PARTNERS IN INQUIRY: ETHICAL CHANGES IN TEAM RESEARCH.
Introduction
In this paper I explore some of the ethical challenges encountered during the course of team research. In ethics discourse, we often speak of ethical concerns toward our clients, sponsors, or "informants." But rarely does one read in the scholarly literature of concerns or issues involved in team research -- such as each team member's responsibilities toward one another, both during the course of the research and during the preparation and dissemination of results. One might hope that ethical behavior among team members would be a `given.' Unfortunately, both anecdotal evidence and my own personal experience indicate otherwise. Indeed, has found that "... such problems occur quite often and seem to be regarded, even by those whose interests have been hurt, as an unnecessary but nonredressable evil of team research."(1)
Research teams, of course, must grapple with much the same concerns with which individual researchers must deal -- namely, issues of confidentiality, informed consent, protection of human subjects, and obligations to all stakeholders.(2) However, team research, simply by virtue of its structural characteristics, presents additional ethical challenges not generally encountered by the individual researcher.(3) And of course, team research "... involves all the dynamics of groups -- developing roles, leadership, norms, cohesiveness, and balance between task and social dimensions."(4)
There are many research situations that might fall under the rubric of `team research.' A research team may be composed entirely of anthropologists or it may include some members from a variety of academic disciplines. A team may comprise faculty and student researchers. A research team from one institution might collaborate with individuals or teams from other institutions, such as a university / college collaboration. It could be that academic researchers might conduct research with members of a community organization, or with practitioners, such as social workers. In the field of education, academic researchers might team with teachers in the classroom for the purpose of analyzing and improving classroom pedagogy. Finally, researchers from a variety of cultural backgrounds might form a partnership.
"Collaboration" is often used to describe a wide variety of research situations. A team composed of a demographer, a statistician, and an anthropologist may be said to be "collaborative." However, it may well be that these individuals are, by and large, able to conduct their research independently, and given their different roles and levels of expertise, may not interact very closely. Yet another way in which the term "collaborative" is used is in the `new model' described by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban and others in which the "subject" (or subjects) is participant in a far more active way than in what she refers to as traditional, colonial-style research.(5) There are many levels of involvement, however, and the distinction is important. As Margaret A. Gibson notes, collaboration with host communities, for example, can occur in the joint development of change strategies, in the joint administration of research funds, or in the form of partnership in the research itself.(6) For my purposes, collaboration will be used interchangeably with team research. I will limit my use of these phrases to those research situations in which team members are, at least ostensibly, considered equal partners in the research endeavor.
For the purposes of this paper, I begin with definition of team research as "... a collaborative endeavor [which] involves a group of researchers who come together, and pool their ideas, skills, energy, and time to pursue a mutual professional interest-joint research on a topic of common concern."(7) I modify this definition to include as well, those research situations in which academicians and community practitioners collaborate toward a `common' goal, such as improved services. In this model team members are, at least ostensibly, equal partners in the project, influencing each step of the research process.
In the spirit of reflexive anthropology, I should state openly that my initial interest in this topic was borne of a painful and challenging personal experience some time ago as a member of a research team. Briefly, I was part of a multi-disciplinary team composed of five members conducting research in an elementary school. We had all agreed on the final products of our research: an oral presentation to our peers, a written paper for the professor, a (different) written report for the principal, and (if desired) a brief presentation to the faculty of the school.
Un be known to us, (a pseudonym for our team liaison) took it upon herself to give a copy of the report we had written for the professor to the principal. This is extremely problematic. Though we all used pseudonyms in the version given the professor, the school in question is extremely small and the principal, having been the gatekeeper, could easily determine who was spoken to and could, no doubt, attribute considerable portions of the data to specific faculty in his school.
Of course we had promised our informants privacy in their responses and protection of confidentiality. But now, not only had confidences among team members been broken, but we (without our knowledge or consent) had violated our informants' confidentiality. And worse, some of the teachers were quite open and honest with how they felt about the inner workings of the school (including the principal). In the worst case scenario, some of our informants could potentially lose their jobs. I trust none lost their jobs, though I may never know.
Needless to say, some of the team members were extremely angry and upset. "We" had violated our informants' trust and broken the cardinal ethical code of social science research. To bring the story to a close, we had a final meeting in which we all expressed our anger and concern. Jenna "seemed" to understand (problematic in itself) and apologized. But apologies do not erase what occurred and do not take away the guilt that has been dumped upon the rest of us. Nothing, it seemed, could have prepared me for the violation of trust and ethics thrust upon the team because of one individual's serious misstep.
Background and Challenges
It is interesting (and, I believe, quite telling) to note the considerable difficulty I had finding anthropological resources to complete this paper. A search of electronic databases using keywords such as "ethics" and "team research" yielded virtually no valuable hits. An applied anthropologist who has for several years held a conference on ethics in anthropology was also unable to offer concrete citations in which ethical issues in team research have been dealt with in the scholarly literature, though he agreed that it was clearly an important area.(8)
After speaking with several colleagues and perusing the literature in a wide variety of disciplines, I have come to two conclusions. First, anthropologists are clearly discussing these issues in their writings and (in private?) among themselves. However, possibly because the primary topic of the article or chapter is generally not "ethics" per se, but educational research, cross-cultural research or a specific topic within, for example, medical anthropology, these pieces are not indexed under ethics and hence would not show up in electronic searches using `ethics' as a keyword.
Secondly, despite the need, there is still a dearth of original research specifically on the topic of team research. I believe this can be attributed to our general hesitancy in the social sciences to openly and publicly discuss interpersonal `problems' and moral values. It is not that ethical challenges do not arise in team research. Participation on a research team or a quick informal survey of one's peers clearly indicates that indeed, most research teams encounter such challenges and somehow "muddle" through or not, as the case may be. Indeed, the membership of some teams will be reconstituted as a result of such problems during the course of the research project. However, as a group, we seem reluctant to turn the anthropological lens upon ourselves or to speak publicly about these types of challenges. Among sociologists, William Shaffir has referred to this as "studied inattention."(9)
That my search was somewhat difficult is not necessarily a bad thing. In addition to forcing me to speak with colleagues about the "nitty gritty" of their experiences, I broadened my research horizons and was able to include sources from a variety of other disciplines also grappling with ethical issues in team research, particularly communication science, psychology, organization behavior, public health, and qualitative sociology.
Issues and "Resolutions"
In this section I discuss some of the issues encountered by members of various team partnerships. I begin with a general discussion of the kinds of ethical dilemmas teams face during the course of their research. This will be followed by a discussion of a case study, one of the very few I was able to locate in the scholarly literature. The section will conclude with an exploration of different types of team research and ethical challenges which seem particularly salient to these cases. When possible, I will indicate "resolutions" team members have found to deal with the ethical challenges they faced.
Speaking of research with exploited or oppressed groups Phillipe Bourgois stated, "It would be dangerous and arrogant to think that there are definite answers to any of these ethical/moral questions. We need to discuss them and think about them in both practical and theoretical terms."(10) In a similar spirit, then, I assert that far from devising prescriptions applicable for all situations, it is in the process of discussing our experiences and concerns that we gain the most benefit from ethical discourse.
The research team might usefully be thought of as having a lifespan that includes inception, fieldwork, analysis, write up, dissemination, and afterlife (both for the researchers and for the participants). Factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, class, training, experience, inclination, and circumstance all play a role in the field. Following the initial involvement in which members are brought together by a common professional interest, members begin setting goals.
The group will need to negotiate a "leader" (the proverbial `buck' has to stop somewhere) and the exact focus of the research, if these have not already been established, all of which will be to some extent a product of the capabilities and interests of the individual members. Additional issues to be discussed include budget, timelines, and individual responsibilities. These discussions are vital. Invariably there will be differences of opinion. However, as Ken Erickson and Donald Stull point out, "The discussions need to happen, the disagreements must be aired, and the tensions created by disciplinary, theoretical, or professional difference must be diffused, if not eliminated."(11)
Particularly at this stage, team building is essential: "Team dynamics are an integral, if not always explicit, part of the research process, and they will govern research outcomes to a great degree."(12) The organizational structure also makes an impact on the dynamics of the team, be it formal and hierarchical or diffuse and egalitarian, The relative status of team members can be a source of conflict as can the role of leadership. Moreover, conflicting demands of family, work, and the field can present seemingly insurmountable problems for team members. For example, Shaffir and his colleagues were conducting an evaluation of a new model in the education of medical students. Unfortunately, "Time became an important issue between members on matters of commitment and contribution" and the initial team was disbanded.(13) Communication, as with most human enterprises, is key. Shaffir and his colleagues have noted that "in retrospect, most of our difficulties would have been ameliorated or solved with regular and open communication."(14)
As is the case with much qualitative, social science research, informed consent can be problematic. The research team may not have full knowledge of the types of events that will unfold during the study, and hence must acknowledge that research can be unpredictable. Thus, issues of informed consent are best negotiated at various points in the research cycle. This should be clear to all participants at the outset of the research endeavor.
An additional `gray' area concerns the issue of confidentiality. True confidentiality may be difficult to maintain, particularly as regards the publication of results. claim, for example, that "... community anonymity is not inherently more ethical than identification...."(15) Their point is a valid one and team members should carefully consider whether disguising both the individual and the community is of greater value. It is also strongly recommended that team members discuss the possible implications of a variety of outcomes of the research and when writing up results, provide the opportunity to members to respond to drafts.
A general issue involved in team research is what refer to as social loafing.(16) Those of us who have worked in teams are probably familiar with persons who, for whatever reason, either fail to carry their own weight or do not follow through on their responsibilities. make the distinction between "musketeers" and "stooges." Musketeers are team members you will happily collaborate with again on a future project. Stooges, on the other hand, cannot be depended on. As the authors note, this is a case of "forewarned is forearmed."(17)
In an example of a partnership between communities and primary health care professionals, one team member has commented on the "clash of professional and community standards, objectives, and perspectives, which [resulted] in fragmented service" for the community.(18) Indeed, differences in values, experience, and communication style can be problematic and individuals must be willing to make intellectual shifts and to deal directly with conflicts.
Case Study: The Punjabi Education Project
An illustrative example of ethical challenges in team research comes from collaborative educational ethnography undertaken to improve educational opportunities for Sikh children.(19) Initiated by the school district, the "Punjabi Education Project" was a collaborative effort that included the South Asian immigrant community, the local educational agency, a community-based organization, and an educational anthropologist.
Punjabi children in Valleyside, California made up 13% of the student population in the district. A disparity in academic achievement between Punjabi students and "Valleysiders" (the white population) based on junior high competency tests coupled with mounting tensions between Valleysiders and Punjabis, both in school and in the community, caused increasing concern among local educators and community leaders. It was thought that a collaborative project involving all parties would yield data from which educators could make decisions to improve educational outcomes for Punjabi students. As well, community members both in the school and out believed that such an undertaking would serve to help bring disparate groups together and improve community relations.
The Research Team, then, comprised two Punjabi Sikhs (one junior, one senior), local Punjabi educators, Punjabi community leaders, the Sikh Temple of Valleyside, a Sikh co-investigator, and two research assistants, one young Sikh woman, and one recent graduate of an East Coast college ( doesn't note the latter's ethnic background). Thus the team was mixed in age, sex, ethnic identity, and educational background. Though all participated in the research, as notes, not all collaborators shared equal power or control.
Gibson is quick to point out that neither the quantity nor the quality of data gathered would have been possible had the project been conducted by a single researcher. However, she is strikingly honest about some of the problems the team encountered. For example, she notes that the team spent endless hours bogged down in trying to agree on theory and method. Their commitment to consensus was found to be extremely time consuming. Another difficulty was that the field note-taking of some team members was found wanting. Thus Gibson found that she had to take the time to interview the team members. They also decided to record interviews which allowed for later, multiple analysis.
Perhaps the most serious problem encountered was that the principal investigator () and the Punjabi co-principal investigator could not agree on the analysis and presentation of the results. The district would not endorse the co-investigator's report and this only served to reinforce notions of discrimination against the Punjabi minority. In addition, there were problems with the administration of the grant. Believing that it would heighten the support of the community, the grant was `housed' at the Punjabi community organization that was located in a nearby city.
As it turns out, however, the co-principal investigator was a founding member and the current president: of this community organization. This relationship proved to create a major difficulty. The co-principal investigator was, of course, drawing a salary due to his role on the research team; there was no financial support in the budget for the other association directors of the organization. This created considerable tension and jealousy among board members who felt there should be some financial remuneration for themselves, or at least for the organization. The board of directors split in two and one group even resorted to litigation. At the time of the article's publication, the issue had not yet been resolved. Unbeknownst to Gibson, the co-investigator had been a somewhat controversial figure in his home community. Thus, the project became caught in Punjabi community politics.
Research Partnerships: Variations on a Theme
The Practice Research team, in which academic researchers team up with practitioners offering a service (such as social workers), has additional ethical issues with which it must concern itself. For example, issues of practice (what service is offered, who develops the intervention, who decides when/if the intervention will be altered), design, and measurement must be considered. As well, team development (roles, relationships, responsibilities), determining the intervention, making decisions about the control of practice and research, and sharing the results also must be dealt with. This can be especially challenging in the case of practice research, considering the sometimes disparate goals of academics and practitioners. For example, the academic social work researcher may be most concerned with having a publishable final product. On the other hand, the practitioner may be little concerned with such a focus. For his / her part, the practitioner is primarily concerned with more effective service delivery to clients. It takes an open, honest, and flexible team to adequately resolve such seemingly disparate goals.
Multidisciplinary research is perhaps the most common type of partnership in the social sciences in our decade. "The effective coordination of multidisciplinary or team research requires both an understanding of and respect for the methods of the contributing disciplines."(20) This, of course, may be much more easily said than done. However, as noted throughout this paper, open communication and flexibility seem to be key in such an undertaking.
A special kind of partnering, cross-cultural research holds a great deal of promise, both in terms of gaining cross-cultural data and in developing cross-cultural theories.(21) Though she is speaking specifically of the case of immigrant health care and clinical research, I believe comments are applicable to the case of cross-cultural research. She and her colleagues assert that whenever teams are composed of more than one "culture," one must be especially cognizant of translation issues, culturally relevant value conflicts, and the cultural background of team members.(22)
In addition, and perhaps more so in the case of cross-cultural research, team members must grapple with the notion of ethical imperialism.(23) Are ethics absolute and universally applicable across cultures or are ethical standards relative? If the latter, are we guilty of ethical imperialism if we "force" our notions of ethical behavior on persons from other cultures who may delineate ethical behavior differently? Such questions harken back to concepts of personhood, autonomy, and self-determination and are best considered and discussed among team members prior to the beginning of the actual research.
Another type of team research is what Jrefer to as Insider / Outsider Research.(24) This type of research seems particularly useful in schools, community groups, and work organizations, in short, when change is sought or action-oriented research projects are conducted. Insider / Outsider research involves team partnerships in which the "insider" is co-researcher with the "outsider." In the case of teacher-researcher partnerships, for example, teachers join with one another and an "outside" researcher to systematically study their own practice.
Although we in anthropology have a tradition of focusing on the "insider's view" we haven't necessarily done so to the extent of treating the "insiders" as co-researchers who together frame the questions, gather and interpret the data, and co-create the presentation of the results. Bartunek and Louis provide numerous examples of successful insider/outsider partnerships.(25)
As with most team research, gaining access to the research site and managing the interpersonal differences that arise from the heterogeneity of theorizing can present ethical challenges. And as Bartunek and Louis point out, maintaining the separation between team members necessary to produce a marginal perspective requires continual focus.(26) In addition, differences in values, experience, and communication style can create problems. As noted earlier in this paper, team members must be willing to make intellectual shifts and to deal directly with conflicts. In the case of insider/outsider research, it is particularly important for the "insider" to avoid `going stranger' and concomitantly, the "outsider" to not `go native.' That is, for effective research, the insider must not fall to the temptation to accept uncritically the outsider's perspective. Nor should the outsider become so involved that he / she glosses over controversial issues. Thus, it is essential that all team members maintain their own perspective while having a healthy respect for the unique perspective of others.
Bartunek and Louis point out three additional areas of potential ethical problems.(27) First, the insider may be unfamiliar with the process of academic publishing and special attention may need to be given to this area at the outset. Indeed, while it may be virtually mandatory for the outsider to publish in a peer-reviewed journal (to obtain tenure, for instance), the insider may not at all be interested in having the results published in a "public" forum. Second, "insiders" may expect that their team members will not "air dirty laundry." In a now-famous example, some of informants in his initial research that led to the publication of Street Corner Society,(28) which dealt with the social structure of an Italian neighborhood in Boston, have recently challenged him in court for violating their rights. Third, the insider/outsider research team may find that it will need to disseminate its findings to multiple audiences. These issues are best discussed at the outset of the project.
According to Bartunek and Louis, insider/outsider research is on the rise in the humanities, and social and behavioral sciences, particularly with trends such as participatory action research, feminist approaches, post-modern approaches, and narrative inquiry.(29) As Lenore Manderson and Ruth Wilson have pointed out
... relationships between study communities and researchers are negotiated on a continuing basis. Permission is granted conditionally, revisited, and re-evaluated on a regular basis. Increasingly, we are asked ... to provide evidence of purpose of the value of our work to the subject community; of the mechanisms we will use to consult with and continually inform community members; of our choice of research assistants, instrumentation, and preservation of documents; of our management and analysis of data; and of the mechanisms we might use for analytic and interpretive purposes.(30)
Team research, particularly that which fully involves the community, can go a long way toward meeting these objectives. What do the Professional Codes say?
In the 1983 (revised) version of the "Professional and Ethical Responsibilities" of the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) we notice the focus specifically on social science colleagues.(31) Here, the focus seems to be on not impeding the activities of our colleagues as well as not impeding the flow of information among participants. It is interesting that the statement is "To our social science colleagues." This wording would seem to indicate an awareness that applied anthropologists often find themselves involved in research (and practice) situations with colleagues from a variety of academic disciplines.
In contrast, the 1988 version of the "Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners" of the National Association of Practicing Anthropologists (NAPA) addresses the call to "our colleagues, anthropologists and others."(32) At first glance, this could indicate a wider purview than that of the SfAA. However, the NAPA guidelines continue, "we have a responsibility to conduct our work in a manner that facilitates their activities or does not unjustly compromise their ability to carry out professional work." This seems quite close to the SfAA statement. The NAPA guidelines, however, do not deal with "flow of information" in this context. It is worthy of note though, that they do specifically mention the need to be aware of and respectful of not only the methodologies and theoretical stances of our nonanthropologist colleagues, but as well, the possibility of different ethical requirements implicit in their disciplines.
The American Anthropological Association (AAA) code of 1998 does not explicitly treat team research.(33) The major headings include "Responsibility to people whose lives and cultures anthropologists study," "Responsibility to the public," "Responsibility to the discipline," "Responsibility to students and trainees," "Responsibility to employers, clients, and sponsors," and "Responsibilities to governments." It is clear from these headings that the AAA code was written primarily with non-applied anthropologists in mind. Nonetheless, ethics in team research may be inferred from certain items under the heading "Responsibility to the discipline." Issues such as accurate reporting and attribution are included here as is the recognition of the need for those who participate in cross-disciplinary research to be informed of "... the requirements of the nonanthropological colleagues with whom they work." It is not clear to this author, however, exactly what is meant by "the requirements."
Conclusion: So How Shall We Proceed?
Clearly, the potential benefits to be derived from team research are enormous. Research partnerships can produce rich, comprehensive, trustworthy results. Particular research areas rich for collaboration include education, development, and health. Since team research is emergent, communal, craft-like, highly interactive, and always tentative, there are no real "answers" to ethical questions.(34) As we have seen, ethical codes are not formulaic.(35)
So how do we proceed without clear "answers"? How can we avoid the ethical challenges engendered by team efforts? I believe that we can learn from the experiences of ourselves and others. , for example, recommended that "... with jointly authored reports it is advisable to discuss in advance how disagreements will be resolved regarding analysis, report composition, recommendations, and authorship of future publications."(36)
Respect and humor also go a long way towards preventing undue problems in the field.says of collaborative and participatory research: "... enormous amounts of patience, suppression of ego-involvement, and skills in human relations [are] required for such work."(37) It is also recommended that teams who have not worked together before
News from the Web
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment