[Ready for Review] Create intro to the Guide for Ethical Research #1228
Conversation
Based on the discussion today, @malvikasharan, I am really just missing a section with examples of ethical dilemmas/cases in research (also, I may be using markdown wrong, haha)
|
Deploy preview for the-turing-way ready! Built with commit 410bf9c |
Ismael-KG
changed the title
malvikasharan
added
ethics-book
Minor changes + now includes two case studies (to entice readers!)
typo in link
minor changes
|
@Ismael-KG by a quick glance, I think you can split the chapter into smaller subchapters: A landing page with definitions, a subchapter on ethical consideration by the research stage, and a subchapter on case studies.
|
|
Thanks for having a look, @malvikasharan! See, I was thinking of the landing page as a place to preempt what to expect from the book and to entice the reader into thinking about ethics (and keep reading!), so it does massively simplify what will happen in later chapters. Can we have a landing page like that? On the three points you raise:
|
|
I see your point, maybe we can discuss this in one of the coworking (and update notes here)? |
|
I think we should keep this page as an introduction to research ethics, but also have a separate landing page for the book itself - does that make sense @Ismael-KG @malvikasharan? If so, I can open another issue for that and start working on it? |
So, this PR is intended as that landing page. Please tell me what needs changing or the content you want to see in it! |
|
Mmm, I feel a landing page should be more like a lightly-annotated table of contents: somewhere to point people too as 'Ethics Book Starts Here' and signpost them to all the chapters easily. With a picture, ideally. I think adding material to this page to introduce all the chapters will make it really wordy and hard to navigate - I think this is a great introduction for the people who might want to read the book as a book, but we need something 'above' it in some sense to help people who just need to use one section as a reference to navigate it. ETA: I think what I am envisaging is a light edit to this page: https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/ethical-research/ethical-research.html as a landing page. |
|
Ah! So I wonder if adding comments here or editing it directly is what you want to do? I suppose an issue can be raised too for it, although it seems like the more direct options would be more productive. |
|
Yes, I think you're right - no additional issue needed for a landing page! |
|
I'm having a go at getting this to a merge-able state during this week's book dash. I am working on it using this hackmd file. I have added a discussion about the concepts of responsible research and innovation, and research integrity. It is a decent length, so I might drop the case studies subsection. Happy to hear what everybody thinks about the hacked write-up! (@LauraCarter @BrainonSilicon) |
Ismael-KG
changed the title
|
Now majorly updated following this week's Book Dash event. Citations in the text with linked DOIs are already in references.bib. I still need to check how to edit the text in the chapter so that it links with the references page. |
|
Can I contribute? I can contribute examples of ethical dilemmas in research (my boss has an extensive body of research on the trolley problem) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a great introduction to the Ethics book! I like a lot how RRI and RI drive it.
I left minimal comments and suggestions.
General comment: I think that this intro and the rest of the book may benefit from underlining ethics in research outside of academic settings. My understanding is that the accent of this introduction is put in the academic side of data science research in its current form. However, data science research is currently done both in and out of academic spaces (most resources are arguably outside of academic settings). Adding mentions of data science research ethics outside academia can substantially increase the impact of the Ethics book as a great resource for anyone working on data science.
| There are two aspects of this definition worth focusing on for the purpose of this introductory section. | ||
| Firstly, RRI refers to “potential implications and societal expectations.” | ||
| Secondly, it is about “the design of inclusive and sustainable research”. | ||
| These are two traditionally important aspects of the ethics of science: how research is set up or designed, and what societal consequences this set up has. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe "setup" instead of "set up" in its last use?
| We can also reflect on the impact of funding on scientific endeavours. | ||
| Questions can be raised regarding the size of research grants (Bloch & Sorensen, 2014) and even the values that motivate the funding of some research projects and not others. | ||
| Institutional norms might even encourage a “publication bias” whereby positively framed findings will be easier to get published (see Kaiser et al.’s, (2009) finding that studies showing differences in sex/gender are easier to publish than studies *not* supporting such differences). | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would have liked that the construct "conflict of interest" (COI) would have been mentioned at some point above these lines. I think that many of the tensions around RRI and RI can be explained due to different conflicts of interest, including, but not limited to, economic, intellectual, and power-related conflicts. If mentioned, COI would belong to the glossary. Maybe it is not mentioned because of good reasons, in which case, please feel free to ignore this suggestion 😺
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like 'conflict of interest' has a specific professionalised meaning whereby e.g. a person's research on breakfast cereal is suspect because they are paid by the cereal manufacturer: I think what @lauracion means is more 'conflicting interests' or 'conflicting priorities', perhaps? And these questions probably don't belong in the introduction per se but should definitely be included in the book somewhere! Maybe in the philosophy chapter @Ismael-KG? #1235
|
@Marta-MM you are welcome to contribute. Can you help integrate some suggestions made by @lauracion? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great work, thanks @Ismael-KG @lauracion @Marta-MM @malvikasharan! I'm going to merge this :)
| | **Who researchers interact with** | With research subjects (for example: do we treat them with respect?) | With fellow researchers (for example: do we adhere to a code of conduct?) | | ||
| | **What shapes research** | Shaped by society (for example: how is AI as a solution generally understood?) | Shaped by institutional norms (for example: what research questions are being funded?) | | ||
|
|
||
| ## How this will help you/ why this is useful |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## How this will help you/ why this is useful | |
| ## How this will help you |
| ## How this will help you/ why this is useful | ||
| > why we think you should read the whole thing | ||
|
|
||
| In conducting research within academic institutions, it is common to be faced with ethical questions posed by "Ethics Committees". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| In conducting research within academic institutions, it is common to be faced with ethical questions posed by "Ethics Committees". | |
| In conducting research within academic institutions, it is common to be faced with ethical questions posed by "Ethics Committees". | |
| Ethical questions, however, are relevant both inside and outside academia. |
|
|
||
| In conducting research within academic institutions, it is common to be faced with ethical questions posed by "Ethics Committees". | ||
| Decisions made throughout the lifecycle of a project will also raise ethical concerns. | ||
| This chapter introduces some of these questions within the broad field of research ethics. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| This chapter introduces some of these questions within the broad field of research ethics. | |
| This chapter introduces some of these questions within the broad field of research ethics: both inside and outside academic institutions. |
| Taking *ethics* as the study of what behaviours are right and what behaviours are wrong highlights that it refers to *action*. | ||
| Considering this, ethics is relevant to research insofar that researchers are *acting* and *behaving* in certain ways when conducting their work. | ||
| Taking this definition seriously also means accepting moral philosophy as paramount in our everyday lives: ethics pertains to us all. | ||
| Furthermore, the potential ripple effects of any research project may be far greater than an individual's actions under normal circumstances. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Furthermore, the potential ripple effects of any research project may be far greater than an individual's actions under normal circumstances. | |
| Furthermore, the potential ripple effects of any research project may be far greater than an individual's actions under normal circumstances. | |
| For example, a model developed on one data set may be adapted and used on other datasets for real-world purposes. |
|
|
||
| In practice, the historical development of research ethics has been driven due to ethical concerns around how research has traditionally been conducted and cases of clear controversy (European Commission, 2010). | ||
| Unfortunately, this reactive nature of research ethics has led to there being many ethical codes for research, each regarding distinct fields of inquiry, designed by and for different institutions, and sometimes affecting scientific work conducted within specific regions. | ||
| Therefore, researchers are right to feel overwhelmed by the diversity of rules and guidelines they face throughout their careers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Therefore, researchers are right to feel overwhelmed by the diversity of rules and guidelines they face throughout their careers. | |
| Therefore, researchers are right to feel overwhelmed by the diversity of rules and guidelines they face throughout their careers. | |
| Researchers working in different settings - including academia, industry, and non-profit - may find that guidelines are not directly applicable to their situations. |
| One source of diversity of ethical frameworks relates with how research institutions generally have "Ethics Committees" that appraise the ethics of research conducted within their institutions. | ||
| This is traditionally done for institutions to protect themselves from legal liabilities. | ||
| However, further reflection -- beyond questions of data protection -- can be required by these processes. | ||
| The point is that one university's process for ethical appraisal will, more often than not, differ from another's. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The point is that one university's process for ethical appraisal will, more often than not, differ from another's. | |
| The point is that one university's process for ethical appraisal will, more often than not, differ from another's, and these in turn will differ from processes in other organisations. |
|
|
||
| The two concepts of RRI and research integrity are by no means entirely distinct, as they can overlap in important ways. | ||
| However, three differences between both concepts are outlined below for the purpose of drawing out more diverse questions pertaining to research ethics at large. | ||
| A table with the list of concept spefici questions is shared at the end of this subsection. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| A table with the list of concept spefici questions is shared at the end of this subsection. | |
| A table with the list of concept-specific questions is shared at the end of this subsection. |
| We can also reflect on the impact of funding on scientific endeavours. | ||
| Questions can be raised regarding the size of research grants (Bloch & Sorensen, 2014) and even the values that motivate the funding of some research projects and not others. | ||
| Institutional norms might even encourage a “publication bias” whereby positively framed findings will be easier to get published (see Kaiser et al.’s, (2009) finding that studies showing differences in sex/gender are easier to publish than studies *not* supporting such differences). | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like 'conflict of interest' has a specific professionalised meaning whereby e.g. a person's research on breakfast cereal is suspect because they are paid by the cereal manufacturer: I think what @lauracion means is more 'conflicting interests' or 'conflicting priorities', perhaps? And these questions probably don't belong in the introduction per se but should definitely be included in the book somewhere! Maybe in the philosophy chapter @Ismael-KG? #1235
Based on the discussion today, @malvikasharan, I am really just missing a section with examples of ethical dilemmas/cases in research.
captures contributions made in #913
Detailed description
Table of contents
Resources
Discussion points/related issues
Does the order of the table of contents seem logical?
Current status
This chapter is still a first draft.
Updates