Ethical Considerations in the Research of Applied Linguistics free essay sample

However, once the human subjects being investigated, there will possibly raise potential risks and discomforts from the procedure of the research, for instance, the disclosure of privacy could be damaging to a person. A qualified researcher must place a premium on ethical considerations when doing the research planing , even if it appears to be of minimally risky to the subjects. In this paper, I tend to discuss on some prominent ethical issues concerned by the literatures of research methodology and to address some of them with a combination of the recommended solutions from the literatures and my own reflections after reading those texts. After all, as it is difficult to transact all of the ethical issues in all circumstances, to highlight some ethical dilemmas and make the tricky points noticeable to the researchers seems to be worth doing. And hopefully, every researcher of applied linguistics finds a balance point between the ethical considerations and their willingnesses of producing optimum researches. We will write a custom essay sample on Ethical Considerations in the Research of Applied Linguistics or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Anyway, whether ethically conducting the research or not also involves in the criteria for evaluating the quality of a research. 2. Researchers value As the German sociologist Weber (1946) indicated, all research is contaminated to some extent by the value of the researcher (cited in Silverman, 2004: 257). How researchers carry out their researches therefore highly depends on the value they hold. For example, generally qualitative researchers favour rich and detailed data for exploring their questions in depth, whereas quantitative researchers place an emphasis on the objectivity and generalizability of the research and the descriptive work is not seen as valuable as statistics. To conclude an ethical point of view into the content of value, on one hand, it is the researchers consideration of protecting the rights and privacy of human participants, on the other hand it is the researchers interest and responsibility to their researches. Sometimes, certain dilemma rises from the conflict of both side. Silverman (2004) notes that both qualitative researcher and quantitative researcher are impinged by such dilemma of willing to fully inform the participants with the details of the research but not contaminating the quality of their research by letting the participants know too much about the research questions. In this sense, the researchers have to ponder over some dilemmas emerged in the course of conducting their researches and to clarify the value to themselves about how to use the sample, adopting a particular method and doing what kind of research. In Cohen et al. s (2000:63) words: What is the poper balance between the interest of science and the thoughtful, humane treatment of people who, innocently, provide the data? (cited in Dornyei, 2007:65) If we can provide a precisely constructed value frame as the answer to the following questions: How much percentage should the ethical considerations take in researchers value frame and to what extent would it effect the research procedure and the results, there would have been an overall guideline for all the researcher to follow which offers them an explicit instruction on dealing with any ethical issues by a fixed principle. However, it is unlikely that even a very well-built ethical guideline could always be a proper one across various s ituations. The interpretation of the term may vary a bit across different literatures but without excluding the main elements of sufficient information, voluntary participation, and comprehensible information. These interconnected elements going with relevant ethical considerations are discussed in detail subsequently. 3. 1 Issues related to sufficient information The issues related to sufficient information can be broken down into the following three aspects: 1. the interpretations to sufficiency; 2. the conflict between preventing the research from contamination and avoiding deception; 3. he inability of some researchers to provide full information to participants. These aspects are to be elaborated via discussing the following questions. 3. 1. 1 How sufficient should it be and which elements should be included? There are different interpretations of the term sufficient information from different institutions, as what Dornyei (2007) notes: There is quite a bit of controversy about how informe d the consent should be that is, how much information do we need to share with the respondents before asking them to participate. (p69) According to Mackey and Gass (2005)s Checklist for Obtaining Informed Consent, the core elements involved in the paradigm of sufficient information are: †¢ The procedures and purpose of the research; †¢ The potential risks and benefits of the research; †¢ The method of the research or the treatment to the subjects; †¢ The contact information of the researcher; †¢ The steps to be taken for ensuring confidentiality and anonymity. Although these elements are basic requirements for obtaining informed consent, there seem to be several salient dilemmas embedded in each part. First of all, it is always contradictory to provide the participants with the details of the research. Generally, researchers are advised to give the information sufficient enough to the potential participants, but in doing so, some of them are likely to withdraw from the study because of certain discomfortable details. Dornyei (2007) indicates that certain information could either create a bias to participate or make the respondents want to run away. For this reason, some researchers may be reluctant to reveal too much information of the nature of the study. In order to recruit a target group of favorable subjects and raise their enthusiasm to the study, the researchers may tend to hide certain information which is adverse to recruitment and stress those that the respondents may be interested in. In Brymans (2001) words: It is extremely difficult to present prospective participant with absolutely all the information that might be required to make a informed decision about that involvement. In fact, relatively minor transgressions probably pervade most social research(p481). What we need do for best dealing with this issue is to achieve a trade-off and concern the minimal level of informedness found in the literature vary. (Dornyei, 2007:69) And we have to admit a primary principle that the information related to potential risks and possible influences should never be covert to the respondents. Second, sometimes it is quite problematic in informing participants the potential risks or harms. As far as I see, according to certain types of r esearches and the methods they adopt, the researchers might not able to prevent or repair some emerging risks or harms which are actually inevitable. Bouma (1993) argues that because of the intimately interactive feature of the qualitative research, there is a great likelihood that the research will effect those been studied. The participants opinions may have unconsciously been shaped through a research. Although we could not tell the changes are negative or positive, there do present certain risks. To think of some experimental studies in applied linguistics, the participants under any particular treatments will certainly be effected. For example, in the researches conducted in a classroom setting, the researcher wants to inquire the effectiveness between two instructional models, it is predictable that one group of students would obtain less achievements due to their special treatment or no treatment. Gass (2010) argues that if we have reason to believe a treatment is beneficial, then we have to provide that treatment to those participant who did not receive that treatment after the data has been collected. However, later she points out that to make the students return for a second round is not logistically possible. Furthermore, It is tricky to inform such risks or harms for the reason that they are often invisible to the participants and what are noticeable to the researchers may be hard to interpret for the reason that in many researches the participants are actually a group of innocent people whereas the researchers are the ones who have an overall knowledge on the area they are investigating at. Seliger and Shohamy (1989) note: Frequently, for control purpose, subjects are not aware of their participation in a study, or if aware do not know the exact nature of the experiments. (p196) They suggest the participants be given that information once the study is completed. In this sense, the participants have the rights the know the theories underlying the research and it is ethical to inform them with the final result and also let them know how it comes out. . Third, it is difficult to balance the amount f benefits from a study and the sacrifice the participant made. In most researches of applied linguistics there are some benefits to the participants in return, which is a part of the respondents concerns for making their decisions of participation. Apart from the ethical issues mentioned before that the researchers might highlight or even exaggerate the beneficial points to some extent in order to attract respondents to take part in their researches, we should also notice that n ot all the researchers could find such a balance point in their researches. After all, a specific research is designed within the interest and bias of the researcher but not of the participants. Dornyei (2007) suggests the researchers take their responsibility to make cost-benefit balance as equitable as possible. In fact, it is much easier said than done. The participants always cost more than take something back in return. Not many researches can match participants interest and some may have nothing to do with their needs. As a point noticed by Holliday (2010), People will very likely have far more important things to do and think about than taking part in your research project It may be unfair to expect that the people in the research setting should understand or be interested in the research project(p105). So the people participating in researches are more like making sacrifices while they donate their time and energy on every stage of a research including understanding those information provided by the researcher in order to have informed consents. Moreover, sometimes even the researchers think doing something would be good for the participants, they could not guarantee that. 3. 1. 2 Is withholding information necessary or deceptive? In second language research there is a so called observers paradox, that is, the aim of linguistic research in the community must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain these data by systematic observation. (Labov, 1972:209) In other words, the participants might change their usual behaviour because they know they are being studied. Hollidays (2010) words upgrade that paradox to some extent: What people are prepared to say or how they are prepared to appear in front f a researcher may have as much to do with their perceptions of the researcher as with the questions the researcher is asking. They may be researching you as much you are researching them. (p105) It seems that the research is contaminated merely by the fact that you are perceived as a researcher. In this sense, while covert observation will easily encounter ethical accusation, withholding information and even deception for leading their thoughts to the other ways seems necessary and desirable. However, the widespread condemnation of the violations of inform consent can not be easily ignored. Even if the researcher promise to reveal all the hidden information after data collection, it still has certain possibility that some withholding details discomfort the participants in the end. To cope with this issue, apart from meeting the conditions of acceptable withholding information (see Mackey Gass, 2005:30), the researchers had better arrange a survey or interview after the disclosing the information which was withheld. If any negative feedbacks from the participants arise, elimination of the data elicited from certain participants and a sincere apology are required. . 1. 3 Whether all the researchers are able to provide the participants with sufficient information? Though the principle of inform consent requires the researches to provide as much imformation as possible, actually this is not always easy for all the researchers to do so. Manson (1996,166-7) reveals a way in which certain ethical issues impinge on the qualitative researchers: The changing directions of intere st and access during a qualitative study mean that new and expected ethical dilemmas are likely to arise during the course of your research. cited in Silverman, 2004: 257) Mansons argument reflects that fully informed consent may be not available in qualitative research due to its emergent nature. In qualitative researches, according to Dornyei (2007): no aspect of the research design is tightly prefigured and a study is kept open and fluid, the researchers can respond in a flexible way to new details or openings that may emerge during the process of the investigation(p37) but meanwhile it raises the complexity for dealing with ethical issues. Once certain details are changed or even a new question emerges during the fieldwork, those changed or new points should be informed to the participants and the consents in a second round is required. However, as the consents have already been granted, I believe some researchers will practically omit this step and continue processing their research. Anyway, as most researches are dynamic and contextual, even not a qualitative one, certain new or unpredicted ethical issues would very likely emerge in the course of research. Moreover, if the researcher is collecting data from the participants, especially he/she makes a record, the respondents have the rights to know how these data will be used after the research. At the initiation of a research, the researcher probably has no idea about the future use of the data, but what if a respondent would have decided not to participate due to the concern of the data use? Silverman (2004) points out that initial consent in some cases is not enough, it is necessary to obtain further consents to how the data might be used. My suggestion is to offer the possible future treatments of the data as much as possible at the beginning of the research and to add a further consent if it is necessary. 3. 2 Issues on protecting confidentiality When doing research using human subjects, ensuring the safety of the participants is always at the first place. It means that before the research is commenced, the researchers should make precautions to any risks, discomforts or harms that would happen after adopting certain methods, asking sensitive questions or using certain approaches of data collection. Especially in the researches based on school settings, except for the case I mentioned before that experimenting on students threatens their educational achievements, the confidentiality of data also constitutes an equivalently significant ethical consideration. As Macky Gass (2005) noted, such ethical consideration should be more seriously taken in classroom based researches, because in the reports the participants are more easily to be identified which leads to certain ramifications that might be detrimental to either teachers or students. The researchers could draw on certain approaches to address the issues on anonymity, such as changing names of the subjects or coding them by numbers which are mentioned in most research methodology books. But whatever they do, the anonymity of subjects is difficult to be guaranteed. Dornyei (2007) presents the dilemma of anonymity as following: A basic dilemma in educational research concerns the fact that although ideally our participants should remain anonymous, we often need to identify the respondents to be able to match their performance on various instruments or tasks. p65) Brooks-Lewis (2009), for example, carried out a classroom-based research which discuss second language learners perceptions to a native speaker teacher using their first language in the English class. The original data consisting of the individuals words and performance in the classes are presented in her research paper, which may easliy expose ones identity, and even those data from the learners diaries wo uld create a clue for identifying a particular individual. As Duff and Early (1996) said: In reports of school-based research, prominent individuals or focal subjects tend to be more vulnerable than others(p21, cited in Macky Gass, 2005: 28). Anther concern falls on doing researches in sensitive situations. Because of the special nature of the participants (eg. refugees, patients), the confidentiality of data and full anonymity should be ensured by providing the means for protecting the confidentiality and anonymity detailed into every step. In the researches in classroom settings or those concern sensitive area, any disclosure of participants identity would result in certain harms. Macky Gass (2005) advise researchers to even volunteer to check with the participants before using any potentially identifying information in transcripts, data, reports, papers or presentations, even when numbers are assigned in stead of names(p29). In addition, raising issues about ensuring confidentiality and anonymity are most likely related to how the information is recorded and how the records are maintained. The researchers therefore need carefully select their research methods with an understanding of the characters of the target subjects, such as considering which way of recording data would be riskless and more acceptable to the respondents: audio, video, or just observation. And they also need to inform the respondents with further treatments of the data, such as whether they will delete the data after research; if they have to keep these data, where to store and who can access to it, etc. 3. 3 Issues related to comprehensible information The principle of giving comprehensible information suggests the responsibility of the researcher to fully explain the information in terms of meaningful to the participants. In the research of applied linguistics, the second language learners and children are frequently investigated. For the former group, as the subjects especially those beginners are not competent enough in the literacy of the second language, the researchers are advised to translate the texts to the respondents own languages. For the latter group of subjects who are too young to make a decision, the researcher should obtain consent from their proper proxy. Dornyei (2007) consider that the permission can be granted by the childrens teacher for the reason that they are usually aware of the significance of legal matters. I have to point out that it is fine if the teacher has no relationship with the researcher, however if some relationship is out there (eg. They work for the same institution, they are friends or acquaintances , even the teacher has a dual identity of teacher and researcher), the consents are invalid. In addition to second language learners and children, Starfield (2010) reminds the researchers of considering a circumstance in which the participant are not literature in any language, which makes us further ponder on the question of whether we could obtain oral consents. 3. 4. Ethical issues in voluntary participation Voluntary participation requires that the subjects not to be coerced into participating the study. However, sometimes something has interfered them making a decision even if it seems that the participants take part in the research of their freewill. As the notion of voluntary participation is firmly related to the requirement of informed consent, first of all, violation of informed consent would certainly interfere the principle of voluntary participation, for example, as I mentioned before, an uninformed consent in which there is an overstated benefit for participating the research. Besides, as far as I see, at least another two factors interfere he notion of voluntary participation. 3. 4. 1 The relationships To improve the the recruitment rate and encourage a better cooperation , the researcher might tend to build a good relationships with the participants whenever doing recruitment or collecting data from them. Although recruiting the individuals or groups who is interested and affected by the research topic contribute to handling some ethical issues in an easier way, what if t he researchers intentionally do someting in order to induce respondents to make consents? One principle for ethical consideration in the Statement on Experimentation (1992) prepared by NHMRC of Australia states: Volunteers may be paid for inconvenience and time spent, but such payment should not be so large as to be an inducement to participant. (cited in Bouma, 1996: 196) Bouma (1996) argues that although it is rarely an issue in social research, other than undue payment, the researcher cannot coerce compliance by offering any enticing rewards for participation, such as giving the students who have participated in the study extra scores in final test. In addition, the close relationship of researcher and participants itself raises an ethical issue. Once establishing a intimate relationship with the researcher, it is no doubt that what the participants should do would be more than that with their previous relationship. Because the researcher has won a favorable impression from the participants and become their friend. Whether genuine or not, that friendship requires the participants obligation of helping the researcher to a larger extent which would not have been achieved if there is not such a relationship. Even if the friendship is authentic, because of its nature built on the research in which the embedded attempt would never be pure, such relationship can only be there out of the research but not the reason for requiring the participants to contribute more. Cassell (1978) points out that it is unethical for researchers to form relationships with participants, act as friends, and then leave the situation when the research project concludes. (cited in Tisdale, 2004: 27) Thus, the researcher should not ask participants to take part in the research and to meet any requirements merely by the fact that they regard he/she as a friend. Dornyei (2007) poses some relevant ethical questions: if it is ethical flirting with participants and how to end a research project without leaving the participants feeling that they were merely used(p65). Furthermore, Duff (2007) points out that seeking informed consent from the researchers current students is coercive as they are in a dependent relationship with the researcher. Sometimes the students have no choice but to participate in their teachers research. It raises an ethical issue in which the power unbalance in the relationship between teacher and students plays a role. 3. 4. 2 Power unbalance According to Bouma (1996), in some cases, the researcher may be in a more powerful position than the subjects, such as teacher to student, parent to child, employer to employee, etc. In these cases, power, sometimes invisible, imposes on the action of the individuals. If you are in a position of power over someone else, even if you havent actually forced anyone to do something, the power out there is forcing them to act as what they think that you wish them to do. Macky Gass (2005) point out: Undue influence may be exercised, even unwittingly, where persons of authority urge or suggest a particular course of action (p34). We have to note that while a teacher is asking or persuading his/her students to participate in a research, the consent of the student can be involuntary as they are in the weak side of power. As a critical ethnographer, in her critiques of teachers, Sleeter (1998) plays the role of adversary to the powerful in order to advocate for children. In this sense, we probably have to reconsider the question that who is the most proper proxy for making additional consents for the children subjects. As Trochim (2006) noted, in order to meet the principle of voluntary participation without any coercion, we need to pay more attention on where researchers had previously relied on captive audiences for their subjects such as prisons, universities. Bouma (1996) suggests that the research should be abandoned when a free consent can not be obtained. As a result, when reviewing a research proposal, we should not only examine the relationships between investigator and subjects but also look into the power relations between the subjects and the people who are doing the recruitment. Conclusions In the research of applied linguistics, like other social inquires, the major ethical considerations center around the principle of conformed consent, assurance of harmlessness, confidentiality, and voluntary participation. Nowadays ethical issues are of great concern and clear ethical standards and principles have been developed by various organizations and institutions, nevertheless, no set of standard can anticipate every ethical circumstance. The researcher might take these considerations in the context of his/her own research. Thus, there might be no specific solution but a fairly general answer to the questions raised around ethics, that is, to try to clarify ones intentions before getting started and to predict the potential ethical issues by gaining a relatively full understanding of the subjects. Anyway, from my point of view, the ethical consideration should always be set to the fore of any other respects of the research.