to withdraw comments / approve the interview record. The interviews will be used as attributed statements within the thesis. A recognised approach from oral history / social sciences / ethnography / art and design criticism and history is part of the methodology. The interviews will involve travel in the UK and abroad, the researcher has discussed her travel plans and personal safety with her supervisors.

Simple, standardised procedures have been used to ensure the individual participants are aware of what they are taking part in and the options available to them post-interview. The participants will likely be divulging their thoughts, opinions and experiences as part of the interview process. Therefore, this would be considered personal information from which individuals could potentially be identified. Based on these facts and assumptions, the Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook (Falmouth University 2019) would class this research as MEDIUM RISK.

Scenario 2

A researcher plans to interview around 30 producers of legitimate graffiti at the Southbank Undercroft. Participants were to be interviewed about their opinions and ideas regarding activities and future possibilities for the Undercroft, and also where relevant, their own graffiti habits and key trends in graffiti practices.

Mitigation would likely require complex planning to disguise participants identities due to the unlawful activity they partake in. Graffiti is regarded as criminal damage (GRAFFITI: THE FACTS, 2011); there is also the suggestion that some use graffiti as a coping mechanism while struggling with mental health (Ó Scannáil, 2019). Therefore care should be taken while researching with participants that actively engage with graffiti practices. Due to the legal repercussions of graffiti, the research may induce psychological stress, anxiety or humiliation against participants. Furthermore, there is the potential for participants to reveal information that may cause concern at that time or later. Based on these facts and assumptions, the Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook (Falmouth University 2019) would class this research as HIGH RISK.

Scenario 3

The research, for a practice-based PhD, involves engaging online presences in social networking sites under a pseudonym. It aims to explore the ways in which identity is constructed online. The research is such that it cannot be revealed in advance to those involved. The core of the research involves developing a community of online presences into a community of offline friends.

I had initially classed this as a medium risk as I know many people, myself included, who have made profiles online without including personal details. Such profiles could include, for example, a fan account, a comedy account, an activism account. It has always been quite apparent that the account owner is not trying to impersonate anyone; then, I realised that impersonation, by way of a pseudonym, is part of the research proposal. As such, deception is used throughout to bring users together in an offline setting. This has the potential to induce psychological stress, anxiety or humiliation among participants when they learn the true nature of the research and may reflect negatively on the institution. In addition, the research could be seen as intrusive and may lead to participants revealing information that may cause concern later. Based on these facts and assumptions, the Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook (Falmouth University 2019) would class this research as HIGH RISK.

References

CHARNWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL. 2011. ‘GRAFFITI: THE FACTS’. Available at: https://www.charnwood.gov.uk/ [accessed 28 Nov 2021].

FALMOUTH UNIVERSITY. 2019. ‘Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook (for Staff and PGR Students)’. Available at: https://www.falmouth.ac.uk/file/39643/download [accessed 28 Nov 2021].

Ó SCANNÁIL, Mícheál. 2021. ‘“Graffiti Has Kept Me Alive” - Meet the Irish Artist Tackling Mental Health in Ireland One Wall at a Time’. independent [online]. Available at: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/graffiti-has-kept-me-alive-meet-the-irish-artist-tackling-mental-health-in-ireland-one-wall-at-a-time-38486447.html [accessed 28 Nov 2021].

SHANNON, Michael. 2018. Photo by Michael Shannon on Unsplash. Available at: https://unsplash.com/photos/mE6zS5LwScM [accessed 15 Jan 2022].