Ethical Research and the Moral Obligations of Research
Ethical Research and Moral Obligations of Research
Overview of Ethical Research
Ethical research is a critical component of the scientific enterprise, ensuring that investigations uphold moral standards and respect for subjects and society. Researchers have moral obligations to conduct studies responsibly, transparently, and with integrity. The terms and principles guiding ethical research dictate how data is collected, analyzed, and presented, ensuring that the findings contribute positively to scientific knowledge and the welfare of individuals or communities involved in the research process.
Empirical Research Overview
Empirical research plays a fundamental role in evidence-based inquiry. It involves gathering data to test hypotheses and can be approached quantitatively or qualitatively. The two primary types of empirical research are:
Confirmatory Research: This approach tests pre-established hypotheses. It typically involves:
Null Hypothesis ($H_0$): The presumption that there is no effect or difference.
Alternative Hypothesis ($H_a$): The hypothesis that indicates the presence of an effect or difference.
Exploratory Research: This type of research seeks to generate hypotheses instead of testing them.
Process of Empirical Research
Introduction
In the introduction of an empirical research paper, groundwork is laid by summarizing existing literature:
Example phrasing: "Literature shown here brings evidence in favor of A, and other studies shown here show evidence in favor of B. I deduced that if A and B are true, then X should also be true, but I need to check it out. This study is about looking for X."
Methods
The methods section details the steps taken during the research, including:
Description of data collection strategies;
Ensuring the variable reflecting X is accurately measured;
Ensuring clarity in variables, so that collected data solely describes X.
Results
In the results section, researchers will fit statistical models to the collected data. An example conclusion might read:
"On the data collected, I fitted a statistical model that is identical to my theoretical model. The model shows a significant difference in the measured variable between groups, indicating support for X."
Discussion
The discussion section acknowledges findings and their implications:
Example phrasing: "We have found evidence in favor of X, which aligns with A, B, and also C, which suggests that X is likely true. However, we remain humble, as D shows contradicting evidence, indicating a need for further research."
Understanding p-values
The p-value is a crucial metric in hypothesis testing. It represents:
The probability of observing a sample at least as extreme as the observed result, assuming the null hypothesis ($H_0$) is correct.
Researchers typically consider a p-value threshold of < 0.05 to indicate significance, meaning the result is considered not significant if the p-value is > 0.05.
The Scientific Method
Science, defined as a systematic method to acquire knowledge, aims to:
Provide broad explanations for natural phenomena.
Create explanations that predict future events.
Science operates under the frameworks proposed by Karl Popper (1954), underpinning the necessity for hypotheses that can be falsified.
Replicability Crisis in Psychology
The replicability crisis highlights significant challenges within psychological research:
Notable Studies:
The “elderly-walking” study by Bargh et al. (1996) raises questions about findings that may not replicate.
Daryl Bem's work on extrasensory perception (ESP) illustrates the struggles with replication.
Open Science Collaboration (2015):
Conducted 100 replication attempts with only 36 yielding successful results, indicating that many psychological findings are difficult to reproduce and raises concerns about the reliability of psychological science.
Publication Bias and Research Ethics
Publication Bias
Publication bias occurs when journals favor the publication of positive findings:
Positive results are more likely to be published than non-significant or negative results, leading to a skewed understanding of scientific evidence.
This bias can be illustrated through a theoretical example of studies producing a summary estimate that reflects only positive findings while ignoring unrepresented negative evidence.
Questionable Research Practices (QRP)
Questionable research practices involve methods that compromise the integrity of research results. Key QRPs include:
Fishing Expeditions: Presenting exploratory research as confirmatory; using multiple dependent variables without pre-defined hypotheses.
Conditional Stopping: Continuing data collection until achieving statistically significant results instead of following a pre-defined protocol.
P-hacking: Manipulating data or using arbitrary analytical techniques to reach significance, resulting in misleading results.
Misleading Visual Presentation
Misguiding visualizations can exaggerate effect sizes or relevance:
An example includes distorted visual representations in media, such as the depiction of statistics regarding welfare recipients compared to full-time workers, which could mislead the public perception about welfare use.
Addressing Fraud in Research
Distortion of research integrity can stem from different levels of dishonest behavior:
Full-on Fraud: Instances where research results are completely fabricated. Specific cases, such as work by Diederik Stapel, illustrate severe breaches of ethics leading to retraction of multiple publications.
Methodologies to Redress Fraud:
Implementing pre-registration of studies, where researchers outline their methodologies and hypotheses beforehand.
Encouraging registered reports and open data practices, allowing increased transparency in research findings.
Science Communication and Ethics
Effective science communication is vital for translating findings to the public:
Emphasis should be on communicating evidence accurately, expressing uncertainty, adhering to field-specific knowledge, and recognizing the distinction between research and practical application.
Claims and Their Scrutiny
Drawing upon claims made by researchers can highlight the responsibilities associated with scientific assertions:
Dr. Gad Saad's Claim: Suggests a correlation between stepparents and abuse, positing this originates from evolutionary factors. Analysis of this claim reveals similiar studies do not provide supporting evidence.
Dr. Andrew Huberman's Claim: Investigates the effects of binaural beats on concentration, with results reflecting a possible correlation backed by quality peer-reviewed science.
Conclusion: Mastering Ethical Research
The responsibilities of researchers extend beyond merely reporting findings. They must rigorously uphold ethical standards, ensure transparency in processes, and engage in practices that build trust in scientific findings. Measures like preregistration, open data, and a commitment to honesty can help mitigate some of the prevailing issues in contemporary research practices, fostering a culture of integrity in scientific inquiry.