You are on page 1of 60

Ethics Case Review

Panel
Learning Task 4
EDPS 604
Charlene Assenheimer,
Lindsay Birchall, Andrea Caouette, Karen Chiu

Hearing Tribunal
Exercise

You are a member of a university-based Ethics Review Board that has


received a complaint from a group of high school students about the
ethics of research conducted by a psychology professor. In the
research, the psychologist had sat in a booth in a restaurant frequented
by high school students after school, and recorded how frequently the
students praised or criticized their parents or teachers in their
conversations. The researcher also recorded the specific statements
used by students when they were praising or criticizing. No names or
identifying information were recorded. The students had learned about
the research when the local newspaper summarized the results from a
recently published article on the research. When presented with the
complaint, the psychologist responded by saying that the research was
a field study that involved public behaviour, that no-one was
identified in the publication, and that there was no attempt to
influence or change the behaviour of students. When presented with
the researchers explanation, the students said they saw their
conversations in the restaurant as private, not public, and that they
thought the research was a gross violation of their privacy.

Canadian
Code of
Ethics for
Psychologists
(2000)

I.8 Respect the right of research participants, clients,


employees, supervisees, students, trainees, and
others to safeguard their own dignity.
I.5 Avoid or refuse to participate in practices
disrespectful of the legal, civil, or moral rights of
others.

What did the psychologist in


question violate within the
Canadian Code of Ethics for
Psychologists (2000)?

Principle 1: Respect for the


Dignity of Persons

General Respect
"I.12 Work and act in a spirit of fair treatment to others."

*This psychologist did not obtain consent


or consider the effects of his research
on the participants.*

Consent
"I.20 Obtain informed consent for all research activities that involve obtrusive
measures, invasion of privacy, more than minimal risk of harm, or any
attempt to change the behaviour of research participants.
I.23 Provide, in obtaining informed consent, as much information as
reasonable or prudent persons would want to know before making a
decision or consenting to the activity.
I.24 Ensure the following are understood: purpose and nature of the activity;
mutual responsibilities; confidentiality protections and limitations; likely
benefits and risks; alternatives; the likely consequences of non-action; the
option to refuse or withdraw at any time, without prejudice; over what
period of time the consent applies; and, how to rescind consent if desired."

*Consent was never obtained for the


invasion of privacy, the results were
published and reported by the media.*

Freedom of Consent
"I.30 Respect the right of persons to discontinue participation
at any time."

*Student freedoms were violated when


they did not have a choice as to
whether or not to participate.*

Privacy
"I.40 Respect the right of research participants, employees, supervisees,
students, and trainees to reasonable personal privacy."

*Privacy was breached when comments


were recorded without knowledge by
the participants and used in research
results.*

Confidentiality
"I.45 Share confidential information with others only with the informed consent of
those involved, or in a manner that the persons involved cannot be identified,
except as required or justified by law, or in circumstances of actual or possible
serious physical harm or death.
I.43 Be careful not to relay information about research participants as psychologists,
that the psychologist has reason to believe is considered confidential by those
persons, except as required or justified by law.
I.44 Clarify what measures will be taken to protect confidentiality, and what
responsibilities family, group, and community members have for the protection
of each others confidentiality, when engaged in or research."

*Confidentiality was breached when the Newspaper


published results from the study where the
participants could identify their comments enough
to know the research was about them. Not using
names was insufficient protection for the
participants involved*

Principle ll: Responsible


Caring
General Caring
"II.1 Protect and promote the welfare of clients, research participants,
employees, supervisees, students, trainees, colleagues, and others.
II.2 Avoid doing harm to clients, research participants, employees, supervisees,
students, trainees, colleagues, and others."

*Teachers could go to the restaurant and


form unfair judgements about the
students there causing emotional
harm*

Responsible Caring
"II.3 Accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
II.4 Refuse to advise, train, or supply information to anyone who, in the
psychologists judgment, will use the knowledge or skills to harm others."

*It was the psychologists responsibility


to ensure that information is not
leaked to the media*

Risk and Benefit


Analysis
"II.13 Assess the individuals, families, groups, and communities involved
in their activities adequately enough to ensure that they will be able
to discern what will benefit and not harm the persons involved.
II.16 Seek an independent and adequate ethical review of the balance of
risks and potential benefits of all research and new interventions
that involve procedures of unknown consequence, or where pain,
discomfort, or harm are possible, before making a decision to
proceed.
II.17 Not carry out any scientific or professional activity unless the
probable benefit is proportionately greater than the risk involved."

*There is no evidence of a risk assessment being done


to evaluate the potential harm in preparation for
this research.*

Maximize Benefit
"II.23 Debrief research participants in such a way that the participants
knowledge is enhanced and the participants have a sense of
contribution to knowledge."

*There is no evidence of the necessary


debrief so participants can feel they
contributed positively to the gain of
new knowledge.*

Minimize Harm
"II.30 Be acutely aware of the need for discretion in the recording and
communication of information, in order that the information not be
misinterpreted or misused to the detriment of others. This includes, but is not
limited to: not recording information that could lead to misinterpretation and
misuse; avoiding conjecture; clearly labelling opinion; and, communicating
information in language that can be understood clearly by the recipient of the
information.
II.35 Screen appropriate research participants and select those least likely to be
harmed, if more than minimal risk of harm to some research participants is
possible.
II.36 Act to minimize the impact of their research activities on research
participants personalities, or on their physical or mental integrity."

* Discretion was not used in the communication of the


research and it could lead to misinterpretation.
Participants were not screened or research activities
analyzed to minimize harm.*

Correct Harm
"II.44 Debrief research participants in such a way that any harm caused
can be discerned, and act to correct any resultant harm."

*No debrief was made to ensure no harm


was done to the participants.*

Principle lll: Integrity in


Relationships
Openness
"III.19 Carry out, present, and discuss research in a way that is consistent with a
commitment to honest, open inquiry, and to clear communication of any research
aims, sponsorship, social context, personal values, or financial interests that
might affect or appear to affect the research.
III.20 Submit their research, in some accurate form and within the limits of
confidentiality, to persons with expertise in the research area, for their comments
and evaluations, prior to publication or the preparation of any final report."

*There was no evidence of honest or open inquiry and


no evidence of an evaluation before a final report. If
there was an evaluation then the evaluator would be
in breach of ethics as well.*

Avoidance of Incomplete Disclosure


lll.25 Use the minimum necessary incomplete disclosure or temporary
leading of research participants to believe that a research project or
some aspect of it has a different purpose, when such research
procedures are used.

**Although the use of deceptive research is ethical


in some circumstances, the Psychologist did not
provide the minimum disclosure necessary in
this case.
"III.26 Debrief research participants as soon as possible after the participants
involvement, if there has been incomplete disclosure or temporary leading
of research participants to believe that a research project or some aspect of
it has a different purpose.

*There was obviously no debrief because the article


was a surprise to the participants.*

Avoidance of Incomplete
Disclosure cont'd

III.28 Act to re-establish with research participants any trust that might have been lost
due to the use of incomplete disclosure or temporarily leading research
participants to believe that the research project or some aspect of it had a different
purpose.
III.29 Give a research participant the option of removing his or her data, if the
research participant expresses concern during the debriefing about the incomplete
disclosure or the temporary leading of the research participant to believe that the
research project or some aspect of it had a different purpose, and if removal of the
data will not compromise the validity of the research design and hence diminish
the ethical value of the participation of the other research participants.

*At the very least the researcher could have


disclosed the information gathered after
the fact and given participants the choice
to consent after data was collected.*

Avoidance of Incomplete
Disclosure Cont'd
"III.30 Seek an independent and adequate ethical review of the risks to public
or individual trust and of safeguards to protect such trust for any research
that plans to provide incomplete disclosure or temporarily lead research
participants to believe that the research project or some aspect of it has a

."
*There was definitely a violation to
public and individual trust, and any
safeguards were not adequate in
protecting the research participants.*
different purpose, before making a decision to proceed

Principle lV: Responsibility


to Society
"Beneficial Activities
IV.10 Uphold the disciplines responsibility to society by promoting and
maintaining the highest standards of the discipline.
IV.11 Protect the skills, knowledge, and interpretations of psychology
from being misused, used incompetently, or made useless (e.g., loss
of security of assessment techniques) by others."

* The negative consequences of this


psychologists actions are a bad
reflection on the discipline of
psychology and research in general. His
unethical actions don't just affect him*

Additional Support
It is true that there are remarkably few cases of
research misconduct. But everyone knows how
damaging even one case can be in terms of public
trust in the research community and of the
impact on the morale of scientists working with or
close to the individual who is guilty of
misconduct.(Medical Research Council, 1998)

Standards of
Practice (2013)College of
Alberta
Psychologists
(CAP) Review
The Health Professionals Act (HAP) requires the College of Alberta Psychologists
Council to adopt standards of practice for the profession. The standards of practice
of the College of Alberta Psychologists are the minimum standards for ethical
behaviour and conduct expected of all regulated members. The standards of practice
address the process of the professional relationship and set the boundaries with
which this relationship should occur. The standards do not speak to, determine, or
dictate professional judgement. A breach of the Standards of Practice may constitute
unprofessional conduct enforceable under the HPA. The College of Alberta
Psychologists offers professional guidance to support members in the application of
the standards of practice.

What did the psychologist in


question violate within the
CAP Standards of Practice
(2013)?

Informed Consent for


Services
#3.1 A psychologist shall obtain informed consent from the client and/or guardian
before providing a professional service, including research, and before seeking
formal consultation regarding a client

**This psychologist did not seek consent from the


client for his research
#3.3 A psychologist should obtain written signed consent from a client and/or
guardian when requesting the clients participation in research

**This psychologist did not seek consent from the


guardian (minors in this case) and/or did not
request the clients participation in his research

Informed Consent for the


Release of Information
#4.1 All Psychologists shall obtain informed, written, signed
and dated consent for the client for the release of confidential
information. The consent shall stipulate the information being released, the recipient,
and the period of time covered by the consent, as outlined in section 12.3.

** Although the psychologist stated that he did not


release any personal identifying information
about the participants. He did not have consent
for them to participate in the research. None of
the information he obtained can be used in his
research or published.

Competence
Limits on Practice
5.1 A psychologist shall not provide a professional
service or supervision unless the psychologist is
competent through education, training or
experience to provide that professional service.
Maintaining Competence
#5.2 A psychologist shall maintain competence to ensure that the professional
services provided conform to current professional standards.
Adding New Services and Techniques
5.3 A psychologist, when developing competency in a professional service that is new
to the psychologist, shall engage in ongoing consultation with a psychologist or
other professional who has expertise in that area and shall seek appropriate
education, training, and supervision in the new area.

**The psychologist demonstrated incompetence


within the knowledge of informed consent with
regards to research participants.

Disguising Personal
Information
Disguising Personal Information
12.18 When a professional report or other personal information is used as the
basis of teaching, research or publication, a psychologist shall prevent
disclosure of individually identifying information.

**The students were able


to identify their comments
published in the research.
The psychologist did disguise
personal information, but
failed to disguise their comments.

General
Adhering to Restrictions Imposed by the College of Alberta
Psychologists
17.4 A psychologist shall adhere to restrictions regarding their practice imposed
by the College and report violations of these restrictions to the College.

**The Psychologist did not adhere


to the restrictions imposed by CAP
Adhering to Legislation
17.5 A psychologist shall abide by the Standards of Practice, Canadian Code of
Ethics for Psychologists and applicable legislation (HPA)

**The Psychologist did not


adhere to the Legislation

Canadian
Counseling
Psychological
Association Code
of Ethics (2007)
The CCPA Process of Ethical Decision-Making
#1 Principle-Based Ethical Decision-Making- Step Four

How can the relevant ethical articles be applied in this


circumstance and any conflict between principles be
resolved and what are the potential risks and benefits of
this and resolution?

Observational Research
Covert/Deceptive Research
In general, covert research is discouraged in guidelines, although it is recognised that
covert designs are necessary in exceptional cases. One example might be an
observational study in a public setting (and this could include online
environments, such as internet chatrooms), where it would not be feasible to
reveal the nature of your research to everyone in the setting. Another example
might be a study involving deception of participants, where you dont reveal the
true purpose of the study (or reveal it only after the study is completed) (The
Research Ethics Guidebook, July 21, 2013)
Do you have very good reasons not to seek consent?
Would it significantly affect important study findings if participants knew they were
being observed? There is always a risk that people behave differently if they
know they are being observed, but you have to consider whether that risk is
sufficiently important to outweigh the principle that participants have a right to
freely given informed consent (The Research Ethics Guidebook, July 21, 2013)

Deceptive/Covert Research Requirements


(Consent/Confidentiality)
Our Psychologist was required to do the following according to
the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists:
-111.30The proposed plan has been reviewed and approved by an ethics
committee before conducted (CCEP, 2000)
-lll.26 Debrief participants after research was conducted (CCEP, 2000)
-lll.27 When obtaining consent, include an explanation for the deception and
the purpose of the research (CCEP, 2000)
-111.28 Act to re-establish trust with the research participants that may have
been lost during their participation in research
-Obtain consent from each participant
before the research was published
-111.29 Provide the participants with a
means to opt out of the research
(CCEP, 2000)

CCEP (1995)
AVOIDANCE OF DECEPTION
III.23 Not engage in deception in any service activity.
III.24 Not engage in deception in research or the use
of techniques which might be interpreted as deception,
in research or service activities, if there are alternative procedures available
and/or if the negative effects cannot be predicted or offset.
III.25 Not engage in deception in research or the use of techniques which
might be interpreted as deception in research or service activities, if it would
interfere with the individual's understanding of facts which clearly might
influence a decision to give informed consent.
III.26 Use the minimum necessary deception in research or techniques which
might be interpreted as deception in research, or service activities.

APA - American Psychological Association


Deception in Research
8.05 Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research
may dispense with informed consent only

Psychologists

(1) where research would not reasonably be assumed


to create distress or harm and involves
(a) the study of normal educational practices,
curricula, or classroom management methods
conducted in educational settings
(b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic
observations or archival research for which
disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil
liability or damage their financial standing, employability or reputation, and
confidentiality is protected
(c) the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted
in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants' employability,
and confidentiality is protected

APA - American Psychological Association


Deception in Research
8.07 Deception in Research
(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving
deception unless they have determined that the use
of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's
significant prospective scientific, educational or
applied value and that effective nondeceptive
alternative procedures are not feasible.
(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is
reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.
(c) Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and
conduct of an experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the
conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data
collection, and permit participants to withdraw their data. (See also Standard
8.08, Debriefing.)

APA American Psychological Association


Debriefing
8.08 Debriefing
(a) Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain
appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the
research, and they take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that
participants may have of which the psychologists are aware.
(b) If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information,
psychologists take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.
(c) When psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a
participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm.

How does HPA legislation


support the hearing process?

Health
Professions Act
(HPA)
Legislation
Review
HPA Part 4 Professional Conduct
54(1) A person who makes a complaint to a complaints
director regarding a regulated member or a former
member must do so in writing and must sign the written
complaint.

Acting on a complaint
55(1) Within 30 days after being given a
complaint or treating information as a
complaint, the complaints director must give
notice to the complainant of the action taken
with respect to it.

Acting on a complaint
55(2) The complaints director
(a) may encourage the complainant and the
investigated person to communicate with
each other and resolve the complaint
(a.1) may, with the consent of the
complainant and the investigated person,
attempt to resolve the complaint

Hearings and Decisions


72(1) The investigated person must appear,
may be compelled to testify and may be
represented by counsel at a hearing before
the
hearing tribunal.

Hearings and Decisions


77 The hearings director must
(a) at least 30 days before the hearing, give
the investigated person a notice to attend
and give reasonable particulars of the
subject-matter of the hearing
(b) prior to the hearing, advise the
complainant of the date, time and location of
the hearing

Decisions and Records


80(1) The hearing tribunal may decide that the
conduct of an investigated person does or
does not constitute unprofessional conduct.

Decisions and Records


80(2) If the hearing tribunal is of the opinion
that there are reasonable and probable
grounds to believe that the investigated
person has committed a criminal offence, the
hearing tribunal must direct the hearings
director to send a copy of the written decision
under section 83 to the Minister of Justice
and Solicitor General and on the request of
the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
also send a copy of the record of the hearing.

Orders of tribunal
82(1) If the hearing tribunal decides that the
conduct of an investigated person constitutes
unprofessional conduct, the hearing tribunal
may make one or more of the following
orders:
(a) caution the investigated person;
(b) reprimand the investigated person;

Orders of tribunal
82(1)
(f) direct that within the time set by the
order the investigated person must pass a
specific course of study, obtain supervised
practical experience of a type described in the
order or satisfy the hearing tribunal,
committee or individual specified in the order
as to the investigated persons competence
generally or in an area of the practice of the
regulated profession;

Orders of tribunal
82(1)
(k) direct that the investigated person pay
to the college within the time set in the order
a fine not exceeding the amount set out in the
column of the unprofessional conduct fines
table that is specified for the college in a
schedule to this Act for each finding of
unprofessional conduct or the aggregate
amount set out in that column for all of the
findings arising out of the hearing;

Written decision
83 The hearing tribunal must, within a
reasonable time after the conclusion of a
hearing before it, make a written decision on
the matter in which it
(a) describes each finding made by it,
(b) states the reasons for each finding made by
it, and
(c) states any order made under this Part.

Record of Hearing
84(1) The hearing tribunal must forward to the
hearings director
(a) the written decision under section 83, and
(b) the record of the hearing, consisting of all
evidence presented before it, including
(i) the reports, exhibits and documents
presented, and
(ii) a record of the evidence, including all
testimony, however recorded.

Record of Hearing
(2) The hearings director must,
(1), give a copy of the decision to
(a) the complaints director and the registrar,
(b) the complainant,
(c) the investigated person, and
(d) the Minister of Justice and Solicitor
General

Court Appeal
90(1) An investigated person may appeal to the
Court of Appeal any finding, order or direction of
the council under section 89.
(2) An appeal under this section
may be commenced
(a) by filing a notice of appeal with the Court at Edmonton or
Calgary, and
(b) by giving a copy of the notice of appeal to the complaints
director and the complainant within 30 days from the date on
which the decision of the council is given to the investigated
person.

Annual Report
4(1) A college must submit to the Minister an annual report of its activities in a
form acceptable to the Minister that contains the information requested by
the Minister.

*Since the students filed a formal complaint


to the college, the Ethics Review Board must
include a description of the complaint to the
Minister in its annual report.

Annual Report

(cont.)

4(1) A college must submit to the Minister an annual report of its activities in a form
acceptable to the Minister that contains the information requested by the
Minister, including but not restricted to
(c) a description of and information about the colleges
continuing competence program;
(c.1) a description of and information about inspections under
Part 3.1--The College's Role.

*In its annual report to the Minister, the college


must outline the high school students' complaint
and actions taken on managing disciplinary
action for the professor's behaviour

College's Role
3(1) A college
(a) must carry out its activities and govern its regulated
members in a manner that protects and serves the public interest

* Though the professor did not seek approval


from the Ethical Review Board before conducting
his research project, the college is responsible in
taking appropriate action in disciplinary
behaviour.

College's Role

(cont.)

3(1) A college
(c) must establish, maintain and enforce standards for
registration and of continuing competence and standards
of practice of the regulated profession

*The professor violated the standard of practice


that states the researcher is responsible for
obtaining approval from the
ERB before conducting
research.

College's Role

(cont.)

3(1) A college
(d) must establish, maintain and enforce a code of ethics

*It is the college's duty to regulate it's


members by ensuring they respect a code of
ethics; particularly, when carrying out a research
study. Multiple ethical codes were violated by
the professor. Therefore, the college is obligated
to take action.

Rehabilitative Course of Action


for the Counsellor Involved

Researcher must pay back any funding received for research conducted in an
unethical manner.

Do not allow this research to be used for any further publications.

Impose condition of education to include a review of informed consent


procedure and documentation as cited in the CCEP 1.20-1.25 to a qualified
superior to ensure it is understood and followed before any research can
continue.

Formally apologise to research participants -possibly publicly, through the


newspaper that published the story

Provide the participants with a formal debrief session - have students and
parents attend - ensure reinstatement of "trust" occurs

May provide the newspaper with information on informed consent, so they they
have a better understanding of that concept in the future

Uncover the leak in confidentiality and show how confidentiality will be


protected in the future

References
American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
Canadian Psychological Association. (2000). Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (3rd ed.). Ottawa,
ON: Author.
Canadian Psychological Association. (1995). Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (2nd ed.). Ottawa,
ON: Author.
College of Alberta Psychologists. (2013). Standards of Practice. Edmonton, AB: Author.
Koocher, G.P. (1977). Bathroom Behavior and Human Dignity (1977). Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35 (2), 120-121. Podcast about this article available at:
http://www.thepsychfiles.com/category/topics/ethical-issues/
Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (1998).
Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa: Public Works
and Government Services Canada. See Introduction: Context of an ethics framework.

References (cont'd)
Middlemist, R. D., Knowles, E. S. & Matter, C.F. (1976). Personal Space Invasions in the Lavatory:
Suggestive Evidence for Arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33 (5), 541-546.
Middlemist, et al.: Middlemist, R., Knowles, E.S., & Matter, C.F. (1977). What to Do and What to
Report: A Reply to Koocher. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (2), 122-124.

Rose Wiles, Sue Heath, Graham Crow & Vikki Charles Informed Consent in Social Research: A
Literature Review ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper, NCRM/001
(2005)
Spicker, Paul (2007) Research without consent. Social Reserach Update University of Surrey Issue 51
Winter 2007 1-4. available at: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU51.pdf
The Research Ethics Guidebook-A resource for social scientists (July 21st, 2013)
Retrieved From: http://www.ethicsguidebook.ac.uk/Observation-103

You might also like