Developing a Research ethic Guideline for Department of Curriculum Studies and Educational Innovations: A Qualitative Research
Subject Areas : Ethics and Islamic EducationSeyed Ali Khaleghinezhad 1 * , Mohammad 2 , 3 , Ahad Navidi 4 , Fereshteh Zeynivand Nezhad 5 , 6 , Heidar Toorani 7 , 8
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
Keywords: Ethics, Research, Education, Ethical Guideline, Focused group discussion,
Abstract :
In the recent years, while scientific production and the number of high educational institutes have been increased in Iran, the spreading of immoral behaviors in conducting research has been threatening all of the research-driven institutions, in particular, department for curriculum studies and educational innovations, as a part of the research institute for education. This study was conducted in order to formulate ethics in research of department for curriculum studies and educational innovations. This essay was done through a Qualitative approach by focused group discussions and face to face interviews. The collected date from focused group discussions sessions was analyzed by thematic content analysis method. The analysis led to two core categories including the researcher’s ethical personality and ethical principles of research. The former consists of humility, patience, cultural sensitivity, and collaboration. The latter has nine subcategories including the benefits of research, academic integrity, observing the colleague rights, observing the rights of participants, avoid of plagiarism, publication of obtained data, writing the report in a simple way, critic’s acceptance and scientific criticism. In conclusion, the obtained date by this research is able to play a role in making moral decisions regarding research and creating a confident and respectful atmosphere among the institution users. Furthermore, it has the capability to be used as a base for further discussions and also developing the culture of ethical personality s
اترک، حسین. (1396). چیستی علم‌ربایی در اخلاق پژوهش، فصلنامه اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، 12 (3)، 19- 9.
ایمان، محمدتقی.، جلیلی، روح الله.، غفاری نسب، اسفندیار.، طبیعی، منصور (1395) داوری اخلاقی بر مبنای استثنایی‌سازی موقعیت: کاوشی پدیدارشناختی اخلاق پژوهش، پژوهش‌های اخلاقی، 7 (1)، 37-19.
درودی، فریبرز (1393). درآمدی بر انواع نقد و کارکردهای آن، مجله نقد کتاب و اطلاع رسانی و ارتباطات، 3 (4)، 234- 221.
جمیلی کهنه شهریري، فاطمه.، سدیدپور، سمانه (1293) کدهای اخلاق پژوهش در تجربه های زیسته نخبگان علوم اجتماعی، فصلنامه اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، 9 (4)، 12-1.
جوادپور غلامحسین.(1396) تعین معرفتی و مبانی نظری «بایسته‌های اخلاقی دانشوری» (اخلاق علم)، پژوهش نامه اخلاق. ۱۳۹۶; ۱۰ (۳۷) :۸۵-۱۰۶
حسینیان، سیمین. (1386) بررسی و مقایسه نظام نامه های اخلاقی مشاوره در کشورهای مختلف، فصلنامه تازه های و پژوهش‌های مشاوره، 4 (13)، 34- 9.
سازمان نظام روانشناسی و مشاوره جمهوری اسلامی (1387) نظام نامه اخلاقی، تازه‌های روان‌درمانی، 50 (49)، 148- 137.
قادری، مصطفی؛ سلیمی، مریم؛ و بلندهمتان، کیوان (1394). آگاهی و توجه اساتید و دانشجویان نسبت به استانداردهای اخلاق در پژوهش، فصلنامه اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، 10 (4)، 97- 85.
نصیری همراه، عاطفه. (1396). اخلاق در پژوهش‌های علوم رفتاری: دیدگاه صاحبنظران روش شناسی، مجله اخلاق پزشکی، 11 (41). 36- 25.
ویژه، محمدرضا.، رضائی، آزاد. (1397). استانداردهای اخلاقی و رفتاری: خوانش حقوقی و آثار اجتماعی آن‌ها، پژوهش‌های اخلاقی، 9 (1)، 268- 243.
یاری قلی، بهبود. (1397) آسیب شناسی اخلاق پژوهش دانشگاهی: مطالعه پدیدارشناسی، فصلنامه اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، 13 (1)، 134- 127.
Akhondzadeh S. Iranian science shows world’s fastest growth: ranks 17th in science production in 2012. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol 2013;5(3):139.
Bain, L. E., Ebuenyi, I. D., & Ekukwe, N. C. (2018). Rethinking research ethics committees in low- and medium-income countries. http://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117692026
BERA (British Educational Research Association) (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research. London: British Education Research Association. https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Burrows, D., & Kendall, S. (1997). Focus groups: What are they and how can they be used in nursing and health care research? Social Sciences in Health, 3, 244–253.
Busch, P., & Bilgin, A. (2014). Student and staff understanding and reaction: Academic integrity in an Australian university. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(3), 227-243.
Carter, S. (2002). How much subjectivity is needed to understand our lives objectively? Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1184-1201.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 14, 1667–1676.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.
Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2013) Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120-123.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 14, 1667–1676
Creager A and Haldon J (2010) Responsible conduct of research workshop, 14–15 June. Available at: www.princeton.edu/gradschool/about/docs/academics/HIS-HOS_503_ RCR_syllabus_Final.pdf (accessed 1 April 2015).
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE open, 4(1), 2158244014522633.
Forero, D. A., & Moore, J. H. (2016). Considerations for higher efficiency and productivity in research activities.
Giraud, C., Cioffo, G. D., & Chaves, C. R. (2018). Navigating research ethics in the absence of an ethics review board : The importance of space for sharing. http://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117750081
Goodwin, D., Pope, C., Mort, M., & Smith, A. (2003). Ethics and ethnography: An experiential account. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 567-577.
Gray, B., Hilder, J., Macdonald, L., Tester, R., Dowell, A., & Stubbe, M. (2017). Are research ethics guidelines culturally competent?. Research Ethics, 13(1), 23-41.
Greenbaum, T. L. (1998). The handbook for focus group research. Sage.
Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2007). Research ethics for social scientists. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 12(3), 79-83.
Katoch, K. S. (2013). Academic dishonesty: Issues and challenges. Pedagogy of Learning, 1(2), 104-110.
Kiri, B., Lacetera, N., & Zirulia, L. (2018). Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production. Research Policy, 47(5), 827-839.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). Focus groups: method or madness?. Challenge and innovation. Methodological advances in social research on HIV/AIDS, 159-75.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Kuokkanen, R. (2010). The responsibility of the academy: A call for doing homework. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(3).
Laverack, G. R., & Brown, K. M. (2003). Qualitative research in a cross-cultural context: Fijian experiences. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), 333-342. 26. Lewis JD and Weigert A (1985) Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63: 967–985.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9(3).
Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment.
McCain, K. H. 1991. Communication, competition and secrecy: the production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol.16: 4, 491-516.
Miller, T., Birch, M., Mauthner, M., & Jessop, J. (Eds.). (2012). Ethics in qualitative research. London: Sage.
Monroy, S. E., & Diaz, H. (2018). Time series-based bibliometric analysis of the dynamics of scientific production. Scientometrics, 1-21.
Morgan, D. L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, & J.
A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interviewing research: Context & Method
(pp. 141–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16 (1), 1-13.
Papadopoulos, I., & Lees, S. (2002). Developing culturally competent researchers. Journal of advanced nursing, 37(3), 258-264.
Peterson, R. L., Peterson, D. R., Abrams, J. C., Stricker, G., & Ducheny, K. (2010). The National Council of Schools and Programs of Professional Psychology Educational Model—2009. In M. B. Kenkel & R. L. Peterson (Eds.), Competency-based education for professional psychology (pp. 13–42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ralefala, D., Ali, J., Kass, N., & Hyder, A. (2016). A case study of researchers’ knowledge and opinions about the ethical review process for research in Botswana. Research Ethics, 1747016116677250.
Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research & why is it important. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 1-10.
Roberts, L. W. (2017). Addressing authorship issues prospectively: a heuristic approach. Academic Medicine, 92(2), 143-146
Stone, R. (2016) In Iran, a shady market for papers flourishes, reterived from: htp://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6305/1197.
Sugiura, L., Wiles, R., & Pope, C. (2017). Ethical challenges in online research : Public / private perceptions. http://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116650720
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge.
Wiles, R., Charles, V., Crow, G., & Heath, S. (2006). Researching researchers: lessons for research ethics. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 283-299.
Yeager, K. A., & Bauer-Wu, S. (2013). Cultural humility: Essential foundation for clinical researchers. Applied Nursing Research, 26(4), 251-256.