Ethical research principles: Documenting Latin American faculty perspectives through Q-sort

Abstract

The ethical principles in research are universal and serve as a humanizing guide throughout the research process. Their application requires keeping in mind the local health, socio-cultural, and economic conditions where research is conducted. Higher education institutions and researchers share the responsibility of ensuring application of ethical research principles in science, technology, and innovation activities. This article reports findings from a mixed methods study on the perspectives of university faculty regarding the application of research ethical principles to research endeavors. Utilizing a Q-method approach to capturing subjectivity, 52 faculty-researchers participated in an online Q-sort exercise which also included an open-ended questionnaire. The study looked at similarities and differences in viewpoints regarding the application of ethical research principles. The study research questions included: (1) what are the participants’ perspectives applying research ethical principles? (2) what are the similarities and differences in viewpoints when looking at the participants’ years of research experience, research ethics preparation, and field of expertise? This article presents the results analyzing the responses of the participating faculty researchers. Similarities and differences of their perspectives were documented by looking at years of research experience, research ethics background, and field of expertise. Study findings point to the need to offer more opportunities for training to better prepare experienced and less experienced researchers on how to anticipate and plan for ethical dilemmas that may arise while conducting research. Emerging and experienced researchers can benefit from such training and self-awareness. Keywords: Q-sort, Ethical Research, Ethical Dilemmas, Scientific Research, Faculty Perspectives.

Keywords

• Q-sort
• ethical research
• ethical dilemmas
• scientific research
• faculty perspectives

References

1. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q-methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. 6, 561-567.
2. Christians, C. G. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. Qualitative Research (2nd ed.) pp. 133-155.
3. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica. (2019). Código Nacional de la Integridad Científica . Lima: Concytec.
4. Creswell, J. W. (2016). 30 Essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Sage.
5. Cross, R.M. (2005). Exploring attitudes: The case for Q-methodology. Health Education Research. 20(2), 206-213. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg121
6. Domenech-Rodríguez, M. M., Corralejo, S. M., Vouvalis, N. & Mirly, A. K. (2017). Institutional review board: Ally not adversary. Psi Chi, The International Honor Society in Psychology, 22(2), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342
7. Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. (2018). Política de Ética de la Investigación, Bioética e Integridad Científica. Bogotá, D. C.
8. Drane, J. F. (2004). The Ethıcs as Character and Medıcal Research. Acta bioethica, 10(1), 17-25. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2004000100003

9. Espinosa, E., & Alger, J. (2014). Integridad Científica: Fortaleciendo la investigación desde la ética. Revista Médica Hondureña, 8(3), 126-128. https://doi.org/10.5377/rmh.v88i1.11597
10. Fuentes-Delgado, D., Minaya, G., & Angulo-Bazán, Y. (2020). Rol de los comités de ética en investigación durante la pandemia por COVID-19. Acta Médica Peruana, 37(2), 236-238. https://dx.doi.org/10.35663/amp.2020.372.954
11. Gallarado Miranda, A., & Collado Torres, F. (2008). Ética en la investigación médica. Revista de la Sociedad Andaluza de Traumatología y Ortopedia, 26(1/2), 119-22.
12. Guraya, S. Y., London, N., & Guraya, S. S. (2014). Ethics in medical research. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, 2, 121-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.03.003
13. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
14. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
15. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
16. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1978). The Belmont Report. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
17. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
18. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 65-75. DOI: 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
19. Stepke, F. L. (2002). Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigación biomédica en seres humanos. Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas (CIOMS). Ginebra.
20. Zavala, S., & Mantilla, J. A. (2011). Ética e investigación. Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública, 28(4), 664-669.