Ethical considerations for experimentation

This section focuses on the ethical issues that may arise from conducting an online and offline experiments. According to Bryman (2012), some of the ethical considerations that need to be taken into account when conducting social research are the potential harm that can result to the participants when doing research, consensual participation in the experiment, the management of privacy of the subjects and whether any deception is being used to conduct this research.

5.14.1 Avoiding harm

Harm in experimental research in social sciences is not limited to physical effects (Eynon, Fry, & Schroeder, 2008). Harm in social sciences experiments can extend to psychological, social and economic damage (Israel & Hay, 2006). In this matter, Baker et al. (S. M. Baker, Gentry, & Rittenburg, 2005) identify three key themes to consider in

Within Subjects Between Subjects

Advantages

 Fewer subjects are needed as each subject is tested twice;

 You have more control over confounding variables.

 There is less risk of practice or fatigue effects;

 There is less risk of data loss due to drop-out as subjects are only measured once.

Disadvantages

 Subjects may drop out, not completing the second condition and so rendering the data from their first condition unusable;

 Subjects can suffer from practice or fatigue effects when tested twice.

 Twice as many subjects are required;

 You have less control over confounding variables.

143

order to avoid generating harm to participants: (1) factors that increase the incidence of vulnerability, (2) the actual experience of vulnerability that is experienced by lack of control and (3) responses to vulnerability, including coping mechanisms and impact on the self. In these respects, efforts were made to communicate to participants that no financial, social, or psychological harm would result from their participation in this research. The fact that the participants of the studies were students, and that the lecturers allowed students to take part in the study, might give the impression to students that they have to participate or there could be negative repercussions that are not directly financial or physical. To minimise this risk, the participants were reminded that their participation was voluntary, and that it was independent from the coursework they were participating.

5.14.2 Lack of control

In terms of lack of control, this risk was minimised by giving the students the chance to answer the questions voluntarily, and no control measures were enforced to make sure that they answered the survey. Thus, students who did not fill in the survey were not penalised by the researcher. In terms of the appearance of coping mechanisms and impact on the self, the risk of these outcomes were mitigated by adhering to the approval of the Ethics committee and by asking for feedback on the potential harm for each of the survey to a panel of doctorate students. To the knowledge of the researcher, no potential harm can affect the participants of either of the two phases (Kirk, 2013).

5.14.3 Participant consent

In terms of consent for participation in this research, all the participants were asked twice for consent to take part in this study. This double verification of participation was carried out because deception was being used in the form of a cover story using fake research objectives, in order to increase internal validity. Thus, consent would be given by participants to an experiment without completely knowing what the experiment is measuring. After treatment and demand effects were measured, a full disclosure of the experiment’s purpose was given to all participants. It is at this point that a second consent

144

form was given to the participants, in the form of opt-out alternatives, after being made aware of the real intentions of the study.

5.14.4 Deception in experiments

Strongly linked to the previous ethical consideration is the use of deception via a cover story. Deception in experimental research is a common practice, as it allows the researcher to reduce threats to internal validity such as demand effects, and compliance with/deviance from the researcher’s objectives once the real purpose of the research is known by the participant (Kirk, 2013). Any ethical conflicts regarding the use of deception in this study were intended to be alleviated by providing full disclosure of the purpose of this research once knowledge of the purpose did not affect the measurement of the impact of the condition.

Privacy concerns are also addressed in the design of both experimental phases. The first concern is possible identification of the participant from the information provided in the experiment. Some demographic information is requested by the data collection instrument (e.g. age, gender, time living in a specific place). However, the likelihood of being recognised by this information is low, and little harm is associated with this. In addition, those participants who wished to know more about the results or were interested in receiving the financial incentives related to participation in the study could leave their email address, which is, of course, an element that could help identify a participant. Two measures were taken in order to ensure privacy in this case. The first one was the storage of this information in a password secured computer within Heriot-Watt University and at the home of the researcher. The second one was that the contact information was not included in the database to be share with any third party, and was only available to the researcher, and supervisors.

145

5.14.5 The use of incentives in experiments

In addition to the ethical considerations stated by Bryman (2012), this methodology involves the use of incentives in order to increase participation of a wider range of individuals. Incentives are employed as a preferred tool of policy in many areas of public life, from bonuses for teachers meant to ensure accountability in education to inducements for businesses to locate in a particular city or tax deductions for charitable contributions (Grant & Sugarman, 2004). In experimental research, the use of incentives is a common practice, and in research with students usually takes form of financial and non-financial incentives (Kirk, 2013). However, the use of incentives can be manipulative, even when the incentives cannot be characterized as outright blackmail. These sorts of incentives are sometimes termed “undue influence.”

Undue influence comes about in two quite different ways. Firstly, a person can be said to exercise undue influence when that person exerts power that he or she rightly wields in one area in an area in which he or she ought not to have any particular power—for example, when a person with money or fame influences political outcomes, jumps a queue, or receives special privileges to the detriment of others. In this case, it is the person who is unduly influential; he or she gets something undeserved at others’ expense (Walzer, 1983). Undue influence of this sort—trading on power in one sphere to influence outcomes in another—is often associated with dependency relationships. In the context of experimental research in social sciences, an example of undue influence would be a situation where a management professor gives students extra credit for agreeing to participate as subjects in research.

This is undue influence because grades, which should reflect learning in the course, are being given for a different purpose, and the teacher is using his or her legitimate authority to grade students’ work on its merits to secure an entirely unrelated benefit for himself or herself. If the currency is grades, both the teacher and the students receive benefits they do not rightly deserve. In these circumstances, it would be better, ethically, to offer money, in order to separate the incentive from the teacher’s academic authority. For this reason, financial incentives in the form of prize draws for participating in the study were

146

used as the incentive in these studies, rather than assigning extra marks to students who participate in the two research phases.

In addition to this, students were made aware that no extra credits would be earned (or lost) is they decided to take part in any of the three studies (or not). Students who did not wish to participate had the choice to leave the survey blank or to explicitly indicate that they did not wish to participate, at any time while filling it in. No enforcement was put in place to ensure that any student given a survey had completed it. This was done in this way as, due to the configuration of the lecture theatres, some students might be unable to leave the room if they did not wish to participate if they were sitting in a place where other students were participating. Students in this situation were asked to remain in their seats while the others finished their survey.