What Research Ethics Are and Why They Matter
Ethics is the only part of a research plan that can invalidate work you have already finished. Start with that consequence, then with what the supplied source means by ethics, where the written code comes from, and why the clearance date is the hardest date in your schedule.
The rule that decides your schedule
Take the consequence before the definitions, because it is the one statement in the supplied teaching source that can destroy work you have already done.
Read the second sentence carefully. It is not a warning that early data will be scrutinised, or that you will be asked to justify it. It says the data cannot be used for your findings. Possession is irrelevant; the transcripts can be sitting on your drive and still be unusable.
For a practising project manager this converts an administrative task into a hard predecessor. Every data collection activity in your plan depends on an approval you do not control and cannot compress, and float on that approval is not float on the project — it is float on the entire evidence base.
Two definitions, and what each one is for
The supplied material defines ethics twice, from two very different kinds of source, and does not treat the two as competing. They do different jobs.
THE TWO DEFINITIONS IN THE SUPPLIED SOURCE
| Definition as given | Where the source takes it from | What it gives you |
|---|---|---|
| "Ethics are the norms or standards of behaviour that guide moral choices about our behaviour and our relationship with others." | A business research methods textbook, 10th edition, page 34 | A relational test. Ethics here is about behaviour towards others, so the operative question is always who is affected and how — not whether something is permitted. |
| "Ethics is the science of morals in human conduct." | A concise Australian dictionary, page 364 | A field of study rather than a rulebook. That framing is why a review body deliberates rather than simply issuing permissions. |
| "Moral principles (are) rules of conduct." | The same dictionary entry | The bridge to the written code. Principles become rules, and rules can be documented, applied and breached. |
All three formulations are quoted directly from the supplied teaching source. The third column is synthesis added here.
Neither definition mentions research. Both are general statements about conduct, which matters, because it means research ethics is not a specialist discipline bolted onto your project. It is ordinary conduct towards others, applied in a setting where you are asking people for something.
Morals and ethics: unwritten values against a written code
The source records that the two words tend to be used interchangeably, then offers a distinction it attributes to a 1999 work. The distinction is worth holding onto because it explains why an application form exists at all.
Morals — unwritten
- An unwritten set of values
- Provide a frame of reference
- Used to help decision-making
- Used to regulate behaviour
Ethics — a written code
- A written code of value principles
- Used in a particular context
- Normally documented in a value statement
- Reflected in procedures, policies and expected behaviours of organisations
The practical consequence is not stated in the source but follows directly from it. You are not assessed on your morals, because nobody can read them. You are assessed against a code, and two researchers with identical good intentions can submit applications of very different quality because only one of them has written the intentions down as procedures.
This is also why "I would never do that" is not an answer to an ethics question. The code exists precisely so that the answer does not depend on your self-assessment. If you want a worked catalogue of what the code is protecting against, see Unethical Behaviour in Research.
The aim, and who "no one" includes
Two words in that sentence are broader than a first reading suggests. The first is no one — not "no participant". The second is adverse consequences, which sits alongside harm rather than restating it.
A participant who is not harmed in any ordinary sense, but whose team of four is identifiable in your findings and who is subsequently managed differently because of what the report said, has suffered an adverse consequence. That is inside the aim as the source words it.
Who the aim protects
The people you ask
The largest group and the one the design-stage issues concentrate on: informed consent, privacy, the right to volunteer without coercion, and confidentiality. Set out in Ethical Issues at Each Research Stage.
The researcher
The source lists the researcher's right to safety among the design-stage issues, and the researcher's right to be free from sponsor coercion among the proposal-stage ones. Your own exposure is inside the scope, not outside it.
Host and sponsor
A sponsor has a right to quality research and to honest dealings. A host organisation takes the study into its own business ethics. See Sponsors and Researcher Independence.
Third parties in your data
People named in records you extract but never approached. The source does not list them separately; they fall inside "no one" on a plain reading, and in project research — incident logs, change registers, performance reports — they are often the largest group in the dataset.
Dual approval when your workplace hosts the study
Most readers of this library will run a study that touches their employer. The source treats that as a change of category, not a detail.
Working the dual approval
Test for hosting, not for employment
The trigger the source names is hosting. If the organisation supplies the participants, the site, the records or the sponsorship, it is hosting the study and its business ethics apply — whether or not you happen to be on its payroll.
Obtain both processes before you draft either application
The source names three things to check for each body: what the application form requires, whether the process runs on-line or through a committee, and the timelines that apply. Get the form itself, not a description of it.
Take the workplace clearance first where you can
The source states that the institution will accept another organisation's ethics approval when it is attached to your application. It says nothing about the reverse direction, so do not assume an institutional approval will satisfy your employer.
Attach it
The acceptance in the source is conditional on attachment. An approval you hold but did not attach is not in front of the reviewers.
Rebase the schedule on the later of the two dates
The source does not say this; it follows from the pre-clearance rule. Two approvals means the binding constraint is whichever arrives second, and neither body is obliged to work to your timetable.
Which body do you need?
What this changes about how you plan
The instruction the source gives before any of this is preparatory and easy to skip: become familiar with the codes of ethics in your organisation and your institution before you commence any research proposal. Not before you collect — before you propose.
- Read both codes
- Design settled
- Both processes identified
- Workplace clearance
- Institutional clearance
- First data item collected
Reading the codes first is not diligence for its own sake. Codes constrain what you may ask, whom you may ask, what you may keep and for how long, and a design that ignores them will be sent back. The material requirements around storage and ownership are set out in Research Data Storage, Retention and Ownership, and what the application itself has to demonstrate is in Writing an Ethics Application.
Before any data touches your study
- You can name, in one sentence, every body whose approval this study requires
- You hold each body's application form, not a summary of it
- You know for each whether the route is on-line or through a committee
- You have each body's stated timeline, obtained from the body rather than estimated
- You have read your organisation's code of ethics and your institution's
- Your schedule places the first collection task after the later of the two approval dates
- Nothing currently in your evidence base predates clearance
- You have a plan for re-collecting anything that does
Where the rest of this subject is covered
This page is the entry point. The substantive material divides into behaviour, stages, principles and process, and each has its own treatment.
THE RESEARCH ETHICS MATERIAL, MAPPED
| If you need | Go to |
|---|---|
| The seven behaviours the source names as unethical, and what each looks like in practice | Unethical Behaviour in Research |
| Which issues arise at proposal stage and which at design stage, and whose right is in play | Ethical Issues at Each Research Stage |
| Do no harm, free choice, plagiarism and honest reporting | The Four Ethical Principles |
| Consent, captive audiences and what "fully informed" requires | Voluntary Participation and Informed Consent |
What to carry forward
- Data gathered before clearance cannot be used in your findings. Plan on re-collecting anything that predates the approval date.
- Ethics is a written code applied in a context; morals are the unwritten values behind it. You are assessed against the code.
- The aim covers everyone the research touches — participants, you, the host, the sponsor, and the people named in records you never approached.
- Hosting, not employment, is what pulls your workplace into the approval path. If it supplies people, site, records or money, it is a host.
- Check three things for every approving body: what the form requires, whether the route is on-line or a committee, and the stated timeline.
- Read your organisation's and your institution's codes of ethics before you write the proposal, not before you collect.
Frequently asked questions
I ran two informal interviews before I applied for clearance. Can I use them?
Not in your findings, on the rule as the supplied source states it: even if you have gathered data before clearance, you are not able to use it. The source describes no retrospective approval route. Treat the material as background that shaped your thinking, disclose the situation to your supervisor, and plan to collect the equivalent evidence again after approval.
What is the difference between ethics and morals, and does it matter in practice?
The source distinguishes them as unwritten values against a written code: morals are a personal frame of reference used to regulate behaviour, ethics are a documented set of value principles applied in a particular context. It matters because a review body cannot assess your intentions. It assesses procedures you have written down, which is why good intentions and a weak application are entirely compatible.
Does my employer really need to approve a study of its own projects?
If it hosts the study, yes. The source states that where a project is hosted by your workplace or a related organisation it becomes part of that organisation's business ethics and you must seek clearance there as well as from your institution. Hosting covers supplying the participants, the site, the records or the sponsorship.
Which approval should I seek first?
The source points one way only: your institution will accept another organisation's ethics approval when it is attached to your application. That makes the workplace clearance the natural first move where the workplace is a host. Nothing in the source suggests the reverse works, so do not assume an institutional approval will satisfy your employer.
How long does ethics clearance take?
The supplied source does not give a general answer, and it tells you to check the timelines that apply to each body rather than estimating them. It contains one illustration from a single case of insider research on colleagues, which went through several rounds of amendment over several months. That is one case, not a typical duration, and it came from the hardest category of application.
Is a study using only existing organisational records exempt?
The supplied material states no exemptions and gives no risk tiers, so this is not a judgement the source equips you to make. It does locate harm principally in the use of collected data and in privacy and confidentiality of information, which is exactly what a records-based study involves. Ask the approving body.
References and source attribution
- Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. 2008, Business Research Methods, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill — the definition of ethics reproduced at page 34 of the supplied source.
- The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, p. 364 — the second definition of ethics and the definition of moral principles.
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing, Chapter 3 — the prescribed reading accompanying the ethics material.
- Swinton, J. 2009, 'Why bother with research ethics?', Journal of Community Nursing, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 25–27.
- Whiteman, N. 2012, Undoing Ethics: Rethinking Practice in Online Research.
- The supplied teaching source: consolidated weekly teaching notes and slide material on research ethics, which supplies the definitions, the morals distinction, the aim, the dual approval requirement and the pre-clearance rule quoted on this page. It also cites a 1999 work for the morals and ethics distinction without giving fuller bibliographic detail.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- List every body whose ethics approval my study is likely to need, given that it uses my employer's project records.
- I collected pilot data before applying for clearance. What are my options now?
- Rewrite my project schedule so that no collection task starts before both approval dates.
- Turn the source's definition of research ethics into a set of testable questions about my design.
- What should I ask my employer's ethics contact before I start drafting the application?