Difference between revisions of "Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Duration=2 | |Has Duration=2 | ||
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers | |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers | ||
| − | |Has Method=Individual learning | + | |Has Method=Individual learning; Case analysis method |
}} | }} | ||
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}} | {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:19, 8 August 2021
Instructions02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.
These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.What is this about?
The Seven Steps Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:
- What are the facts?
- What are the ethical issues?
- What are the alternatives?
- What are the stakeholders?
- What are the ethics of alternatives?
- What are the practical constraints?
- What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[1])
These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[2]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[3]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.
A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In Ethics and the University, Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[4]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
[1] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from https://studylib.net/doc/18058307/model-g---the-seven-step-method-for-analyzing-ethical-sit
[2] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner-39-s-guide-to-ethical-decision-making.pdf
[3] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from https://compassexecutives.com/2018/08/28/7-step-model-for-ethical-decision-making/
[4] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.Practical Tips
1. State problem
For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
2. Check facts
Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
3. Identify relevant factors
For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
4. Develop a list of options
Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
5. Test options
Employ one or more of the following tests:
- Harm test: does this option do less harm than alternatives?
- Publicity test: would I want my decision published in the newspaper?
- Defensibility test: could I defend my choice before a committee?
- Reversibility test: would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?
- Colleague test: what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?
- Professional test: what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?
- Organization test: what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
6. Make a choice
All things considered, make a choice.
7. Review steps 1–6
*Are there any precautions you can take?
- Is there any way to access more support next time?
- Is there any way to change the organisation (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
