Skip to main content

Ethics and Empirics: Essence of Ethics in Social Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Principles of Social Research Methodology
  • 5417 Accesses

Abstract

Over the last one and a half decades, some fundamental changes have occurred in social research, and the renewed emphasis on ensuring ethical standards at every step of the research process constitutes one of such changes. The purpose of the discussion here is to shed light on the fundamental steps and issues concerning research ethics—as commonly encountered, especially by early career researchers and research students—and highlight the fact that ethics constitutes an essential element in maintaining the quality of research. The chapter focuses on the primary stages, methodology, and procedures of ethical protections that the modern social research institution has established to protect study participants’ rights and privacy. Keeping the participant anonymous throughout the research process is one of the fundamental principles of research ethics. Another important ethical consideration concerns the hierarchies between researchers and participants (respondents); one implication is that research participants may not be coerced into participating in research anymore. They have the liberty to withdraw from the study at any time. Depending on the level of (physical, psychological, political, and financial) sensitivity, the matter of ethical approval for a particular research project has to go through various levels of the ethical screening process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amdur, R. & Bankert, E. A. (2011). Institutional review board member handbook. Jones and Bartlett.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12).

    Google Scholar 

  • American University. (2016). IRB. American University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angell, E., et al. (2006). Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: A controlled comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(11), 662–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. S. (2000). The role of qualitative research in broadening the ‘evidence base’ for clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(2), 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, M. A., Walton, N., & Nathaniel, A. (2014). Ethics and Issues in contemporary nursing. Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burman, W., et al. (2003). The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multi-center clinical trials consortium. Controlled Clinical Trials, 24(3), 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, E., Fenwick, J., Schmied, V., & Sheenan, A. (2012). Reflexivity in midwifery research: The insider/outsider debate. Midwifery, 28(1), 52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candilis, P. J., et al. (2006). The need to understand IRB deliberations. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 28(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetty, P. (2016). Importance of ethical considerations in research. https://www.projectguru.in/importance-ethical-considerations-research/

  • Colt, H. G., & Mulnard, R. A. (2006). Writing an application for a human subjects institutional review board. Chest, 130(5), 1605–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyrbye, L. N., et al. (2007). Medical education research and IRB review: An analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Academic Medicine, 82(7), 654–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(20), 2701–2711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M. H., & Phillips, P. A. (2006). Centralized and non-centralized ethics review: A five-nation study. Accountability in Research, 13(1), 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajjar, N. B. (2013). Ethical consideration in research. International Journal for Research in Education, 2(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, C. (2002). Ethical principles of research. In J. I. Gallin & F. P. Ognibene (Eds.), Principles and practice of clinical research (pp. 15–27). Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gunsalus, C. K., et al. (2007). The Illinois white paper: Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB “mission creep.” Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 617–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M. R. (2010). Institutional review boards and independent ethics committees. In M. J. McGraw, A. N. George, S. P. Shearn, R. L. Hall, Jr. T. F. Haws (Eds.), Principles of good clinical practice. (1st ed.,). Pharmaceutical Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koocher, G. P. (1998). The journal Ethics and Behavior and co-author of Ethics in psychology: Professional standards and cases. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, R. (2014). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (Google eBook 4th ed.,). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalor, J. G., Begley, C. M., & Devane, D. (2006). Exploring painful experiences: Impact of emotional narratives on members of a qualitative research team. Journal of Advanced Nursing., 55(5), 607–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E., Bratts, T., Zwanziger, J., & Stone, P. (2004). A survey of IRB process in 68 U.S. hospitals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36(3), 260–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, C. (2009). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial bioethical issues. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malacrida, C. (2007). Reflexive journaling on emotional research topics: Ethical issues for team researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1329–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meslin, E. M., & Quaid, K. A. (2004). Ethical issues in the collection, storage, and research use of human biological materials. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 144(5), 229–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millum, J., & Menikoff, J. (2010). Streamlining ethical review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 153(10), 655–657. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-10-201011160-00008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, K. S., et al. (2006). Reforming the oversight of multi-site clinical research: A review of two possible solutions. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 13(1), 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Råheim, M., Magnussen, L. H., Sekse, R. J. T., Lunde, Å., Jacobsen, T., & Blystad, A. (2016). Researcher-researched relationship in qualitative research: Shifts in positions and researcher vulnerability. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 11, 30996. Published 14th Jun 2016. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.30996

  • Resnik, D. B. (2015). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sales, B. D., & Folkman, S. (Eds.). (2000). Ethics in research with human participants. American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2015). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stair, T. O., et al. (2001). Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Academic Emergency Medicine, 8(6), 636–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, A. K. M. A., & Haque, S. (2020). The migration myth in policy and practice: Dreams, development and despair. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, A. K. M. A., & Huque, A. S. (2014). Asian immigrants in North America with HIV/AIDS: Stigma, vulnerabilities and human rights. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, A. K. M. A., & Nawaz, F. (2020). Surrogacy-led migration: Reflections on the Policy Dilemmas. Public Administration and Policy, 22(2), In Press. (Emerald Journal)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, A. K. M. A., Hossain, A., Azizuddin, M., & Nawaz, F. (2020). Social research methods: migration in perspective. Migration Letters, 17(2), 357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, A. K. M. A., Hossain, M. A., & Islam, K. M. (2015). Migrants and workers fatalities. Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, A. K. M. A. (2010a) (1st ed). Rationalizing migration decisions: Labour migrants in south and south-east Asia. Ashgate. Routledge (2nd ed., 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, A. K. M. A. (2010b). Population migration in Asia: Theories and practice. Nova Science Publishers. (Monograph)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah A. K. M. A. (2012). Divergence and convergence in the nation-state: The roles of religion and migration. Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah A. K. M. A. (2016). Globalization and the health of Indigenous peoples: From colonization to self-rule. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Minnesota. (2003). A guide to research ethics. University of Minnesota: Center for Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. K. M. Ahsan Ullah .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ahsan Ullah, A.K.M. (2022). Ethics and Empirics: Essence of Ethics in Social Research. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-5219-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-5441-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics