Search

This article describes the context of ethical decision making in research and suggests that direct attention to the ways in which decisions are actually made in such environments is needed. A decision-making model based on the literature on heuristic processing is proposed and is followed by a review of the method, data, and results of the authors’ research on this model. The implications of the research are developed, and a research agenda is outlined. Key findings were that competent actors do indeed process ethics problems heuristically and in ways that interweave intuitive, affective, and more rational phases. This processing does not typically follow a simple progressive pattern but evidences a sort of trial-and-error processing that is consistent with the logic of heuristic processing more generally. Finally, while diverse, participant-level processing attempts appear to follow patterns which are associated with the experience and training of the actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As one approach to examining the way ethical decisions are made, we asked experts (i.e., ethicists, regulatory officials, and experienced researchers) and novices (i.e., inexperienced graduate students) to review a set of scenarios that depict some important ethical tensions in research. The method employed was 'protocol analysis,' a talk-aloud technique pioneered by cognitive scientists for the analysis of expert performance. The participants were asked to verbalize their normally unexpressed thought processes as they responded to the scenarios, and to make recommendations for courses of action. We found that experts spent more time working through the decision-making process than novices and also raised substantially more concerns than novices. Differences also exist among the three groups of experts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to examine the way ethical decisions are made, we asked ethicists, regulatory officials, and experienced researchers to review a set of scenarios that depict important ethical tensions in research. The method employed was "protocol analysis," a talk-aloud technique pioneered by cognitive scientists. Each individual was asked to make recommendations for courses of action. Later, we held a focus group of university faculty and staff with either institutional review board experience or research ethics training. They too were asked to recommend actions. The results show there are areas where the two data collection approaches agree, as well as areas of considerable difference. Implications for training in the responsible conduct of research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]