Wednesday 22 November 2006

Doctoral Research Notes

RESEARCH NOTE 1:
THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF RESEARCH ETHICS:
SOME PRELIMINARY INDICATIONS OF THE LITERATURE TO BE REVIEWED

By Jim Byrne

2006

From all of my searches so far, I have found more than 370 sources which are directly or indirectly relevant to my proposed study of the teaching of research ethics. (As at September 2006).

Preliminary scrutiny of abstracts of these sources suggests the potential to research the following three areas:

1. Extrinsic Controls on Ethical Behaviour

Firstly, there is a case that can be made for tighter ethics control, and the improvement of the ethics environment. Roberts, Geppert, Coverdale, Louie and Edenharder (2005) make the case for stricter scrutiny. Rizk and Elzubeir (2004) report on the continuance of unethical conduct of biomedical research among medical students. West and Byrne (in press) present a catalogue of unethical misconduct among researchers across a range of professions. And it is encouraging in this connection that the University of Manchester has begun the process of tightening control of research proposals. McLeod (1994 and 2001) had raised the issue of the special dangers posed by in-depth interviews in qualitative counselling research. Christians (2005) goes further in advocating a revised model of research ethics, a root and branch reform, and I will address this suggestion in my own reflections.

Epley and Caruso (2004), and Knobe (2005) address what is seen as egocentric and individualistic approaches to ethical reasoning in research proposals; and this is seemingly supported by Sieber (2004) who advocates the avoidance of hunches and anecdotes as a basis for ethical decisions. Friedman (1989) had advocated improved self-regulation, to try to prevent external, enforced regulation being visited upon the biomedical research community. This would include improved supervision, better teaching of research ethics, and reduction in the pressure to publish. Kalichman and Friedman (1992) found that 23% of their respondents had received no training in research ethics. Karunaratne, Myles, Ago and Komesaroff (2006) called for more effective monitoring of research practices by ethics committees.

Adams and Pimple (2005) focus attention on situational variable that increase or reduce the opportunity for illegal or imprudent behaviour, and indicate that restrictions on “opportunity” can greatly reduce misdemeanours. Brinthaupt (2002) and Lynn and Nelson (2005) draw attention to the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the ethics committee, and show that this relationship can be improved to promote students’ ethical awareness. As recently as 2002, Eisen and Berry (2002) were able to report that research universities were still not taking research ethics in bioscience seriously. This could point to a problem of resource deficits, and this may apply to the teaching of ethics across the professions, including counselling research.

Back in 1994, Joan Sieber examined the new code of ethics issued by APA, to see if it would be helpful to counselling researchers: (Sieber 1994). She saw the code as have incompatible objectives of setting enforceable standards of conduct and teaching about ethical conduct. Bond 2004b is up against the same problem, but he perhaps gets closer to balancing these two tasks, to the extent that they can be balanced within a code of ethics. It seems there is a real need to specify training objectives and training designs separately from codes of ethics, and Mastroianni and Kahn (1998) do just that. They also specified a reluctance on the part of higher educational institutions to train researchers in research ethics, unless they are compelled to do so; although Sponholz (2000), Aarons (2003) and Chen (2003) emphasize that most new guidelines to universities specify that teaching research ethics to undergraduates and postgraduate is now imperative. Again resources may be the constraining variable.

2. Reform of Current Methods of Ethics Training

Secondly, there seems to be a need for reform of current approaches to ethics training. For example, Standish (2005) draws attention to the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic ethics, and argues against relying too much on either element, as in assuming that an ethics committee can effectively control the ethics behaviour of doctoral students, in the absence of those students developing high levels of moral reasoning capability for themselves. Kessel (2003) looked at the nature and content of current training in public health ethics. He found that the content and nature of ethics teaching was patchy and often minimal among both students and graduates of the health care profession. This may also be the case among students on the professional doctorate in counselling in that there is no compulsion to study the open learning pack provided to cover this learning need. Fine and Ulrich (1988) had also found that there were major gaps in the frequency and quality of ethics training in doctoral and masters programs in clinical psychology in the USA. Eckles, Meslin, Gaffney and Helft (2005) conducted a comprehensive literature review on the ethics education of medical students, and made a case for improving and validating medical ethics education. Chen (2003) specifies a curriculum for the teaching of ethics to students of psychiatry. This is broadly my aim in relation to counselling research training.

Despite the problems described above, it seems to be possible to measure and improve moral reasoning capability (among medical students) in a way that is sustainable over a period of at least four years: (Self and Olivarez, 1996). And again, Cheung (1999) reported that “analysis of … data using structural equation modelling showed that there were reciprocal relationships among ethical reasoning and ethical judgement over time”. This is encouraging for my work with doctoral students in counselling. And Ford and Richardson (1994) produced a study of “…what is known and what we need to know about the variables that are hypothesized as determinants of ethical decision behavior”.

3. Understanding, Designing and Conducting Ethics Education and Training

And thirdly, there is a need to investigate how to understand, design and conduct ethics education and training. Initially, I believe it is important to be able to test the current levels of competence of doctoral candidates in managing moral reasoning tasks. A series of potentially useful tests are presented by Bringle, Phillips and Hudson (2004), and the Personal Qualities Assessment (PQA) is presented and described by Lumsden, Bore, Millar, Jack and Powis (2005). This test is in current use in some medical schools in the UK. I have eliminated the Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) as unreliable: (Forsyth, 1980).

Then there is the issue of determining which philosophical schools of ethics make most sense as a basis for professional practice in counselling research; if any: (Aita and Richer, 2005). Jordan and Meara (1990) emphasise virtue ethics. Bersoff (1996) highlights principle ethics. Hare (1981) promotes universal prescriptivism, which is a fusion of deontology and utilitarianism. My own current preference is for meta-ethical relativism (Marinoff, 2004), which involves deploying a number a different ethical systems as a bricoleur. However, this could change in the course of studying the literature listed here.

Next I would want to examine and evaluate various models of ethical reasoning, and perhaps evolve my own hybrid model. I have already invalidated Hare (1981). A similar two-level model is outlined by Kitchener (1984). And Welfel and Kitchener (1992) present a component model of moral behaviour. A multi-step model for making moral decisions is presented by Ford (2001), and a multi-dimensional framework is outlined by Hansen and Goldberg (1999). Consideration of these various models could provide the basis for evolving a new model of how postgraduate students reason, and can learn to reason, about ethical issues.

Then I will consider teaching methods, curricula, and the promotion of learning. First I will review existing practices, as in Beresin, Baldessarini, Alpert and Rosenbaum (2003), Roff and Preece (2004), Eisen and Parker ((2004), and others. In this connection, it is important to acknowledge that passive methods of learning ethical research techniques are not effective: (Handelsman, 1986). Also, it does seem to be possible to measure and test the efficacy of ethics education and training: (Self and Olivarez, 1996). McDonald and Donleavy (1995) report that courses can help to promote ethical awareness and sensitivity. And they are critical of Weber (1990) who claims that such gains are short-lived. Successes and failures in teaching research ethics to bioethics researchers are reviewed by Rosenbaum (2003). Sometimes training is not undertaken, but at other times the problem is gaps in the training: (Szirony, Price, Wolfe, Telljohann and Dake (2004). De las Fuentes (2005) – in the context of teaching psychologists - advocates a ‘competency training’ approach; including identifying core competencies required. Heitman and Bulger (2005) recommend that compliance with research codes be reinstated as a central part of the curriculum for research students. Al-Jalahma and Fakhroo (2004) describe a course in medical ethics that they developed, presented and evaluated, in Bahrain, which may prove useful in my own enquiry into how to teach ethics in counselling research. Rosenstein, Miller and Rubinow (2001) describe a model curriculum and background reading list for the teaching of research ethics to psychiatric researchers. And Jeffers (2202) performs a similar role for clinical nurses in research roles.

Smith, Fryer-Edwards, Diekema and Braddock (2004) compare two teaching methods – the first of which was written case analyses, the second being written case analyses with group discussion. They found that group discussion may be the best way to optimize the learning experience. A similar result was found by Rosenbaum (2003). Roff and Preece (2004) describe a programme at Dundee University Medical School that requires students to research ethical dilemmas they have personally discovered, to write up their results, and to make a presentation on their results to their colleagues. Daniels (1992) also emphasizes the importance of writing assignments “…to provoke each student to the introspection and commitment needed to form a personal professional ethos”. Analyzing the ethical components of problems situations is emphasized by Eisen and parker (2004). Discussion can of course be organized in different forms, and Action Learning sets are one of those forms: (McGill and Beaty, 1992). Action Learning overlaps Action Research, which is advocated by Rowley (2003) and Barazangi (2006). Reiman, Peace and DeAngelis (2002) promote “guided enquiry”. Home study or distance learning texts are also useful, but probably not sufficient in themselves, especially if they are not linked to marked assignments: (Huff and Frey, 2005). Schrag (2005) emphasises four educational tasks: (1) teaching research students to recognize moral issues in their research (which is ethical sensitivity); (2) teaching research students to solve practical moral problems (which involves the use of analysis and problem solving skills); (3) teaching them how to make appropriate moral judgements about proposed actions; and (4) learning to engage in preventive ethics (which seems to involve being proactive).

Resnik (2005) is important, as I am proposing to use the internet/email as a vehicle for delivering my training course in research ethics to volunteers from the early years of the Doctorate in Counselling. This shows that electronic discussion boards were highly rated by students on a research ethics course. Keefer (2005) also speaks hightly of the use on web-based instructional materials. A university-wide web-based programme in research ethics, at the University of Pittsburgh, is described by Barnes, Friedman, Rosenberg, Russell, Beedle and Levine (2006).

Additional sources to be studied: There is a considerable amount of literature on approaches to ethical research in the social sciences, including, for examples: Rosnow (1997), Laine (2000) and Romm (2001). I have also tracked down, from specialist sources, some texts on Action Learning – Allen (2004); Angwin (1998); McGill and Beaty (1992) and Revans (1983) - and Action Research – Altrichter, Posch and Somekh (1993); Lees (2001); Arhar, Holly and Kasten (2000), and Buckroyd (2003). And other books and articles will be collected and digested which relate to unique aspects of my methodology.


###

~~~

For further information, please contact Jim Byrne at ABC Coaching and Counselling Services.

~~~

~~~













No comments: