Practicing Ethics Problem Solving

Let’s work through a fake study and think through some of the issues in the research methods. Let’s say we want to look at car shopping decisions and the relationship with self-efficacy (self-confidence). The plan is to do a mixed method study, we’ll use a standardized, brief self-efficacy survey and briefly interview the customer (What was your decision at the dealership regarding buying a car? What led you to make the decision that you did?). We decide that we want to use a local Nissan dealership, so first we approach the general manager, John Smith, and see if there is some way to make this work. John is open to the dealership participating but does not want us to interfere with customers in their decision making process. We initially discuss having everyone that speaks with a salesperson complete the 5 question survey. A brief consent form will be included and ask whether a researcher can contact them by phone and asks for their name and phone number. We will then call each customer that agrees and ask our questions.

What are issues we need to consider? First we need a letter from John Smith stating everything that his people will and won’t do, and any information that the dealership will be provide to us (so let’s wait on getting the letter until we have finalized the details). Second, we want to make it very clear that the researchers are not affiliated in any way with the dealership, that the person is not required to participate, and no one will treat them differently regardless of their choice in participating. One issue the IRB is going to have is with the salesperson giving out the survey, which gives the appearance of the dealership sponsoring the study. Is there a way around this? Perhaps at the end of the salesperson interaction he or she could give them a flyer with a link to an online survey (and the consent form) on survey monkey? As a researcher we need to consider that this is going to lower our participant rate, but will make it more acceptable to the IRB. We will probably have to continue the study longer and will need to mention this issue in the limitation section of the paper.

Let’s consider our study’s inclusion criteria. People may participate if they are 18 years and older and if they are able to read English, which is the language of the survey. We should ask their age at the beginning of the survey. The exclusion criteria are being under 18 and unable to read English.

What other demographics might be a factor in purchasing a car? Perhaps marital status, having children, sharing decision making, employment, income per year? We would want to check the literature, make a decision, and add these into the survey. How will we determine who is interviewed? We will need to preset a rule for this. It could be the first 10 people who agree to be interviewed or if we think marital status is important we could say the first 5 with a partner/ spouse and the first 5 single/ divorced people who volunteer will be selected. The important thing is to select the criteria in advance and stick to it.

Here is our current method:

1.      Get permission letter from John Smith

2.      Prepare flyer for salespeople with a link in survey monkey

3.      Prepare survey monkey with a consent form, the survey, and ask if person can be contacted for an interview, and have them give their email or phone number.

4.      Have a brief meeting with salespeople explaining the study and that we would like them to give a flyer to every customer, whether they buy a car or not.

5.      Wait to see if we get participants

6.      Contact those willing to be interviewed

7.      Call for interviews, record interviews

8.      Transcribe interviews

9.      Analyze qualitative data, developing coding

10.   Download survey data from survey monkey

11.   Analyze survey results compared to coding

12.   Send results to participants and dealership 

After a month, we only have three participants! We need to rethink our method, some possible options: we could go to the dealership and hand out the flyer personally as the person is leaving the dealership, sometimes the personal contact will help. We could increase the number of dealerships, each will require that we go through the first 4 steps listed above. Whatever, our final decision we will need to complete a “Change of Procedure” form for the IRB (available on their web site).

A few final thoughts on the IRB process, you may need to go through several revisions of your methods. Work through each of the IRB’s comments and think them through. If you can’t figure out a solution, ask for a conference call with the IRB and your chair and they will brainstorm with you. Again, always be professional in your interactions, they are not trying to delay your progress. They just want your study to be the best one possible that protects you and your participants.

Next time we will take a look at data collection. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@mail.waldenu.edu

IRB: Ethics Review

Once your proposal has been accepted, the next step is the Institutional Review Board review (ethics board). The first step is to go to the research center, find the IRB website, and access the IRB application. One of the first items listed is that you need to take the CITI ethics course online. When you are done with the course, save the certificate to your computer, you will need to submit it to the IRB. Double check the IRB website for any relevant information sheets about your population.

What is the IRB looking for? They want to know that you have thought out every detail of your study. The most common error students make is not providing enough detail, or not being clear in the information provided. As you begin to complete the IRB application, think about each item and consider: will someone unfamiliar with your study understand what you have written? Keep in mind that the board typically does not read your proposal, they rely on the information you provide in your application.

The IRB is most concerned with your interactions with your participants, so go into great detail in this area. Think through each aspect of your study, some examples: Who will be approaching possible participants? What will they say? What happens to participants at each step of the process? Go into excruciating detail. If you find yourself assuming things (e.g., “I’ll use a room at XX for the interview”) stop and rethink it- do you have permission to use the room? Will it be private? Can people easily get there and find it? Will using the building give the impression that the organization is sponsoring the study? An example, of the last question would be using a church, you would want to be clear that the church is not affiliated in any way with your study.

Next time, we will consider an example of a study and IRB issues. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@mail.waldenu.edu

Moving On: The URR and proposal defense

Once your committee has approved your proposal (Chapters 1-3), each of your committee members completes a rubric. Your proposal will be submitted to turnitin and assuming it is acceptable, the proposal, rubrics, and turnitin report will all be sent to your University Research Reviewer (URR). The URR is a faculty member that is assigned by the research center, this person provides an independent review of the paper and double checks that all is well. Why this step? The problem is that your committee is primarily looking at specific aspects of your paper, the content expert is concentrating on the literature. The methods expert is concentrating on the research methods. Unfortunately, they are focused on the trees, and need someone else to see the forest. Does everything hang together? Are the individual parts consistent? You will probably need to make some additional revisions for the URR.

Once the URR approves your paper, he or she will complete a rubric. You will then receive an email indicating that you may schedule your one-hour proposal defense conference call. You will need to select several possible days and times that will work for you and send those to your committee with your time zone (check with your chair first, he or she may like to follow a different procedure). Once there are a couple of times that work for everyone, your chair will submit a conference call request form to the research center. You will be notified of the time selected and how to call in.

In advance of the call you will want to prepare a power point for your committee. You will be given 20 minutes to talk about your project, so keep the slides to less than 25. It is better to have just an outline on the slides, you can always write out everything you want to say and read it during your presentation. Concentrate on the methods and analyses with just enough literature to put it into context. Check with your chair how they like it done. Send your committee the power point prior to the defense call.

On the day of the defense, have your computer on with your paper open for reference. Have any other papers available that you might need, as well as your power point. It is also a good idea to have some water available and make sure you have an environment where you won’t be distracted or disturbed. Once you call in, your committee will greet you and try to put you at ease. Your chair will leave the conference briefly to turn on the recorder, there will be announcement when it starts. Your chair will probably indicate the date and who is on the call for the recorder and then it will be your turn to go through the presentation.

A few things to know, first this is not a confrontational situation. I know it is called a defense, but it is really just a chance for the committee to hear about the project one more time and catch anything that may have been missed. It is typically very collegial, with everyone trying to make it the best project possible. After your 20 minute talk, your committee will ask you questions. They are just trying to clarify any issues that might arise during the data collection. It is okay to say that you don’t know something (but say that you will check it out, find the answer, and report back).

Take a few moments at this stage of the process to reflect on your progress, celebrate!

After the call, your chair will submit a form through taskstream indicating that you passed the defense. You will then receive a notice that your next step is the IRB (Institutional Review Board, this is the ethics review and takes place before you collect any data). We’ll take a look at the IRB process next time.

Ethics as a Researcher Webinar Recording

The Prospectus: The beginning

The prospectus is the first official document related to your dissertation. This paper is usually 10-12 pages long. In it, you explore some of the literature (clearly showing there is a gap in the literature) and flesh out your research method. It is important to remember that you are building a case in your writing, you want to clearly show that there is a need for your study (answering the "so what" question, which is your gap in the literature). Then, you want to show clearly how your study will fill this gap.  Make sure that everything in your paper is aligned- your literature, research questions, hypotheses and method all address the same issues and are consistent. Your analyses should be consistent with your hypotheses and research questions. 

You will want to consider the social change implications of your study, don’t overstate this, you will not change the world. You are adding a little more to the literature, hopefully clarifying your small piece of the puzzle.

There is a dissertation prospectus guide in the Research Center, available at: <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4XiaHN6ICGITkcxWVRic3ZyNGM/view>. This document also has a prospectus example of what is required. It is also a good idea to take a look at the prospectus rubric available in the research center. These documents will let you know how the faculty will be evaluating your paper.

If you are planning to use a vulnerable population (e.g., your subordinates, children, elderly, prisoners, people who are ill, etc.) or if you are thinking about having people participate in some sort of activity or program (e.g., a new relaxation technique; something they would not normally do) then you may have ethical issues to consider. First, go to the Walden's IRB (Institution Review Board /ethics board) website, there you will find several information sheets on these issues. Think the issues through and talk them over with your chair. It is probably a good idea to write up your method in an email to the IRB (IRB@waldenu.edu) and ask for their opinion and if they foresee any problems. They are very open to this early planning and can save you much pain and disappointment later.

Often, by the time you are writing your prospectus you have a chair of your committee, and you will be in his or her prospectus or dissertation class. Beware of the tendency to think of your dissertation as MINE. It is not your paper, it is a paper written by you at the advice of your committee. You will be asked to write many revisions. No, it does not mean that you are a bad writer; you are learning to write in a very technical manner that requires precise clarity. Your committee (and particularly your chair) is there to guide you and get you and your paper through the many obstacles ahead. Patience, persistence, and meticulousness will save you a great deal of pain in the future!

Once your chair has approved your prospectus draft, it will go to your committee member. He or she will probably want revisions. Once those are completed and everyone is happy with the draft, the committee member and chair complete the prospectus rubric. You will need to submit it to taskstream, where your chair and committee member will complete rubrics and it will be sent on to your program director for approval.

This last step, that your prospectus will be sent to your program director, is an important one to consider. He or she will double-check your entire paper, of special concern will be if everything in your paper is consistent and aligned (research questions fit with method, analyses, etc.). They will also make sure that your topic fits within your program. Why is this important? Because if you are a health psych student proposing to examine a clinical psych issue, areas that you have not been trained in during your Walden health psych program it may not be approved. If you have expertise outside of your Walden program, perhaps you are a licensed counselor or a mental health nurse, it is a good idea to mention that on your cover page.

Next time, we will consider the URR and your dissertation. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@mail.waldenu.edu

Criticism

How do you deal with criticism? A few common examples are: being told that your writing needs help, that you have to do yet another revision, or that you are not going to be done this quarter, because the paper needs more work. There are a number of possible responses to such news. You can deny that there is a problem; you can argue with the critic; or you can pout and refuse to respond to them.

A better solution is to take control and ask yourself what I can do to fix this? If writing help is suggested, listen to the comments and talk to the writing center. Form a plan of action. It may help to talk on the phone to the faculty member and talk through the issues that he or she is seeing in your paper (note, if it is the URR have a conference call that includes your chair).

Criticism is always difficult, no one likes to be told bad news, and faculty do not like to give such news. However, both parties must keep the end goal in sight – to get you done. Think of it as doing whatever it takes. If it means working with an editor or rewriting that chapter one more time, do it. You do not need to feel embarrassed, it is not a failing of yours; it is simply one more step that must be taken on this long journey.

Remember that you go into the dissertation process with an academic idea of what to do in order to complete a research project. The final dissertation is an applied proof of your research ability. Of course, you will not be great at everything that is why you have faculty available to consult with you. It is why only experience researchers are faculty mentors- this is a difficult process and everyone has problems along the way.

Be tough, listen to the criticism and move on. Learn what you need to learn, after all someday you may also be a research mentor!

Next time we will look at the prospectus. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@mail.waldenu.edu

To Pilot or Not to Pilot?

A question that you will need to consider when you are designing your study is whether to pilot the study on some test subjects. My recommendation is yes! Do it! I always pilot test my studies, and the reasoning is simple, I want to know that everything works in the way I have visualized, I want to check how long it takes, and I want to make sure everything is clear to the subject. Be aware that you must have IRB approval before conducting any pilot tests.

Whom should you ask to be pilot subjects? There are a number of schools of thought on this. If there are concerns about the suitability of your questions, you may want to consider selecting people who are familiar with your topic but not necessarily eligible for your study. Let's use an example of a study on women who are currently in domestic violence relationships, I would recommend searching for women who were formerly in such relationships. They would be familiar with the topic but you are not using possible participants. You can them make any needed changes (and submit the changes to IRB through the Change in Procedure form), before you test real participants.

I would also recommend using the above procedure if you are using a technique with which you are unfamiliar. So if you have never conducted a qualitative interview (even if you have done other types of interviews), take the time to do some practice ones. You can get over your nervousness, learn how to pace yourself, and learn the value of being silent and waiting for the participant to think about their response. Plan to always debrief your pilot subjects by speaking to them about your study when you are done with their testing/ interview. Ask them how long it took to complete any surveys and how they felt about it (e.g., bored, annoyed, interested). Ask if any questions were vague or any words unclear. Also, ask if there were things they wished you had asked them (this is always a good last question for any interview).

A second option is to have friends or family members be test subjects. This is best used for general surveys, when anyone is eligible to be in a study. It is not advisable to have someone pretend to fit a specific subgroup (e.g., domestic violence victims). You can use family or friends for trying out the technique, but I do not recommend this for any official pilot interviews; family and friends will not respond in the same way as people you do not know, so you really will not get the experience that you need.

A third piloting option (if you have experience in the technique) is to consider having your first few "real" subjects be potential pilot subjects. Again, interview them after they are done and ask about the issues listed above. If no changes are needed, then you can count them as "real" subjects. However, if you need to make any changes in the materials, questions, or your techniques they may not be included in your official sample.

Treat pilot testing seriously, record your interactions with the subject, go back and listen to the recording. Everyone hates to hear their own voice, but it is particularly important with any interviews that you make sure you are giving people sufficient time to answer. The tendency is for the new researcher to be worrying about asking the questions, the trick is to learn to worry about their response. Did they actually answer your question? Did you cut off their answer?

Next time we will look at criticism. Do you have an issue or a question that you would like me to discuss in a future post? Would you like to be a guest writer? Send me your ideas! Send me an email with your ideas. leann.stadtlander@mail.waldenu.edu