ATS3222 Chap.9 Research Ethics in Practice
Research Ethics in Practice
Week 8 begins the unit's discussion of what is possible within practical, ethical and intellectual constraints, focusing on the ethics of research practice from design to process to output. The class questions ask what ethics means in the research process, how it has been formalised over time, and what research is hampered by ethical considerations and how that can be managed.
The slides set out four principles: informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, avoiding harm, and integrity.
In the group activity each table acts as an ethics committee and decides whether to approve, approve with changes, or not approve three scenarios: a study of financial stress that recruits through tutors and offers a generous voucher, a study of an open online political forum that plans to quote posts without consent, and an insider study of a workplace where management encourages participation and later asks for results by department.
This chapter models a committee decision on the first scenario, explains why removing names is not the same as anonymity, works through public versus private online data, and practises judgements on voluntary participation and reporting in the insider case.
Ethics in this unit is practical.
The scenarios ask what you would change, not only what is wrong, and the feasibility report expects the same. Treat every ethical principle as a design question about recruitment, data or reporting, and your answers will be stronger in both the workshop and the assessment.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Ethics from design to output
- 02
Informed consent
- 03
Privacy and confidentiality
- 04
Avoiding harm
- 05
Integrity in collection and reporting
- 06
Recruitment, power and payment
- 07
Public online data
- 08
Insider research and conflicts of interest
Worked example · free
Redesign a risky recruitment plan
- +1Problem: coordinators hold power over grades, so targeted invitations may feel compulsory and also reveal that staff believe a student is struggling.
- +1Principle: voluntary informed consent and privacy are both at risk.
- +1Redesign: advertise through a general student notice and a student association, so anyone can opt in without being singled out.
Key terms
- Confidentiality
- The researcher's commitment to protect participants' identities and personal information from disclosure.
- Anonymity
- A condition in which no one, including through context, can link data back to an individual participant.
- Ethics committee
- A body that reviews a research proposal for risks to participants before data collection begins.
- Coercion
- Pressure, including from power relationships or large payments, that undermines voluntary participation.
- Research integrity
- Transparency and honesty in how data is collected, analysed and reported.
Research Ethics in Practice FAQ
What are the four ethical principles in Week 8?
Informed consent, meaning people choose freely to take part; privacy and confidentiality, meaning their personal information is kept safe; avoiding harm, so nobody is left worse off; and integrity, meaning data is gathered and reported honestly and openly.
Is publicly posted online material free to use in research?
Not automatically. The Week 8 scenario asks you to weigh sensitivity, possible minors and the risk that verbatim quotations can be searched and traced to their authors, even when usernames are removed.
What verdicts can the ethics committee give?
In the group activity each scenario receives one of three recommendations: approve, approve with changes, or do not approve. The reasons matter more than the label, so each verdict should name the issues and the changes it depends on.
Why is insider research ethically complicated?
Being an employee can create pressure on colleagues to take part, makes anonymity hard in small groups, and creates conflicts when management wants findings or results reflect badly on colleagues.
Do student research projects need ethics approval?
Any project involving people raises human research ethics issues, and the A2 instructions ask you to discuss them for your topic. For real data collection, check the University's requirements for formal review before contacting participants.
Is removing names enough to protect participants?
Often not. Detailed quotations, unusual roles or small groups can identify people even without names, and online posts can be traced through search engines. Protection has to be designed into recruitment, storage and especially reporting.
Assessment move
Run your own project through the four principles, writing one risk and one safeguard under each. Then imagine your study as a fourth scenario for the committee and decide your own verdict. The safeguards you list become the core of the ethics section in the feasibility report. Revisit the list after you finalise your design, because changes to recruitment or data often create new risks.
Working through Research Ethics in Practice in ATS3222? Sia is AskSia’s AI Arts and Humanities tutor — ask any ATS3222 Research Ethics in Practice question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how ATS3222 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
