19 - Ethics in Research

Summary

A moral education for Mead, and certainly for Dewey (1975), refers to a developmental trajectory, bootstrapping on empirical findings about development and attention. These findings need to be anchored to moral development. Education nurtures many cephalic capabilities, not least of which are our ethical sensibilities. But a moral education, as Aristotle (1999) and the Stoics noted and Dewey reinforced, necessitated the development of character, specifically a moral character in which self-corrective processes are tied to humility, where a nurtured self without a bloated head is a normative goal.

In discussing dynamics of power in research relationships, the focus is often on the roles of researchers and participants, and the importance of avoiding coercion or forced participation. This power relationship is also extremely important to keep in mind when considering the role that an advisor plays in the life and career of a junior researcher. While an advisor may use his/her power to guide, support, and educate, this also makes it very easy for an advisor to take advantage of an advisee. The examples given by an advisor or senior researcher can shape a beginning researcher’s moral education and can affect the ethics of the field far down the line. In this chapter we, along with a colleague who wished to remain anonymous, provide examples of ethical lapses we have seen in training relationships.