What kinds of research are considered unethical and what are some examples of serious ethical lapses in academic research?
In the context of academic research, a diversity of ethical issues, conditioned by the different roles of members within these institutions, arise. Previous studies on this topic addressed mainly the perceptions of researchers. However, to our knowledge, no studies have explored the transversal ethical issues from a wider spectrum, including other members of academic institutions as the research ethics board (REB) members, and the research ethics experts. The present study used a descriptive phenomenological approach to document the ethical issues experienced by a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts. Data collection involved socio-demographic questionnaires and individual semi-structured interviews. Following the triangulation of different perspectives (researchers, REB members and ethics experts), emerging ethical issues were synthesized in ten units of meaning: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. This study highlighted several problematic elements that can support the identification of future solutions to resolve transversal ethical issues in research that affect the heterogeneous members of the academic community. Show
Working on a manuscript?Avoid the common mistakesResearch includes a set of activities in which researchers use various structured methods to contribute to the development of knowledge, whether this knowledge is theoretical, fundamental, or applied (Drolet & Ruest, accepted). University research is carried out in a highly competitive environment that is characterized by ever-increasing demands (i.e., on time, productivity), insufficient access to research funds, and within a market economy that values productivity and speed often to the detriment of quality or rigour – this research context creates a perfect recipe for breaches in research ethics, like research misbehaviour or misconduct (i.e., conduct that is ethically questionable or unacceptable because it contravenes the accepted norms of responsible conduct of research or compromises the respect of core ethical values that are widely held by the research community) (Drolet & Girard, 2020; Sieber, 2004). Problematic ethics and integrity issues – e.g., conflicts of interest, falsification of data, non-respect of participants’ rights, and plagiarism, to name but a few – have the potential to both undermine the credibility of research and lead to negative consequences for many stakeholders, including researchers, research assistants and personnel, research participants, academic institutions, and society as a whole (Drolet & Girard, 2020). It is thus evident that the academic community should be able to identify these different ethical issues in order to evaluate the nature of the risks that they pose (and for whom), and then work towards their prevention or management (i.e., education, enhanced policies and procedures, risk mitigation strategies). In this article, we define an “ethical issue” as any situation that may compromise, in whole or in part, the respect of at least one moral value (Swisher et al., 2005) that is considered socially legitimate and should thus be respected. In general, ethical issues occur at three key moments or stages of the research process: (1) research design (i.e., conception, project planning), (2) research conduct (i.e., data collection, data analysis) and (3) knowledge translation or communication (e.g., publications of results, conferences, press releases) (Drolet & Ruest, accepted). According to Sieber (2004), ethical issues in research can be classified into five categories, related to: (a) communication with participants and the community, (b) acquisition and use of research data, (c) external influence on research, (d) risks and benefits of the research, and (e) selection and use of research theories and methods. Many of these issues are related to breaches of research ethics norms, misbehaviour or research misconduct. Bruhn et al., (2002) developed a typology of misbehaviour and misconduct in academia that can be used to judge the seriousness of different cases. This typology takes into consideration two axes of reflection: (a) the origin of the situation (i.e., is it the researcher’s own fault or due to the organizational context?), and (b) the scope and severity (i.e., is this the first instance or a recurrent behaviour? What is the nature of the situation? What are the consequences, for whom, for how many people, and for which organizations?). A previous detailed review of the international literature on ethical issues in research revealed several interesting findings (Beauchemin et al., 2021). Indeed, the current literature is dominated by descriptive ethics, i.e., the sharing by researchers from various disciplines of the ethical issues they have personally experienced. While such anecdotal documentation is relevant, it is insufficient because it does not provide a global view of the situation. Among the reviewed literature, empirical studies were in the minority (Table 1) – only about one fifth of the sample (n = 19) presented empirical research findings on ethical issues in research. The first of these studies was conducted almost 50 years ago (Hunt et al., 1984), with the remainder conducted in the 1990s. Eight studies were conducted in the United States (n = 8), five in Canada (n = 5), three in England (n = 3), two in Sweden (n = 2) and one in Ghana (n = 1). Table 1 Summary of Empirical Studies on Ethical Issues in Research by the year of publication Full size table Further, the majority of studies in our sample (n = 12) collected the perceptions of a homogeneous group of participants, usually researchers (n = 14) and sometimes health professionals (n = 6). A minority of studies (n = 7) triangulated the perceptions of diverse research stakeholders (i.e., researchers and research participants, or students). To our knowledge, only one study has examined perceptions of ethical issues in research by research ethics board members (REB; Institutional Review Boards [IRB] in the USA), and none to date have documented the perceptions of research ethics experts. Finally, nine studies (n = 9) adopted a qualitative design, seven studies (n = 7) a quantitative design, and three (n = 3) a mixed-methods design. More studies using empirical research methods are needed to better identify broader trends, to enrich discussions on the values that should govern responsible conduct of research in the academic community, and to evaluate the means by which these values can be supported in practice (Bahn, 2012; Beauchemin et al., 2021; Bruhn et al., 2002; Henderson et al., 2013; Resnik & Elliot, 2016; Sieber 2004). To this end, we conducted an empirical qualitative study to document the perceptions and experiences of a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts, to answer the following broad question: What are the ethical issues in research? A qualitative research approach involving individual semi-structured interviews was used to systematically document ethical issues (De Poy & Gitlin, 2010; Hammell et al., 2000). Specifically, a descriptive phenomenological approach inspired by the philosophy of Husserl was used (Husserl, 1970, 1999), as it is recommended for documenting the perceptions of ethical issues raised by various practices (Hunt & Carnavale, 2011). The principal investigator obtained ethics approval for this project from the Research Ethics Board of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR). All members of the research team signed a confidentiality agreement, and research participants signed the consent form after reading an information letter explaining the nature of the research project. As indicated above, three types of participants were sought: (1) researchers from different academic disciplines conducting research (i.e., theoretical, fundamental or empirical) in Canadian universities; (2) REB members working in Canadian organizations responsible for the ethical review, oversight or regulation of research; and (3) research ethics experts, i.e., academics or ethicists who teach research ethics, conduct research in research ethics, or are scholars who have acquired a specialization in research ethics. To be included in the study, participants had to work in Canada, speak and understand English or French, and be willing to participate in the study. Following Thomas and Polio’s (2002) recommendation to recruit between six and twelve participants (for a homogeneous sample) to ensure data saturation, for our heterogeneous sample, we aimed to recruit approximately twelve participants in order to obtain data saturation. Having used this method several times in related projects in professional ethics, data saturation is usually achieved with 10 to 15 participants (Drolet & Goulet, 2018; Drolet & Girard, 2020; Drolet et al., 2020). From experience, larger samples only serve to increase the degree of data saturation, especially in heterogeneous samples (Drolet et al., 2017, 2019; Drolet & Maclure, 2016). Purposive sampling facilitated the identification of participants relevant to documenting the phenomenon in question (Fortin, 2010). To ensure a rich and most complete representation of perceptions, we sought participants with varied and complementary characteristics with regards to the social roles they occupy in research practice (Drolet & Girard, 2020). A triangulation of sources was used for the recruitment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). The websites of Canadian universities and Canadian health institution REBs, as well as those of major Canadian granting agencies (i.e., the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Fonds de recherche du Quebec), were searched to identify individuals who might be interested in participating in the study. Further, people known by the research team for their knowledge and sensitivity to ethical issues in research were asked to participate. Research participants were also asked to suggest other individuals who met the study criteria. Two tools were used for data collecton: (a) a socio-demographic questionnaire, and (b) a semi-structured individual interview guide. English and French versions of these two documents were used and made available, depending on participant preferences. In addition, although the interview guide contained the same questions, they were adapted to participants’ specific roles (i.e., researcher, REB member, research ethics expert). When contacted by email by the research assistant, participants were asked to confirm under which role they wished to participate (because some participants might have multiple, overlapping responsibilities) and they were sent the appropriate interview guide. The interview guides each had two parts: an introduction and a section on ethical issues. The introduction consisted of general questions to put the participant at ease (i.e., “Tell me what a typical day at work is like for you”). The section on ethical issues was designed to capture the participant’s perceptions through questions such as: “Tell me three stories you have experienced at work that involve an ethical issue?” and “Do you feel that your organization is doing enough to address, manage, and resolve ethical issues in your work?”. Although some interviews were conducted in person, the majority were conducted by videoconference to promote accessibility and because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were digitally recorded so that the verbatim could be transcribed in full, and varied between 40 and 120 min in duration, with an average of 90 min. Research assistants conducted the interviews and transcribed the verbatim. The socio-demographic questionnaires were subjected to simple descriptive statistical analyses (i.e., means and totals), and the semi-structured interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis. The steps proposed by Giorgi (1997) for a Husserlian phenomenological reduction of the data were used. After collecting, recording, and transcribing the interviews, all verbatim were analyzed by at least two analysts: a research assistant (2nd author of this article) and the principal investigator (1st author) or a postdoctoral fellow (3rd author). The repeated reading of the verbatim allowed the first analyst to write a synopsis, i.e., an initial extraction of units of meaning. The second analyst then read the synopses, which were commented and improved if necessary. Agreement between analysts allowed the final drafting of the interview synopses, which were then analyzed by three analysts to generate and organize the units of meaning that emerged from the qualitative data. Sixteen individuals (n = 16) participated in the study, of whom nine (9) identified as female and seven (7) as male (Table 2). Participants ranged in age from 22 to 72 years, with a mean age of 47.5 years. Participants had between one (1) and 26 years of experience in the research setting, with an average of 14.3 years of experience. Participants held a variety of roles, including: REB members (n = 11), researchers (n = 10), research ethics experts (n = 4), and research assistant (n = 1). As mentioned previously, seven (7) participants held more than one role, i.e., REB member, research ethics expert, and researcher. The majority (87.5%) of participants were working in Quebec, with the remaining working in other Canadian provinces. Although all participants considered themselves to be francophone, one quarter (n = 4) identified themselves as belonging to a cultural minority group. Table 2 Description of Participants Full size table With respect to their academic background, most participants (n = 9) had a PhD, three (3) had a post-doctorate, two (2) had a master’s degree, and two (2) had a bachelor’s degree. Participants came from a variety of disciplines: nine (9) had a specialty in the humanities or social sciences, four (4) in the health sciences and three (3) in the natural sciences. In terms of their knowledge of ethics, five (5) participants reported having taken one university course entirely dedicated to ethics, four (4) reported having taken several university courses entirely dedicated to ethics, three (3) had a university degree dedicated to ethics, while two (2) only had a few hours or days of training in ethics and two (2) reported having no knowledge of ethics. As Fig. 1 illustrates, ten units of meaning emerge from the data analysis, namely: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. To illustrate the results, excerpts from verbatim interviews are presented in the following sub-sections. Most of the excerpts have been translated into English as the majority of interviews were conducted with French-speaking participants. Fig. 1 Ethical issues in research according to the participants Full size image Research IntegrityThe research environment is highly competitive and performance-based. Several participants, in particular researchers and research ethics experts, felt that this environment can lead both researchers and research teams to engage in unethical behaviour that reflects a lack of research integrity. For example, as some participants indicated, competition for grants and scientific publications is sometimes so intense that researchers falsify research results or plagiarize from colleagues to achieve their goals.
These examples of research misbehaviour or misconduct are sometimes due to or associated with situations of conflicts of interest, which may be poorly managed by certain researchers or research teams, as noted by many participants. Conflict of interestThe actors and institutions involved in research have diverse interests, like all humans and institutions. As noted in Chap. 7 of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2, 2018),
The sources of these conflicts are varied and can include interpersonal conflicts, financial partnerships, third-party pressures, academic or economic interests, a researcher holding multiple roles within an institution, or any other incentive that may compromise a researcher’s independence, integrity, and neutrality (TCPS2, 2018). While it is not possible to eliminate all conflicts of interest, it is important to manage them properly and to avoid temptations to behave unethically. Ethical temptations correspond to situations in which people are tempted to prioritize their own interests to the detriment of the ethical goods that should, in their own context, govern their actions (Swisher et al., 2005). In the case of researchers, this refers to situations that undermine independence, integrity, neutrality, or even the set of principles that govern research ethics (TCPS2, 2018) or the responsible conduct of research. According to study participants, these types of ethical issues frequently occur in research. Many participants, especially researchers and REB members, reported that conflicts of interest can arise when members of an organization make decisions to obtain large financial rewards or to increase their academic profile, often at the expense of the interests of members of their research team, research participants, or even the populations affected by their research.
Further, these situations sometimes have negative consequences for research participants as reported by some participants. Respect for research participantsMany research projects, whether they are psychosocial or biomedical in nature, involve human participants. Relationships between the members of research teams and their research participants raise ethical issues that can be complex. Research projects must always be designed to respect the rights and interests of research participants, and not just those of researchers. However, participants in our study – i.e., REB members, researchers, and research ethics experts – noted that some research teams seem to put their own interests ahead of those of research participants. They also emphasized the importance of ensuring the respect, well-being, and safety of research participants. The ethical issues related to this unit of meaning are: respect for free, informed and ongoing consent of research participants; respect for and the well-being of participants; data protection and confidentiality; over-solicitation of participants; ownership of the data collected on participants; the sometimes high cost of scientific innovations and their accessibility; balance between the social benefits of research and the risks to participants (particularly in terms of safety); balance between collective well-being (development of knowledge) and the individual rights of participants; exploitation of participants; paternalism when working with populations in vulnerable situations; and the social acceptability of certain types of research. The following excerpts present some of these issues.
In addition, one participant reported that their university does not provide the resources required to respect the confidentiality of research participants.
If the relationships with research participants are likely to raise ethical issues, so too are the relationships with students, notably research assistants. On this topic, several participants discussed the lack of supervision or recognition offered to research assistants by researchers as well as the power imbalances between members of the research team. Lack of Supervision and Power ImbalancesMany research teams are composed not only of researchers, but also of students who work as research assistants. The relationship between research assistants and other members of research teams can sometimes be problematic and raise ethical issues, particularly because of the inevitable power asymmetries. In the context of this study, several participants – including a research assistant, REB members, and researchers – discussed the lack of supervision or recognition of the work carried out by students, psychological pressure, and the more or less well-founded promises that are sometimes made to students. Participants also mentioned the exploitation of students by certain research teams, which manifest when students are inadequately paid, i.e., not reflective of the number of hours actually worked, not a fair wage, or even a wage at all.
These ethical issues have significant negative consequences for students. Indeed, they sometimes find themselves at the mercy of researchers, for whom they work, struggling to be recognized and included as authors of an article, for example, or to receive the salary that they are due. For their part, researchers also sometimes find themselves trapped in research structures that can negatively affect their well-being. As many participants reported, researchers work in organizations that set very high productivity standards and in highly competitive contexts, all within a general culture characterized by individualism. Individualism and performanceParticipants, especially researchers, discussed the culture of individualism and performance that characterizes the academic environment. In glorifying excellence, some universities value performance and productivity, often at the expense of psychological well-being and work-life balance (i.e., work overload and burnout). Participants noted that there are ethical silences in their organizations on this issue, and that the culture of individualism and performance is not challenged for fear of retribution or simply to survive, i.e., to perform as expected. Participants felt that this culture can have a significant negative impact on the quality of the research conducted, as research teams try to maximize the quantity of their work (instead of quality) in a highly competitive context, which is then exacerbated by a lack of resources and support, and where everything must be done too quickly.
Researchers must produce more and more, and they feel little support in terms of how to do such production, ethically, and how much exactly they are expected to produce. As this participant reports, the expectation is an unspoken rule: more is always better.
Inadequate ethical GuidanceWhile the productivity expectation is not clear, some participants – including researchers, research ethics experts, and REB members – also felt that the ethical expectations of some REBs were unclear. The issue of the inadequate ethical guidance of research includes the administrative mechanisms to ensure that research projects respect the principles of research ethics. According to those participants, the forms required for both researchers and REB members are increasingly long and numerous, and one participant noted that the standards to be met are sometimes outdated and disconnected from the reality of the field. Multicentre ethics review (by several REBs) was also critiqued by a participant as an inefficient method that encumbers the processes for reviewing research projects. Bureaucratization imposes an ever-increasing number of forms and ethics guidelines that actually hinder researchers’ ethical reflection on the issues at stake, leading the ethics review process to be perceived as purely bureaucratic in nature.
Moreover, as one participant noted, accessing ethics training can be a challenge.
Yet, such training could provide relevant tools to resolve, to some extent, the ethical issues that commonly arise in research. That said, and as noted by many participants, many ethical issues in research are related to social injustices over which research actors have little influence. Social InjusticesFor many participants, notably researchers, the issues that concern social injustices are those related to power asymmetries, stigma, or issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion, i.e., social injustices related to people’s identities (Blais & Drolet, 2022). Participants reported experiencing or witnessing discrimination from peers, administration, or lab managers. Such oppression is sometimes cross-sectional and related to a person’s age, cultural background, gender or social status.
Social injustices were experienced or reported by many participants, and included issues related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when one researcher is a woman.
Because of the varied contextual characteristics that intervene in their occurrence, these social injustices are also related to distributive injustices, as discussed by many participants. Distributive InjusticesAlthough there are several views of distributive justice, a classical definition such as that of Aristotle (2012), describes distributive justice as consisting in distributing honours, wealth, and other social resources or benefits among the members of a community in proportion to their alleged merit. Justice, then, is about determining an equitable distribution of common goods. Contemporary theories of distributive justice are numerous and varied. Indeed, many authors (e.g., Fraser 2011; Mills, 2017; Sen, 2011; Young, 2011) have, since Rawls (1971), proposed different visions of how social burdens and benefits should be shared within a community to ensure equal respect, fairness, and distribution. In our study, what emerges from participants’ narratives is a definite concern for this type of justice. Women researchers, francophone researchers, early career researchers or researchers belonging to racialized groups all discussed inequities in the distribution of research grants and awards, and the extra work they need to do to somehow prove their worth. These inequities are related to how granting agencies determine which projects will be funded.
Whether it is discrimination against stigmatized or marginalized populations or interest in certain hot topics, granting agencies judge research projects according to criteria that are sometimes questionable, according to those participants. Faced with difficulties in obtaining funding for their projects, several strategies – some of which are unethical – are used by researchers in order to cope with these situations.
Moreover, these distributional injustices are not only linked to social injustices, but also epistemic injustices. Indeed, the way in which research honours and grants are distributed within the academic community depends on the epistemic authority of the researchers, which seems to vary notably according to their language of use, their age or their gender, but also to the research design used (inductive versus deductive), their decision to use (or not use) animals in research, or to conduct activist research. Epistemic injusticesThe philosopher Fricker (2007) conceptualized the notions of epistemic justice and injustice. Epistemic injustice refers to a form of social inequality that manifests itself in the access, recognition, and production of knowledge as well as the various forms of ignorance that arise (Godrie & Dos Santos, 2017). Addressing epistemic injustice necessitates acknowledging the iniquitous wrongs suffered by certain groups of socially stigmatized individuals who have been excluded from knowledge, thus limiting their abilities to interpret, understand, or be heard and account for their experiences. In this study, epistemic injustices were experienced or reported by some participants, notably those related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when a researcher is a woman or an early career researcher.
Researchers who use inductive (or qualitative) methods observed that their projects are sometimes less well reviewed or understood, while research that adopts a hypothetical-deductive (or quantitative) or mixed methods design is better perceived, considered more credible and therefore more easily funded. Of course, regardless of whether a research project adopts an inductive, deductive or mixed-methods scientific design, or whether it deals with qualitative or quantitative data, it must respect a set of scientific criteria. A research project should achieve its objectives by using proven methods that, in the case of inductive research, are credible, reliable, and transferable or, in the case of deductive research, generalizable, objective, representative, and valid (Drolet & Ruest, accepted). Participants discussing these issues noted that researchers who adopt a qualitative design or those who question the relevance of animal experimentation or are not militant have sometimes been unfairly devalued in their epistemic authority.
The combination or intersectionality of these inequities, which seems to be characterized by a lack of ethical support and guidance, is experienced in the highly competitive and individualistic context of research; it provides therefore the perfect recipe for researchers to experience ethical distress. Ethical distressThe concept of “ethical distress” refers to situations in which people know what they should do to act ethically, but encounter barriers, generally of an organizational or systemic nature, limiting their power to act according to their moral or ethical values (Drolet & Ruest, 2021; Jameton, 1984; Swisher et al., 2005). People then run the risk of finding themselves in a situation where they do not act as their ethical conscience dictates, which in the long term has the potential for exhaustion and distress. The examples reported by participants in this study point to the fact that researchers in particular may be experiencing significant ethical distress. This distress takes place in a context of extreme competition, constant injunctions to perform, and where administrative demands are increasingly numerous and complex to complete, while paradoxically, they lack the time to accomplish all their tasks and responsibilities. Added to these demands are a lack of resources (human, ethical, and financial), a lack of support and recognition, and interpersonal conflicts.
This difficult context for many researchers affects not only the conduct of their own research, but also their participation in research. We faced this problem in our study, despite the use of multiple recruitment methods, including more than 200 emails – of which 191 were individual solicitations – sent to potential participants by the two research assistants. REB members and organizations overseeing or supporting research (n = 17) were also approached to see if some of their employees would consider participating. While it was relatively easy to recruit REB members and research ethics experts, our team received a high number of non-responses to emails (n = 175) and some refusals (n = 5), especially by researchers. The reasons given by those who replied were threefold: (a) fear of being easily identified should they take part in the research, (b) being overloaded and lacking time, and (c) the intrusive aspect of certain questions (i.e., “Have you experienced a burnout episode? If so, have you been followed up medically or psychologically?”). In light of these difficulties and concerns, some questions in the socio-demographic questionnaire were removed or modified. Talking about burnout in research remains a taboo for many researchers, which paradoxically can only contribute to the unresolved problem of unhealthy research environments. DiscussionReturning to the research question and objectiveThe question that prompted this research was: What are the ethical issues in research? The purpose of the study was to describe these issues from the perspective of researchers (from different disciplines), research ethics board (REB) members, and research ethics experts. The previous section provided a detailed portrait of the ethical issues experienced by different research stakeholders: these issues are numerous, diverse and were recounted by a range of stakeholders. The results of the study are generally consistent with the literature. For example, as in our study, the literature discusses the lack of research integrity on the part of some researchers (Al-Hidabi et al., 2018; Swazey et al., 1993), the numerous conflicts of interest experienced in research (Williams-Jones et al., 2013), the issues of recruiting and obtaining the free and informed consent of research participants (Provencher et al., 2014; Keogh & Daly, 2009), the sometimes difficult relations between researchers and REBs (Drolet & Girard, 2020), the epistemological issues experienced in research (Drolet & Ruest, accepted; Sieber 2004), as well as the harmful academic context in which researchers evolve, insofar as this is linked to a culture of performance, an overload of work in a context of accountability (Berg & Seeber, 2016; FQPPU; 2019) that is conducive to ethical distress and even burnout. If the results of the study are generally in line with those of previous publications on the subject, our findings also bring new elements to the discussion while complementing those already documented. In particular, our results highlight the role of systemic injustices – be they social, distributive or epistemic – within the environments in which research is carried out, at least in Canada. To summarize, the results of our study point to the fact that the relationships between researchers and research participants are likely still to raise worrying ethical issues, despite widely accepted research ethics norms and institutionalized review processes. Further, the context in which research is carried out is not only conducive to breaches of ethical norms and instances of misbehaviour or misconduct, but also likely to be significantly detrimental to the health and well-being of researchers, as well as research assistants. Another element that our research also highlighted is the instrumentalization and even exploitation of students and research assistants, which is another important and worrying social injustice given the inevitable power imbalances between students and researchers. Moreover, in a context in which ethical issues are often discussed from a micro perspective, our study helps shed light on both the micro- and macro-level ethical dimensions of research (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Glaser 1994). However, given that ethical issues in research are not only diverse, but also and above all complex, a broader perspective that encompasses the interplay between the micro and macro dimensions can enable a better understanding of these issues and thereby support the identification of the multiple factors that may be at their origin. Triangulating the perspectives of researchers with those of REB members and research ethics experts enabled us to bring these elements to light, and thus to step back from and critique the way that research is currently conducted. To this end, attention to socio-political elements such as the performance culture in academia or how research funds are distributed, and according to what explicit and implicit criteria, can contribute to identifying the sources of the ethical issues described above. Contemporary culture characterized by the social accelerationThe German sociologist and philosopher Rosa (2010) argues that late modernity – that is, the period between the 1980s and today – is characterized by a phenomenon of social acceleration that causes various forms of alienation in our relationship to time, space, actions, things, others and ourselves. Rosa distinguishes three types of acceleration: technical acceleration, the acceleration of social changes and the acceleration of the rhythm of life. According to Rosa, social acceleration is the main problem of late modernity, in that the invisible social norm of doing more and faster to supposedly save time operates unchallenged at all levels of individual and collective life, as well as organizational and social life. Although we all, researchers and non-researchers alike, perceive this unspoken pressure to be ever more productive, the process of social acceleration as a new invisible social norm is our blind spot, a kind of tyrant over which we have little control. This conceptualization of the contemporary culture can help us to understand the context in which research is conducted (like other professional practices). To this end, Berg & Seeber (2016) invite faculty researchers to slow down in order to better reflect and, in the process, take care of their health and their relationships with their colleagues and students. Many women professors encourage their fellow researchers, especially young women researchers, to learn to “say No” in order to protect their mental and physical health and to remain in their academic careers (Allaire & Descheneux, 2022). These authors also remind us of the relevance of Kahneman’s (2012) work which demonstrates that it takes time to think analytically, thoroughly, and logically. Conversely, thinking quickly exposes humans to cognitive and implicit biases that then lead to errors in thinking (e.g., in the analysis of one’s own research data or in the evaluation of grant applications or student curriculum vitae). The phenomenon of social acceleration, which pushes the researcher to think faster and faster, is likely to lead to unethical bad science that can potentially harm humankind. In sum, Rosa’s invitation to contemporary critical theorists to seriously consider the problem of social acceleration is particularly insightful to better understand the ethical issues of research. It provides a lens through which to view the toxic context in which research is conducted today, and one that was shared by the participants in our study. Clark & Sousa (2022) note, it is important that other criteria than the volume of researchers’ contributions be valued in research, notably quality. Ultimately, it is the value of the knowledge produced and its influence on the concrete lives of humans and other living beings that matters, not the quantity of publications. An interesting articulation of this view in research governance is seen in a change in practice by Australia’s national health research funder: they now restrict researchers to listing on their curriculum vitae only the top ten publications from the past ten years (rather than all of their publications), in order to evaluate the quality of contributions rather than their quantity. To create environments conducive to the development of quality research, it is important to challenge the phenomenon of social acceleration, which insidiously imposes a quantitative normativity that is both alienating and detrimental to the quality and ethical conduct of research. Based on our experience, we observe that the social norm of acceleration actively disfavours the conduct of empirical research on ethics in research. The fact is that researchers are so busy that it is almost impossible for them to find time to participate in such studies. Further, operating in highly competitive environments, while trying to respect the values and ethical principles of research, creates ethical paradoxes for members of the research community. According to Malherbe (1999), an ethical paradox is a situation where an individual is confronted by contradictory injunctions (i.e., do more, faster, and better). And eventually, ethical paradoxes lead individuals to situations of distress and burnout, or even to ethical failures (i.e., misbehaviour or misconduct) in the face of the impossibility of responding to contradictory injunctions. Strengths and Limitations of the studyThe triangulation of perceptions and experiences of different actors involved in research is a strength of our study. While there are many studies on the experiences of researchers, rarely are members of REBs and experts in research ethics given the space to discuss their views of what are ethical issues. Giving each of these stakeholders a voice and comparing their different points of view helped shed a different and complementary light on the ethical issues that occur in research. That said, it would have been helpful to also give more space to issues experienced by students or research assistants, as the relationships between researchers and research assistants are at times very worrying, as noted by a participant, and much work still needs to be done to eliminate the exploitative situations that seem to prevail in certain research settings. In addition, no Indigenous or gender diverse researchers participated in the study. Given the ethical issues and systemic injustices that many people from these groups face in Canada (Drolet & Goulet, 2018; Nicole & Drolet, in press), research that gives voice to these researchers would be relevant and contribute to knowledge development, and hopefully also to change in research culture. Further, although most of the ethical issues discussed in this article may be transferable to the realities experienced by researchers in other countries, the epistemic injustice reported by Francophone researchers who persist in doing research in French in Canada – which is an officially bilingual country but in practice is predominantly English – is likely specific to the Canadian reality. In addition, and as mentioned above, recruitment proved exceedingly difficult, particularly amongst researchers. Despite this difficulty, we obtained data saturation for all but two themes – i.e., exploitation of students and ethical issues of research that uses animals. It follows that further empirical research is needed to improve our understanding of these specific issues, as they may diverge to some extent from those documented here and will likely vary across countries and academic research contexts. ConclusionsThis study, which gave voice to researchers, REB members, and ethics experts, reveals that the ethical issues in research are related to several problematic elements as power imbalances and authority relations. Researchers and research assistants are subject to external pressures that give rise to integrity issues, among others ethical issues. Moreover, the current context of social acceleration influences the definition of the performance indicators valued in academic institutions and has led their members to face several ethical issues, including social, distributive, and epistemic injustices, at different steps of the research process. In this study, ten categories of ethical issues were identified, described and illustrated: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. The triangulation of the perspectives of different members (i.e., researchers from different disciplines, REB members, research ethics experts, and one research assistant) involved in the research process made it possible to lift the veil on some of these ethical issues. Further, it enabled the identification of additional ethical issues, especially systemic injustices experienced in research. To our knowledge, this is the first time that these injustices (social, distributive, and epistemic injustices) have been clearly identified. Finally, this study brought to the fore several problematic elements that are important to address if the research community is to develop and implement the solutions needed to resolve the diverse and transversal ethical issues that arise in research institutions. A good starting point is the rejection of the corollary norms of “publish or perish” and “do more, faster, and better” and their replacement with “publish quality instead of quantity”, which necessarily entails “do less, slower, and better”. It is also important to pay more attention to the systemic injustices within which researchers work, because these have the potential to significantly harm the academic careers of many researchers, including women researchers, early career researchers, and those belonging to racialized groups as well as the health, well-being, and respect of students and research participants. Al-Hidabi, Abdulmalek, M. D., & The, P. L. (2018). Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science. In K. Arai, S. Kapoor, & R. Bhatia (eds), Future of Information and Communication Conference (FICC): Advances in Information and Communication, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (AISC), Springer, vol. 886, pp. 511–526 Allaire, S., & Deschenaux, F. (2022). Récits de professeurs d’université à mi-carrière. Si c’était à refaire…. Presses de l’Université du Québec Aristotle (2012). Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Google Scholar Bahn, S. (2012). Keeping Academic Field Researchers Safe: Ethical Safeguards. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9159-2 Article Google Scholar Balk, D. E. (1995). Bereavement Research Using Control Groups: Ethical Obligations and Questions. Death Studies, 19, 123–138 Article Google Scholar Beauchemin, É., Côté, L. P., Drolet, M. J., & Williams-Jones, B. (2021). Conceptualizing Ethical Issues in the Conduct of Research: Results from a Critical and Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Academic Ethics, Early Online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09411-7 Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The Slow Professor. University of Toronto Press Birchley, G., Huxtable, R., Murtagh, M., Meulen, R. T., Flach, P., & Gooberman-Hill, R. (2017). Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers’ perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(23), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z Article Google Scholar Blais, J., & Drolet, M. J. (2022). Les injustices sociales vécues en camp de réfugiés: les comprendre pour mieux intervenir auprès de personnes ayant séjourné dans un camp de réfugiés. Recueil annuel belge d’ergothérapie, 14, 37–48 Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon Bouffard, C. (2000). Le développement des pratiques de la génétique médicale et la construction des normes bioéthiques. Anthropologie et Sociétés, 24(2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.7202/015650ar Article Google Scholar Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human development. Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press Bruhn, J. G., Zajac, G., Al-Kazemi, A. A., & Prescott, L. D. (2002). Moral positions and academic conduct: Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 461–493. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0033 Article Google Scholar Clark, A., & Sousa (2022). It’s time to end Canada’s obsession with research quantity. University Affairs/Affaires universitaires, February 14th. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/effective-successfull-happy-academic/its-time-to-end-canadas-obsession-with-research-quantity/?utm_source=University+Affairs+e-newsletter&utm_campaign=276a847f70-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_02_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_314bc2ee29-276a847f70-425259989 Colnerud, G. (2015). Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study. Research Ethics, 10(4), 238–253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016114552339 Article Google Scholar Davison, J. (2004). Dilemmas in Research: Issues of Vulnerability and Disempowerment for the Social Workers/Researcher. Journal of Social Work Practice, 18(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/0265053042000314447 Article Google Scholar DePoy, E., & Gitlin, L. N. (2010). Introduction to Research. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby Google Scholar Drolet, M. J., & Goulet, M. (2018). Travailler avec des patients autochtones du Canada ? Perceptions d’ergothérapeutes du Québec des enjeux éthiques de cette pratique. Recueil annuel belge francophone d’ergothérapie, 10, 25–56 Drolet, M. J., & Girard, K. (2020). Les enjeux éthiques de la recherche en ergothérapie: un portrait préoccupant. Revue canadienne de bioéthique, 3(3), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.7202/1073779ar Article Google Scholar Drolet, M. J., Girard, K., & Gaudet, R. (2020). Les enjeux éthiques de l’enseignement en ergothérapie: des injustices au sein des départements universitaires. Revue canadienne de bioéthique, 3(1), 22–36. https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/bioethics/2020-v3-n1-bioethics05237/1068761ar/ Google Scholar Drolet, M. J., & Maclure, J. (2016). Les enjeux éthiques de la pratique de l’ergothérapie: perceptions d’ergothérapeutes. Revue Approches inductives, 3(2), 166–196 Article Google Scholar Drolet, M. J., Pinard, C., & Gaudet, R. (2017). Les enjeux éthiques de la pratique privée: des ergothérapeutes du Québec lancent un cri d’alarme. Ethica – Revue interdisciplinaire de recherche en éthique, 21(2), 173–209 Google Scholar Drolet, M. J., & Ruest, M. (2021). De l’éthique à l’ergothérapie: un cadre théorique et une méthode pour soutenir la pratique professionnelle. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec Book Google Scholar Drolet, M. J., & Ruest, M. (accepted). Quels sont les enjeux éthiques soulevés par la recherche scientifique? In M. Lalancette & J. Luckerhoff (dir). Initiation au travail intellectuel et à la recherche. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 18 p Drolet, M. J., Sauvageau, A., Baril, N., & Gaudet, R. (2019). Les enjeux éthiques de la formation clinique en ergothérapie. Revue Approches inductives, 6(1), 148–179. https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/approchesind/2019-v6-n1-approchesind04618/1060048ar/ Article Google Scholar Fédération québécoise des professeures et des professeurs d’université (FQPPU). (2019). Enquête nationale sur la surcharge administrative du corps professoral universitaire québécois. Principaux résultats et pistes d’action. Montréal: FQPPU Google Scholar Fortin, M. H. (2010). Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche. Méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. Montréal, QC: Chenelière éducation Google Scholar Fraser, D. M. (1997). Ethical dilemmas and practical problems for the practitioner researcher. Educational Action Research, 5(1), 161–171 Article Google Scholar Fraser, N. (2011). Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale? Reconnaissance et redistribution. La Découverte Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press Giorgi, A. (1997). De la méthode phénoménologique utilisée comme mode de recherche qualitative en sciences humaines: théories, pratique et évaluation. In J. Poupart, L. H. Groulx, J. P. Deslauriers, et al. (Eds.), La recherche qualitative: enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques (pp. 341–364). Boucherville, QC: Gaëtan Morin Google Scholar Giorgini, V., Mecca, J. T., Gibson, C., Medeiros, K., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2016). Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct. Accountability in Research, 22(3), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.955607 Article Google Scholar Glaser, J. W. (1994). Three realms of ethics: Individual, institutional, societal. Theoretical model and case studies. Kansas Cuty, Sheed & Ward Godrie, B., & Dos Santos, M. (2017). Présentation: inégalités sociales, production des savoirs et de l’ignorance. Sociologie et sociétés, 49(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7202/1042804ar Article Google Scholar Hammell, K. W., Carpenter, C., & Dyck, I. (2000). Using Qualitative Research: A Practical Introduction for Occupational and Physical Therapists. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Google Scholar Henderson, M., Johnson, N. F., & Auld, G. (2013). Silences of ethical practice: dilemmas for researchers using social media. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(6), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.805656 Article Google Scholar Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press Google Scholar Husserl, E. (1999). The train of thoughts in the lectures. In E. C. Polifroni, & M. Welch (Eds.), Perspectives on Philosophy of Science in Nursing. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. 247 – 62. 43 Google Scholar Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., & Wilcox, J. B. (1984). Ethical problems of marketing researchers. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 309–324 Article Google Scholar Hunt, M. R., & Carnevale, F. A. (2011). Moral experience: A framework for bioethics research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(11), 658–662. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.039008 Article Google Scholar Jameton, A. (1984). Nursing practice: The ethical issues. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall Jarvis, K. (2017). Dilemmas in International Research and the Value of Practical Wisdom. Developing World Bioethics, 17(1), 50–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12121 Article Google Scholar Kahneman, D. (2012). Système 1, système 2: les deux vitesses de la pensée. Paris: Flammarion Google Scholar Keogh, B., & Daly, L. (2009). The ethics of conducting research with mental health service users. British Journal of Nursing, 18(5), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2009.18.5.40539 Article Google Scholar Lierville, A. L., Grou, C., & Pelletier, J. F. (2015). Enjeux éthiques potentiels liés aux partenariats patients en psychiatrie: État de situation à l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal. Santé mentale au Québec, 40(1), 119–134 Article Google Scholar Lynöe, N., Sandlund, M., & Jacobsson, L. (1999). Research ethics committees: A comparative study of assessment of ethical dilemmas. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 27(2), 152–159 Article Google Scholar Malherbe, J. F. (1999). Compromis, dilemmes et paradoxes en éthique clinique. Anjou: Éditions Fides Google Scholar McGinn, R. (2013). Discernment and denial: Nanotechnology researchers’ recognition of ethical responsibilities related to their work. NanoEthics, 7, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0174-6 Article Google Scholar Mills, C. W. (2017). Black Rights / White rongs. The Critique of Racial Liberalism. Oxford University Press Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2008). Researcher interaction biases and business ethics research: Respondent reactions to researcher characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 779–795. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9547-5 Article Google Scholar Mondain, N., & Bologo, E. (2009). L’intentionnalité du chercheur dans ses pratiques de production des connaissances: les enjeux soulevés par la construction des données en démographie et santé en Afrique. Cahiers de recherche sociologique, 48, 175–204. https://doi.org/10.7202/039772ar Article Google Scholar Nicole, M., & Drolet, M. J. (in press). Fitting transphobia and cisgenderism in occupational therapy, Occupational Therapy Now Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. The American Psychologist, 47(3), 397–411 Article Google Scholar Provencher, V., Mortenson, W. B., Tanguay-Garneau, L., Bélanger, K., & Dagenais, M. (2014). Challenges and strategies pertaining to recruitment and retention of frail elderly in research studies: A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 59(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2014.03.006 Article Google Scholar Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2016). The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science. Accountability in Research, 23(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608 Article Google Scholar Rosa, H. (2010). Accélération et aliénation. Vers une théorie critique de la modernité tardive. Paris, Découverte Sen, A. K. (2011). The Idea of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Sen, A. K. (1995). Inegality Reexaminated. Oxford University Press Sieber, J. E. (2004). Empirical Research on Research Ethics. Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1404_9 Article Google Scholar Sigmon, S. T. (1995). Ethical practices and beliefs of psychopathology researchers. Ethics & Behavior, 5(4), 295–309 Article Google Scholar Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., & Lewis, K. S. (1993). Ethical Problems in Academic Research. American Scientist, 81(6), 542–553 Google Scholar Swisher, L. L., Arsalanian, L. E., & Davis, C. M. (2005). The realm-individual-process-situation (RIPS) model of ethical decision-making. HPA Resource, 5(3), 3–8. https://www-s3-live.kent.edu/s3fs-root/s3fs-public/file/RIPS_DecisionMaking_0.pdf Google Scholar Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) (2018). Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Government of Canada, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en-interactive-final.pdf Thomas, S. P., & Pollio, H. R. (2002). Listening to Patients: A Phenomenological Approach to Nursing Research and Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company Google Scholar Wiegand, D. L., & Funk, M. (2012). Consequences of clinical situations that cause critical care nurses to experience moral distress. Nursing Ethics, 19(4), 479–487. DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011429342 Article Google Scholar Williams-Jones, B., Potvin, M. J., Mathieu, G., & Smith, E. (2013). Barriers to research on research ethics review and conflicts of interest. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 35(5), 14–20 Google Scholar Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the Politics of difference. Princeton University Press Download references AcknowledgementsThe team warmly thanks the participants who took part in the research and who made this study possible. Marie-Josée Drolet thanks the five research assistants who participated in the data collection and analysis: Julie-Claude Leblanc, Élie Beauchemin, Pénéloppe Bernier, Louis-Pierre Côté, and Eugénie Rose-Derouin, all students at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), two of whom were active in the writing of this article. MJ Drolet and Bryn Williams-Jones also acknowledge the financial contribution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), which supported this research through a grant. We would also like to thank the reviewers of this article who helped us improve it, especially by clarifying and refining our ideas. Author informationAuthors and Affiliations
Authors
Corresponding authorCorrespondence to Marie-Josée Drolet. Ethics declarationsCompeting Interests and FundingAs noted in the Acknowledgements, this research was supported financially by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Additional informationPublisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissionsReprints and Permissions About this articleCite this articleDrolet, MJ., Rose-Derouin, E., Leblanc, JC. et al. Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts. J Acad Ethics (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-022-09455-3 What kind of research could be considered to be unethical?Research misconduct is defined in the USPHS Policy as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.”
What are some examples of ethical issues in research?Results: The major ethical issues in conducting research are: a) Informed consent, b) Beneficence- Do not harm c) Respect for anonymity and confidentiality d) Respect for privacy.
What is ethical and unethical in research?Answer. Unethical behavior can be defined as actions that are against social norms or acts that are considered unacceptable to the public. Ethical behavior is the complete opposite of unethical behavior. Ethical behavior follows the majority of social norms and such actions are acceptable to the public.
What is ethical lapses in research?An ethical lapse is a mistake or error in judgment that produces a harmful outcome. A lapse in ethics doesn't show a complete lack of integrity, just an oversight or an ethical blind spot. Routinely producing harmful results is not considered a “lapse”, that's just considered unethical.
|