ethical guidelines in social work research

User Registration

Code of Ethics

Code of ethics.

of the National Association of Social Workers Approved by the 1996 NASW Delegate Assembly and revised by the 2008 NASW Delegate Assembly

To View The Code of Ethics as a PDF Click Here.

The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well¬being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession’s focus on individual well¬being in a social context and the well¬being of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living.

Social workers promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of clients. “Clients” is used inclusively to refer to individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers are sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice. These activities may be in the form of direct practice, community organizing, supervision, consultation administration, advocacy, social and political action, policy development and implementation, education, and research and evaluation. Social workers seek to enhance the capacity of people to address their own needs. Social workers also seek to promote the responsiveness of organizations, communities, and other social institutions to individuals’ needs and social problems.

The mission of the social work profession is rooted in a set of core values. These core values, embraced by social workers throughout the profession’s history, are the foundation of social work’s unique purpose and perspective:

social justice
dignity and worth of the person
importance of human relationships
competence.

This constellation of core values reflects what is unique to the social work profession. Core values, and the principles that flow from them, must be balanced within the context and complexity of the human experience.

Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics

Professional ethics are at the core of social work. The profession has an obligation to articulate its basic values, ethical principles, and ethical standards. The NASW Code of Ethics sets forth these values, principles, and standards to guide social workers’ conduct. The Code is relevant to all social workers and social work students, regardless of their professional functions, the settings in which they work, or the populations they serve. The NASW Code of Ethics serves six purposes:

The Code identifies core values on which social work’s mission is based.
The Code summarizes broad ethical principles that reflect the profession’s core values and establishes a set of specific ethical standards that should be used to guide social work practice.
The Code is designed to help social workers identify relevant considerations when professional obligations conflict or ethical uncertainties arise.
The Code provides ethical standards to which the general public can hold the social work profession accountable.
The Code socializes practitioners new to the field to social work’s mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical standards.
The Code articulates standards that the social work profession itself can use to assess whether social workers have engaged in unethical conduct. NASW has formal procedures to adjudicate ethics complaints filed against its members.* In subscribing to this Code, social workers are required to cooperate in its implementation, participate in NASW adjudication proceedings, and abide by any NASW disciplinary rulings or sanctions based on it.

The Code offers a set of values, principles, and standards to guide decision making and conduct when ethical issues arise. It does not provide a set of rules that prescribe how social workers should act in all situations. Specific applications of the Code must take into account the context in which it is being considered and the possibility of conflicts among the Code‘s values, principles, and standards. Ethical responsibilities flow from all human relationships, from the personal and familial to the social and professional.

Further, the NASW Code of Ethics does not specify which values, principles, and standards are most important and ought to outweigh others in instances when they conflict. Reasonable differences of opinion can and do exist among social workers with respect to the ways in which values, ethical principles, and ethical standards should be rank ordered when they conflict. Ethical decision making in a given situation must apply the informed judgment of the individual social worker and should also consider how the issues would be judged in a peer review process where the ethical standards of the profession would be applied.

Ethical decision making is a process. There are many instances in social work where simple answers are not available to resolve complex ethical issues. Social workers should take into consideration all the values, principles, and standards in this Code that are relevant to any situation in which ethical judgment is warranted. Social workers’ decisions and actions should be consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of this Code.

In addition to this Code, there are many other sources of information about ethical thinking that may be useful. Social workers should consider ethical theory and principles generally, social work theory and research, laws, regulations, agency policies, and other relevant codes of ethics, recognizing that among codes of ethics social workers should consider the NASW Code of Ethics as their primary source. Social workers also should be aware of the impact on ethical decision making of their clients’ and their own personal values and cultural and religious beliefs and practices. They should be aware of any conflicts between personal and professional values and deal with them responsibly. For additional guidance social workers should consult the relevant literature on professional ethics and ethical decision making and seek appropriate consultation when faced with ethical dilemmas. This may involve consultation with an agency-based or social work organization’s ethics committee, a regulatory body, knowledgeable colleagues, supervisors, or legal counsel.

Instances may arise when social workers’ ethical obligations conflict with agency policies or relevant laws or regulations. When such con¬flicts occur, social workers must make a responsible effort to resolve the conflict in a manner that is consistent with the values, principles, and standards expressed in this Code. If a reasonable resolution of the conflict does not appear possible, social workers should seek proper consultation before making a decision.

The NASW Code of Ethics is to be used by NASW and by individuals, agencies, organizations, and bodies (such as licensing and regulatory boards, professional liability insurance providers, courts of law, agency boards of directors, government agencies, and other professional groups) that choose to adopt it or use it as a frame of reference. Violation of standards in this Code does not automatically imply legal liability or violation of the law. Such determination can only be made in the context of legal and judicial proceedings. Alleged violations of the Code would be subject to a peer review process. Such processes are generally separate from legal or administrative procedures and insulated from legal review or proceedings to allow the profession to counsel and discipline its own members. A code of ethics cannot guarantee ethical behavior. Moreover, a code of ethics cannot resolve all ethical issues or disputes or capture the richness and complexity involved in striving to make responsible choices within a moral community. Rather, a code of ethics sets forth values, ethical principles, and ethical standards to which professionals aspire and by which their actions can be judged. Social workers’ ethical behavior should result from their personal commitment to engage in ethical practice. The NASW Code of Ethics reflects the commitment of all social workers to uphold the profession’s values and to act ethically. Principles and standards must be applied by individuals of good character who discern moral questions and, in good faith, seek to make reliable ethical judgments.

Ethical Principles

The following broad ethical principles are based on social work’s core values of service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence. These principles set forth ideals to which all social workers should aspire

Value: Service Ethical Principle: Social workers’ primary goal is to help people in need and to address social problems. Social workers elevate service to others above self-interest. Social workers draw on their knowledge, values, and skills to help people in need and to address social problems. Social workers are encouraged to volunteer some portion of their professional skills with no expectation of significant financial return (pro bono service).

Value: Social Justice

Ethical Principle: Social workers challenge social injustice. Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people.

Value: Dignity and Worth of the Person

Ethical Principle: Social workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of the person. Social workers treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of individual differences and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers promote clients’ socially responsible self¬determination. Social workers seek to enhance clients’ capacity and opportunity to change and to address their own needs. Social workers are cognizant of their dual responsibility to clients and to the broader society. They seek to resolve conflicts between clients’ interests and the broader society’s interests in a socially responsible manner consistent with the values, ethical principles, and ethical standards of the profession.

Value: Importance of Human Relationships

Ethical Principle: Social workers recognize the central importance of human relationships. Social workers understand that relationships between and among people are an important vehicle for change. Social workers engage people as partners in the helping process. Social workers seek to strengthen relationships among people in a purposeful effort to promote, restore, maintain, and enhance the well¬being of individuals, families, social groups, organizations, and communities.

Value: Integrity

Ethical Principle: Social workers behave in a trustworthy manner. Social workers are continually aware of the profession’s mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical standards and practice in a manner consistent with them. Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices on the part of the organizations with which they are affiliated.

Value: Competence

Ethical Principle: Social workers practice within their areas of competence and develop and enhance their professional expertise. Social workers continually strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice. Social workers should aspire to contribute to the knowledge base of the profession.

Ethical Standards

The following ethical standards are relevant to the professional activities of all social workers. These standards concern (1) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to clients, (2) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to colleagues, (3) social workers’ ethical responsibilities in practice settings, (4) social workers’ ethical responsibilities as professionals, (5) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to the social work profession, and (6) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to the broader society.

Some of the standards that follow are enforceable guidelines for professional conduct, and some are aspirational. The extent to which each standard is enforceable is a matter of professional judgment to be exercised by those responsible for reviewing alleged violations of ethical standards.

1. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO CLIENTS

1.01 Commitment to Clients Social workers’ primary responsibility is to promote the well¬being of clients. In general, clients’ interests are primary. However, social workers’ responsibility to the larger society or specific legal obligations may on limited occasions supersede the loyalty owed clients, and clients should be so advised. (Examples include when a social worker is required by law to report that a client has abused a child or has threatened to harm self or others.)

1.02 Self¬Determination Social workers respect and promote the right of clients to self¬determination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and clarify their goals. Social workers may limit clients’ right to self¬determination when, in the social workers’ professional judgment, clients’ actions or potential actions pose a serious, foreseeable, and imminent risk to themselves or others. 1.03 Informed Consent

Social workers should provide services to clients only in the context of a professional relationship based, when appropriate, on valid informed consent. Social workers should use clear and understandable language to inform clients of the purpose of the services, risks related to the services, limits to services because of the requirements of a third¬party payer, relevant costs, reasonable alternatives, clients’ right to refuse or withdraw consent, and the time frame covered by the consent. Social workers should provide clients with an opportunity to ask questions.
In instances when clients are not literate or have difficulty understanding the primary language used in the practice setting, social workers should take steps to ensure clients’ comprehension. This may include providing clients with a detailed verbal explanation or arranging for a qualified interpreter or translator whenever possible.
In instances when clients lack the capacity to provide informed consent, social workers should protect clients’ interests by seeking permission from an appropriate third party, informing clients consistent with the clients’ level of understanding. In such instances social workers should seek to ensure that the third party acts in a manner consistent with clients’ wishes and interests. Social workers should take reasonable steps to enhance such clients’ ability to give informed consent.
In instances when clients are receiving services involuntarily, social workers should provide information about the nature and extent of services and about the extent of clients’ right to refuse service.
Social workers who provide services via electronic media (such as computer, telephone, radio, and television) should inform recipients of the limitations and risks associated with such services.
Social workers should obtain clients’ informed consent before audiotaping or videotaping clients or permitting observation of services to clients by a third party.

1.04 Competence

Social workers should provide services and represent themselves as competent only within the boundaries of their education, training, license, certification, consultation received, supervised experience, or other relevant professional experience.
Social workers should provide services in substantive areas or use intervention techniques or approaches that are new to them only after engaging in appropriate study, training, consultation, and supervision from people who are competent in those interventions or techniques.
When generally recognized standards do not exist with respect to an emerging area of practice, social workers should exercise careful judgment and take responsible steps (including appropriate education, research, training, consultation, and supervision) to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients from harm.

1.05 Cultural Competence and Social Diversity

Social workers should understand culture and its function in human behavior and society, recognizing the strengths that exist in all cultures.
Social workers should have a knowledge base of their clients’ cultures and be able to demonstrate competence in the provision of services that are sensitive to clients’ cultures and to differences among people and cultural groups.
Social workers should obtain education about and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or physical disability.

1.06 Conflicts of Interest

Social workers should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgment. Social workers should inform clients when a real or potential conflict of interest arises and take reasonable steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes the clients’ interests primary and protects clients’ interests to the greatest extent possible. In some cases, protecting clients’ interests may require termination of the professional relationship with proper referral of the client.
Social workers should not take unfair advantage of any professional relationship or exploit others to further their personal, religious, political, or business interests.
Social workers should not engage in dual or multiple relationships with clients or former clients in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. In instances when dual or multiple relationships are unavoidable, social workers should take steps to protect clients and are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. (Dual or multiple relationships occur when social workers relate to clients in more than one relationship, whether professional, social, or business. Dual or multiple relationships can occur simultaneously or consecutively.)
When social workers provide services to two or more people who have a relationship with each other (for example, couples, family members), social workers should clarify with all parties which individuals will be considered clients and the nature of social workers’ professional obligations to the various individuals who are receiving services. Social workers who anticipate a conflict of interest among the individuals receiving services or who anticipate having to perform in potentially conflicting roles (for example, when a social worker is asked to testify in a child custody dispute or divorce proceedings involving clients) should clarify their role with the parties involved and take appropriate action to minimize any conflict of interest.

1.07 Privacy and Confidentiality

Social workers should respect clients’ right to privacy. Social workers should not solicit private information from clients unless it is essential to providing services or conducting social work evaluation or research. Once private information is shared, standards of confidentiality apply.
Social workers may disclose confidential information when appropriate with valid consent from a client or a person legally authorized to consent on behalf of a client.
Social workers should protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of professional service, except for compelling professional reasons. The general expectation that social workers will keep information confidential does not apply when disclosure is necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or other identifiable person. In all instances, social workers should disclose the least amount of confidential information necessary to achieve the desired purpose; only information that is directly relevant to the purpose for which the disclosure is made should be revealed.
Social workers should inform clients, to the extent possible, about the disclosure of confidential information and the potential consequences, when feasible before the disclosure is made. This applies whether social workers disclose confidential information on the basis of a legal requirement or client consent.
Social workers should discuss with clients and other interested parties the nature of confidentiality and limitations of clients’ right to confidentiality. Social workers should review with clients circumstances where confidential information may be requested and where disclosure of confidential information may be legally required. This discussion should occur as soon as possible in the social worker¬client relationship and as needed throughout the course of the relationship.
When social workers provide counseling services to families, couples, or groups, social workers should seek agreement among the parties involved concerning each individual’s right to confidentiality and obligation to preserve the confidentiality of information shared by others. Social workers should inform participants in family, couples, or group counseling that social workers cannot guarantee that all participants will honor such agreements.
Social workers should inform clients involved in family, couples, marital, or group counseling of the social worker’s, employer’s, and agency’s policy concerning the social worker’s disclosure of confidential information among the parties involved in the counseling.
Social workers should not disclose confidential information to third¬party payers unless clients have authorized such disclosure.
Social workers should not discuss confidential information in any setting unless privacy can be ensured. Social workers should not discuss confidential information in public or semipublic areas such as hallways, waiting rooms, elevators, and restaurants.
Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients during legal proceedings to the extent permitted by law. When a court of law or other legally authorized body orders social workers to disclose confidential or privileged information without a client’s consent and such disclosure could cause harm to the client, social workers should request that the court withdraw the order or limit the order as narrowly as possible or maintain the records under seal, unavailable for public inspection.
Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients when responding to requests from members of the media.
Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients’ written and electronic records and other sensitive information. Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that clients’ records are stored in a secure location and that clients’ records are not available to others who are not authorized to have access.
Social workers should take precautions to ensure and maintain the confidentiality of information transmitted to other parties through the use of computers, electronic mail, facsimile machines, telephones and telephone answering machines, and other electronic or computer technology. Disclosure of identifying information should be avoided whenever possible.
Social workers should transfer or dispose of clients’ records in a manner that protects clients’ confidentiality and is consistent with state statutes governing records and social work licensure.
Social workers should take reasonable precautions to protect client confidentiality in the event of the social worker’s termination of practice, incapacitation, or death.
Social workers should not disclose identifying information when discussing clients for teaching or training purposes unless the client has consented to disclosure of confidential information.
Social workers should not disclose identifying information when discussing clients with consultants unless the client has consented to disclosure of confidential information or there is a compelling need for such disclosure.
Social workers should protect the confidentiality of deceased clients consistent with the preceding standards.

1.08 Access to Records

Social workers should provide clients with reasonable access to records concerning the clients. Social workers who are concerned that clients’ access to their records could cause serious misunderstanding or harm to the client should provide assistance in interpreting the records and consultation with the client regarding the records. Social workers should limit clients’ access to their records, or portions of their records, only in exceptional circumstances when there is compelling evidence that such access would cause serious harm to the client. Both clients’ requests and the rationale for withholding some or all of the record should be documented in clients’ files.
When providing clients with access to their records, social workers should take steps to protect the confidentiality of other individuals identified or discussed in such records.

1.09 Sexual Relationships

Social workers should under no circumstances engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with current clients, whether such contact is consensual or forced.
Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with clients’ relatives or other individuals with whom clients maintain a close personal relationship when there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. Sexual activity or sexual contact with clients’ relatives or other individuals with whom clients maintain a personal relationship has the potential to be harmful to the client and may make it difficult for the social worker and client to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. Social workers—not their clients, their clients’ relatives, or other individuals with whom the client maintains a personal relationship—assume the full burden for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries.
Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with former clients because of the potential for harm to the client. If social workers engage in conduct contrary to this prohibition or claim that an exception to this prohibition is warranted because of extraordinary circumstances, it is social workers—not their clients—who assume the full burden of demonstrating that the former client has not been exploited, coerced, or manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally.
Social workers should not provide clinical services to individuals with whom they have had a prior sexual relationship. Providing clinical services to a former sexual partner has the potential to be harmful to the individual and is likely to make it difficult for the social worker and individual to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

1.10 Physical Contact

Social workers should not engage in physical contact with clients when there is a possibility of psychological harm to the client as a result of the contact (such as cradling or caressing clients). Social workers who engage in appropriate physical contact with clients are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries that govern such physical contact.

1.11 Sexual Harassment Social workers should not sexually harass clients. Sexual harassment includes sexual advances, sexual solicitation, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

1.12 Derogatory Language Social workers should not use derogatory language in their written or verbal communications to or about clients. Social workers should use accurate and respectful language in all communications to and about clients.

1.13 Payment for Services

When setting fees, social workers should ensure that the fees are fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the services performed. Consideration should be given to clients’ ability to pay.
Social workers should avoid accepting goods or services from clients as payment for professional services. Bartering arrangements, particularly involving services, create the potential for conflicts of interest, exploitation, and inappropriate boundaries in social workers’ relationships with clients. Social workers should explore and may participate in bartering only in very limited circumstances when it can be demonstrated that such arrangements are an accepted practice among professionals in the local community, considered to be essential for the provision of services, negotiated without coercion, and entered into at the client’s initiative and with the client’s informed consent. Social workers who accept goods or services from clients as payment for professional services assume the full burden of demonstrating that this arrangement will not be detrimental to the client or the professional relationship.
Social workers should not solicit a private fee or other remuneration for providing services to clients who are entitled to such available services through the social workers’ employer or agency.

1.14 Clients Who Lack Decision¬Making Capacity

When social workers act on behalf of clients who lack the capacity to make informed decisions, social workers should take reasonable steps to safeguard the interests and rights of those clients.

1.15 Interruption of Services

Social workers should make reasonable efforts to ensure continuity of services in the event that services are interrupted by factors such as unavailability, relocation, illness, disability, or death.

1.16 Termination of Services

Social workers should terminate services to clients and professional relationships with them when such services and relationships are no longer required or no longer serve the clients’ needs or interests.
Social workers should take reasonable steps to avoid abandoning clients who are still in need of services. Social workers should withdraw services precipitously only under unusual circumstances, giving careful consideration to all factors in the situation and taking care to minimize possible adverse effects. Social workers should assist in making appropriate arrangements for continuation of services when necessary.
Social workers in fee¬for¬service settings may terminate services to clients who are not paying an overdue balance if the financial contractual arrangements have been made clear to the client, if the client does not pose an imminent danger to self or others, and if the clinical and other consequences of the current nonpayment have been addressed and discussed with the client.
Social workers should not terminate services to pursue a social, financial, or sexual relationship with a client.
Social workers who anticipate the termination or interruption of services to clients should notify clients promptly and seek the transfer, referral, or continuation of services in relation to the clients’ needs and preferences.
Social workers who are leaving an employment setting should inform clients of appropriate options for the continuation of services and of the benefits and risks of the options.

2. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO COLLEAGUES

2.01 Respect

Social workers should treat colleagues with respect and should represent accurately and fairly the qualifications, views, and obligations of colleagues.
Social workers should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues in communications with clients or with other professionals. Unwarranted negative criticism may include demeaning comments that refer to colleagues’ level of competence or to individuals’ attributes such as race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or physical disability.
Social workers should cooperate with social work colleagues and with colleagues of other professions when such cooperation serves the well¬being of clients.

2.02 Confidentiality

Social workers should respect confidential information shared by colleagues in the course of their professional relationships and transactions. Social workers should ensure that such colleagues understand social workers’ obligation to respect confidentiality and any exceptions related to it.

2.03 Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Social workers who are members of an interdisciplinary team should participate in and contribute to decisions that affect the well¬being of clients by drawing on the perspectives, values, and experiences of the social work profession. Professional and ethical obligations of the interdisciplinary team as a whole and of its individual members should be clearly established.
Social workers for whom a team decision raises ethical concerns should attempt to resolve the disagreement through appropriate channels. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, social workers should pursue other avenues to address their concerns consistent with client well¬being.

2.04 Disputes Involving Colleagues

Social workers should not take advantage of a dispute between a colleague and an employer to obtain a position or otherwise advance the social workers’ own interests.
Social workers should not exploit clients in disputes with colleagues or engage clients in any inappropriate discussion of conflicts between social workers and their colleagues.

2.05 Consultation

Social workers should seek the advice and counsel of colleagues whenever such consultation is in the best interests of clients.
Social workers should keep themselves informed about colleagues’ areas of expertise and competencies. Social workers should seek consultation only from colleagues who have demonstrated knowledge, expertise, and competence related to the subject of the consultation.
When consulting with colleagues about clients, social workers should disclose the least amount of information necessary to achieve the purposes of the consultation.

2.06 Referral for Services

Social workers should refer clients to other professionals when the other professionals’ specialized knowledge or expertise is needed to serve clients fully or when social workers believe that they are not being effective or making reasonable progress with clients and that additional service is required.
Social workers who refer clients to other professionals should take appropriate steps to facilitate an orderly transfer of responsibility. Social workers who refer clients to other professionals should disclose, with clients’ consent, all pertinent information to the new service providers.
Social workers are prohibited from giving or receiving payment for a referral when no professional service is provided by the referring social worker.

2.07 Sexual Relationships

Social workers who function as supervisors or educators should not engage in sexual activities or contact with supervisees, students, trainees, or other colleagues over whom they exercise professional authority.
Social workers should avoid engaging in sexual relationships with colleagues when there is potential for a conflict of interest. Social workers who become involved in, or anticipate becoming involved in, a sexual relationship with a colleague have a duty to transfer professional responsibilities, when necessary, to avoid a conflict of interest.

2.08 Sexual Harassment

Social workers should not sexually harass supervisees, students, trainees, or colleagues. Sexual harassment includes sexual advances, sexual solicitation, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

2.09 Impairment of Colleagues

Social workers who have direct knowledge of a social work colleague’s impairment that is due to personal problems, psychosocial distress, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties and that interferes with practice effectiveness should consult with that colleague when feasible and assist the colleague in taking remedial action.
Social workers who believe that a social work colleague’s impairment interferes with practice effectiveness and that the colleague has not taken adequate steps to address the impairment should take action through appropriate channels established by employers, agencies, NASW, licensing and regulatory bodies, and other professional organizations.

2.10 Incompetence of Colleagues

Social workers who have direct knowledge of a social work colleague’s incompetence should consult with that colleague when feasible and assist the colleague in taking remedial action.
Social workers who believe that a social work colleague is incompetent and has not taken adequate steps to address the incompetence should take action through appropriate channels established by employers, agencies, NASW, licensing and regulatory bodies, and other professional organizations.

2.11 Unethical Conduct of Colleagues

Social workers should take adequate measures to discourage, prevent, expose, and correct the unethical conduct of colleagues.
Social workers should be knowledgeable about established policies and procedures for handling concerns about colleagues’ unethical behavior. Social workers should be familiar with national, state, and local procedures for handling ethics complaints. These include policies and procedures created by NASW, licensing and regulatory bodies, employers, agencies, and other professional organizations.
Social workers who believe that a colleague has acted unethically should seek resolution by discussing their concerns with the colleague when feasible and when such discussion is likely to be productive.
When necessary, social workers who believe that a colleague has acted unethically should take action through appropriate formal channels (such as contacting a state licensing board or regulatory body, an NASW committee on inquiry, or other professional ethics committees).
Social workers should defend and assist colleagues who are unjustly charged with unethical conduct.

3. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN PRACTICE SETTINGS

3.01 Supervision and Consultation

Social workers who provide supervision or consultation should have the necessary knowledge and skill to supervise or consult appropriately and should do so only within their areas of knowledge and competence.
Social workers who provide supervision or consultation are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries.
Social workers should not engage in any dual or multiple relationships with supervisees in which there is a risk of exploitation of or potential harm to the supervisee.
Social workers who provide supervision should evaluate supervisees’ performance in a manner that is fair and respectful.

3.02 Education and Training

Social workers who function as educators, field instructors for students, or trainers should provide instruction only within their areas of knowledge and competence and should provide instruction based on the most current information and knowledge available in the profession.
Social workers who function as educators or field instructors for students should evaluate students’ performance in a manner that is fair and respectful.
Social workers who function as educators or field instructors for students should take reasonable steps to ensure that clients are routinely informed when services are being provided by students.
Social workers who function as educators or field instructors for students should not engage in any dual or multiple relationships with students in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the student. Social work educators and field instructors are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries.

3.03 Performance Evaluation

Social workers who have responsibility for evaluating the performance of others should fulfill such responsibility in a fair and considerate manner and on the basis of clearly stated criteria.

3.04 Client Records

Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that documentation in records is accurate and reflects the services provided.
Social workers should include sufficient and timely documentation in records to facilitate the delivery of services and to ensure continuity of services provided to clients in the future.
Social workers’ documentation should protect clients’ privacy to the extent that is possible and appropriate and should include only information that is directly relevant to the delivery of services.
Social workers should store records following the termination of services to ensure reasonable future access. Records should be maintained for the number of years required by state statutes or relevant contracts.

3.05 Billing

Social workers should establish and maintain billing practices that accurately reflect the nature and extent of services provided and that identify who provided the service in the practice setting.

3.06 Client Transfer

When an individual who is receiving services from another agency or colleague contacts a social worker for services, the social worker should carefully consider the client’s needs before agreeing to provide services. To minimize possible confusion and conflict, social workers should discuss with potential clients the nature of the clients’ current relationship with other service providers and the implications, including possible benefits or risks, of entering into a relationship with a new service provider.
If a new client has been served by another agency or colleague, social workers should discuss with the client whether consultation with the previous service provider is in the client’s best interest.

3.07 Administration

Social work administrators should advocate within and outside their agencies for adequate resources to meet clients’ needs.
Social workers should advocate for resource allocation procedures that are open and fair. When not all clients’ needs can be met, an allocation procedure should be developed that is nondiscriminatory and based on appropriate and consistently applied principles.
Social workers who are administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that adequate agency or organizational resources are available to provide appropriate staff supervision.
Social work administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that the working environment for which they are responsible is consistent with and encourages compliance with the NASW Code of Ethics. Social work administrators should take reasonable steps to eliminate any conditions in their organizations that violate, interfere with, or discourage compliance with the Code.

3.08 Continuing Education and Staff Development

Social work administrators and supervisors should take reasonable steps to provide or arrange for continuing education and staff development for all staff for whom they are responsible. Continuing education and staff development should address current knowledge and emerging developments related to social work practice and ethics.

3.09 Commitments to Employers

Social workers generally should adhere to commitments made to employers and employing organizations.
Social workers should work to improve employing agencies’ policies and procedures and the efficiency and effectiveness of their services.
Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that employers are aware of social workers’ ethical obligations as set forth in the NASW Code of Ethics and of the implications of those obligations for social work practice.
Social workers should not allow an employing organization’s policies, procedures, regulations, or administrative orders to interfere with their ethical practice of social work. Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that their employing organizations’ practices are consistent with the NASW Code of Ethics.
Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate discrimination in the employing organization’s work assignments and in its employment policies and practices.
Social workers should accept employment or arrange student field placements only in organizations that exercise fair personnel practices.
Social workers should be diligent stewards of the resources of their employing organizations, wisely conserving funds where appropriate and never misappropriating funds or using them for unintended purposes.

3.10 Labor¬Management Disputes

Social workers may engage in organized action, including the formation of and participation in labor unions, to improve services to clients and working conditions.
The actions of social workers who are involved in labor¬management disputes, job actions, or labor strikes should be guided by the profession’s values, ethical principles, and ethical standards. Reasonable differences of opinion exist among social workers concerning their primary obligation as professionals during an actual or threatened labor strike or job action. Social workers should carefully examine relevant issues and their possible impact on clients before deciding on a course of action.

4. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS PROFESSIONALS

4.01 Competence

Social workers should accept responsibility or employment only on the basis of existing competence or the intention to acquire the necessary competence.
Social workers should strive to become and remain proficient in professional practice and the performance of professional functions. Social workers should critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work. Social workers should routinely review the professional literature and participate in continuing education relevant to social work practice and social work ethics.
Social workers should base practice on recognized knowledge, including empirically based knowledge, relevant to social work and social work ethics.

4.02 Discrimination

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

4.03 Private Conduct

Social workers should not permit their private conduct to interfere with their ability to fulfill their professional responsibilities.

4.04 Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deception

Social workers should not participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or deception. 4.05 Impairment

Social workers should not allow their own personal problems, psychosocial distress, legal problems, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties to interfere with their professional judgment and performance or to jeopardize the best interests of people for whom they have a professional responsibility.
Social workers whose personal problems, psychosocial distress, legal problems, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties interfere with their professional judgment and performance should immediately seek consultation and take appropriate remedial action by seeking professional help, making adjustments in workload, terminating practice, or taking any other steps necessary to protect clients and others.

4.06 Misrepresentation

Social workers should make clear distinctions between statements made and actions engaged in as a private individual and as a representative of the social work profession, a professional social work organization, or the social worker’s employing agency.
Social workers who speak on behalf of professional social work organizations should accurately represent the official and authorized positions of the organizations.
Social workers should ensure that their representations to clients, agencies, and the public of professional qualifications, credentials, education, competence, affiliations, services provided, or results to be achieved are accurate. Social workers should claim only those relevant professional credentials they actually possess and take steps to correct any inaccuracies or misrepresentations of their credentials by others.

4.07 Solicitations

Social workers should not engage in uninvited solicitation of potential clients who, because of their circumstances, are vulnerable to undue influence, manipulation, or coercion.
Social workers should not engage in solicitation of testimonial endorsements (including solicitation of consent to use a client’s prior statement as a testimonial endorsement) from current clients or from other people who, because of their particular circumstances, are vulnerable to undue influence.

4.08 Acknowledging Credit

Social workers should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed and to which they have contributed.
Social workers should honestly acknowledge the work of and the contributions made by others.

5. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION

5.01 Integrity of the Profession

Social workers should work toward the maintenance and promotion of high standards of practice.
Social workers should uphold and advance the values, ethics, knowledge, and mission of the profession. Social workers should protect, enhance, and improve the integrity of the profession through appropriate study and research, active discussion, and responsible criticism of the profession.
Social workers should contribute time and professional expertise to activities that promote respect for the value, integrity, and competence of the social work profession. These activities may include teaching, research, consultation, service, legislative testimony, presentations in the community, and participation in their professional organizations.
Social workers should contribute to the knowledge base of social work and share with colleagues their knowledge related to practice, research, and ethics. Social workers should seek to contribute to the profession’s literature and to share their knowledge at professional meetings and conferences.
Social workers should act to prevent the unauthorized and unqualified practice of social work.

5.02 Evaluation and Research

Social workers should monitor and evaluate policies, the implementation of programs, and practice interventions.
Social workers should promote and facilitate evaluation and research to contribute to the development of knowledge.
Social workers should critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work and fully use evaluation and research evidence in their professional practice.
Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should carefully consider possible consequences and should follow guidelines developed for the protection of evaluation and research participants. Appropriate institutional review boards should be consulted.
Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should obtain voluntary and written informed consent from participants, when appropriate, without any implied or actual deprivation or penalty for refusal to participate; without undue inducement to participate; and with due regard for participants’ well¬being, privacy, and dignity. Informed consent should include information about the nature, extent, and duration of the participation requested and disclosure of the risks and benefits of participation in the research.
When evaluation or research participants are incapable of giving informed consent, social workers should provide an appropriate explanation to the participants, obtain the participants’ assent to the extent they are able, and obtain written consent from an appropriate proxy.
Social workers should never design or conduct evaluation or research that does not use consent procedures, such as certain forms of naturalistic observation and archival research, unless rigorous and responsible review of the research has found it to be justified because of its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and unless equally effective alternative procedures that do not involve waiver of consent are not feasible.
Social workers should inform participants of their right to withdraw from evaluation and research at any time without penalty.
Social workers should take appropriate steps to ensure that participants in evaluation and research have access to appropriate supportive services.
Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should protect participants from unwarranted physical or mental distress, harm, danger, or deprivation.
Social workers engaged in the evaluation of services should discuss collected information only for professional purposes and only with people professionally concerned with this information.
Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should ensure the anonymity or confidentiality of participants and of the data obtained from them. Social workers should inform participants of any limits of confidentiality, the measures that will be taken to ensure confidentiality, and when any records containing research data will be destroyed.
Social workers who report evaluation and research results should protect participants’ confidentiality by omitting identifying information unless proper consent has been obtained authorizing disclosure.
Social workers should report evaluation and research findings accurately. They should not fabricate or falsify results and should take steps to correct any errors later found in published data using standard publication methods.
Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest and dual relationships with participants, should inform participants when a real or potential conflict of interest arises, and should take steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes participants’ interests primary.
Social workers should educate themselves, their students, and their colleagues about responsible research practices.

6. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE BROADER SOCIETY

6.01 Social Welfare

Social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments. Social workers should advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice.

6.02 Public Participation

Social workers should facilitate informed participation by the public in shaping social policies and institutions.

6.03 Public Emergencies

Social workers should provide appropriate professional services in public emergencies to the greatest extent possible.

6.04 Social and Political Action

Social workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs and to develop fully. Social workers should be aware of the impact of the political arena on practice and should advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social conditions in order to meet basic human needs and promote social justice.
Social workers should act to expand choice and opportunity for all people, with special regard for vulnerable, disadvantaged, oppressed, and exploited people and groups.
Social workers should promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural and social diversity within the United States and globally. Social workers should promote policies and practices that demonstrate respect for difference, support the expansion of cultural knowledge and resources, advocate for programs and institutions that demonstrate cultural competence, and promote policies that safeguard the rights of and confirm equity and social justice for all people.
Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Addictions and Substance Use
Administration and Management
Aging and Older Adults
Biographies
Children and Adolescents
Clinical and Direct Practice
Couples and Families
Criminal Justice
Disabilities
Ethics and Values
Gender and Sexuality
Health Care and Illness
Human Behavior
International and Global Issues
Macro Practice
Mental and Behavioral Health
Policy and Advocacy
Populations and Practice Settings
Race, Ethnicity, and Culture
Religion and Spirituality
Research and Evidence-Based Practice
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Work Profession
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Ethics in research.

Jeane W. Anastas Jeane W. Anastas New York University
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.135
Published online: 11 June 2013
This version: 17 April 2024
Previous version

Social work researchers hold themselves to ethical standards, compatible with social work ethics, for social science and biomedical research involving human beings. This article describes (a) the general ethical principles guiding research involving human subjects; (b) mechanisms for the ethical review of studies involving human beings; (c) ethical issues in research on vulnerable populations, such as children and adolescents, prisoners, BIPOC participants, and other socially marginalized people; and (d) plagiarism, authorship, and conflict of interest. Current topics in the responsible conduct of research include ethics in clinical trials, research using the Internet, Big Data research, participatory action and community-based research, and decolonizing and doing antiracist research. References provided for each topic are selective, not exhaustive.

research ethics
responsible conduct of research
beneficence
informed consent
confidentiality
regulation of human subjects research
vulnerable populations

Updated in this version

New sections added and old sections amended to reflect advancements in scholarship.

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Encyclopedia of Social Work. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 15 June 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[185.66.14.133]
185.66.14.133

Character limit 500 /500

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Module 1 Chapter 3: Ethical Conduct of Research

The NASW professional code of ethics has quite a lot to say about ensuring that research be conducted in an ethical manner, so here we revisit the code of ethics to review these research-specific standards. We begin with an overview of historical events that bring us to where we are today in the research ethics arena. This content is covered in greater depth and detail in your CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative) program training modules. Then, we return to the section of NASW’s (2017) Code of Ethics that we initially visited in Chapter 1.

In reading this chapter, you will learn:

Key facts about research ethics;
Statements from the NASW Code of Ethics specific to the ethical conduct of research

History and Research Ethics

Following the conclusion of World War II and subsequent “Doctors’ Trial” portion of the Nuremberg Trials, the 10-point Nuremberg Code was developed as a response to numerous examples of unethical, inhumane “medical” experiments conducted in concentration camps. The Nuremberg Code was relatively ignored for many years, at least in the United States. Subsequently, a number of grievously unethical experiments were conducted on prisoners, institutionalized patients, and children—disproportionately on poor and racial minority populations—including exposure to toxins, diseases, radiation, or torture. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment represents a critical turning point in the nation’s tolerance of unethical human research. In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service partnered with the Tuskegee Institute to study the natural course of syphilis among 399 black men. Over 40 years, the men believed they were being treated for syphilis, but were in fact receiving no treatment for the disease, even when penicillin proved to be an effective form of treatment by 1947. Beginning in 1968, concerns were being raised and condemning news reports were widely circulated in 1972, leading to the study being ended. By 1974, the Tuskegee Health Benefit Program was established by the U.S. government to ensure health and burial benefits to the study’s remaining survivors, wives, widows, and children.

In response to concerns about unethical research practices, a national group was formed (in 1974, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research), and created what is now known as The Belmont Report (1979). The Belmont Report, in turn, influenced development of federal policy (1981, revised 2009) concerning protections for human research subjects—the Common Rule. The Belmont Report presented a summary of ethical guidelines for engaging in research that involves human subjects. The guidelines are based on three core principles:

Respect for persons. This principle is founded on a conviction that “individuals should be treated as autonomous agents” (Belmont Report, 1979, p. 4). The report explains this autonomy in terms of respecting a person’s right to making considered, informed choices, and places a responsibility on researchers to ensure that a person has all of the information necessary for self-determined choices and is free from constraints on making self-determined choices. The discussion also addresses situations where a person might not be capable of self-determination and what protections might be necessary in these instances.
Beneficence. This principle is about an obligation for protecting participants from harm and “making efforts to secure their well-being” (Belmont Report, 1979, p. 5). This translates into ensuring that benefits to participants are maximized and possible harms or risks are minimized.
Justice. This principle is about fairness. Justice in this context is about ensuring a fair and just distribution of both the potential burdens and the potential benefits of participating in research. “Another way of conceiving the principle of justice is that equals ought to be treated equally” (Belmont report, 1979, p. 5).

These three core principles are closely aligned with the core values of our social work profession. Our code of ethics is based on principles that include respect for the dignity and worth of the individual, which includes fostering client self-determination, as well as practicing with integrity.

The Belmont Report (1979) also contains language about distinguishing between research and professional practice. The report defines practice in this way:

“…interventions that are designed solely to enhance the well-being of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success” (p. 3).

Research is defined in the Belmont Report as:

“…an activity designed to test an hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (p. 3).

These two types of professional activity are clearly contrasted—their goals are markedly different. Practice goals relate to benefits for the individuals being served; research goals are served by the individuals who participate.

Take a moment to complete the following activity.

Revisiting the NASW Code of Ethics

We previously examined what the NASW Code of Ethics had to say about the role of research and evidence in professional practice and the role of social work professionals in engaging with research and evidence. At this point, we turn again to the Code of Ethics to see what is specified in terms of the ethical conduct of research. These details are in addition to what was discussed earlier about research integrity.

Standard 5.02: Evaluation and Research continued . Let’s pick up where we left off in reviewing the NASW Code of Ethics content related to engaging in evaluation and research as a social work professional. The Code of Ethics (p. 27-28) replicates many elements found in the current federal policy concerning the protection of human subjects in research and in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The Code of Ethics states that:

(d) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should carefully consider possible consequences and should follow guidelines developed for the protection of evaluation and research participants. Appropriate institutional review boards should be consulted
(e) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should obtain voluntary and written informed consent from participants, when appropriate, without any implied or actual deprivation or penalty for refusal to participate; without undue inducement to participate; and with due regard for participants’ well-being, privacy, and dignity. Informed consent should include information about the nature, extent, and duration of the participation requested and disclosure of the risks and benefits of participation in the research.
(f) When using electronic technology to facilitate evaluation or research, social workers should ensure that participants provide informed consent for the use of such technology. Social workers should assess whether participants are able to use the technology and, when appropriate, offer reasonable alternatives to participate in the evaluation or research.
(g) When evaluation or research participants are incapable of giving informed consent, social workers should provide an appropriate explanation to the participants, obtain the participants’ assent to the extent they are able, and obtain written consent from an appropriate proxy.
(h) Social workers should never design or conduct evaluation or research that does not use consent procedures, such as certain forms of naturalistic observation and archival research, unless rigorous and responsible review of the research has found it to be justified because of its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and unless equally effective alternative procedures that do not involve waiver of consent are not feasible.
(i) Social workers should inform participants of their right to withdraw from evaluation and research at any time without penalty.
(j) Social workers should take appropriate steps to ensure that participants in evaluation and research have access to appropriate supportive services.
(k) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should protect participants from unwarranted physical or mental distress, harm, danger, or deprivation.
(l) Social workers engaged in the evaluation of services should discuss collected information only for professional purposes and only with people professionally concerned with this information.
(m) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should ensure the anonymity or confidentiality of participants and of the data obtained from them. Social workers should inform participants of any limits of confidentiality, the measures that will be taken to ensure confidentiality, and when any records containing research data will be destroyed.
(n) Social workers who report evaluation and research results should protect participants’ confidentiality by omitting identifying information unless proper consent has been obtained authorizing disclosure.
(o) Social workers should report evaluation and research findings accurately. They should not fabricate or falsify results and should take steps to correct any errors later found in published data using standard publication methods.
(p) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest and dual relationships with participants, should inform participants when a real or potential conflict of interest arises, and should take steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes participants’ interests primary.
(q) Social workers should educate themselves, their students, and their colleagues about responsible research practices.

Together, these 14 statements reflect a responsibility for social workers to :

participate in appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures,
ensure the safety and protection of participants in social work research and evaluation studies,
engage in effective informed consent procedures,
responsibly utilize information technology in research,
collect and discuss only information relevant to the study,
preserve participant privacy and confidentiality (or anonymity),
engage in research with integrity,
prevent or responsibly resolve conflict of interest instances, and
remain informed about responsible research practices.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter Three: Ethics in social work research

Would it surprise you learn that scientists who conduct research may withhold effective treatments from individuals with diseases? Perhaps it wouldn’t surprise you, since you may have heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, in which treatments for syphilis were knowingly withheld from African-American participants for decades. Would it surprise you to learn that the practice of withholding treatment continues today? Multiple studies in the developing world continue to use placebo control groups in testing for cancer screenings, cancer treatments, and HIV treatments (Joffe & Miller, 2014). [1] What standards would you use to judge withholding treatment as ethical or unethical? Most importantly, how can you make sure that your study respects the human rights of your participants?

Chapter Outline

3.1 Research on humans
3.2 Specific ethical issues to consider
3.3 Ethics at micro, meso, and macro levels
3.4 The practice of science versus the uses of science

Content Advisory

This chapter discusses or mentions the following topics: unethical research that has occurred in the past against marginalized groups in America and during the Holocaust.

Joffe, S., & Miller, F. G. (2014). Ethics of cancer clinical trials in low-resource settings. Journal of Clinical Oncology , 32 (28), 3192-3196. ↵

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Ethical guidelines for designing and conducting evaluations of social work practice

Affiliation.

1 University of Georgia School of Social Work, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA. [email protected]
PMID: 20183682
DOI: 10.1080/15433710903126778

We review selected aspects of current ethical guidelines pertaining to the design and conduct of social work evaluation and research studies. We contend that there are significant differences between social science research and evaluation studies, and that the uncritical application of ethical guidelines suitable for regulating social science research may hinder social workers undertaking clinical and program evaluations. What is needed are ethical guidelines that distinguish between retrospective and prospectively designed studies, which enumerate when voluntary and informed consent may not be necessary in order to use data obtained from clients, and clearer standards pertaining to exempting evaluation studies from oversight by Institutional Review Boards.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Taylor & Francis
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Virtual Tour
Staff Directory
En Español

“When people are invited to participate in research, there is a strong belief that it should be their choice based on their understanding of what the study is about, and what the risks and benefits of the study are,” said Dr. Christine Grady, chief of the NIH Clinical Center Department of Bioethics, to Clinical Center Radio in a podcast.

Clinical research advances the understanding of science and promotes human health. However, it is important to remember the individuals who volunteer to participate in research. There are precautions researchers can take – in the planning, implementation and follow-up of studies – to protect these participants in research. Ethical guidelines are established for clinical research to protect patient volunteers and to preserve the integrity of the science.

NIH Clinical Center researchers published seven main principles to guide the conduct of ethical research:

Social and clinical value

Scientific validity, fair subject selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent.

Respect for potential and enrolled subjects

Every research study is designed to answer a specific question. The answer should be important enough to justify asking people to accept some risk or inconvenience for others. In other words, answers to the research question should contribute to scientific understanding of health or improve our ways of preventing, treating, or caring for people with a given disease to justify exposing participants to the risk and burden of research.

A study should be designed in a way that will get an understandable answer to the important research question. This includes considering whether the question asked is answerable, whether the research methods are valid and feasible, and whether the study is designed with accepted principles, clear methods, and reliable practices. Invalid research is unethical because it is a waste of resources and exposes people to risk for no purpose

The primary basis for recruiting participants should be the scientific goals of the study — not vulnerability, privilege, or other unrelated factors. Participants who accept the risks of research should be in a position to enjoy its benefits. Specific groups of participants (for example, women or children) should not be excluded from the research opportunities without a good scientific reason or a particular susceptibility to risk.

Uncertainty about the degree of risks and benefits associated with a clinical research study is inherent. Research risks may be trivial or serious, transient or long-term. Risks can be physical, psychological, economic, or social. Everything should be done to minimize the risks and inconvenience to research participants to maximize the potential benefits, and to determine that the potential benefits are proportionate to, or outweigh, the risks.

To minimize potential conflicts of interest and make sure a study is ethically acceptable before it starts, an independent review panel should review the proposal and ask important questions, including: Are those conducting the trial sufficiently free of bias? Is the study doing all it can to protect research participants? Has the trial been ethically designed and is the risk–benefit ratio favorable? The panel also monitors a study while it is ongoing.

Potential participants should make their own decision about whether they want to participate or continue participating in research. This is done through a process of informed consent in which individuals (1) are accurately informed of the purpose, methods, risks, benefits, and alternatives to the research, (2) understand this information and how it relates to their own clinical situation or interests, and (3) make a voluntary decision about whether to participate.

Respect for potential and enrolled participants

Individuals should be treated with respect from the time they are approached for possible participation — even if they refuse enrollment in a study — throughout their participation and after their participation ends. This includes:

respecting their privacy and keeping their private information confidential
respecting their right to change their mind, to decide that the research does not match their interests, and to withdraw without a penalty
informing them of new information that might emerge in the course of research, which might change their assessment of the risks and benefits of participating
monitoring their welfare and, if they experience adverse reactions, unexpected effects, or changes in clinical status, ensuring appropriate treatment and, when necessary, removal from the study
informing them about what was learned from the research

More information on these seven guiding principles and on bioethics in general

This page last reviewed on March 16, 2016

Connect with Us

More Social Media from NIH

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on May 9, 2024.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

protect the rights of research participants
enhance research validity
maintain scientific or academic integrity

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.


Voluntary participation	Your participants are free to opt in or out of the study at any point in time.
Informed consent	Participants know the purpose, benefits, risks, and funding behind the study before they agree or decline to join.
Anonymity	You don’t know the identities of the participants. Personally identifiable data is not collected.
Confidentiality	You know who the participants are but you keep that information hidden from everyone else. You anonymize personally identifiable data so that it can’t be linked to other data by anyone else.
Potential for harm	Physical, social, psychological and all other types of harm are kept to an absolute minimum.
Results communication	You ensure your work is free of or research misconduct, and you accurately represent your results.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

what the study is about
the risks and benefits of taking part
how long the study will take
your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Normal distribution
Measures of central tendency
Chi square tests
Confidence interval
Quartiles & Quantiles
Cluster sampling
Stratified sampling
Thematic analysis
Cohort study
Peer review
Ethnography

Research bias

Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Conformity bias
Hawthorne effect
Availability heuristic
Attrition bias
Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, May 09). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 14, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Given by The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) in 2021 (5th edition). English translation published 2022.

Download pdf

The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) is an independent advisory body responsible for developing national research ethics guidelines. The first edition of NESH’s guidelines was published in 1993, and revised editions have been published in 1999, 2006 and 2016. For more information on NESH and the guidelines, see the attachment.

In this edition, NESH seeks to emphasise and clarify the fundamental norms of research ethics. The purpose is to highlight NESH’s guidelines as an independent source of ethical reflection and continued discussion in the research community. NESH also highlights that research increasingly is under pressure, and different parties, including commissioners, funders, and collaborators, are co-jointly responsible for ensuring compliance with research ethics. Furthermore, the distinction between ethics and law is underscored to clarify the legal basis for the investigation of scientific misconduct and for dealing with personal data.

The revised draft of national guidelines was circulated for public consultation in the autumn of 2020. NESH received input from more than 60 researchers, research institutions, and other research actors. A working group consisting of Elisabeth Staksrud (Chair of the Committee), Ivar Kolstad (Deputy Chair) and Vidar Enebakk (Director) has reviewed the comments and authored draft formulations, which in turn have been thoroughly discussed and approved of by all NESH members. NESH would like to thank all involved parties for their contribution to the revision of the guidelines.

Oslo, December 2021

Elisabeth Staksrud (Chair of the Committee), Ivar Kolstad (Deputy Chair), Kirsten Johanne Bang, Lene Bomann-Larsen, Kjetil Fretheim, Rakel Christina Granaas, Kristian Berg Harpviken, Heidi Østbø Haugen, Kjetil Ansgar Jakobsen, Roar Johnsen, Markus Hoel Lie, Hadi Strømmen Lile, Anne Nevøy, Tove Klæboe Nilsen, May-Len Skilbrei og Vidar Enebakk (Director).

Introduction

Research is a collective and systematic search for new knowledge using different scientific methods. Research has intrinsic value as a source of new and better insights, and it is useful to society in various capacities. The purpose of research ethics is to promote free, reliable, and responsible research. Research ethics contributes to fostering good scientific practice.[ 1 ]

Research ethics

Research ethics consists of a core set of scientific norms, developed over time and institutionalised in the international research community. The truth norm is indispensable to all scientific activity: The search for truth, commitment to truth, integrity, and honesty are preconditions for quality and reliability in research. Research is also based on methodological norms , such as factuality, accuracy, transparency, and accountability. These norms dictate that scientific methods must be used in a responsible manner. Furthermore, research is regulated by institutional norms , which ensures that research is open, collective, independent, and critical (known as ‘the ethos of science’).[ 2 ] Together these norms constitute good scientific practice and foster integrity in research.

Research ethics also consists of common norms, derived from society’s demands and expectations to research in a broad sense. Human dignity constitutes the core value in this context, and it is protected by three principles: respect for equality, freedom and autonomy, beneficence and protection from the risk of significant harm and unreasonable burdens, and justice in procedures and the distribution of benefits and burdens.[ 3 ] These norms ensure responsible research.

A well-functioning, knowledge-based, and democratic society relies on research as a source of reliable knowledge. All human beings are entitled to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.[ 4 ] Dissemination of research is therefore an important part of research ethics. Researchers must be open about risks and scientific uncertainty, and they must avoid damaging human beings, society, nature, and the environment by their research.

Research institutions ought to ensure integrity and responsibility in research. They should furthermore secure researchers’ freedom of speech and their individual academic freedom so that they, in turn, may freely disseminate reliable knowledge to the rest of society.[ 5 ] This is particularly important when the values and norms of the research are placed under pressure. The freedom of research, both individually and institutionally, is contingent on responsible self-regulation and good scientific practice.

Responsibility for research ethics

Research should be responsibly organised and practiced, and research ethics is a tool for this purpose. Researchers and research institutions are both responsible for ensuring compliance with research ethics, and other research actors too ought to behave in accordance with ethical norms and guidelines. The Research Ethics Act ( forskningsetikkloven ) presupposes that research conducted by public or private actors takes place in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics.[ 6 ]

Individual researchers are always responsible for behaving responsibly. Researchers are responsible in a broad range of capacities and contexts, for instance, as teachers, supervisors, project leaders, and experts. Researchers are individually responsible for research ethics in commissioned work or when they participate in collaborations with external partners. The responsibility for research ethics applies to everyone who conducts research, including students, PhD candidates, and other actors. Researchers have a statutory duty to exert caution to ensure that research takes place in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics.[ 7 ] Research institutions should ensure that research ethics are considered and that various parties’ responsibilities for ensuring this are clearly defined. This includes training students, PhD candidates, and employees, and ensuring that everyone conducting or participating in research has knowledge of research ethics. The institutions must ensure that research, teaching, training, supervision, project leadership, administration, and governance are conducted in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics.

The institutions should facilitate training and supervision in research ethics and have routines for handling ethical questions and cases. The institutions are legally responsible for ensuring that the research carried out under their purview is conducted in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics.[ 8 ] The institutions are obligated to have committees for the investigation of research misconduct and to handle cases of possible breaches of recognised norms of research ethics.[ 9 ]

Other research actors have a responsibility to comply with research ethics as well, for example, commissioners, funders, and collaborators in the public or private sectors. The balance between independence and governance should be ethically responsible, which presupposes arrangements that secure the real independence of the research. Both institutional autonomy and individual academic freedom must be protected. To avoid unclear divisions of roles and responsibilities, openness must characterize relations between commissioners, research institutions, and researchers. There should be no attempts to influence the conclusions of the research, and researchers cannot be asked to withhold unwanted results and conclusions.

NESH’s guidelines

These guidelines are advisory and are intended to contribute to developing ethical judgement and reflection, clarifying ethical dilemmas, promoting responsible research, and preventing misconduct. They elaborate on various considerations and obligations, and they specify the responsibility of researchers, research institutions, and other research actors. In research projects, the guidelines should be considered throughout the entire process – from planning and execution to publication and dissemination.

The guidelines are developed by researchers, in collaboration with researchers, and are intended to aid researchers. They have been developed over a period of time, and they are based on input from different actors concerning their experiences and challenges. The guidelines are a codification of the research community’s own values and norms, seeking to ensure academic freedom, responsibility, and integrity in research. The guidelines also apply to research-based activities such as teaching, dissemination of research, and institutional management.

NESH’s guidelines have been developed for research in the social sciences and the humanities in a broad sense, which includes fields such as law, theology, educational science, psychology, and community medicine. They may be employed in work with artistic development and museum practice, and they may also be of relevance to other disciplines and interdisciplinary collaborations.

The guidelines apply to all research, whether publicly or privately initiated and directed. There may be grey areas between research and other forms of knowledge production, which may have different purposes, levels of independence, systems of quality control, and routines for publication. Therefore, researchers and research institutions should specify what constitutes their research and what constitutes knowledge production and communication. If analyses, reports, and evaluations are research based, they must comply with research ethics norms.

Research ethics judgements must be justified with reference to recognised norms, for instance, those embodied in the NESH guidelines. Researchers must often weigh different concerns against each other. Therefore, their choices and priorities should be explicitly conveyed. At times, different norms are intimately linked; for example, accountability is a precondition for verifiability. In other cases, different parts of the guidelines may be opposed to each other; for example, when one considers societal benefits against the risk of harm or disadvantage to singular individuals. During the research process, ethical questions may also arise that are not accounted for in the guidelines. Researchers must identify and consider ethical dilemmas and exhibit reflective and articulated judgement. The guidelines can contribute to this practice by emphasising concerns and obligations that should be taken into consideration.

The guidelines consist of five parts (A–E), which concern different ethical obligations:

A) The research community: Researchers have a shared responsibility towards each other within the research community. They should behave truthfully, treat each other with respect, and recognise each other’s contributions in projects and publications. Researchers have a collective responsibility for promoting the values and norms of research ethics in their teaching, supervision, dissemination, and publication.

B) Research participants: Researchers have responsibilities towards all persons involved in or affected by research. Researchers should respect the participants’ human dignity and

consider their personal integrity, safety, and well-being. Participation in research should, as a rule, be based on information and consent.

C) Groups and institutions: Disadvantaged and vulnerable groups have a particular need for protection Specific attention may be required in research across cultures or on cultural heritage. Public offices and private organisations have a joint responsibility to ensure that their participation in research is in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics.

D) Commissioners, funders, and collaborators: Researchers and research institutions have obligations towards commissioners, funders, and collaborators. Similarly, other research actors have obligations towards researchers and research institutions. Research ethics balance the norms of openness and independence against demands for social utility and relevance.

E) Dissemination of research: Researchers and research institutions have a responsibility to disseminate scientific results, methods, and attitudes from their own and others’ research to the society at large. Dissemination of research includes dialogue across disciplines, interaction with different actors in society, and participation in public debates.

Finally, this publication contains an attachment with some additional information on the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (FEK) and other institutions with responsibilities for research ethics. The attachment elaborates on the difference between

ethical guidelines and legal acts, both with respect to the handling of personal data and the investigation of scientific misconduct. It also refers to international resources that may be useful in working with research ethics and research integrity.

A) The Research Community

Researchers have a shared responsibility towards each other within the research community. They should behave truthfully, treat each other with respect, and recognise each others’ contributions in projects and publications. Researchers have a collective responsibility for promoting the values and norms of research ethics in their teaching, supervision, dissemination, and publication.

1. Free and independent research

Researchers shall enjoy individual freedom and have real independence. Institutional self- regulation shall be ethically responsible and cannot violate the norms of good scientific practice.

Research in accordance with good scientific practice and recognised research ethical norms ought to be free. Both individual freedom and institutional autonomy are preconditions for research integrity, and relate to scientific norms, such as honesty, accountability, and openness. The freedom, independence, and critical capacity of research are crucial for ensuring social trust and credibility. Society depends on reliable research, which is not ruled by other interests, whether they be political, economic, religious, strategic, or organisational interests.[ 10 ]

The individual freedom of researchers presupposes integrity, and researchers are obligated to comply with recognised scientific and ethical norms. The norms of good scientific practice are embedded in the international research community, and the freedom of science ought to be respected. Researchers must defend the fundamental norms of science when these come under pressure.

Research institutions are responsible for protecting free, independent, and critical research. Institutional autonomy and responsible self-regulation presuppose research institutions that protect both the individual freedom of researchers and the collegial culture of the research community.[ 11 ] Research institutions must not limit or stifle individual freedom of speech with reference to duties of loyalty, demands for obedience, or economic or strategic concerns.[ 12 ] The freedom of the research should also be respected in teaching and dissemination of research (see part E).

2. Obligations of the research community

Researchers shall contribute to building academic communities characterised by openness, factuality, and collegiality.

The research community exerts stewardship over the fundamental scientific and ethical norms that constitute research ethics, in line with principles of institutional autonomy, professional independence, and academic freedom. The research community is international and is made up of different academic cultures that span institutions and national borders. These different cultures have their own methods and norms securing scientific quality and research integrity. The publication of scientific results and critical assessment through peer review are fundamental to all research.

The research community must promote a collegial environment promoting high-quality research in line with recognised scientific and ethical principles. Researchers must develop an open and non-discriminatory culture where there is room for academic disagreement, constructive critique, and ethical deliberation. Researchers should not withhold substantial critique or avoid addressing research questions from various angles, and they should be transparent about the legitimate use and limitations of different methods and modes of analysis. Lecturers, supervisors, and project leaders have a particular responsibility for including students and PhD candidates into the scientific community and for introducing them to research ethics.

3. Academic assessment

Researchers must be open about roles and interests in relation to academic assessments.

Academic assessment of student papers, dissertations, applications, publications, or academic positions should be characterised by openness, factuality, and integrity. While conducting academic assessments, researchers must be willing to consider arguments and modes of thinking that are recognised in other research traditions and be conscious of the limitations of their own competence.

Researchers must disclose relevant roles and ties when they are to approve, review, or assess research or the consequences of the research. This applies, for example, in relation to employments and promotions, in peer review of publications and projects, or when researchers evaluate initiatives where they also have other roles and ties.

Research institutions must safeguard openness and deliberation about roles and interests.[ 13 ]

4. Supervisors and project leaders

Supervisors and project leaders have a general and comprehensive responsibility for research ethics in projects conducted under their purview.

Supervisors and project leaders have a general and comprehensive responsibility for ensuring that all projects under their purview is conducted in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics. The responsibility for research ethics applies in all stages of a project, from conceptualization to completion. The responsibility includes research ethics in a broad sense – from co-authorship and data sharing to integrity and social responsibility.

Supervisors should provide guidance on research ethics both through teaching and during project implementation. Project leaders are responsible for addressing ethical challenges that may arise in collaborations and sub-projects. Institutions must ensure that both supervisors and project leaders are made aware of their responsibilities.

5. The supervisory relationship

Supervisors and students/PhD candidates must treat each other with respect. Supervisors should not misuse their position to their own advantage. This applies in both academic and personal matters.

Supervisors and students/PhD candidates must treat each other with respect. Supervisors should be attentive to asymmetrical power relations, and not use their academic authority to their own advantage or in ways that violates other people’s integrity. If a supervisor wishes to make use of material in his or her own research, the supervisor needs to ensure that the students’/PhD candidates’ right to their own material has been secured. Institutions should prepare agreements for use in such cases.

A supervisory relationship may involve both academic and private relations, which can result in conflicts of roles and interests when evaluating the work of the student/PhD candidate or in the research community more generally. If the relationship between a supervisor or PhD student becomes too close, for instance, of an intimate, sexual, or therapeutic nature, the supervisory relation must cease. Institutions have a particular responsibility to prevent students/PhD candidates from suffering any damage if a supervisory relation ceases.

6. Openness, accountability, and critique

Research material and results should be made available to others as openly as possible to facilitate learning, accountability, and critique.

Openness in research is a precondition for scientific development, accountability, and critique. Public sharing of data, research material, and results is a precondition for developing knowledge, comparing research results, and assessing the analyses, interpretations, and conclusions of academic peers. Data material as well as results should therefore be shared with other researchers as openly as possible.

Openness as a norm must often be balanced against other ethical principles in research. The concern for originality dictates that the researchers responsible for collecting the material should have priority in analysing and publishing the results. After a limited embargo period, the material should normally be made publicly accessible. Concerns for persons and the demand for confidentiality may justify limited openness and sharing of data material and results. The conditions for consent may also be unclear or prevent open sharing of personal information. Such exceptions from the norm of openness should be explicitly justified.

7. Scientific publication

Scientific publication and other modes of publication are important both to ensure the quality of the research and to protect fundamental norms regarding originality, accountability, and critique.

Researchers should be free to choose the scientific publishing channels in which to publish their findings. Researchers are also responsible for making their findings and results public in other academic arenas, for instance, in national and international academic conferences or debates.

A researcher may have different roles in academic publishing, be it as an author, a peer reviewer, a member of an editorial board, or an editor. Research ethics applies to all of these roles and relations. Scientific activity presupposes critical assessment by competent and independent peers. Researchers who contribute with peer reviews and participate in editorial work have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the research. Research institutions should encourage and support employees to participate actively in the collegial work of scientific publication (see part D).

Researchers must avoid duplication – reuse or redundant publication of the same result without providing the appropriate references – and salamisation – dividing the result into smaller parts than what is academically justified for the sole purpose of increasing the number of publications. Researchers should refrain from publishing their work in journals that pretend to be scientific but lack sufficient systems for peer review (so-called predatory journals).

8. Good citation practice

All research should follow good citation practice. Recognition of the work of others is important to maintain a collegial culture and it is a precondition for accountability and critique.

Good citation practice is about recognising the work of others. Researcher should build on others’ work in a respectful, thorough, and accountable manner, in line with good citation practice.

Good citation practice is necessary to verify claims and arguments. Researchers should provide accurate references to all sources they make use of. This also applies when reusing text from one’s own publications and when using sources that are not scientific. References should be sufficiently specific to allow others to locate, evaluate, and interpret the content in its original context.

The research community has a collective responsibility to comply with and communicate norms for good citation practice. Teachers and supervisors have a particular responsibility to ensure that students and PhD candidates are taught good citation practice.

9. Co-authorship

Researchers shall respect the contributions of others and comply with recognised norms of co-authorship and collaboration.

When several researchers collaborate on a project and intend to publish, ambiguity and disagreement about their respective contributions and responsibilities may arise. Co- authorship and authorship order should be clarified as early as possible. When students, PhD candidates, and junior researchers are involved, asymmetrical power relations give researchers a particular responsibility to ensure the rights of co-authors. Early clarification is particularly important in larger interdisciplinary projects, in projects with many authors, or in international collaborations, as this may increase the likelihood that different practices and expectations are involved. If responsibilities and research tasks change during the project, these agreements must be updated to ensure just involvement and recognition.

Everyone who has contributed significantly to the project should be offered the opportunity to participate in the further work towards publication. Contributions related to data collection, supervision, or funding are not sufficient to be listed as a co-author. Rather, such contributors should be credited or acknowledged in footnotes, in a preface, or in a final remark. All forms of so-called honorary authorship are unacceptable. A person who has not contributed significantly should not be listed as an author.[ 14 ]

10. Plagiarism

Stealing someone else’s work and presenting it as one’s own is incompatible with good scientific practice.

In research ethics, plagiarism involves stealing the work of others, fully or partially, and presenting it as one’s own. The most obvious form of plagiarism is direct reproduction of text, although it also encompasses paraphrasing if the statement is close to the original source. Plagiarism may also imply presenting the ideas, hypotheses, concepts, theories, interpretations, data, design, illustrations, or results of others as one’s own (the list is not comprehensive). Plagiarism is incompatible with good scientific practice.

11. Fabrication and falsification

Fabricating or forging research material or results is incompatible with good scientific practice.

Fabrication implies counterfeiting research material, such as fake sources, fictitious data, or deceptive descriptions. Falsification refers to misleading manipulation of the materials, variables, or results of the research, for example, by making changes to sources, data, descriptions, or other relevant information without academic justification. Both fabrication and falsification are incompatible with good scientific practice.

12. Distortion and concealment

Distorting or concealing relevant interpretations or analyses is incompatible with good scientific practice.

Distortion implies misleading usage of scientific methods, such as tendentious interpretations of sources, skewed selection of data, or misleading use of statistics. Concealment implies misleading by withholding relevant interpretations and analyses, such as deceptive representations of other research or withholding significant critique. Both distortion and concealment are incompatible with good scientific practice.

13. Safety and security

Researchers are responsible for continuously assessing their own safety and the safety of others. Research institutions should have routines for handling risk and security.

Research may involve high risk, not just to the researchers but also to students, collaborators, research participants, co-workers, and interpreters. They may be endangered due to their participation in research beyond direct physical and mental harm by facing threats to their safety and well-being.

Researchers are responsible for assessing their own safety and for not exposing partners and participants to unacceptable risks. Caution is required when collecting and storing research material, registering consent, and assessing the terms for confidentiality, source protection, self-censorship, and restrictions on access. When researchers intend to communicate controversial themes and results, they should assess the risks of threats, sanctions, and damage.

Research institutions should have routines for risk assessment and specific action plans for safety and security. The research community has a collective responsibility to support researchers who are in danger or have fled because their academic freedom is threatened.

14. International collaboration

Researchers at institutions in Norway must comply with Norwegian rules and guidelines when conducting research in other countries.

The research community is international, and research results should be shared across borders. However, research in other countries and collaboration across borders may entail particular ethical challenges. Research ethics is managed differently in different countries and in different parts of the world. Researchers at Norwegian institutions are obligated to comply with recognised norms of research ethics, including when doing research in other countries. The institutions are responsible for making sure that researchers who arrive from or are visiting from other countries are informed about research ethics governance in Norway.

Researchers at institutions in Norway who collaborate with colleagues and partners in other countries must ensure that the research they contribute to is ethically responsible. Similarly, colleagues and partners in other countries have to comply with their own national rules and guidelines. Continuous ethical reflection and discussion are often necessary to clarify and understand mutual expectations, obligations, and responsibilities.

Researchers must be attentive to responsibilities that arise from global asymmetries in power and financial resources. When performing research in low- and middle- income countries, there should be a close dialogue between the collaborators to balance mutual interests, secure the quality and relevance of the research, and maintain mutual engagement and willingness to adapt.

B) Research Participants

Researchers have responsibilities towards all persons involved in or affected by research. Researchers should respect the participants’ human dignity and consider their personal integrity, safety, and well-being. Participation in research should, as a rule, be based on information and consent.

15. Consent to participate in research

As a main rule, researchers are ethically obliged to obtain consent from the research participants. Ethical consent to participate should be voluntary, informed, and unambiguous, and it is preferably documentable.

Research should respect personal integrity and privacy. Research ethics dictate that research participation as a main rule should be based on information and consent from all participants. This applies regardless of whether personal data or sensitive information are collected or whether participants are anonymised in the published research. The legal requirements concerning personal data protection are less comprehensive that the ethical obligation to inform and obtain consent.[ 15 ]

Ethical consent to participate should be voluntary, informed, and unambiguous, and it preferably documentable.[ 16 ]

Voluntary consent means that participants gave it without external pressure or restriction on freedom of choice. Invitations to participate in research should be neutrally formulated. Researchers must ensure that pressure is not exercised, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to secure participation. Direct pressure includes promises of rewards, restricted rights to decline, repeated inquiries despite active decline, or indicating that non- participation could have negative consequences. Indirect pressure is exerted for instance if participants feel obliged to participate because the consent is collected by an authority figure. When providing rewards for participation, researchers must make sure that the incentives do not influence the voluntariness of the consent. Researchers must make sure that the participants understand their right to withdraw and to end their participation, without having to provide a reason and without facing negative consequences. People should have a real possibility to decline and to withdraw if practically possible.

Informed consent means that researchers provide sufficient and clear information about what participation implies. The information should make clear to participants why they are asked to participate, what type of data is being collected, how it will be used, who will make use of the data, and for which purposes. The information should specify the purpose, method, and approach of the research; it should contain a plan for the processing, storage, use, and sharing of data; it should specify conditions for confidentiality and anonymisation; it should highlight potential risks of injury or disadvantage; and it should provide information about interests due to funding and organisational or other relations that may be of importance to the participants. The information should be adapted to the participants’ age and background, and it should be communicated in a language and manner that they understand. Participants can be informed about potential societal benefits of the research when relevant, but the information must be accurate and not create unrealistic expectations. Where relevant, researchers must clarify that participation in research does not influence access to public services or the outcome of cases and applications they are involved in. The need for information is particularly strong when the research involves risk of harm or disadvantage. However, well-informed and unambiguous consent may enable research that involves some disadvantage and discomfort (see point 28. Risk of harm and disadvantage). Throughout the entire research process, researchers must ensure that participants understand the implications and possible consequences of participating.

Unambiguous consent means that the participants actively and unmistakably communicate that they agree to participate in the research.

Consent should be documentable to highlight the researchers’ responsibility and to secure the rights of the participants. In many cases, this may be secured through a letter of consent, and the consent can be documented in writing, by an audio recording, or on film. In some cases, for example when documentable consent presents a security risk, the participants may provide their consent in other ways. Independently of the type of documentation, researchers are responsible for safeguarding the participants’ freedoms, rights, and human dignity.

The researchers’ responsibility does not cease once the participants have agreed to participate. In projects where objectives, roles, and relations change over time, obtaining consent at the start of the project is not sufficient. Researchers must consider if and when there is a need to update or adjust the consent during the course of the project.

In exceptional cases, obtaining passive consent may be appropriate, provided that the demand for information and the right to reservation have been secured.

16. Impaired capacity to consent

When research participants’ capacity to provide consent is impaired or absent, researchers have a particular responsibility to safeguard their freedoms, rights, and human dignity.

In some types of research, obtaining consent may be difficult due to the participants’ impaired or absent competence to protect their own needs and interests. In such cases, both the competence to consent and the ability to refuse participation are affected. This might for example be relevant in research with children or with individuals with mental health problems, intellectual disabilities, dementia, or substance abuse problems.

Individuals who are incapable of providing free and informed consent may only be included in research if a) the research is necessary because it cannot be done with people who have full capacity to consent, b) the research is valuable to the person or to the group that is the subject of the research, and c) the risk and inconvenience are insignificant to the participants. All three conditions must be fulfilled. When potential research participants have impaired or absent capacity to consent, consent should also be obtained from parents or guardians.

17. Protection of children

Children who participate in research have a particular right to protection. As a main rule, researchers must obtain consent both from the parents and from the children themselves. In some cases, children may consent on their own.

The best interest of the child is a fundamental concern in all research.[ 17 ] Children have the right to be heard in research, and their voices are important.[ 18 ] Research objectives and methods must be adapted to align with what is best for each individual child and children as a group. Children’s well-being and integrity override the interests of science and society.

As a main rule, researchers must obtain consent to participate in research from parents.[ 19 ]

Additionally, assent or acceptance from participating children is required. Children are in a process of development and have different needs and abilities. Biological age alone does not determine a child’s maturity. Researchers must have sufficient knowledge of children to be able to adapt the objectives and methods of their research to accommodate the age and developmental stage of the children. Researchers must assess the child’s capacity to consent and ensure that the conditions for participation have been understood (see point 15. Consent to participate in research). Children always have the right to refuse to participate in research, even if their parents have consented. Researchers must understand and respect children’s capacity to refuse . Children may express refusal in different ways, depending on their age and developmental stage.

In some cases, there may be a conflict of interest between children and their parents. Children are entitled to privacy, but situations may arise where researchers are obligated to convey information to parents (see point 21. Confidentiality). Parents may also have a self- interest in concealing information, for instance, about violence and abuse. In such cases, allowing children to participate in the research without the consent of their parents may be ethically sound, if the benefits and value of the research to the child clearly exceed the disadvantages of participating.[ 20 ] In all cases, the researcher must ensure that the best interests of the child and the right to be heard are protected in a responsible way (see point 22. Duty of notification).

18. Exceptions from the demand for consent

In some situations, including persons in research even though ethical consent is not obtained may be responsible. Researchers are nonetheless responsible for providing information.

In some situations, including persons in research without obtaining ethical consent may be reasonable, for instance, when studying historical sources, artworks, or public statements. There may also be exceptions where there is no direct interaction between the researchers and those involved, provided that the information provided is not sensitive, that participants are not identifiable, and that the benefits of the research clearly exceed the possible disadvantages of participating in the research. In such cases, researchers must nevertheless be careful and respect the freedoms, rights, and human dignity of the participants, and explicitly consider the benefits and disadvantages of the research and the lack of alternative methods.

Four factors are particularly relevant to an ethical assessment concerning requirements for consent: the public character and context of the statement, the sensitivity of the information, the vulnerability of those involved, and the interactions and consequences of the research. In these cases, both the ‘reasonable expectations of publicity’ and ‘contextual integrity’ should be considered.[ 21 ]

In some cases, obtaining consent for participation in research may be impracticable or impossible. Critical research on people in powerful positions may in some cases be performed without consent if society’s need for relevant knowledge clearly exceeds the possible disadvantage to actors who wish to avoid public attention. Examples of such cases are research which is necessary to reveal injustice and abuse of power or research on certain criminal offenses. In other cases, concealing the purpose of a study from the participants may be necessary. Exceptions to the principle of consent may also be made if obtaining consent entails a security risk to the researchers and/or the research participants.[ 22 ]

VWhen obtaining consent is impracticable or impossible, researchers must justify the expected value of the results. Researchers are responsible for informing those involved about the aims and results of the project. Providing general information about the project may be possible prior to the research, to be supplemented by more specific information after the research is done about the project and why consent was not obtained at the outset.

19. Transparency about roles and responsibilities

Researchers are responsible for clarifying to the participants the boundaries, expectations, and requirements associated with the role of a researcher.

In situations where researchers have multiple roles, they are responsible for clarifying the boundaries of the research relationship. Examples include when researchers also provide treatment to the participant, when evaluating a policy they have also taken part in developing, when doing research on their own teaching, in artistic development work, or in long-lasting research relationships. If the close relationship between the researcher and the participants is likely to influence professionalism and independence, the researchers must consider whether the project should be altered or stopped.

20. Anonymity

Researchers must ensure that anonymity is protected when it has been agreed upon or otherwise is prudent.

Researchers must consider whether protecting the identity of the research participants is necessary. If the participants have been promised anonymity, the researcher is obliged not to disclose their identity in research and dissemination. The anonymity of the participants must be secured, both in publications and other forms of dissemination. Additionally, when collecting information in other ways, such as through observation or from historical sources, researchers must consider whether the persons involved should be anonymised.

Anonymisation is a means to protect the research participants’ identity and integrity. Collecting anonymised data is different from de-identifying information after it has been collected. Anonymisation means to remove the connection between individuals and information in order to prevent the information from being traced back to particular individuals. Data is pseudonymised to prevent unauthorized entities from being able to trace the information back to particular individuals, while the researcher or other authorized entities may link the information to individuals through a pseudonym or other type of key.[ 23 ] The need for protection may change over time, and anonymisation is in practice often a question of degrees rather than either/or.

Re-identification refers to a residual risk that individuals may be identified, including by non-researchers, even if the initial information does not identify any individuals. Re- identification may require that additional consent be obtained from those who are identified. If re-identification entails a risk of harm or unreasonable disadvantage, the researcher must consider whether a change in the methodological approach is possible and whether the project may be responsibly completed.

21. Confidentiality

Researchers shall handle the data confidentially when it has been agreed upon or otherwise is prudent. If researchers plan to use data collected by others on the condition of confidentiality, they must ensure that permission to depart from this condition has been secured.

If researchers promise participants confidentiality, they are obliged to treat the information confidentially and not disseminate it in ways that violate this agreement. This is a condition both for the credibility of the researcher and the participants’ trust in research. However, confidentiality can be limited by the duty to notify (see point 22. Duty of notification).

Some professions are legally obligated to respect confidentiality because they gain access to information in confidential situations, for instance, in relationships between doctors and patients, psychologists and clients, teachers and students, or public employees and individual citizens. Researchers must ensure that exemptions from this obligation is granted before they can make use of such information in research. Researchers are legally obligated to respect confidentiality when they gain access to information that is subject to confidentiality.[ 24 ]

In cases where rules or agreements on confidentiality are abused to prevent critical perspectives on important social affairs, departing from the demand for confidentiality may be ethically responsible.

22. Duty of notification

Researchers have a duty to notify when the participants are endangering themselves or others. In certain situations, researchers must depart from the demand for confidentiality to safeguard the duty to notify.

The ethical duty to notify is activated if researchers become aware that research participants may constitute a danger to themselves or others. In research where the duty to notify may be relevant, researchers must provide explicit information about the limits of confidentiality when they obtain consent. Researchers should develop a risk assessment and a contingency plan before the project starts to know in advance whom to contact in such situations. In some cases, collaboration with institutions that may provide participants with support and treatment is advisable when developing a contingency plan.

In some situations, researchers are legally obliged to share confidential information, for example, with parents, child protection services, or the police. The duty to avert a criminal offense in the Penal Code implies that researchers informed about criminal acts have a legal duty to avert such acts, which in most cases means reporting them to the relevant responsible authority. Such situations include ongoing or planned criminal acts, such as espionage, terror, homicide, rape, severe bodily injury, and abuse in intimate relationships.[ 25 ] The duty to inform in the Child Welfare Law implies that researchers who receive information or have a suspicion about neglect or abuse of children must report their concerns to the Child Protection Services. Children have a particular right to protection, and the duty applies without regard for the duty of confidentiality.[ 26 ]

23. Privacy and family life

Researchers should respect privacy and family life.

Privacy is a fundamental human right, and researchers must respect personal integrity and protect people from unwanted interventions and unwanted disclosure. The right to privacy encompasses, among other things, information about diseases and health, political and religious views, and sexual orientation. Researchers must be careful when studying private affairs, and they should avoid putting pressure on participants. What is regarded as sensitive information may vary between persons, groups, cultures, and across times. Distinguishing the private from the public may be difficult. Researchers should consider variations in what people regard as sensitive, private, and/or public.

24. Storage and sharing of research material

Research data and other research material should be stored and shared responsibly.

Prior to collecting data or other research material, plans should be made for how the material will be stored/archived/shared or deleted/destroyed when the project is completed. If the material is to be stored/archived/shared, the researchers must inform the participants clearly about how, in which format, and at which institutions this will be done prior to obtaining consent.

Research institutions are accountable for providing responsible storage. They must have routines to ensure the quality, verifiability, re-use, sharing, and deletion/destruction of data. The institutions shall preserve research material for future generations.

If storing personal data or other sensitive material is necessary, it must be done in a secure and legal manner.[ 27 ]

25. Reporting the results

Researchers shall report the results to the participants in a clear and responsible way.

Research participants and others who are indirectly involved in research are entitled to be informed about the results of the research. This also applies to research in which institutions and large groups of participants are involved. If direct contact with each informant is disproportionately difficult or impossible, this obligation may be fulfilled through public dissemination of the results.

Participants should be given the opportunity to correct factual errors where possible. Researchers must present the results in ways and languages that are understandable to the participants. The researchers are still fully responsible for the final interpretations and conclusions in the research. Researchers also have a responsibility for public dissemination to broader audiences (see part E).

26. Direct and indirect involvement

Researchers have a responsibility towards persons who are directly or indirectly affected by the research.

Through interviews, archival studies, and observation, researchers may gain information about more people than those who are central to the study. In some cases, for instance when observing groups of people, excluding those who have not provided their consent or who have actively declined to participate in the research can be difficult. The research may also have consequences for privacy and close relationships to people who are not themselves part of the research, but who are nevertheless indirectly involved or affected.

Researchers should be attentive to possible unforeseen effects and negative consequences of the research, for example, that members of a group may experience unreasonable exposure.

Demands for documentation and reasonable interpretations become particularly important when the research may have consequences for the reputation or integrity of specific persons. In such cases, researchers must include mentions of alternative interpretations and/or emphasise scientific uncertainty. The possible disadvantages to people outside the research project should be balanced against the critical function and commitment to truth in research.

27. Values and motives

Researchers should respect different values and attitudes. Researchers should not attribute irrational or dishonourable motives unless they can provide convincing documentation or justification.

Interpreting motives for actions is often a central and legitimate part of research. Scholarly interpretations should build on research-based theories, concepts, and perspectives. Exploring motives may imply uncertainty, not least when studying other cultures or historical epochs. Researchers should therefore distinguish clearly between their descriptions and their analysis. Scholarly interpretation is substantially different from misleading distortion (see point 12. Distortion and concealment).

Researchers should respect the self-understandings of the research participants and avoid descriptions that may challenge their legitimate rights or promote stigmatisation. However, motives may often be derived from individuals’ social roles. Critical research attributing dishonourable motives to individuals, or motives departing from the participants’ self-understanding, calls for particularly meticulous documentation and justification.

28. Risk of harm and disadvantage

Researchers are responsible for avoiding exposure of research participants to harm and unreasonable disadvantages in the course of doing research. Participants may consent to a certain degree of risk of discomfort and disadvantage.

Research should not inflict harm on participants or expose them to unreasonable physical or mental disadvantages, such as re-traumatisation. Risk of harm may infringe upon individuals’ reputation, integrity, and human rights, for instance through stigmatisation or formal and informal sanctioning of research participation.

Research may inflict less serious or reasonable disadvantages on the participants, provided that the research clearly has utility to society and value to the participants. In such cases, researchers should provide specific information about the expected utility and value before, during, and after the research.

Researchers and research institutions must ensure that participants are offered relevant and professional help or treatment for possible injuries and disadvantages resulting from their participation in the project. The higher the probability of injury and disadvantage, the greater the responsibilities borne by researchers and research institutions.

29. Posthumous legacy

Researchers should respect the legacy of deceased people.

Research on deceased people must meet the same standards for respect, documentation, and accountability as research involving living people. Respecting the deceased and those left behind requires that researchers are careful in their presentation of the findings. Archives and documents may contain sensitive information about the deceased or those left behind. Such information should be handled with care, preferably in dialogue with relatives. When studying graves and human remains, researchers must treat these with respect (see point 33. Cultural heritage).

30. Future generations

Researchers have a responsibility towards future generations.

Research may have unwanted and unforeseen consequences to the society, health, and environment of future generations. Scientific uncertainty and risk of harm and disadvantage increase the responsibility of researchers towards future generations. If the research may have negative consequences for future generations, the research must be justified in ways that these generations realistically could have accepted.

C) Groups and Institutions

Disadvantaged and vulnerable groups have a particular need for protection Specific attention may be required in research across cultures or on cultural heritage. Public offices and private organisations have a joint responsibility to ensure that their participation in research is in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics.

31. Disadvantaged and vulnerable groups

Researchers have a special responsibility to protect the integrity and interests of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.

The research community has a social responsibility to gain experience with and develop knowledge about members of vulnerable groups. Historically, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups have often been subject to abuses of power and unethical research. Conducting research on weak and vulnerable groups simply because these groups are easily accessible is irresponsible. Researchers must always ensure that research is performed in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics concerning respect, protection, and justice, particularly when acquiring free and informed consent. The capacity of participants to consent should be evaluated based on individual competence, not on group characteristics.

Members of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups may wish not to be subjects of research, for instance for fear of stigmatisation or other negative consequences. At the same time, excessive protection of weak and vulnerable groups is inappropriate. This might result in their perspectives being excluded in research, and society might not gain knowledge about important topics. When performing research on weak and vulnerable groups, researchers must avoid using classifications or terms that invite unreasonable generalisations, are defamatory and/or could lead to group stigmatisation. Researchers must be clear about their roles and responsibilities both in research and in dissemination.

32. Respect for cultural differences

In research on culturally defined groups, gaining knowledge about and respect the local context and social relations is important. Understanding the significance of cultural differences is crucial to research, but does not necessarily entail acceptance of all cultural practices.

In research on culturally defined groups, respecting and gaining knowledge about the local context and social relations is important. Here, culture is understood in a broad sense that includes subcultures, religious groups, and minorities, whether or not they are vulnerable. Some groups, such as indigenous people, have collective rights, which must be respected.[ 28 ] Researchers should engage in dialogue with their recognised representatives in addition to local authorities and the local population where relevant (see point 40. User participation). Participation, influence, or control could conflict with requirements for quality and independence in research. In planning and conducting research, the value placed on participation should be balanced against the concern for independence in research.

Members of culturally defined groups may wish not to be subjects of research, for instance for fear of stigmatisation or other negative consequences. At the same time, excessive protection of cultural groups is inappropriate. This might result in their perspectives being excluded in research, and society may not gain knowledge about important topics. When performing research on cultural groups, researchers must avoid using classifications or terms that invite unreasonable generalisations, are defamatory, and/or could lead to group stigmatisation. Researchers must be attentive to the difference between descriptions of norms and practices on the one hand and normative or critical discussion on the other. In addition, they must be clear about their roles and responsibilities both in research and in dissemination. In cases where cultural practices obviously conflict with general human rights or international legal obligations, the concern for such fundamental values should take priority over the concern for respect and recognition of cultural values.

33. Cultural heritage

Knowledge of the past is important to the present and the future. Institutions and researchers shall treat all types of cultural heritage responsibly.

Cultural heritage and cultural environments are sources of knowledge about humans who have lived before us. These sources encompass both cultural and natural heritage, and they may be landscapes, places, memorials, objects, texts, and archives, as well as oral sources and immaterial cultural heritage.[ 29 ] Research on human remains is subject to particular ethical considerations.[ 30 ]

Research resulting in the destruction of the source material raises distinctive ethical dilemmas. The value of the research must be balanced against the degree to which the material is destroyed or altered. All invasive measures, such as handling, repatriation, and analysis of cultural objects or art works, should be documented with respect to future research or accountability. Research must not proceed in ways that prevent future researchers from learning what they might consider important.

Researchers and research institutions must be responsible and only acquire cultural heritage and cultural objects in an open, fair, and accountable way. Researchers and research institutions must not contribute to looting, theft, or the illegal sale of cultural heritage artefacts. If the ownership (provenance) is controversial, unknown, or unclear, the researchers should consider the source and history of the object and clarify rightful ownership of the material to ensure that the research is responsible. Due diligence in research involving such materials requires that the researchers and research institutions provide an ethical justification and contribute to transparency about the provenance of the materials.[ 31 ]

Preservation of sources in archives, libraries, and museums is a precondition for historical research. Perspectives and interests in research may change from one generation to another, and our society is responsible for securing documentation of our past and present, thus providing future generations with the possibility to have a past. When acquiring and documenting new sources, ethical standards should be maintained both with regard to the participants (see part B) and to the funding and organisation of the research (see part D).

34. Public administration

Public offices should enable independent research on their activities and data.

The public has a legitimate interest in understanding how public institutions work. Public offices have a duty to document and archive information about their own activities, and this information should be made available to researchers as far as possible and without great cost or delays.[ 32 ] Similarly, public offices should provide for research on their own work.

Public data should be accumulated in ethically responsible ways that enable reuse in research. Public offices funding or facilitating research should provide open and non-discriminatory access to research data to enable accountability and further research.

35. Private companies and organisations

Private companies and organisations should provide for research on their activities and data.

The public has a legitimate interest in understanding how private companies and non- governmental organisations work. Companies and organisations have considerable power and potential to influence the lives of individuals and the development of society both positively and negatively. Private companies and organisations should thus make their activities and data available for research, even if the purposes of the research do not align with their institutional interests. Openness about data and equal treatment of researchers is important, independently of the purpose of the research.

Private companies and organisations may have access to detailed data about customers, employees, and other groups of interests to them. Research on such data may challenge the integrity of research in various ways, such as manipulated data, lack of transparency in decision-making processes, and unreasonable differences in access to products and services. Researchers have a specific obligation to consider whether research on such data can be responsibly undertaken.

Private companies and organisations may have legitimate reasons to limit access to information about their activities, such as competitive advantage. Nevertheless, in specific cases research may be ethically justifiable if the value to society clearly exceeds the concern for such interests. In such cases, the method of acquiring data must be explicitly justified, and the researchers must ensure that any needs for anonymity are respected (see point 21. Confidentiality).

D) Commisioners, Funders, and Collaborators

Researchers and research institutions have obligations towards commissioners, funders, and collaborators. Similarly, other research actors have obligations towards researchers and research institutions. Research ethics balance the norms of openness and independence against demands for social utility and relevance.

36. Independence in research

All research actors must protect the independence of the researchers against pressure and control.

Independence is a precondition for the credibility of research and for societal trust in research. The independence of individual researchers may come under pressure due to external influences and control by commissioners and funders or due to demands and pressures from within the researcher’s own institution. Ambiguity may also arise as users and collaborators are involved in carrying out the research. Different modes of control, connections, and conflicts of interest may increase the risk of distorting results or interpretations. They may also discourage researchers from posing critical questions and pursuing topics that might lead to disagreement. For these reasons, securing the real independence of the researchers is important.

Overly close relations between research environments and external partners creates a conflict of interest and ambiguity about roles and responsibilities. It may also result in shared interests, to the extent that real tensions and normative conflicts are downplayed and kept hidden. In both cases, the social contract of research as a source of credible and reliable knowledge is weakened.

Overly close relations weaken the responsibility and credibility of the research. To secure public trust in research, protecting the independence of researchers from other interests is important, both in research policy and in the funding and organisation of individual projects.

All actors who participate in the funding and organisation of research, whether they are employers, public authorities, commissioners, funders, collaborators, or other groups of interest, are obliged to protect the true independence of the researchers. Different models for funding, standard contracts, forms of collaboration, and reward systems must not undermine recognised scientific and ethical norms.

37. The responsibility of the research institutions

Research institutions must ensure that all research is conducted in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics. This is particularly important when such norms are under pressure.

Research institutions have an overarching responsibility to ensure that all research is performed in accordance with recognised scientific and ethical norms. The institutions are obligated to protect their employees against undue pressure and control that may contribute to weakening research ethics.[ 33 ]

Research institutions interact with the society at large. When public or private actors fund research, they expect to get something in return. External partners have legitimate expectations of gaining useful and relevant knowledge, which is compatible with responsible research. However, research ethics articulate clear requirements for independence and openness regarding contracts, ownership, and the right to publication.

Research institutions are responsible for protecting their employees against undue pressure and control from all sources, including external actors. The institutions must ensure that all their research is conducted in accordance with recognised ethical norms and that all external partners participating in the research are familiar with the recognised norms of research ethics.[ 34 ]

Research institutions must also ensure that the agreements they sign are ethically responsible. This applies regardless of the contribution from the external partners, whether in the form of funding, data, or access to arenas and groups for data collection. A fundamental principle in research ethics is that research should be open and independent. If responsible agreements cannot be made or maintained, the project should not proceed.

38. Commissioners and funders

Commissioners and funders are jointly responsible for ensuring that their participation in research is in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics. Strategic adaptation of projects to bypass ethical norms should not occur.

Commissioners and funders who manage research funds and influence research policy have a considerable impact on the organisation and initiation of research. They influence researchers and research institutions directly in research projects, and they can often influence how research projects are conceptualized and carried out. Commissioners and funders have a joint responsibility to ensure that their participation in research projects is in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics. Strategic adaptation of projects to bypass ethical norms should not occur.

Commissioners and funders must avoid providing incentives and guidance that place independence and research ethics under pressure. They may guide the choice of topic and influence the choice of research questions, but they should not determine the selection of data, methods, conclusions, or the presentation of results. The researchers must be able to raise critical questions and reach different conclusions than what the commissioners expected, even in cases where the results challenge the policy or strategy of the commissioners. Such events should not entail cuts in funding, reduced support for ongoing projects, or lower likelihood of future funding.

Commissioners who organise and fund research, whether publicly or privately, must have competence in research ethics. Commissioners and funders must ensure that the researchers and research institutions address relevant ethical challenges throughout the project, from project design and execution to publication and dissemination.

39. Collaborative projects

Collaborators have a joint responsibility for ensuring that their participation in research is in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics. Research ethics must be guaranteed in all agreements and collaboration arrangements.

All collaborators in research are jointly responsible for ensuring research ethics. This is particularly important when external actors participate in research projects while at the same time contributing with funding and/or in other ways exercise power. Research ethics must be guaranteed in all agreements and modes of collaboration.[ 35 ]

40. User involvement

Research ethics must be ensured in all modes of user involvement.

User involvement may strengthen the quality and relevance of research, promote democratic rights, and reduce discrimination. However, it may also create ethical challenges, for instance, in relation to confidentiality, impartiality, and conflicts of interest.[ 36 ] Users, clients, and caregivers must not be reduced to symbols devoid of any real influence.

In some contexts, the users involved in research projects include public authorities or private actors. These actors may have several roles within a project, including as commissioners, as users, and as actors exercising power and authority. Transparency about different roles and possible conflicts of interest is important, both to promote good research and to protect society’s trust in research. Different roles and expectations should be clarified in written agreements defining the mutual responsibility to adhere to research ethics.

Commissioners and funders who facilitate user involvement have a joint responsibility to ensure compliance with research ethics. Researchers must safeguard the independence and integrity of research while acknowledging the competence and interests of the users.

41. Transparency about funding, roles, and interests

All research actors are responsible for securing transparency about funding and interests.

Transparency about funding and interests is important to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of research. Transparency about funding makes it easier for researchers to protect themselves against undue pressure, thereby securing the independence of research. Commissioners and funders should publicly indicate what research they have supported and whether there are other interests and power relations that might influence the research.

When researchers publish and utilise results, they have an independent responsibility to be transparent about any ties that might influence the confidence in the research. Transparency does not exempt researchers from their broader responsibility to abide by research ethics.

42. Use of research results

All researchers are responsible for ensuring that the use and presentation of their results are ethically responsible.

Commissioners and funders cannot withhold unwanted results and thereby contribute to a distorted picture of facts and findings. Bending the results to arrive at desired conclusions or to present the results in a misleading or questionable way is unethical (see point 12. Distortion and concealment). Researchers are free to discuss their mandate as a part of the reporting, for example, by clearly elaborating academic or relevant perspectives, interpretations and concerns that have been omitted (see point 1. Free and independent research). In such cases, researchers must discuss alternative interpretations of their findings or acknowledge scientific uncertainty. If the results are used in a misleading or questionable way by the commissioners, researchers have a right as well as a duty to point this out and demand that the reporting be corrected.

43. The right to publication and public presentation

All research actors have a responsibility to promote open research in scientific publications and other modes of public presentation.

Commissioners and funders must respect researchers’ right to publish complete descriptions, data sets, and other results from their research. This also includes the right to publish findings and results in outlets the researchers most appropriate. Public and private actors may have legitimate reasons for limiting public presentation. In such cases, the ethical considerations must be explicit, and possible limitations to the right to publish should be justified, clear, and defined at the outset of the project.

Researchers have the right to speak publicly about the research in ways beyond publication, and commissioners and funders cannot limit the freedom of speech or academic freedom of the researchers.

44. Publication ethics

Scientific publishers must promote norms of research ethics.

Scientific publishers and academic journals should have their own guidelines for ethical oversight, such as peer review, good citation practices, co-authorship, and declaration of funding and conflicts of interests. They should also have routines for handling complaints and appeals regarding scientific misconduct. If a publication later deviates from good scientific practice, it must be corrected, labelled, or retracted.[ 37 ]

E) Dissemination of Research

Researchers and research institutions have a responsibility to disseminate scientific results, methods, and attitudes from their own and others’ research to the society at large. Dissemination of research includes dialogue across disciplines, interaction with different actors in society, and participation in public debates.

45. Dissemination as a social responsibility

Researchers have a social responsibility to disseminate research.

Research dissemination is the communication of scientific results, methods, and attitudes to people outside the research community and the scientific disciplines. Dissemination is a dialogue between science and society, and researchers must promote public discourse with respect for argumentative reasoning and critical thinking. The aim is to strengthen individual autonomy and freedom of speech and to contribute to open and informed public discourse.[ 38 ] Researchers should provide critical correctives to authorities and other powerful actors in society, and they should challenge the misuse of research in the form of pseudo-science, politicisation, and propaganda. A well-functioning, knowledge-based, and democratic society relies on research as a source of trustworthy knowledge.

The dissemination of research encompasses many different activities with different purposes, and the activity may be directed towards the public, specific users, or researchers in other disciplines. Researchers may communicate their own findings and results or the work of peers, as well as other forms of academic knowledge and established insights. Moreover, they may disseminate in different social capacities, for example, as public intellectuals, through think tanks, or as experts on public committees and surveys. Research dissemination should always follow recognised norms of research ethics.

Dissemination of research through national fora is important to maintain and develop Norwegian and Sámi languages as scholarly languages, and the population must be able to access relevant research on complex issues through public debates. Dissemination of research in international fora is important for ensuring that relevant research is available to actors in other countries, whether they are affected by the research, researchers in other fields, or other organisations or institutions.

46. Dissemination as an institutional responsibility

Research institutions should facilitate dissemination of research and other forms of dialogue and interaction.

Dissemination of research is an institutional responsibility.[ 39 ] Thus, institutions should develop a strong culture for research dissemination, and they should remove barriers to dissemination and skewed incentive and reward systems that may contribute to the weakening research dissemination. Institutions should ensure that research dissemination always is in accordance with recognised principles of research ethics.

Research dissemination may entail collaboration with other institutions and professions. Research institutions have a responsibility to ensure that everyone who participates in the dissemination of research is acquainted with research ethics.

Research dissemination may result in pressure, hate speech, threats, or sanctions towards the researcher. A politicised public sphere characterised by personal attacks and culture wars may limit academic freedom and undermine democracy.[ 40 ] Research institutions must therefore ensure that researchers are able to fulfil their social responsibility safely and securely. Institutions should conduct risk assessment and make contingency plans to support the safety and integrity of researchers when they are put under pressure (see also point 13. Safety and security).

47. Dissemination and accountability

The demand for accountability in dissemination is the same as in research.

When researchers disseminate specialised knowledge, the audience may not be in a position to reappraise the arguments presented. Therefore, dissemination of research is subject to the same demand for accountability as scientific publishing. The referencing requirements are not the same, but references to sources may guide the public towards specialised academic literature, either to search for further information or to verify the arguments presented.

Researchers may share hypotheses, theories, and preliminary findings with the public while a project is ongoing, but they should not present preliminary results as if they were decisive. Researchers should clearly communicate both scientific uncertainty and academic limitations.

In addition, they should clarify the limitations of their own academic perspective and their own competence related to the relevant issue, thus making it easier for the public to consider whether other scholarly perspectives might lead to different conclusions. Researchers must be open about possible funding, ties, and interests in their research dissemination.

48. Dissemination and factuality

The demand for factuality is the same in dissemination as in scientific publication.

Dissemination of research must maintain fundamental norms of factuality and demands for scientific discourse. Researchers should express themselves clearly, thus making it possible for other researchers from different fields and other participants in the public debate to consider their arguments and claims. Factuality implies not to deviate from the matter under discussion and avoiding tendentious accounts. Representations of others’ contributions must not be distorted, and one should not ascribe to opponents erroneous points of view.[ 41 ] Norms of factuality are compatible with the use of humour and other rhetorical devices. The content is crucial, not the style.

49. Participation in interdisciplinary dialogue

Researchers should communicate across specialised academic fields.

Researchers should communicate across academic fields and participate in interdisciplinary dialogue. Researchers from different fields should treat each other appropriately and respectfully. Differences in academic traditions and points of view notwithstanding, interdisciplinary dialogue should follow the fundamental norms for scientific discourse. Scientific argumentation and critique are important to find shared solutions and to handle disagreements and diversity. All researchers have a shared responsibility for communicating these fundamental norms, through their practice as well as in theory.

50. Participation in public debate

Researchers shall bring scientific results, methods, and attitudes into the public discourse.

Researchers can and should contribute to public debate by communicating relevant knowledge, adopting a reasoned position on controversial themes, and addressing new topics. Researchers are responsible for expressing themselves in an factual and careful manner to limit the possibility that their findings and results will be interpreted tendentiously or be misused for political, cultural, social, and economic ends. Researchers should engage in discussions about reasonable interpretations of results. Researchers should also point out and correct misleading representations and misuse of research in the public debate.

The distinction between participating as a researcher and as a citizen may be unclear. A researcher who participates in public debate as a researcher is obliged to communicate scientific results, methods, and attitudes. Personal opinions or politicised views should not be presented as research. Researchers should provide information about academic disciplines and fields of expertise, not just their degree or position, when they present themselves as researchers. A researcher participating in public debate as a citizen should not use his or her title or refer to his or her specific scientific competence unless required to allow others to assess his or her interests or academic background.

The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) is an advisory body working to promote good and ethically responsible research. NESH also contributes to preventing scientific misconduct. The committee is granted independence, and its work is based on recognised scientific and ethical principles, as outlined in the Research Ethics Act of 2017 ( forskningsetikkloven ).

NESH is part of the the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (FEK), and the committee is appointed for four years by the Ministry of Education and Research (KD) based on a proposal by the Norwegian Research Council. The members have competence in relevant disciplines as well as ethics and law. The current committee (2018–2021) has 13 members, including two lay representatives and two deputy members (see the attached overview of current and previous members). NESH’s tasks are authorised in the Research Ethics Act and anchored in the dialogue between FEK and KD.[ 42 ]

NESH’s main task is to develop guidelines for research ethics to promote good scientific practice. This work is anchored in the research community through broad involvement and national consultations. Furthermore, NESH assists by giving advice and supervision linked to specific projects. Both researchers and research institutions may address NESH as well as people who participate in or are affected by research.

NESH can make public statements on research projects that raise specific ethical questions. The committee decides which cases to discuss. A statement by NESH is advisory and may contribute to further reflection and possible changes in practice. NESH can also raise new and important ethical issues on its own initiative

NESH is neither a controller nor a court. It does not provide means of punishment or enforce sanctions. NESH does not provide ethical preapproval of research projects.

History of NESH

NESH was set up by the Norwegian Parliament in 1990 together with the National Committee for Natural Science and Technology (NENT) and the National Committee for Medical and Health Research (NEM).[ 43 ] The three national committees provide ethical guidelines, handle controversial research topics, communicate knowledge of ethical questions to the public, and foster an open and informed public discourse. The first edition of NESH’s guidelines was published in 1993, and they have since been revised in 1999, 2006 and 2016.

The background for the initiative from the Parliament was the report Forskning og etisk ansvar ( Research and ethical responsibility ) (1981), which was authorised by a national commission for ‘Research and ethics’ formed in 1979. The report outlined the international development of research ethics since the Second World War in the aftermath of the atom bombs and the Nuremberg trials. It discussed how the fundamental norms and values of science were articulated in ‘the ethos of science’ and how this normative structure may be put under pressure by other social interests. The report outlined different ethical challenges linked with genetic research, military research, research on humans and animals, as well as commissioned research and research dissemination. It also discussed the risks associated with emerging technologies.[ 44 ] It concluded that research ethics councils should be established, both within institutions and on a national level.

In the report, it was important to clarify the relation between research ethics and legal acts concerning the protection of personal data. Part of the background on this issue was ‘Prosjekt Metropolitt’ (‘Project Metropolis’) in the 1960’s, in which personal data from pupils were used in longitudinal studies without consent from the children and their parents. In the 1970’s, ‘Gro-saken’ (‘the Gro affair’) led to a debate about research-based abuse of vulnerable children in institutions. In 1978, Norway introduced a new law on public registers that also established the legal basis for the processing of personal data in research; the Norwegian Data Protection Authority was established in the same year. It was also suggested that a research ethics council for social sciences should be established.[ 45 ] Thus, research ethics was institutionalised prior to the legal regulation, and in 1990 research ethics in Norway was formalised in three national committees, with NESH covering both the social sciences and the humanities.

The institutionalisation of research ethics in Norway also evolved through interaction with international development. The Belmont report (1979) served as a joint starting point for research on human beings, emphasising fundamental principles such as respect, benevolence, and justice. Since 2007, the World Conferences for Research Integrity (WCRI) have also developed various guidelines for interdisciplinary research and international collaboration.[ 46 ] The European Commission recently developed The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017), which applies to all research funded by Horizon Europe.[ 47 ] These international resources may be of use in international and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Ethical guidelines and legal acts

Ethical norms state what we can and should do in a particular situation. The source of authority for research ethical norms and guidelines resides in the research community, in accordance with the principle of academic self-regulation, and the research community is responsible for maintaining the norms and formulating the guidelines. Ethical considerations are often concerned with real dilemmas, where different concerns must be balanced, and the NESH guidelines are advisory, indicative and preventive. The guidelines are formulated as demands, advice, concerns, or ideals to aim for. Thus, NESH’s guidelines are a tool and a source of ethical reflection. They indicate what researchers should consider to ensure that research is ethically responsible.

Both ethics and law are based on norms. At the same time, there are several important differences between legal and ethical norms. Research ethics has broader scope than the legal regulation of scientific misconduct and protection of personal data, and research ethics must be addressed even if the research does not deal with personal data.

Distinguishing between ethics and law may be difficult because the institutionalisation of research ethics is also regulated by the Research Ethics Act ( forskningsetikkloven ). The Act presents different demands, including how to handle cases of misconduct. In cases of possible breaches of recognised research ethical norms, the legislation determines whether legal sanctions may be relevant. In some cases, the legislation may conflict with research ethics. In such cases, researchers have a particular responsibility to consider whether implementing the project is responsible.

The distinction between ethics and law may also create challenges and misunderstandings when obtaining consent from research participants. The Personal Data Act defines legal demands for the processing of personal data. Guidelines for research ethics, however, address broader ethical concerns, which must also be ensured when obtaining consent to participate in research. Therefore, ethical consent will often have a broader scope than legal consent.

The national research ethics system

The responsibility for research ethics is divided between researchers, research institutions, and other research actors, as presented in the introduction to NESH’s guidelines. Furthermore, within the national system of research ethics, the administration of research ethics is distributed between a range of different institutions.

The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (FEK) is an administrative body under the Ministry of Education and Research (KD), which was established in 2013. FEK is the central scholarly body for research ethics, and its main goal is to ensure that both public and private research takes place in accordance with recognised norms of research ethics. FEK consists of a secretariat, which assists the three original committees, NEM, NENT and NESH, in addition to GRU and SKJ (see below). Committees and commissions in FEK are scholarly independent.[ 48 ]

The National Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (NEM) was established in 1990 to advise on research ethics and develop guidelines for relevant fields of research. NEM addresses complaints under the Health Research Act on decisions from the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REKs). NEM also coordinates the REKs (see below).[ 49 ]

The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT) was established in 1990 and provides advice and supervision on research ethics within natural sciences and technology, industry, agriculture, and fishery as well as the parts of the life sciences not covered by medicine. NENT has developed separate guidelines for its fields of research.

The National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct (GRU) was introduced in the former Research Ethics Act of 2007. According to the revised Act from 2017, the commission is responsible for considering and addressing allegations of suspected breaches of good scientific practice. GRU is also a national appeals body in cases where research institutions have concluded with scientific misconduct.[ 50 ]

The National Commission for Research Ethics on Human Remains (SKJ) was established in 2008 as a national commission for considering research on human remains. The background for setting up the commission was a discussion on returning remains of Sami people from scientific collections. The commission is advisory and contributes to promoting ethically good and responsible research on human remains, for instance, in archaeological excavations or museum collections.[ 51 ]

Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REKs) consider all projects within medical and health research, which according to the Health Research Act from 2009 require pre-approval by REK.[ 52 ] Since 1978, ethical issues in medical research have been considered by an ethics commission, under a national research council (NAVF), which was a precursor of NEM. In 1985, five regional committees for medical research ethics were established, which were precursors of the REKs. Independently of the Norwegian legislation, the international Helsinki Declaration is a central resource for medical research ethics.[ 53 ]

Other units

Additionally, there are several units responsible for handling other aspects of research, particularly the legal basis for treating personal data:

Data Protection Officer (Personvernombudet)

Legal issues concerning the processing of personal data are regulated by the Personal Data Act of 2018. Institutions are responsible for complying with the law, and the institution’s Data Protection Officer is responsible for ensuring that the collection and processing of personal data is legal. If a project is likely to involve a high risk to the research participants, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is required, and, if necessary, advice must be sought from the Norwegian Data Protection Authority (Datatilsynet) (depending on the nature, extent, purpose and context of the research). This legal requirement is not an ethical assessment. In addition, the institutions are responsible for ensuring adherence to research ethics.[ 54 ]

Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD/Sikt)

Many research institutions acquire advice on data management from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD), which since January 2022 has been part of Sikt, the new Norwegian agency for shared services in education and research. The NSD provides advice on specific projects based on submitted notification forms for personal data. The institutions are themselves responsible for ensuring that the data management is legal.[ 55 ]

Members of NESH

Elisabeth Staksrud (Chair)

Kirsten Johanne Bang

Lene Bomann-Larsen

Kjetil Fretheim

Rakel Christina Granaas

Kristian Berg Harpviken

Heidi Østbø Haugen

Kjetil Ansgar Jakobsen

Roar Johnsen

Ivar Kolstad

Markus Hoel Lie

Hadi Strømmen Lile

Anne Nevøy

Tove Klæboe Nilsen

May-Len Skilbrei

Vidar Enebakk (Director)

Bjørn Hvinden (Chair)

Kirsten Johanne Bang

Kjersti Fjørtoft

Ingegerd Holand

Roar Johnsen

Ivar Kolstad

Tor Monsen

Anne Nevøy

Erling Sandmo

May-Len Skilbrei

Elisabeth Staksrud

Knut Martin Tande

Pål Ulleberg

Lisbeth Øyum

Hallvard Fossheim /
Vidar Enebakk (Directors)

Bjørn Hvinden (Chair)

Kjersti Fjørtoft

Anne Gjelsvik

Marit Anne Hauan

Ingegerd Holand

Ove Jakobsen

Lynn Nygaard

Hilde Pape

Erling Sandmo

Einar Spurkeland

Knut Martin Tande

Elin Thuen

Arne Tostensen

Lisbeth Øyum

Helene Ingierd /
Espen Gamlund /
Hallvard Fossheim (Directors)

Anne-Hilde Nagel (Chair)

Alexander Cappelen

Hallvard J. Fossheim

Arne Grønningsæter

Kristian Berg Harpviken

Marit Anne Hauan

Stig André Haugen

Hilde Pape

Jone Salomonsen

Cecilie Elisabeth Schjatvet

Anne-Julie Semb

Arne Tostensen

Hilde W. Nagell /
Helene Ingierd (Directors)

Ragnvald Kalleberg (Chair)

Asta Balto

Alexander Cappelen

Anne-Hilde Nagel

Hanne Signe Nymoen

Helge Rønning

Jone Salomonsen

Per Schreiner

Anne Julie Semb

Ann Helen Skjelbred

Ole Peter Askheim

Bjarte Vandvik

Hilde W. Nagell (Director)

Ragnvald Kalleberg (Chair)

Elisabeth Backe-Hansen

Hanne Inger Bjurstrøm

Ida Blom

Aksel Hatland

Trond Herland

Heidi von Weltzien Høivik

Paul Leer-Salvesen

Raino Malnes

Audhild Schanche

Ann Helene B. Skjelbred

Jan Tøssebro

Finn Mølmen /
Hilde W. Nagell / Micheline Egge Grung (Directors)

Fredrik Engelstad (Chair)

Bente Gullveig Alver

Ida Blom

Elisabeth Backe-Hansen

Hanne Inger Bjurstrøm

Aksel Hatland

Trond Herland

Heidi von Weltzien Høivik

Wenche Håland

Paul Leer-Salvesen

Raino Malnes

Dag Elgesem (Director)

Fredrik Engelstad (Chair)

Bente Gullveig Alver

Elisabeth Backe-Hansen

Aksel Hatland

Kari Helliesen

Trond Herland

Heidi von Weltzien Høivik

Wenche Håland

Yngvar Løken

Halvor Moxnes

Pål Repstad

Sølvi Sogner

Andreas Føllesdal /
Dag Elgesem (Directors)

Fredrik Engelstad (Chair)

Bente Gullveig Alver

Ivar Asheim

Kirsti Coward

Victor Hellern

Kari Helliesen

Wenche Håland

Tore Lindholm

Yngvar Løken

Halvor Moxnes

Pål Repstad

Sølvi Sogner

Andreas Føllesdal (Director)

1 . See the attachment for more on NESH and the guidelines.

2 . ‘The ethos of science’ was formulated by Robert K. Merton in 1942; see also Knut Erik Tranøy (1986), Vitenskapen – samfunnsmakt og livsform .

3 . The three fundamental principles were formulated in the Belmont report (1979).

4 . UN (1948), The Declaration of Human Rights , article 27 (1).

5 . The Norwegian Constitution § 100; Universitets- og høgskoleloven § 1–5.

6 . The Research Ethics Act § 1.

7 . The Research Ethics Act § 4.

8 . The Research Ethics Act § 5.

9 . The Research Ethics Act § 6.

10 . UNESCO (2017), Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers ; Ministerial Conference on the European Research Area (2020), Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research .

11 . Universitets- og høgskoleloven § 1–5.

12 . The Norwegian Constitution § 100.

13 . See also forvaltningsloven § 6.

14 . See also the Vancouver recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and other relevant resources by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

15 . A possible demand concerning the legal basis for the processing of personal data applies indepen- dently of the research ethical demand for consent to participate in research.

16 . See personvernforordningen (GDPR) art. 4 no. 11 og art. 7 no. 1 for demands for legal consent.

17 . UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 3 on the best interests of the child. Also, see the Norwegian Constitution § 104, point two.

18 . UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 12 on the right to be heard. Also, see the Nor- wegian Constitution § 104, point one.

19 . Legally, children cannot, as a main rule, consent to sharing personal information. Therefore, consi- dering other grounds for data processing apart from consent may be necessary, for instance that the research is in the general interest of the public, see personvernforordningen (GDPR) art. 6 og 9.

20 . Within medical and health research children between the ages of 12 and 16 may in some cases provide their own consent to participate, provided that the project has been approved by a regional committee (REK). See The Ministry of Health and Care Services (Helse og omsorgsdepartementet) (2017), Forskrift om barn mellom 12 og 16 år sin rett til selv å samtykke i medisinsk og helsefaglig forskning .

21 . For more on these concepts, see NESH (2018), A Guide to Internet Research Ethics .

22 . See personvernforordningen (GDPR) art. 6 point 1 letter e and art. 9 and also personopplysningsloven § 9.

23 . «Pseudonymization» is also a legal concept, see GDPR art. 4 point 5 and art. 89 point 1.

24 . Forvaltningsloven § 13 e.

25 . The Penal Code § 196.

26 . Barnevernloven § 6–4.

27 . Personvernlovverket; arkivlova.

28 . UN (2007). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples .

29 . Cultural objects that are also pieces of art demand particular consideration, as they are sources, original artifacts and intellectual property; see kulturminneloven.

30 . Nasjonalt utvalg for vurdering av forskning på menneskelige levninger (2018), Forskningsetisk veileder for forskning på menneskelige levninger ; (2018), Veileder ved funn av menneskelig levninger .

31 . International Council of Museums (2017), ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums .

32 . See also offentleglova on how access to public data may be limited by concerns for confidentiality of personal information, overarching national interests or security concerns.

33 . Universitets- og høgskoleloven § 1–5; The Research Ethics Act § 1.

34 . The Research Ethics Act § 5 b.

35 . ALLEA (2017), European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity , point 2.6. Collaborative Working.

36 . Veileder for brukermedvirkning i helseforskning i spesialisthelsetjenesten, May 2018.

37 . For more information about publication ethics, see Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

38 . The Norwegian Constitution § 100 ‘The authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse.’

39 . Universitets- og høyskoleloven § 1–1 c; § 1–3 c and e.

40 . Aune-utvalget (NOU 2020: 3), Ny lov om universiteter og høgskoler , ch. 15 Akademisk frihet.

41 . Arne Næss (1975), En del elementære logiske emner . 11th. ed., ch. 7.

42 . See researchethics.no.

43 . St. medl. nr. 28 (1988–1989). Om forskning , s. 70–73.

44 . Hovedkomiteen for norsk forskning (1981), Forskning og etisk ansvar . Ledet av Knut Erik Tranøy.

45 . Norges allmennvitenskapelige forskningsråd (1979), Forskningsetikk og personopplysninger .

46 . Singapore Statement (2010); Montreal Statement (2013).

47 . ALLEA (2017), Europeiske retningslinjer for forskningsintegritet , Norwegian in 2019.

48 . The Research Ethics Act § 3.

49 . The Health Research Act.

50 . The Research Ethics Act § 7.

51 . Kulturminneloven.

52 . The Health Research Act § 10.

53 . WMA Declaration of Helsinki.

54 . The Research Ethics Act § 5.

55 . Personvernlovverket.

Graduate research methods in social work

(3 reviews)

Matt DeCarlo, La Salle University

Cory Cummings, Nazareth University

Kate Agnelli, Virginia Commonwealth University

ISBN 13: 9781949373219

Publisher: Open Social Work Education

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Erin Boyce, Full Time Faculty, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 6/3/24

This book provides a strong comprehensive overview of each step in the research & evaluation process for students, clearly outlining each step with clarity and direction. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book provides a strong comprehensive overview of each step in the research & evaluation process for students, clearly outlining each step with clarity and direction.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

Content in this text is accurate, needing no clarification or added information, and is presented in an unbiased manner.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The relevance of this text is it's greatest strength. It is one of the strongtest research texts I've encountered, and while change always comes this text will survive new iterations of research, only needing minimal and straightforward updates.

Clarity rating: 5

As a research text, this is extremely user friendly. It is easy to read, direct, and does not interfere with student understanding. Students come away with a good understanding of the concepts from this text, and many continue to use it beyond the classroom.

Consistency rating: 5

This text is consistent with research methods and frameworks and stands alone among social work research texts as the most accessbile due to it's status as an OER and as a social work textbook.

Modularity rating: 5

This text is easily divisible into smaller readings, it works great for courses in which assignments are scaffolded to move students through the research process.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

This text is organized to walk the student through the research process from start to finish, and is easily adjusted for different teaching styles.

Interface rating: 5

This text has no significant interface issues, the readings, links, and images are easily accessbile and are presented in a way that does not interfere with student learning.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

This text is well edited and formatted.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This text is culturally relevant, addresses issues of cultural relevance to social work, and highlights the role of social work values within the realm of social work research.

This is one of the best research texts I've encounted in over a decade of teaching. It is so easily digested and presents information in a direct and understandable way, and is one of the best texts for those teaching graduate level research for social workers. It is an inclusive text that honors the multiple levels of knowledge that our students come to us with, which helps sets it apart. And, the committment throughout the text to social work values and ethics is critical for todays social worker.

Reviewed by Laura Montero, Full-time Lecturer and Course Lead, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 12/23/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Graduate Research Methods in Social Work by DeCarlo, et al., is a comprehensive and well-structured guide that serves as an invaluable resource for graduate students delving into the intricate world of social work research. The book is divided into five distinct parts, each carefully curated to provide a step-by-step approach to mastering research methods in the field. Topics covered include an intro to basic research concepts, conceptualization, quantitative & qualitative approaches, as well as research in practice. At 800+ pages, however, the text could be received by students as a bit overwhelming.

Content appears consistent and reliable when compared to similar textbooks in this topic.

The book's well-structured content begins with fundamental concepts, such as the scientific method and evidence-based practice, guiding readers through the initiation of research projects with attention to ethical considerations. It seamlessly transitions to detailed explorations of both quantitative and qualitative methods, covering topics like sampling, measurement, survey design, and various qualitative data collection approaches. Throughout, the authors emphasize ethical responsibilities, cultural respectfulness, and critical thinking. These are crucial concepts we cover in social work and I was pleased to see these being integrated throughout.

The level of the language used is appropriate for graduate-level study.

Book appears to be consistent in the tone and terminology used.

Modularity rating: 4

The images and videos included, help to break up large text blocks.

Topics covered are well-organized and comprehensive. I appreciate the thorough preamble the authors include to situate the role of the social worker within a research context.

Interface rating: 4

When downloaded as a pdf, the book does not begin until page 30+ so it may be a bit difficult to scroll so long for students in order to access the content for which they are searching. Also, making the Table of Contents clickable, would help in navigating this very long textbook.

I did not find any grammatical errors or typos in the pages reviewed.

I appreciate the efforts made to integrate diverse perspectives, voices, and images into the text. The discussion around ethics and cultural considerations in research was nuanced and comprehensive as well.

Overall, the content of the book aligns with established principles of social work research, providing accurate and up-to-date information in a format that is accessible to graduate students and educators in the field.

Reviewed by Elisa Maroney, Professor, Western Oregon University on 1/2/22

With well over 800 pages, this text is beyond comprehensive! read more

With well over 800 pages, this text is beyond comprehensive!

I perused the entire text, but my focus was on "Part 4: Using qualitative methods." This section seems accurate.

As mentioned above, my primary focus was on the qualitative methods section. This section is relevant to the students I teach in interpreting studies (not a social sciences discipline).

This book is well-written and clear.

Navigating this text is easy, because the formatting is consistent

My favorite part of this text is that I can be easily customized, so that I can use the sections on qualitative methods.

The text is well-organized and easy to find and link to related sections in the book.

There are no distracting or confusing features. The book is long; being able to customize makes it easier to navigate.

I did not notice grammatical errors.

The authors offer resources for Afrocentricity for social work practice (among others, including those related to Feminist and Queer methodologies). These are relevant to the field of interpreting studies.

I look forward to adopting this text in my qualitative methods course for graduate students in interpreting studies.

1. Science and social work
2. Starting your research project
3. Searching the literature
4. Critical information literacy
5. Writing your literature review
6. Research ethics
7. Theory and paradigm
8. Reasoning and causality
9. Writing your research question
10. Quantitative sampling
11. Quantitative measurement
12. Survey design
13. Experimental design
14. Univariate analysis
15. Bivariate analysis
16. Reporting quantitative results
17. Qualitative data and sampling
18. Qualitative data collection
19. A survey of approaches to qualitative data analysis
20. Quality in qualitative studies: Rigor in research design
21. Qualitative research dissemination
22. A survey of qualitative designs
23. Program evaluation
24. Sharing and consuming research

Ancillary Material

About the book.

We designed our book to help graduate social work students through every step of the research process, from conceptualization to dissemination. Our textbook centers cultural humility, information literacy, pragmatism, and an equal emphasis on quantitative and qualitative methods. It includes extensive content on literature reviews, cultural bias and respectfulness, and qualitative methods, in contrast to traditionally used commercial textbooks in social work research.

Our author team spans across academic, public, and nonprofit social work research. We love research, and we endeavored through our book to make research more engaging, less painful, and easier to understand. Our textbook exercises direct students to apply content as they are reading the book to an original research project. By breaking it down step-by-step, writing in approachable language, as well as using stories from our life, practice, and research experience, our textbook helps professors overcome students’ research methods anxiety and antipathy.

If you decide to adopt our resource, we ask that you complete this short Adopter’s Survey that helps us keep track of our community impact. You can also contact [email protected] for a student workbook, homework assignments, slideshows, a draft bank of quiz questions, and a course calendar.

About the Contributors

Matt DeCarlo , PhD, MSW is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work at La Salle University. He is the co-founder of Open Social Work (formerly Open Social Work Education), a collaborative project focusing on open education, open science, and open access in social work and higher education. His first open textbook, Scientific Inquiry in Social Work, was the first developed for social work education, and is now in use in over 60 campuses, mostly in the United States. He is a former OER Research Fellow with the OpenEd Group. Prior to his work in OER, Dr. DeCarlo received his PhD from Virginia Commonwealth University and has published on disability policy.

Cory Cummings , Ph.D., LCSW is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work at Nazareth University. He has practice experience in community mental health, including clinical practice and administration. In addition, Dr. Cummings has volunteered at safety net mental health services agencies and provided support services for individuals and families affected by HIV. In his current position, Dr. Cummings teaches in the BSW program and MSW programs; specifically in the Clinical Practice with Children and Families concentration. Courses that he teaches include research, social work practice, and clinical field seminar. His scholarship focuses on promoting health equity for individuals experiencing symptoms of severe mental illness and improving opportunities to increase quality of life. Dr. Cummings received his PhD from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kate Agnelli , MSW, is an adjunct professor at VCU’s School of Social Work, teaching masters-level classes on research methods, public policy, and social justice. She also works as a senior legislative analyst with the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), a policy research organization reporting to the Virginia General Assembly. Before working for JLARC, Ms. Agnelli worked for several years in government and nonprofit research and program evaluation. In addition, she has several publications in peer-reviewed journals, has presented at national social work conferences, and has served as a reviewer for Social Work Education. She received her MSW from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Contribute to this Page

Open access
Published: 29 September 2021

Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review

Guy Schofield ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9055-292X 1 , 3 ,
Mariana Dittborn ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2903-6480 2 ,
Lucy Ellen Selman ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-2699 3 &
Richard Huxtable ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5802-1870 1

BMC Medical Ethics volume 22 , Article number: 135 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

15 Citations

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase ‘ethical challenge(s)’ appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature.

Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in any context, extracting data on definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021.

393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to ‘ethical challenge(s)’ within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study.

Conclusions

Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research.

Peer Review reports

Methodological rigour within research is a cornerstone in the production of high-quality findings and recommendations. Across the range of empirical methodologies, a broad collection of protocol development tools, methodology guidelines, and reporting guidelines have been developed and evidence of their use is increasingly required by journals [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Within both empirical bioethics and descriptive ethics, there has been an accompanying increase in the acknowledgment of the importance of methodological rigour in the empirical elements, including within the recent consensus statement on quality standards in empirical bioethics research by Ives et al. [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Aligned with this aim for rigour, definitional clarity of key terms used within a research project is a component of research quality [ 10 , 11 ]. Improving the quality of empirical bioethics is also itself an ethical imperative [ 9 ].

We recently conducted a systematic review examining ‘ethical challenges’ as reported by specialist palliative care practitioners [ 12 ]. Our review, alongside our initial scoping search findings and reading of the literature, suggested that, although many authors use the term ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in empirical ethics research, there appeared to be no commonly described or accepted definition. Furthermore, papers retrieved rarely defined ‘ethical challenge(s)’ explicitly , which has also been noted by other researchers examining other topic areas [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Our review further suggested that authors frequently use terms closely related to ‘ethical challenge(s)’—such as ‘moral dilemmas’ or ‘ethical issues’—interchangeably with ‘ethical challenge(s)’ throughout manuscripts, rather than staying with the original term. Research shows that non-philosophers may understand these related terms in heterogeneous ways which may additionally affect understanding of texts across different readerships [ 16 , 17 ].

Without a clear definition of an ethical challenge, each researcher must use individual judgement to ascertain whether they have identified an instance of one within their dataset. This potentially generates an unnecessary source of bias, particularly if multiple researchers are involved in data collection, extraction, or analysis. This risks generating misleading ethical analyses, evaluations, or recommendations. Additionally, and more broadly, if primary studies do not define the term, then work based on these—such as systematic reviews of individual studies or those undertaking secondary data analysis—may unknowingly compare different phenomena without a mechanism for mitigating the effects this introduces.

In the hope of prompting a debate on this topic, we therefore undertook a rapid review, which aimed to explore existing definitions of “ethical challenge(s)” and the use of other closely related terms within recent empirical healthcare ethics literature.

We conducted a rapid review examining the usage of the term ‘ethical challenge(s)’ over the last 5 years in published research articles, in order to identify and summarise if, and how, the term was defined. As a secondary aim, we examined authors’ uses of closely related alternative terms within the included article texts separate to their use within any explicit definitions that may be present.

Rapid reviews use abridged systematic review methodology to understand the evidence base on a particular topic in a time and resource efficient manner [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Comparative reviews of topics in which both a rapid review and a systematic review had been undertaken demonstrated that the overall conclusions were similar, although rapid reviews were less likely to contain social and economic data, and systematic reviews contained more detailed recommendations [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24 ]. The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group has recently released interim methodological guidelines for undertaking rapid reviews [ 6 ], advising authors to describe where their protocol deviates from a systematic review and detail any biases that these deviations may introduce [ 18 , 19 , 21 ]. We have followed the Cochrane recommended methodology [ 6 ]. A rapid review reporting guideline is currently under development [ 25 ] and this review is therefore reported based on the PRISMA 2020 statement for systematic reviews, with justifications provided where our approach deviated [ 26 ].

Prospective review protocol registration on the PROSPERO database is the current gold standard, but, at the time of writing, PROSPERO does not accept records for rapid reviews [ 27 ]. The protocol was therefore not published in advance.

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarised in Table 1 . We used Strech et al.’s Methodology, Issues, Participants (MIP) structure for our eligibility criteria, which is recommended for systematic reviews in ‘empirical bioethics’ [ 28 ]. The criteria reflect three assumptions. First, that the inclusion of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in the title would increase the likelihood that this was the authors’ preferred term for the concept under investigation, and therefore increase the probability of a definition being provided. Second, that studies aiming to describe empirical data and identify ethical challenges in real-world contexts are most likely to contain a definition to guide researchers in identifying these challenges as they collect and analyse data. Third, that structured reviews of studies of ethical challenges are likely to include a definition to allow researchers to reliably recognise an ethical challenge in retrieved records. We used a 5-year timeframe as a date restriction. This reflected a balance between adequately covering recent use of the term and time and resource restrictions of the rapid review.

Information sources

The search strategy was as follows:

‘ethical challenge’.ti OR ‘ethical challenges’.ti.

We searched Medline (Ovid interface), Philosopher’s Index (OVID interface), EMBASE (OVID interface), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EBSCO interface) for studies indexed over a five-year period between April 2016 and April 2021. These resources cover the breadth of healthcare research. Including Philosopher’s Index increased coverage of the bioethics literature. We did not search the grey literature [ 6 ]. The search strategy was tested by successfully retrieving three sentinel studies known to the research team.

Study selection

Retrieved studies were imported into Endnote X9.2 [ 29 ]. Records unavailable through institutional subscriptions were requested from corresponding authors. If unavailable 14 days after the request, the record was excluded. A random sample of 20% of records were dual screened at the title/abstract level by GS/MD. After discussion, the remainder were screened by GS. At full-text screening, a further 20% were dual screened by GS/MD and, again after discussion, the remaining studies were screened by GS.

Data extraction and analysis

Data extraction was undertaken using a pre-piloted form, with the first 5 records dually extracted by GS and MD. Data from the remaining included studies was then extracted by GS, with correctness and completeness checked by MD. We collected data on date of publication, authors, journal, country (for primary studies), methodology, definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ (present (yes/no)) and (where offered) the definition provided, and any closely related terms used, with counts of all terms used in each article. For closely related terms, data was extracted from the authors’ text, but not from direct quotations from qualitative research. Where definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ were offered and/or related terms were identified, these were categorised and counted following the principles of summative content analysis [ 30 ]. Summative content analysis combines both the quantitative counting of specific content or words/terms with latent content analysis to identify and categorise their meanings. We identified keywords (‘ethical challenge(s)’ and closely related terms) deployed by the authors of the included papers, both prior to and during data analysis, and analysed the retrieved definitions. This approach allowed for exploration of both the content of definitions and development of insights into the use of related terms.

Risk of bias assessment

The focus of the rapid review was the definition of the term ‘ethical challenge(s)’ within retrieved records. We therefore did not undertake quality assessment for the included studies and reviews.

831 records were retrieved, reduced to 393 after de-duplication. 238 records were excluded after reviewing the title and/or abstract. 157 records were identified for full text screening, with 3 unavailable [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. 82 records were excluded at full text stage and 72 records were included for analysis. See Fig. 1 for the PRISMA flowchart.

PRISMA flow diagram of record identification

Record characteristics

Of the 72 included records, 53 were empirical studies [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 ], 10 non-systematic reviews [ 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 ], 7 systematic reviews [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 ], 1 systematic review protocol [ 101 ], and 1 non-systematic review protocol [ 102 ]. Of the 53 empirical studies, 42 (79%) were qualitative studies [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 ], 6 (12%) used a mixed methods approach [ 45 , 46 , 53 , 59 , 61 , 68 ], and 5 (10%) were quantitative [ 37 , 49 , 70 , 78 , 82 ]. 7/56 empirical studies, all qualitative interview studies, recruited participants internationally with no specific location stated [ 40 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 60 , 63 , 73 ]. Of the remaining studies, all but one were single-country studies: Botswana [ 75 ], Canada [ 41 , 65 ], China [ 57 ], Denmark [ 39 , 43 ], Dominican Republic [ 44 ], Germany [ 51 , 84 ], India [ 61 ], Iran [ 38 , 46 , 49 , 68 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 78 , 82 , 98 ], Italy [ 45 ], Mexico [ 87 ], the Netherlands [ 76 ], New Zealand [ 47 ], Norway [ 42 , 52 , 56 , 64 , 80 , 81 , 83 ], Saudi Arabia [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ], Tanzania [ 69 , 74 ], Uganda [ 67 ], UK [ 86 ], and USA [ 50 , 53 , 59 , 62 , 66 , 77 , 79 , 85 , 85 ]. The remaining study was undertaken in both Sierra Leone and the UK [ 48 ]. See Table 2 for a summary.

12/72 (17%) of retrieved studies offered an explicit definition for ‘ethical challenge(s)’ [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 48 , 50 , 56 , 57 , 66 , 69 , 81 , 98 , 101 ]. Definitions were more likely to be found in more recent publications, with 4/12 included studies published in 2016–2018 [ 14 , 48 , 56 , 81 ], and 8/12 published in 2019–2021 [ 12 , 13 , 50 , 57 , 66 , 69 , 98 , 101 ]. The included study locations were evenly distributed, matching the overall pattern of retrieved studies, with studies from high- [ 48 , 50 , 56 , 66 , 81 ], middle- [ 57 , 98 ], and low-income settings [ 48 , 69 ]. The identified studies included eight qualitative studies [ 48 , 50 , 56 , 57 , 66 , 69 , 81 , 98 ], 3 systematic reviews [ 12 , 13 , 14 ], and 1 systematic review protocol [ 101 ]. Two of these records were the systematic review protocol and the report from our group, which accordingly contained the same definition [ 12 , 101 ], leaving 11 unique definitions. Definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ identified in included studies are provided in Table 3 . Additionally, 68/72 (94%) reports used closely related terms synonymously in place of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ throughout their manuscript text, with between 1 and 8 different terms used within each report, and 32 different terms were identified. This occurred in both those reports that contained a definition and those that did not. See Table 4 for terms and frequencies.

Those records that offered explicit definitions used four approaches: (1) definition through concepts [ 12 , 57 , 66 ]; (2) reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices [ 13 , 14 , 48 , 57 , 69 , 98 ]; (3) definition by study participants [ 12 , 48 , 50 , 56 ]; or (4) challenges as linked to their ability to generate emotional or moral distress within healthcare practitioners [ 14 , 14 , 66 , 81 ]. Each definition was associated with one or more of the identified elements, although none covered all four approaches. We describe these approaches below.

Approach 1: definition through concepts

This approach involves primarily defining ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in terms of related concepts. All three definitions using this approach defined ‘ethical challenge(s)’ as a summative collection of related concepts, including ‘ethical dilemmas’, ‘moral dilemmas’, ‘moral challenges’, ‘ethical issues’, and ‘ethical conflicts’ [ 12 , 57 , 66 ], for example:

‘The expression “ethical challenges” mainly refers to ethical dilemmas and ethical conflicts as well as other scenarios where difficult choices have to be made’ [ 57 ] p34

Only one went on to define the other concepts they utilised, ‘ethical dilemmas’ and ‘ethical conflicts’:

‘Ethical dilemmas are described as situations that cannot be solved; decisions made between two options may be morally plausible but are equally problematic due to the circumstances. Ethical conflicts, on the contrary, arise when one is aware of the necessity of proper actions but he or she may have trouble exercising these actions because of certain internal or external factors.’ [ 57 ] p34

Approach 2: moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices

This approach anchors an ethical challenge to the requirement for an agent to make a (difficult) choice in a situation where moral principles conflict, or there is moral uncertainty as to the ‘right’ way forward.

‘In this context, ethical challenge refers to the situation whereby every alternative is morally wrong and still one has to make a choice’ [ 69 ] p676 ‘An ethical challenge occurs when one does not know how to behave and act in the best way…’ [ 14 ] p93

Approach 3: definition by study participants

Four of the definitions involved research participants themselves defining something as an ‘ethical challenge’ [ 12 , 48 , 50 , 56 ], with three studies explicitly stating that participants would lead this definitional work [ 48 , 50 , 56 ]. Draper & Jenkins offer a starting definition, adopted from Schwartz et al. [ 103 ] with which to prime participants, while Forbes and Phillips [ 50 ] and Jakobsen and Sørlie [ 56 ] left the definition fully with their participants (Table 3 ). Finally, Schofield et al. proposed a very broad definition (Table 3 ), alongside the specific statement that either participants or researchers could nominate something as an ‘ethical challenge’ [ 12 ].

Approach 4: emotional or moral distress

This final approach was to tie ethical challenges to situations where participants feel ‘discomfort’, emotional distress or more specifically moral distress or moral residue [ 14 , 66 , 81 ]. Larkin et al. are clear that this distress must be tied to moral causes, but Hem et al. and Storaker et al. also refer more broadly to ‘discomfort’ [ 14 ] and ‘emotional stress’ [ 81 ] respectively. For example:

‘In this article, ethical challenges refer to values that entail emotional and moral stress in healthcare personnel.’ [ 81 ] p557

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first rapid review to examine the use of the term ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in empirical healthcare research literature. Notably, only 12/72 (17%) of included studies published in the last 5 years contained a definition for ‘ethical challenge(s)’, despite this being the focus of the research being reported. The definitions identified were found in qualitative studies and systematic reviews and were evenly distributed geographically across high-, middle- and low-income settings. Definitions contained one or more of the identified approaches, although none contained elements from all four. Taken together, these findings suggest that a clear definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, and consistent use thereof, is currently lacking.

The four approaches indicate the diverse approaches to understanding ‘ethical challenge(s)’. Approaches 1 and 2 explore the concept from opposite viewpoints, with approach 1 looking from the conceptual perspective, through terms such as ‘dilemmas’ and ‘conflict’, and approach 2 from a participant perspective, specifically in those situations in which someone is trying to make a decision in circumstances where the preferred option is not possible or when they perceive there to be clash in values they feel are important. Within the concept-led definitions (approach 1), the use of a plurality of terms highlights a potential risk of bias, as different readers may interpret these differently. For example, some terms, such as ‘moral dilemma’, have relatively well understood specific meanings for some readers, particularly those with philosophical training [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. The presence in the literature of specific and multiple meanings for some related terms highlights the importance of empirical studies providing a definition of these additional terms alongside their primary definition for ‘ethical challenge(s)’. This is more likely to be relevant where an a priori definition is used, but may be relevant to any prompting text for studies using a participant-led process, as in the study by Draper and Jenkins [ 48 ]. This clarity is important for both readers and future researchers who may undertake a secondary analysis of the data.

Approach 3 involves facilitating participants to nominate something as an ethical challenge [ 12 , 48 , 50 , 56 ]. This speaks to an important question about who, in a research context, is permitted to define or describe the object of interest, in this case ‘ethical challenge(s)’. Restricting the identification of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ to researchers alone may introduce bias by excluding input from those without bioethical ‘expertise’, but with important lived experience of the context under investigation. There is evidence that although clinicians can be sensitive to major ethical dilemmas, they can be less sensitive to small everyday ethical elements in clinical practice, and that ethical awareness varies between individuals [ 107 , 108 ]. Additionally, there is evidence in healthcare ethics research that patients and carers identify ethical challenges in situations that healthcare workers do not [ 109 ]. Therefore, relying entirely on a particular stakeholders’ perspectives (such as clinicians’) may risk missing important ethical challenges present in a scenario (assuming, of course, that we can settle what counts as an ‘ethical challenge(s)’).

In Approach 4, ethical challenges were linked to situations in which participants felt discomfort [ 14 ], emotional stress [ 81 ], moral distress or moral residue [ 66 ]. These concepts are themselves defined in quite varied ways (see, for example, definitions of ‘moral distress’ in a systematic review by Morley et al. [ 110 ]), potentially leading to additional conceptual confusion. Identifying triggers for moral distress is important, as high levels of moral distress are known to have negative impacts on work environments and lead to increased levels of compassion fatigue, increased staff turnover rates and poorer patient outcomes [ 110 , 111 , 112 ]. However, it is also possible that the requirement that, to be identified as an ethical challenge, the situation must invoke stress or distress might result in the under-identification of ethical challenges. We anticipate that many practitioners will daily manage multiple low-level ethical challenges, many of which will not generate moral distress or leave a moral residue. As such, the presence of moral distress may not be sufficient or even necessary in order to label a moral event an ‘ethical challenge’. However, the relationship between ‘ethical challenge(s)’ and moral distress is complex, and some might argue that the latter has an important relationship to the former. For example, moral distress, as conceived by Jameton and others [ 110 , 113 , 114 ], is linked to the after-effects of having to handle ethical challenge(s), so some researchers might view the generation of moral distress as relevant to identifying ethical challenges.

Although our review revealed these four approaches, the wider literature indicates there may be alternative approaches available. For example, other potential approaches would define ethical challenges as events that interact with moral principles, such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence or justice, as proposed by Beauchamp and Childress [ 115 ], or as events in which those principles clash, for example as used by Klingler et al. in their research focusing on ethical issues in health surveillance [ 116 ]. However, these approaches were not seen amongst our included papers.

Returning to our included papers, the high rates of use of closely related terms within included manuscript texts may add to difficulties in understanding the exact object of interest if these terms are being used as synonyms for ‘ethical challenge(s)’. This may be particularly the case if terms used include those such as ‘moral dilemma’, which (as shown above) will have specific meanings for some readers. Interchangeable, undefined usage of these terms by study authors within study texts risks further exacerbating the problems caused by a lack of definitional clarity.

Strengths and limitations

This rapid review is the first systematic attempt to describe the definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ available within the recent published literature.

There are, however, five limitations to note. First, the review only includes results from the past 5 years, which inevitably means that older publications, which may have contained further definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, were excluded. The focus on the previous 5 years does, however, allow for an assessment of the term’s use(s) within a reasonable period of time and was felt to be appropriate given the aims and resources available to this project.

Second, our three assumptions listed in the methodology section may have excluded some records that contained a relevant definition. However, these assumptions, and the resulting focus on two search terms, allowed for a balance between retrieved record numbers and team resources.

Third, the four databases searched were chosen for their focus on the healthcare ethics literature; we may therefore may have missed relevant usage in other fields or disciplines. Similarly, we did not search the grey literature, which might have excluded relevant research.

Fourth, for resource reasons, the assessment as to whether a related term was being used interchangeably in the text was undertaken by a single researcher (GS). This subjective assessment risks miscalculating both the number of interchangeable terms identified and the frequency counts.

Finally, we did not review the theoretical literature for conceptual definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, hence the definitions we identified might not match completely conceptual understandings of the term. However, our review shows how the term is currently being used in the research literature. Indeed, if there are strong conceptual definitions within the theoretical literature, then it is clear that they are currently not reaching the researchers whose work was identified by our review.

This review is the first, to our knowledge, to identify and describe definitions (and uses) of the widely-utilised concept of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ within healthcare research. Only 17% (12/72) of retrieved papers presented an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ before beginning to investigate this concept in context. The definitions found contained one or more of four identified approaches, with significant cross-reference to related terms and concepts which themselves have variation in their accepted meanings. We recommend that researchers define the phenomenon of interest—in this case, ‘ethical challenge(s)’—to help ensure clarity. This should either be a priori, or, if using an approach that includes participant participation in the generation of the definition, reporting their final working definition a posteriori. The choice of definition should be justified, including the decision as to whether to include participants in this process. Additionally, if a definition references other conceptual terms, then consideration should be given to defining these as well.

The results of this rapid review suggest that a common conceptual understanding of the term ‘ethical challenge(s)’ is lacking within empirical bioethical research and that there is a need for researchers in this area to consider what conceptual formulations might be most useful. Again, failure to use definitions of crucial research concepts within empirical bioethics research potentially generates confusion and avoidable bias within research outputs, risking misleading ethical analyses, evaluations, and resulting recommendations. We therefore hope this review will help stimulate debate amongst empirical bioethics researchers on possible definitional content for such a commonly used term and prompt further discussion and research. Additionally, given the central role of patient and public partnership and involvement in research, further thought should be given to who should be involved in nominating something as a challenge worthy of study.

Following on from this work, there would be value in conducting an empirical bioethical project combining a full systematic review of definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ (and related terms) integrated with an exploration of the conceptual literature to generate recommendations for approaches towards the content of potential definitions, perhaps related to the identified approaches above. Such a project could also ask authors who currently use the term ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in their research how they conceptualise this. Furthermore, work to better understand the benefits of including study participants in the definition process is also important. Finally, whilst researchers should justify whatever approach they choose to take, there may be merit in examining whether anything is lost if studies lack a robust or agreed definition, or whether doing so affords a flexibility and openness that allows for a broader range of ethical challenges to be identified.

Availability of data and materials

All data is presented in this manuscript.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Qualitative Checklist. 2018. https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist.pdf . Accessed 16 Aug 2018.

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups | The EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/ . Accessed 2 Apr 2020.

Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations | The EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/ . Accessed 2 Apr 2020.

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018;13:2.

Article Google Scholar

The EQUATOR Network | Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research. https://www.equator-network.org/ . Accessed 2 Apr 2020.

Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22.

Singh I. Evidence, epistemology and empirical bioethics. In: Cribb A, Ives J, Dunn M, editors. Empirical bioethics: theoretical and practical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p. 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939829.006 .

Chapter Google Scholar

Ives J, Dunn M, Molewijk B, Schildmann J, Bærøe K, Frith L, et al. Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:68.

Mertz M, Inthorn J, Renz G, Rothenberger LG, Salloch S, Schildmann J, et al. Research across the disciplines: a road map for quality criteria in empirical ethics research. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:17.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

Cronin P, Ryan F, Coughlan M. Concept analysis in healthcare research. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2010;17:62–8.

Schofield G, Dittborn M, Huxtable R, Brangan E, Selman LE. Real-world ethics in palliative care: a systematic review of the ethical challenges reported by specialist palliative care practitioners in their clinical practice. Palliat Med. 2021;35:315–34.

Heggestad AKT, Magelssen M, Pedersen R, Gjerberg E. Ethical challenges in home-based care: a systematic literature review. Nurs Ethics. 2020;28:628–44.

Hem MH, Gjerberg E, Husum TL, Pedersen R. Ethical challenges when using coercion in mental healthcare: a systematic literature review. Nurs Ethics. 2018;25:92–110.

Lillemoen L, Pedersen R. Ethical challenges and how to develop ethics support in primary health care. Nurs Ethics. 2013;20:96–108.

Saarni SI, Halila R, Palmu P, Vänskä J. Ethically problematic treatment decisions in different medical specialties. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:262–7.

Self D, Skeel J, Jecker N. A comparison of the moral reasoning of physicians and clinical medical ethicists. Acad Med. 1993;68:852–5.

Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci IS. 2010;5:56.

Cameron A. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current mathods and practice in health technology assessment. Stepney: Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons; 2007.

Google Scholar

Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224.

Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:83.

Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28.

Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133–9.

Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.

Stevens A, Garritty C, Hersi M, Moher D. Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (Protocol). 2018. https://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PRISMA-RRprotocol.pdf . Accessed 6 Oct 2019.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ . Accessed 10 June 2021.

Strech D, Synofzik M, Marckmann G. Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:472–7.

The Endnote Team. Endnote X9.2. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analysis; 2013.

Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88.

Khalili M. Iranian nurses’ ethical challenges in controlling children’s fever. Int J Pharm Res. 2018;10:337–40.

Rezaee N. Ethical challenges in cancer care: a qualitative analysis of nurses’ perceptions. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2019;33:169–82.

Bartnik E. Ethical challenges in genetics. J Med Liban. 2019;67:138–40.

Alahmad G, Aljohani S, Najjar MF. Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21:1–7.

Alahmad G, Al-Kamli H, Alzahrani H. Ethical challenges of pediatric cancer care: interviews with nurses in Saudi Arabia. Cancer Control. 2020;27:1073274820917210.

Alahmad G, Richi H, BaniMustafa A, Almutairi AF. Ethical challenges related to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: interviews with professionals from Saudi Arabia. Front Med. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.620444 .

Alahmad G, AlSaqabi M, Alkamli H, Aleidan M. Ethical challenges in consent procedures involving pediatric cancer patients in Saudi Arabia: an exploratory survey. Dev World Bioeth. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12308 .

Bijani M, Mohammadi F. Ethical challenges of caring for burn patients: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22:1–10.

Bladt T, Vorup-Jensen T, Sædder E, Ebbesen M. Empirical investigation of ethical challenges related to the use of biological therapies. J Law Med Ethics. 2020;48:567–78.

Boulanger RF, Komparic A, Dawson A, Upshur REG, Silva DS. Developing and implementing new TB technologies: key informants’ perspectives on the ethical challenges. J Bioeth Inq. 2020;17:65–73.

Bourbonnais A, Rousseau J, Lalonde M-H, Meunier J, Lapierre N, Gagnon M-P. Conditions and ethical challenges that could influence the implementation of technologies in nursing homes: a qualitative study. Int J Older People Nurs. 2019;14:e12266.

Brodtkorb K, Skisland AV-S, Slettebø Å, Skaar R. Preserving dignity in end-of-life nursing home care: some ethical challenges. Nord J Nurs Res. 2017;37:78–84.

Bruun H, Lystbaek SG, Stenager E, Huniche L, Pedersen R. Ethical challenges assessed in the clinical ethics Committee of Psychiatry in the region of Southern Denmark in 2010–2015: a qualitative content analyses. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:62.

Canario Guzmán JA, Espinal R, Báez J, Melgen RE, Rosario PAP, Mendoza ER. Ethical challenges for international collaborative research partnerships in the context of the Zika outbreak in the Dominican Republic: a qualitative case study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:82.

Carnevale F, Delogu B, Bagnasco A, Sasso L. Correctional nursing in Liguria, Italy: examining the ethical challenges. J Prev Med Hyg. 2018;59:E315.

Delpasand K, Nazari Tavakkoli S, Kiani M, Abbasi M, Afshar L. Ethical challenges in the relationship between the pharmacist and patient in Iran. Int J Hum Rights Healthc. 2020;13:317–23.

Donnelly S, Walker S. Enabling first and second year doctors to negotiate ethical challenges in end-of-life care: a qualitative study. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002672 .

Draper H, Jenkins S. Ethical challenges experienced by UK military medical personnel deployed to Sierra Leone (operation GRITROCK) during the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:77.

Ebrahimi A, Ebrahimi S. Pediatric residents’ and attending physicians’ perspectives on the ethical challenges of end of life care in children. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2018;11:16.

Forbes S, Phillips C. Ethical challenges encountered by clinical trials nurses: a grounded theory study. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2020;47:428–35.

Gágyor I, Heßling A, Heim S, Frewer A, Nauck F, Himmel W. Ethical challenges in primary care: a focus group study with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers. Fam Pract. 2019;36:225–30.

Haugom W, Ruud E, Hynnekleiv T. Ethical challenges of seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards: a qualitative study of the experiences of Norwegian mental health professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:879.

Hawking M, Kim J, Jih M, Hu C, Yoon JD. “Can virtue be taught?”: a content analysis of medical students’ opinions of the professional and ethical challenges to their professional identity formation. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:380.

Hyder A, Krubiner C. Ethical challenges in designing and implementing health systems research: experiences from the field. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2016;7:209–17.

Jackson C, Gardy JL, Shadiloo HC, Silva DS. Trust and the ethical challenges in the use of whole genome sequencing for tuberculosis surveillance: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20:43.

Jakobsen R, Sørlie V. Ethical challenges: trust and leadership in dementia care. Nurs Ethics. 2016;23:636–45.

Jia Y, Chen O, Xiao Z, Xiao J, Bian J, Jia H. Nurses’ ethical challenges caring for people with COVID-19: a qualitative study. Nurs Ethics. 2021;28:33–45.

Kalkman S, van Thiel GJMW, Grobbee DE, Meinecke A-K, Zuidgeest MGP, van Delden JJM, et al. Stakeholders’ views on the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs. Trials. 2016;17:419.

Kasper J, Mulye A, Doobay-Persaud A, Seymour B, Nelson BD. Perspectives and solutions from clinical trainees and mentors regarding ethical challenges during global health experiences. Ann Glob Health. 2020;86:34.

Kelley MC, Brazg T, Wilfond BS, Lengua LJ, Rivin BE, Martin-Herz SP, et al. Ethical challenges in research with orphans and vulnerable children: a qualitative study of researcher experiences. Int Health. 2016;8:187–96.

Kemparaj VM, Panchmal GS, Kadalur UG. The top 10 ethical challenges in dental practice in indian scenario: dentist perspective. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9:97.

Klitzman R. Unconventional combinations of prospective parents: ethical challenges faced by IVF providers. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:18.

Komparic A, Dawson A, Boulanger RF, Upshur REG, Silva DS. A failure in solidarity: ethical challenges in the development and implementation of new tuberculosis technologies. Bioethics. 2019;33:557–67.

Laholt H, McLeod K, Guillemin M, Beddari E, Lorem G. Ethical challenges experienced by public health nurses related to adolescents’ use of visual technologies. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26:1822–33.

Laliberté M, Williams-Jones B, Feldman DE, Hunt M. Ethical challenges for patient access to physical therapy: views of staff members from three publicly-funded outpatient physical therapy departments. Narrat Inq Bioeth. 2017;7:157–69.

Larkin ME, Beardslee B, Cagliero E, Griffith CA, Milaszewski K, Mugford MT, et al. Ethical challenges experienced by clinical research nurses: a qualitative study. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26:172–84.

Mbalinda SN, Bakeera-Kitaka S, Amooti DL, Magongo EN, Musoke P, Kaye DK. Ethical challenges of the healthcare transition to adult antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinics for adolescents and young people with HIV in Uganda. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22:1–14.

Mehdipour Rabori R, Dehghan M, Nematollahi M. Nursing students’ ethical challenges in the clinical settings: a mixed-methods study. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26:1983–91.

Mlughu TS, Anaeli A, Joseph R, Sirili N. Voluntary HIV counseling and testing among commercial motorcyclist youths: an exploration of ethical challenges and coping mechanisms in Dar es Salaam. HIVAIDS - Res Palliat Care. 2020;12:675–85.

Moeini S, Shahriari M, Shamali M. Ethical challenges of obtaining informed consent from surgical patients. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27:527–36.

Naseri-Salahshour V, Sajadi M. Ethical challenges of novice nurses in clinical practice: Iranian perspective. Int Nurs Rev. 2020;67:76–83.

Naseri-Salahshour V, Sajadi M. From suffering to indifference: reaction of novice nurses to ethical challenges in first year of clinical practice. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2019;24:251.

Nicholls SG, Carroll K, Zwarenstein M, Brehaut JC, Weijer C, Hey SP, et al. The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders. Trials. 2019;20:765.

Pancras G, Shayo J, Anaeli A. Non-medical facilitators and barriers towards accessing haemodialysis services: an exploration of ethical challenges. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19:342.

Sabone M, Mazonde P, Cainelli F, Maitshoko M, Joseph R, Shayo J, et al. Everyday ethical challenges of nurse-physician collaboration. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27:206–20.

Seekles W, Widdershoven G, Robben P, van Dalfsen G, Molewijk B. Inspectors’ ethical challenges in health care regulation: a pilot study. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20:311–20.

Segal AG, Frasso R, Sisti DA. County jail or psychiatric hospital? Ethical challenges in correctional mental health care. Qual Health Res. 2018;28:963–76.

Shayestefar S, Hamooleh MM, Kouhnavard M, Kadivar M. Ethical challenges in pediatrics from the viewpoints of Iranian pediatric residents. J Compr Pediatr. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5812/compreped.62747 .

Sinow C, Burgart A, Char DS. How anesthesiologists experience and negotiate ethical challenges from drug shortages. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020;12:84–91.

Slettebø Å, Skaar R, Brodtkorb K, Skisland A. Conflicting rationales: leader’s experienced ethical challenges in community health care for older people. Scand J Caring Sci. 2018;32:645–53.

Storaker A, Nåden D, Sæteren B. From painful busyness to emotional immunization: nurses’ experiences of ethical challenges. Nurs Ethics. 2017;24:556–68.

Taebi M, Bahrami R, Bagheri-Lankarani N, Shahriari M. Ethical challenges of embryo donation in embryo donors and recipients. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2018;23:36.

Tønnessen S, Solvoll B-A, Brinchmann BS. Ethical challenges related to next of kin - nursing staffs’ perspective. Nurs Ethics. 2016;23:804–14.

Ullrich A, Theochari M, Bergelt C, Marx G, Woellert K, Bokemeyer C, et al. Ethical challenges in family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer—a qualitative study. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19:1–13.

Verma A, Smith AK, Harrison KL, Chodos AH. Ethical challenges in caring for unrepresented adults: a qualitative study of key stakeholders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67:1724–9.

Morley G, Ives J, Bradbury-Jones C. Moral distress and austerity: an avoidable ethical challenge in healthcare. Health Care Anal. 2019;27:185–201.

Ayala-Yáñez R, Ruíz-López R, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA. Violence against trainees: urgent ethical challenges for medical educators and academic leaders in perinatal medicine. J Perinat Med. 2020;48:728–32.

Binns C, Lee M, Kagawa M. Ethical challenges in infant feeding research. Nutrients. 2017;9:59.

Čartolovni A, Habek D. Guidelines for the management of the social and ethical challenges in brain death during pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;146:149–56.

Hofmann B. Informing about mammographic screening: ethical challenges and suggested solutions. Bioethics. 2020;34:483–92.

Hunt M, Pal NE, Schwartz L, O’Mathúna D. Ethical challenges in the provision of mental health services for children and families during disasters. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018;20:60.

Johnson S, Parker M. Ethical challenges in pathogen sequencing: a systematic scoping review. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:119.

MacDonald S, Shemie S. Ethical challenges and the donation physician specialist: a scoping review. Transplantation. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000001697 .

Saigle V, Racine E. Ethical challenges faced by healthcare professionals who care for suicidal patients: a scoping review. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2018;35:50–79.

Saigle V, Séguin M, Racine E. Identifying gaps in suicide research: a scoping review of ethical challenges and proposed recommendations. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2017;39:1–9.

Wilson E, Kenny A, Dickson-Swift V. Ethical challenges in community-based participatory research: a scoping review. Qual Health Res. 2018;28:189–99.

Martins Pereira S, Hernández-Marrero P. Ethical challenges of outcome measurement in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Ann Palliat Med. 2018;7:S207–18.

Saghafi A, Bahramnezhad F, Poormollamirza A, Dadgari A, Navab E. Examining the ethical challenges in managing elder abuse: a systematic review. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v12i7.1115 .

West E, Stuckelberger A, Pautex S, Staaks J, Gysels M. Operationalising ethical challenges in dementia research—a systematic review of current evidence. Age Ageing. 2017;46:678–87.

Ewuoso C, Hall S, Dierickx K. How do healthcare professionals respond to ethical challenges regarding information management? A review of empirical studies. Glob Bioeth. 2021;32:67–84.

Schofield G, Brangan E, Dittborn M, Huxtable R, Selman L. Real-world ethics in palliative care: protocol for a systematic review of the ethical challenges reported by specialist palliative care practitioners in their clinical practice. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028480.

Sun W, Wilson MG, Schreiber D, Wang RH. Ethical challenges related to assistive product access for older adults and adults living with a disability: a scoping review protocol. Syst Rev. 2017;6:24.

Schwartz L, Sinding C, Hunt M, Elit L, Redwood-Campbell L, Adelson N, et al. Ethics in humanitarian aid work: learning from the narratives of humanitarian health workers. AJOB Prim Res. 2010;1:45–54.

McConnell T. Moral Dilemmas. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2018. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/moral-dilemmas/ . Accessed 30 Oct 2019.

Tessman L. Moral failure: on the impossible demands of morality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2014. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=859724 . Accessed 5 Nov 2019.

Ejder Apay S, Gürol A, Gür EY, Church S. Midwifery students’ reactions to ethical dilemmas encountered in outpatient clinics. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27:1542–55.

Milliken A, Ludlow L, DeSanto-Madeya S, Grace P. The development and psychometric validation of the Ethical Awareness Scale. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:2005–16.

Truog RD, Brown SD, Browning D, Hundert EM, Rider EA, Bell SK, et al. Microethics: the ethics of everyday clinical practice. Hastings Cent Rep. 2015;45:11–7.

Woods S, Beaver K, Luker K. User’s views of palliative care services: ethical implications. Nurs Ethics Int J Health Care Prof. 2000;7:314–26.

Morley G, Ives J, Bradbury-Jones C, Irvine F. What is ‘moral distress’? A narrative synthesis of the literature. Nurs Ethics. 2017;26:646–62.

Epstein EG, Hamric AB. Moral distress, moral residue, and the crescendo effect. J Clin Ethics. 2009;20:330–42.

Mason VM, Leslie G, Clark K, Lyons P, Walke E, Butler C, et al. Compassion fatigue, moral distress, and work engagement in surgical intensive care unit trauma nurses: a pilot study. Dimens Crit Care Nurs DCCN. 2014;33:215–25.

Jameton A. Nursing practice: the ethical issues. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1984.

Tigard DW. The positive value of moral distress. Bioethics. 2019;33:601–8.

Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1979.

Klingler C, Silva DS, Schuermann C, Reis AA, Saxena A, Strech D. Ethical issues in public health surveillance: a systematic qualitative review. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:295.

Solvoll B-A, Hall EO, Brinchmann BS. Ethical challenges in everyday work with adults with learning disabilities. Nurs Ethics. 2015;22:417–27.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

GS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Research Award for Health Professionals (208129/Z/17/Z). LES is funded by a Career Development Fellowship from the National Institute for Health Research. RH is part-funded by the Wellcome Trust (209841/Z/17/Z) and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. He serves on various local, regional, and national ethics committees and related groups. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health, or any of the other organisations with and for whom the authors work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Ethics in Medicine, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK

Guy Schofield & Richard Huxtable

Paediatric Bioethics Centre, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, WC1N 3JH, UK

Mariana Dittborn

Palliative and End of Life Care Research Group, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK

Guy Schofield & Lucy Ellen Selman

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GS, MD and RH conceived of the idea for the review; LES, GS, MD and RH designed the review protocol; GS and MD conducted the literature searching, screening, data extraction and led on data interpretation but all authors were involved; GS led on drafting the manuscript; all authors critically revised the manuscript for content and approved the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy Schofield .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Schofield, G., Dittborn, M., Selman, L.E. et al. Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review. BMC Med Ethics 22 , 135 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00700-9

Download citation

Received : 10 June 2021

Accepted : 03 September 2021

Published : 29 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00700-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Ethical challenges
Rapid review
Empirical bioethics
Moral dilemmas

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

General enquiries: [email protected]

ethical guidelines in social work research

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

Policies & guidelines

Let us guide you in the best way to present, organize and describe your work

View all our policies

Male manager taking notes in home office

Ethical publishing

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of work of the author and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior.

Find information about how to publish ethically under the "Ethics" topic on Elsevier's Researcher Academy opens in new tab/window . Other useful information specifically developed for editors but useful for anyone with a deep interest in the topic is the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit .

Ethics topics to consider when publishing, include:

Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Transparency about the contributions of authors is encouraged, for example, in the form of a CRediT author statement .

Originality and plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Elsevier does not view the following uses of a work as prior publication: publication in the form of an abstract; publication as an academic thesis; publication as an electronic preprint. Note: some society-owned titles and journals that operate double-blind review have different policies on prior publication. Information on prior publication is included within each Elsevier journal’s guide for authors.

Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All submissions must include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest opens in new tab/window .

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher, and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

Hazards and human or animal subjects: Statements of compliance are required if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, or if it involves the use of animal or human subjects.

Use of patient images or case details: Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper.

Policies for authors

For details on Elsevier’s policies, visit our policy pages . Below you will find links to the policies you may find useful as an author.

Article sharing : Details on self-archiving and posting

Article withdrawal : Article removal or retractions

Open access licenses : Details on the licenses available when publishing open access

Patient consent : Use of personal information of patients or other individuals

Permissions : Obtaining permission for using Elsevier published material

Research data : Policy and principles on research data

Submission fees : Information on the practice in economics, finance and accounting of levying fees

Text and data mining : Elsevier’s policy on data and text mining

New! Information and resources on equity, inclusion & diversity

Artwork & media guidelines

Submitting your illustrations, figures and other artwork in an electronic format helps us produce your work to the best possible standards, ensuring accuracy, clarity and a high level of detail. Let us show you how to get the most from your artwork and media.

LaTeX instructions

Want to submit your paper in LaTeX? Check out the guidelines and resources which will help you prepare and submit your paper.

Elsevier has constructed a brochure and a number of individual factsheets on the topics covered on this page. These might prove useful when working on your article:

Ethics in research & publication brochure opens in new tab/window

Authorship factsheet opens in new tab/window

Competing interests factsheet opens in new tab/window

Plagiarism factsheet opens in new tab/window

Research fraud factsheet opens in new tab/window

Simultaneous submission factsheet opens in new tab/window

Salami slicing factsheet opens in new tab/window

Find a home for your research

Let us move you forwards on your publication journey.

American Psychological Association

Younger workers feel stressed, lonely, and undervalued

Nearly half of workers aged 18–25 say they feel lonely at work, according to APA’s 2024 Work in America survey

collage of workers in restaurant, office, and remote settings

U.S. workers adjust to changing nature of employment

Survey highlights include remote work, four-day workweeks, and AI adoption

male worker in wheelchair talking with colleagues

5 ways to improve employee mental health

Supportive workplace practices can boost employee well-being, company morale

collage of health care, business, and construction workers

Psychological safety in the changing workplace

Survey shows link with job satisfaction, including creativity and innovation

Membership in APA

APA Community

A new exclusive destination tailored for APA members

Membership benefits

Unlock the tools, discounts, and services included with your membership

Renew your membership

Keep your benefits and access to leading psychological information

Psychology topics spotlight

Misinformation and disinformation

Woman cries while holding husband and child.

Resources to navigate trauma

collage of people in varied workplaces, including an office, a warehouse, a factory, and at home

Tips to foster a healthy workplace

Science and practice of psychology

Ethics Code

Continuing Education

Grants, Awards, and Funding

Standards and Guidelines

Networks and communities

woman relaxing in her office and looking at her smartphone

Network with peers, enhance your professional development, expand your personal growth, and more

APA Divisions

High school teachers

Classroom student writing in her notebook

Undergraduate educators

Graduate students

Early career psychologists

African American woman working on a laptop

Managing your career

Resources to help you throughout your career in psychology, including finding a job, salary data, finances and money management, mentoring and supervision, and training and professional development

illustration of winding road with map pin at the end

Explore career paths

Psychologist profiles

How did you get that job?

Events and training

Featured jobs

Apa publications and products.

illustration of people working on their laptops surrounded by APA Style books

Write with clarity, precision, and inclusion

Children’s books

Monitor on Psychology

Newsletters

Reports and surveys

Continuing education

Merchandise

Real Siblings

Jacob's Missing Book

Harper Becomes a Big Sister

Attachment-Based Family Therapy for Sexual and Gender Minority Young Adults and Their Non-Accepting Parents

Dismantling Everyday Discrimination

APA Services

Learn how you can help APA advocate for psychology-informed federal policy and legislation, and support psychological research

APA Services, Inc.

A companion professional organization to APA, serving all members and advocating for psychology

WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects

Adopted by the 18 th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and amended by the: 29 th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975 35 th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983 41 st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989 48 th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996 52 nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000 53 rd WMA General Assembly, Washington DC, USA, October 2002 (Note of Clarification added) 55 th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 2004 (Note of Clarification added) 59 th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, Republic of Korea, October 2008 64 th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013

1. The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data.

The Declaration is intended to be read as a whole and each of its constituent paragraphs should be applied with consideration of all other relevant paragraphs.

2. Consistent with the mandate of the WMA, the Declaration is addressed primarily to physicians. The WMA encourages others who are involved in medical research involving human subjects to adopt these principles.

General Principles

3. The Declaration of Geneva of the WMA binds the physician with the words, “The health of my patient will be my first consideration,” and the International Code of Medical Ethics declares that, “A physician shall act in the patient’s best interest when providing medical care.”

4. It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health, well-being and rights of patients, including those who are involved in medical research. The physician’s knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfilment of this duty.

5. Medical progress is based on research that ultimately must include studies involving human subjects.

6. The primary purpose of medical research involving human subjects is to understand the causes, development and effects of diseases and improve preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions (methods, procedures and treatments). Even the best proven interventions must be evaluated continually through research for their safety, effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility and quality.

7. Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote and ensure respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights.

8. While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects.

9. It is the duty of physicians who are involved in medical research to protect the life, health, dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy, and confidentiality of personal information of research subjects. The responsibility for the protection of research subjects must always rest with the physician or other health care professionals and never with the research subjects, even though they have given consent.

10. Physicians must consider the ethical, legal and regulatory norms and standards for research involving human subjects in their own countries as well as applicable international norms and standards. No national or international ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects set forth in this Declaration.

11. Medical research should be conducted in a manner that minimises possible harm to the environment.

12. Medical research involving human subjects must be conducted only by individuals with the appropriate ethics and scientific education, training and qualifications. Research on patients or healthy volunteers requires the supervision of a competent and appropriately qualified physician or other health care professional.

13. Groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research.

14. Physicians who combine medical research with medical care should involve their patients in research only to the extent that this is justified by its potential preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic value and if the physician has good reason to believe that participation in the research study will not adversely affect the health of the patients who serve as research subjects.

15. Appropriate compensation and treatment for subjects who are harmed as a result of participating in research must be ensured.

Risks, Burdens and Benefits

16. In medical practice and in medical research, most interventions involve risks and burdens.

Medical research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subjects.

17. All medical research involving human subjects must be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks and burdens to the individuals and groups involved in the research in comparison with foreseeable benefits to them and to other individuals or groups affected by the condition under investigation.

Measures to minimise the risks must be implemented. The risks must be continuously monitored, assessed and documented by the researcher.

18. Physicians may not be involved in a research study involving human subjects unless they are confident that the risks have been adequately assessed and can be satisfactorily managed.

When the risks are found to outweigh the potential benefits or when there is conclusive proof of definitive outcomes, physicians must assess whether to continue, modify or immediately stop the study.

Vulnerable Groups and Individuals

19. Some groups and individuals are particularly vulnerable and may have an increased likelihood of being wronged or of incurring additional harm.

All vulnerable groups and individuals should receive specifically considered protection.

20. Medical research with a vulnerable group is only justified if the research is responsive to the health needs or priorities of this group and the research cannot be carried out in a non-vulnerable group. In addition, this group should stand to benefit from the knowledge, practices or interventions that result from the research.

Scientific Requirements and Research Protocols

21. Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and adequate laboratory and, as appropriate, animal experimentation. The welfare of animals used for research must be respected.

22. The design and performance of each research study involving human subjects must be clearly described and justified in a research protocol.

The protocol should contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved and should indicate how the principles in this Declaration have been addressed. The protocol should include information regarding funding, sponsors, institutional affiliations, potential conflicts of interest, incentives for subjects and information regarding provisions for treating and/or compensating subjects who are harmed as a consequence of participation in the research study.

In clinical trials, the protocol must also describe appropriate arrangements for post-trial provisions.

Research Ethics Committees

23. The research protocol must be submitted for consideration, comment, guidance and approval to the concerned research ethics committee before the study begins. This committee must be transparent in its functioning, must be independent of the researcher, the sponsor and any other undue influence and must be duly qualified. It must take into consideration the laws and regulations of the country or countries in which the research is to be performed as well as applicable international norms and standards but these must not be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects set forth in this Declaration.

The committee must have the right to monitor ongoing studies. The researcher must provide monitoring information to the committee, especially information about any serious adverse events. No amendment to the protocol may be made without consideration and approval by the committee. After the end of the study, the researchers must submit a final report to the committee containing a summary of the study’s findings and conclusions.

Privacy and C onfidentiality

24. Every precaution must be taken to protect the privacy of research subjects and the confidentiality of their personal information.

Informed Consent

25. Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he or she freely agrees.

26. In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.

27. When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.

28. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden.

29. When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorised representative. The potential subject’s dissent should be respected.

30. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorised representative.

31. The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient’s decision to withdraw from the study must never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.

32. For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.

Use of Placebo

33. The benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new intervention must be tested against those of the best proven intervention(s), except in the following circumstances:

Where no proven intervention exists, the use of placebo, or no intervention, is acceptable; or

Where for compelling and scientifically sound methodological reasons the use of any intervention less effective than the best proven one, the use of placebo, or no intervention is necessary to determine the efficacy or safety of an intervention

and the patients who receive any intervention less effective than the best proven one, placebo, or no intervention will not be subject to additional risks of serious or irreversible harm as a result of not receiving the best proven intervention.

Extreme care must be taken to avoid abuse of this option.

Post-Trial Provisions

34. In advance of a clinical trial, sponsors, researchers and host country governments should make provisions for post-trial access for all participants who still need an intervention identified as beneficial in the trial. This information must also be disclosed to participants during the informed consent process.

Research Registration and Publication and Dissemination of Results

35. Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.

36. Researchers, authors, sponsors, editors and publishers all have ethical obligations with regard to the publication and dissemination of the results of research. Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. All parties should adhere to accepted guidelines for ethical reporting. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations and conflicts of interest must be declared in the publication. Reports of research not in accordance with the principles of this Declaration should not be accepted for publication.

Unproven Interventions in Clinical Practice

37. In the treatment of an individual patient, where proven interventions do not exist or other known interventions have been ineffective, the physician, after seeking expert advice, with informed consent from the patient or a legally authorised representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. This intervention should subsequently be made the object of research, designed to evaluate its safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information must be recorded and, where appropriate, made publicly available.

Policy Types

Archived versions.

» DoH-Jun1964
» DoH-Oct1975
» DoH-Oct1983
» DoH-Sept1989
» DoH-Oct1996
» DoH-Oct2000
» DoH-Oct2004
» DoH-Oct2008

Related WMA Policies

Wma declaration of venice on end of life medical care, wma international code of medical ethics.

Illustration of a cityscape and the environment coexisting

Published: 22 December 2023 Contributors: Amanda McGrath, Alexandra Jonker

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the idea that businesses should operate according to principles and policies that make a positive impact on society and the environment.

Through CSR, companies make decisions driven by financial gain and profitability, and the impact of their actions on their communities and the world at large. CSR goes beyond legal obligations: by voluntarily adopting ethical, sustainable and responsible business practices, companies seek to deliver benefits to consumers, shareholders, employees and society.

Learn about the processes used to manage environmental performance data and the steps required to account for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Often, a company’s business model and practices are built around financial goals. However, CSR programs encourage business leaders to consider corporate citizenship or the larger impact of the business on society when making decisions. Corporate social responsibility helps companies ensure that their operations are ethical, safe and delivering positive impact wherever possible. Through CSR initiatives, companies work to limit environmental impact, contribute to solving societal problems (such as poverty and inequality) and ensure their brand identity reflects their values.

The theory of the “ triple bottom line ” can help organizations as they pursue corporate social responsibility. As a financial framework, the triple bottom line refers to the idea that a company’s business model should revolve around the three P’s: people, planet and profit. By maximizing all three, a company aims to make a positive impact on the world and remove barriers to growth.

Corporate social responsibility initiatives generally fall into four categories: environmental, ethical, philanthropic and economic. Each type of CSR contributes to a company’s overall CSR strategy.

More companies are assessing their overall environmental impact and engaging in CSR efforts that aim to protect natural resources and minimize any contribution to climate change. CSR encourages sustainability in business through eco-friendly practices, such as by reducing energy consumption, using renewable resources and minimizing waste.

Environmental responsibility hinges on eliminating negative impacts of business operations (primarily through limiting pollution-causing activities) as well as offsetting them through actions such as planting trees and engaging in programs that support biodiversity.

CSR initiatives often focus on social impact and human rights concerns, such as ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions and proper treatment of employees and suppliers. They also encourage accountability both internally and externally. Ethical CSR may include abiding by fair labor practices, ending workplace discrimination and ensuring supply chain transparency.

CSR practices include donating money, resources or time to positive causes and organizations, such as local and national charities, educational programs, disaster relief and more. Businesses who adopt philanthropic CSR engage with the communities where they operate, offering support through volunteer work, sponsoring local events, making contributions to local nonprofits or supporting skills training programs.

Corporate social responsibility involves ensuring that money is not a company’s sole motivator. To demonstrate this, companies enact policies and procedures to make sure their choices align with values, even if the alternatives may save money or boost profitability. Economic CSR also includes efforts to support the economic development and growth of the communities in which a business operates—for example, supporting job training and job creation efforts and forging local partnerships.

The benefits of CSR include:

CSR can have a positive impact on an organization’s brand identity as well as its bottom line. Some CSR efforts, such as improving energy efficiency, can reduce operating costs and might lead to savings in the end. Consumers increasingly prefer brands that share their values, and CSR policies offer ways for organizations to demonstrate those values, building trust and loyalty to fuel a competitive advantage.

CSR can also help attract top talent and drive employee engagement and retention, as more workers seek employers whose values align with their own. Additionally, a proactive approach to ethical and social issues has the potential to prevent legal problems, fines and reputational damage.

CSR initiatives can help people become more responsible consumers, making it easier for them to access products and services that align with their values and educating them on issues of sustainability and ethical consumption. It can encourage companies to prioritize and invest in testing, quality control and safety measures. CSR can also minimize the likelihood of defective or harmful products reaching consumers.

CSR can have a positive impact on the overall health of the planet, as it encourages environmental responsibility and sustainable practices. CSR initiatives can help companies reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or pursue net-zero emissions goals that are key to slowing climate change. They might also help conserve natural resources, reduce pollution and limit disruption of ecosystems. Additionally, a focus on CSR can support investment in research and development of eco-friendly products and practices.

Corporate social responsibility can help support local communities and address societal issues, such as poverty, inequality and environmental concerns. CSR initiatives can fuel economic growth by creating jobs. They can also shape public opinion as companies leading the way inspire others to follow suit, creating a positive ripple effect. A focus on ethical behavior at the corporate level reinforces a broader norm of ethical behavior across other parts of society.

Consumers are increasingly seeking products and services from socially responsible companies. Meanwhile, many investors are prioritizing companies whose values are clear and aligned with their own. To meet these demands, businesses are integrating CSR into their operations. In addition, global expansion and the increasingly interconnected nature of supply chains pushes companies to comply with a growing web of regulatory environments and to better confront the impact of their business on communities around the world.

With increased awareness of environmental issues, labor practices and ethical concerns, combined with better research and communication, CSR is now more central to business strategies. Some companies even have dedicated CSR departments.

Examples of CSR include:

Donating a percentage of profits to environmental or social causes
Committing to using recycled and eco-friendly materials
Sourcing fair-trade materials and ingredients
Engaging in social activism or fundraising on behalf of social causes
Using technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) to drive energy efficiency and reduce carbon footprints
Creating programs for the ethical use and disposal of products, such as electronics recycling programs
Instituting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs that support efforts to diversify and grow the workforce in new ways
Supporting programs that replenish the natural resources, such as water or timber, used for production
Turning to renewable energy sources and other strategies that help in the pursuit of net-zero or carbon-neutral goals
Establishing employee well-being programs that support their physical and mental health

Corporate social responsibility is the overall ethos that drives a company to adopt policies and practices that support sustainability, societal and other ethical ends. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) is about the ways in which their impact is measured or quantified. While both CSR and ESG are about reflecting the company’s values, CSR is typically seen as more of an internal framework, while ESG frameworks are often used externally as a way of demonstrating real-world impact.

Because the parameters of corporate social responsibility are continually evolving, there is no single standard by which CSR initiatives are measured or governed. Companies that embrace CSR are guided by local and international laws, including environmental regulations, labor rules and consumer protection standards.

Some efforts are also held to industry-specific standards; for example, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides reporting standards for sustainability. Organizations like the United Nations have introduced global guidance, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which encourage businesses to adopt sustainable practices.

Many companies that embrace CSR will also engage in CSR reporting , through which they document performance of non-financial metrics and provide transparency on social and environmental impact. CSR reporting is typically voluntary; however, some jurisdictions mandate that large organizations disclose social and environmental performance, so that investors and consumers can assess CSR efforts.

Some organizations have designated corporate social responsibility teams that oversee a company's CSR activities. People on these teams plan and run the social and environmental programs that align with the company's values and goals. They work with company leadership to devise the overall CSR strategy and engage stakeholders, including employees, customers, investors and community partners, to help them succeed. They also typically track and report on their progress by using metrics and other methods of assessment, deal with compliance and regulatory issues and manage communication about the company’s CSR efforts both internally and externally.

Simplify the capture, consolidation, management, analysis and reporting of your environmental, social and governance (ESG) data.

CSR reporting is the practice of reporting an organization’s performance of non-financial metrics, providing transparency on the organization’s impact on society and the environment.

Net zero is the point at which greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere are balanced by an equivalent amount removed from the atmosphere.

The goal of the CRSD is to provide transparency that will help stakeholders better evaluate EU companies’ sustainability performance as well as the related business impacts and risks.

The triple bottom line (TBL) is a sustainability framework that revolves around the three P’s: people, planet and profit.

Sustainability in business refers to a company's strategy and actions to eliminate the adverse environmental and social impacts caused by business operations.

Decarbonization is a method of climate change mitigation that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as removes them from the atmosphere.

Simplify the capture, consolidation, management, analysis and reporting of your environmental, social and governance (ESG) data with IBM Envizi ESG Suite.

IMAGES

Lecture 3
Introduction to Research Ethics
Ethical guidelines
The 5 Ethical Considerations in Sociological Research
Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles
PPT

VIDEO

Ethics of Social Work Research
MUST WATCH! SOCIAL WORK REVIEWER: SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH SAMPLING METHODS
Vlog-3| social work research| @matinavlogs @ravindra_bharti_official @YouTube
Components of Social work, case work components, 4P, Person, Problem, Place and Process #socialwork
SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH HUB (Ep.8)
Introduction to Social Work Research by Dr A Alagarsamy

COMMENTS

Full article: Ethical considerations in social work research
Clearly, ethical considerations inhabit each phase of the research process. Initial ethical issues are related to the auspices, funding and directions of research, in which conflicts of interest and influence may arise between funders or sponsors and the principal investigator (McLaughlin, 2011, p. 59).
Code of Ethics: English
The NASW Code of Ethics is a set of standards that guide the professional conduct of social workers. The 2021 update includes language that addresses the importance of professional self-care. Moreover, revisions to Cultural Competence standard provide more explicit guidance to social workers. All social workers should review the new text and ...
Social Work Ethics Resources and Research
Social Work Ethics Resources and Research. Below is an overview of social work research related to the profession's ethical standards and values, including examples of publications that provide an overview of: Research on Ethics - examples of knowledge-building about the role and function of various ethics components.
Code of Ethics
The NASW Code of Ethics serves six purposes: The Code identifies core values on which social work's mission is based. The Code summarizes broad ethical principles that reflect the profession's core values and establishes a set of specific ethical standards that should be used to guide social work practice.
Code of Ethics
The NASW Code of Ethics is a set of standards that guide the professional conduct of social workers. The 2021 update includes language that addresses the importance of professional self-care. Revisions to Cultural Competence standard provide more explicit guidance to social workers. All social workers should review the new text and affirm their ...
(PDF) Ethical considerations in social work research
This article o fers a set of practice standards for social work researchers focusing on ways that they can conduct research in a manner that promotes social justice and redresses 3/17/24, 3:02 PM ...
NASW Code of Ethics
The Profession's Early Years. During the earliest years of social work's history, few formal ethical standards existed. The earliest known attempt to formulate a code was an experimental draft code of ethics printed in the 1920s and attributed to Mary Richmond (Pumphrey, 1959).Although several other social work organizations formulated draft codes during the profession's early years (for ...
Ethics in Research
Introduction. As research activity in social work has increased, so has attention to ethics in research. Ethical standards and practices in research guide the relationship between researcher(s) and research participant(s); guide relationships among researchers and scholars; guide how researchers relate to the organizations and communities in which their studies are conducted; and safeguard the ...
Ethics in Research
Summary. Social work researchers hold themselves to ethical standards, compatible with social work ethics, for social science and biomedical research involving human beings. This article describes (a) the general ethical principles guiding research involving human subjects; (b) mechanisms for the ethical review of studies involving human beings ...
PDF Research Ethics Guidance
Weve written this guidance for you to draw on when you face an ethical issue or dilemma in social research. It is intended as a basis for reflection and discussion. Like previous Social Research Association (SRA) guidance on research ethics, it does not offer rigid rules, but illustrates ethical practices to which experienced and respected social
Module 1 Chapter 3: Ethical Conduct of Research
The Belmont Report presented a summary of ethical guidelines for engaging in research that involves human subjects. The guidelines are based on three core principles: Respect for persons. This principle is founded on a conviction that "individuals should be treated as autonomous agents" (Belmont Report, 1979, p. 4).
Chapter Three: Ethics in social work research
Content Advisory. This chapter discusses or mentions the following topics: unethical research that has occurred in the past against marginalized groups in America and during the Holocaust. Joffe, S., & Miller, F. G. (2014). Ethics of cancer clinical trials in low-resource settings.
The Practice of Research in Social Work
The Fourth Edition of Rafael J. Engel and Russell K. Schutt's The Practice of Research in Social Work introduces an integrated set of techniques for evaluating research and practice problems as well as conducting studies. Evidence-based practice comes alive through illustrations of actual social work research. Updated with new examples, the latest research, and expanded material on ...
Research ethics in a changing social sciences landscape
Abstract. The role of research ethics committees, and research ethics issues more broadly are often not viewed in the context of the development of scientific methods and the academic community. This topic piece seeks to redress this gap. I begin with a brief outline of the changes we experience within the social sciences before exploring in ...
Ethical Considerations for Social Work Research With Vulnerable
The aim of this article is to impose solutions to the ethical dilemmas that derive from social work research involving vulnerable children. The main concern is how to balance the protection of children while progressing their participation. Several substitute mechanisms were put in place for protecting underage children.
Research Ethics Guidance
The SRA promotes good practice in social research, including high standards of ethics to: Protect research participants. Ensure research is high quality. Comply with legislation. Reassure funders. Maintain the good reputation of the sector. We're pleased to announce the new SRA research ethics guidance (February 2021).
Ethical guidelines for designing and conducting evaluations of social
We review selected aspects of current ethical guidelines pertaining to the design and conduct of social work evaluation and research studies. We contend that there are significant differences between social science research and evaluation studies, and that the uncritical application of ethical guidelines suitable for regulating social science research may hinder social workers undertaking ...
Guiding Principles for Ethical Research
Ethical guidelines are established for clinical research to protect patient volunteers and to preserve the integrity of the science. NIH Clinical Center researchers published seven main principles to guide the conduct of ethical research: Social and clinical value. Scientific validity.
Social Work Standard of the Month: Evaluation and Research
5.02 Evaluation and Research Overview Revisions to section 5 of the NASW Code of Ethics, which focuses on social workers' responsibilities to the social work profession, were limited to standard 5.02, Evaluation and Research.There are now 16 standards in this section with the inclusion of new content that specifically incorporates guidance for social workers using electronic technology in ...
5.2 Specific ethical issues to consider
For social workers, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics section 5.02 describes the responsibilities of social workers in conducting research. Summarized below, these guidelines outline that as a representative of the social work profession, it is your responsibility to conduct to conduct and use research in an ...
Ethical Considerations in Research
Revised on May 9, 2024. Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people. The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments ...
PDF Guidelines for Ethical Considerations in Social Research ...
no well-laid ethical guidelines are in place or practice; but more of a case to case basis. In fact, very few social research or the donor agencies in India get clearance from any ethical review board. As a matter of fact, ethical review of social research proposals and protocols are yet to be institutionalized.
Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the
Download pdf. The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) is an independent advisory body responsible for developing national research ethics guidelines. The first edition of NESH's guidelines was published in 1993, and revised editions have been published in 1999, 2006 and 2016.
Graduate research methods in social work
We designed our book to help graduate social work students through every step of the research process, from conceptualization to dissemination. Our textbook centers cultural humility, information literacy, pragmatism, and an equal emphasis on quantitative and qualitative methods. It includes extensive content on literature reviews, cultural bias and respectfulness, and qualitative methods, in ...
Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review
Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase 'ethical challenge(s)' appears to lack an agreed definition. ... reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research. ... Habek D. Guidelines for the management of the social and ethical ...
Policies and guidelines for authors| Elsevier
Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Hazards and human or animal subjects: Statements of compliance are required if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent ...
American Psychological Association (APA)
The American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychologists in the United States. APA educates the public about psychology, behavioral science and mental health; promotes psychological science and practice; fosters the education and training of psychological scientists, practitioners and educators; advocates for psychological ...
WMA Declaration of Helsinki
Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote and ensure respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights. 8. While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects.
What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)?
Corporate social responsibility is the overall ethos that drives a company to adopt policies and practices that support sustainability, societal and other ethical ends. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) is about the ways in which their impact is measured or quantified. While both CSR and ESG are about reflecting the company's values ...
Privacy Commissioner's Office Publishes "Artificial Intelligence: Model
The Model Framework covers recommended measures in the following four areas: Establish AI Strategy and Governance: Organisations should have an internal AI governance strategy, which generally comprises (i) an AI strategy, (ii) governance considerations for procuring AI solutions, and (iii) an AI governance committee (or similar body) to steer the process, including providing directions on the ...

Code of Ethics

Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics

Ethical Principles

Ethical Standards

1. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO CLIENTS

2. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO COLLEAGUES

3. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN PRACTICE SETTINGS

4. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS PROFESSIONALS

5. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION

6. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE BROADER SOCIETY

Article contents

Updated in this version

Module 1 Chapter 3: Ethical Conduct of Research

Share This Book

Chapter Three: Ethics in social work research

Chapter Outline

Content Advisory

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Ethical guidelines for designing and conducting evaluations of social work practice

Similar articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

You are here

Social and clinical value

Respect for potential and enrolled participants

Connect with Us

Have a language expert improve your writing

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Table of contents

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Research misconduct

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Introduction

Research ethics

Responsibility for research ethics

NESH’s guidelines

A) The Research Community

1. Free and independent research

2. Obligations of the research community

3. Academic assessment

4. Supervisors and project leaders

5. The supervisory relationship

6. Openness, accountability, and critique

7. Scientific publication

8. Good citation practice

9. Co-authorship

10. Plagiarism

11. Fabrication and falsification

12. Distortion and concealment

13. Safety and security

14. International collaboration

B) Research Participants

15. Consent to participate in research

16. Impaired capacity to consent

17. Protection of children

18. Exceptions from the demand for consent

19. Transparency about roles and responsibilities

20. Anonymity

21. Confidentiality

22. Duty of notification

23. Privacy and family life

24. Storage and sharing of research material

25. Reporting the results

26. Direct and indirect involvement

27. Values and motives

28. Risk of harm and disadvantage

29. Posthumous legacy

30. Future generations

C) Groups and Institutions

31. Disadvantaged and vulnerable groups

32. Respect for cultural differences

33. Cultural heritage

34. Public administration

35. Private companies and organisations

D) Commisioners, Funders, and Collaborators

36. Independence in research