Research Ethics
Imaginary Cases

Case 1: ‘Research Methods’

Alice, a graduate student, is about to start her first fieldwork for research. She
has meticulously consulted with her supervisor regarding the appropriatenessof the purposes and methods of the research she shall soon begin. The
supervisor told Alice that the type of research Alice was planning to conduct isnormally accepted widely in her discipline and that she may commence
research.

Just to be sure, Alice checked the ethical code of conduct of the academic
journal to which she will submit a paper to be written based on the findings in
her forthcoming research, as well as that of the academic society to which she
belongs: At first, Alice was convinced that there were no ethical problems. She
found no articles in those codes which her research might violate.

However, on a different day, when Alice was chatting with Tom, one of hercolleagues, about her research plan, Tom, who works in a different disciplinefrom Alice, told her, ‘It seems to me that your research plan is somewhat
ethically problematic’. Tom seems to consider it particularly problematic that
Alice will potentially get involved in her research collaborators’ politicalactivities while she conducts research.

It is highly likely that Alice will participate in meetings,
demonstrations, or lie-down protests with her researchcollaborators, the members of a local community inquestion, because Alice’s research is aimed at, throughparticipatory observation, analysing how her collaborators
participate in the political process to realise a sustainable
society.

In this situation, should Alice be forced, should she not beable to avoid participating in the political activities, to stayaway from political argument and keeps her position
neutral and impartial regarding the opinions of themembers of a community and to only participate in those
events, not as a stakeholder of the political issue, but as an
objective researcher?

However, even after Alice explained her academic stance on
research activities, Tom argues in a slightly critical manner that
Alice’s attitude is somewhat insincere to the stakeholders withwhom Alice is going to work because it could be a life-or-deathmatter for some of them.

Tom also told Alice that what is most important in his
discipline is to obtain a written consent from potential
candidates of collaborators to participate in research andcooperate well before commencing research. The purposeof obtaining written consent, in which terms andconditions which researchers and collaborators abide by
are explicitly specified, are not only to protect the rights ofcollaborators but also to protect researchers themselves
should any problems occur.

It definitely seems reasonable that researchers and collaborators confirm, forexample, a right to opt-out (terminating collaboration in research) whenevercollaborators wish to do so. However, Alice is not entirely satisfied with Tom’s
stance that a written consent is sacrosanct---that it shall come first andforemost under any circumstance. Alice is much more concerned about whether
or not this kind of formal contract could rather make potential collaborators shy
away or their attitude toward cooperation for research hardened.

She is also concerned that it could potentially cause
tension in the relationship between the collaborators andher. In Alice’s discipline, to be recognised as a ‘fellow’
comes first and foremost; otherwise she might not obtainproductive findings through research. Therefore, Aliceconsiders that it is not the best option to obtain writtenconsent from the beginning well before she starts research;
she thinks it is more important to get familiar with themand gain trust from them before commencing research.

However, Tom claims that it is absolutely mandatory toobtain written consent well before commencing research.
Contrary to Tom’s claim, Alice considers it fundamental tobuild a mutual trust based on continuous, ‘harmonious’ orfriendly relationship between her and the collaborators
before/during/after conducting research to the degree
without compromising her research integrity.

When Alice and Tom continued arguing, Bob, a senior PhD student came and told
them; ‘Why not just following the ‘standard operational procedure’ which arewidely accepted or commonly approved in each discipline?’ It is a reasonableclaim, Alice thought. Indeed, her supervisor agreed to the appropriateness of her
research methods and no articles of the ethical code of conduct relating to her
discipline prohibit her research method. Nevertheless, Alice also thinks Tom’sargument is understandable.

What should Alice do?

眞嶋俊造、奥田太郎、河野哲也（共編）『人文・社会科学のための研究倫理ガイドブック』（慶應義塾大学出版会、2015）、
27-28ページ、「考えてみよう」の事例から一部改変、英訳。

Case 2: ‘An ‘Old-Fashioned’ Mentor’Dr Jones is a promising young researcher who
obtained his doctorate in a certain discipline.

His discipline is a newly emerging one, but is highly appreciated not
only by academia but also by the government. It is expected tomake fundamental contribution to liberal-arts education at higher
education institutions.

From this academic year, Dr Jones started working as a three-year contract
assistant professor at a middle-sized, respectable university. He was, in a sense,‘invited’ to the department by Professor Smith, who is one of the most reputable,
world-class figures in their discipline. Dr Jones respected Professor Smith not
only as a senior academic but also greatly appreciated him as a mentor.

Dr Jones met him on several occasions such as international conferences, andhis research theme drew Professor Smith’s academic interest. Professor Smith
is a professor who has made a lot of constructive comments on Dr Jones’s
papers. One day, when Professor Smith was appointed as a director of a newlyestablished research institute, he contacted Dr Jones, saying, ‘why don’t youcome and work with me?’ Dr Jones was excited to receive Professor Smith’s‘invitation’ and accepted an assistant professorship.

It was, or was supposed to be, a promising, new start for Dr Jones. However, He
gradually began losing his confidence and trust in Professor Smith. For Dr Jones, it
is reasonably understandable that Professor Smith asked him to attend hisclasses, for the purpose of ‘assessing the content of lectures’, according toProfessor Smith. However, he is not satisfied with Professor Smith’s stance to‘outsource’ all preparations for lectures and marking of term papers to him; ‘thatis necessary training for becoming a full-fledged academic’, Professor Smith says.

The other day on the weekend, Dr Jones, was very
disappointed when he got an e-mail from Professor Smith
while marking reports on behalf of him, saying, ‘Thanks toyou, Dr Jones, I had a nice weekend with my family’.
‘Marking reports was supposed to be YOUR work’, Dr Jones
sighed.

There was another, more serious cause of concern for Dr Jones. Dr
Jones takes part as a collaborator in a large scale research project
led by Professor Smith, in which he is expected to take a role toverify the effectiveness of teaching which Dr Jones is currently
providing to students at the liberal-arts education programme.

Dr Jones is sceptical of verifying it: however, Professor
Smith wishes to obtain a set of concrete, numerical data toprove its effectiveness so that he could further promote histeaching method in other higher education institutions andbeyond. At a meeting held last week, Professor Smith
proposed to Dr Jones, ‘Why do not you ‘subliminally(secretly, without students’ noticing)’ incorporate suchquestions into assignments?’

It seemed highly problematic for Dr Jones to incorporatesuch questions into assignments because those
assignments are part of grade evaluation and students
cannot opt-out if they wish to obtain a grade and earncredits. However, taking his current position into account,
Dr Jones also ponders whether or not he could not help
accepting Professor Smith’s suggestion.
What should Dr Jones do?

眞嶋俊造、奥田太郎、河野哲也（共編）『人文・社会科学のための研究倫理ガイドブック』（慶應義塾大学出版会、2015）、8990ページ、「考えてみよう」の事例から一部改変、英訳。

Case 3: ‘Career and Funding’Kate, a graduate student, has been nominated as one of the panellists at a worldrenowned, prestigious conference. This panel is the first step up the ladder ofbeing recognised as a rising star in her discipline. Indeed, many eminent
professors had an experience to take the rostrum at that conference. For Kate,
this is the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enhance her own professional careerand reputation and to be considered as a world-class talented young scholar.

However, Kate has a couple of problems. Although the conference has aregulation that the speech should be based on an ‘unpublished and original’
paper, she has none like that. It might be possible to rush and make up one
based on her previous projects, but she has already published those papers.
Kate has no time to worry because her paper submission is due in 3 days andthere is absolutely no possibility that the deadline can be extended.

Moreover, Kate has another problem. The conference is to be held overseas andparticipation costs hundreds of dollars. Furthermore, the airfare of theinternational flights are extortionately-expensive for a graduate student on ascholarship. She has been granted one and only one research funding: however,the use of the funding is strictly limited; travel expenses to participate in theconference are excluded from the purposes of use. The theme of the funding also
has nothing to do with that of the paper which she is to read at the conference.

Kate attempted, but failed to contact her supervisor because he is currently on asabbatical leave for a remote island which is not covered by any radio waves. So
Kate consulted about her situation with Professor Light, who belongs to thelaboratory next to hers. Professor Light made a proposal: Kate may participate in
the conference by using an off-the-book fund secretly pooled from the travel
expenses, which were in fact reimbursed for Professor Light’s fake business trips.
He also suggested that Kate pay in kind such as books for her travel expenses.

It seems to Kate that this deal is technically feasible, andpotentially the only option for which she could take for thesake of attending the conference.
What should Kate do?

眞嶋俊造、奥田太郎、河野哲也（共編）『人文・社会科学のための研究倫理ガイドブック』（慶應義塾大学出版会、2015）、113114ページ、「考えてみよう」の事例から一部改変、英訳。

Case 4: ‘Good Mentee, Bad Mentor?’

Sofia, a graduate student, is currently working on her dissertation.
She has one serious concern: she is not entirely confident that her
supervisor Professor Walker has provided appropriate supervision
for her work.

At the first stage when Sofia decided the theme of her dissertation,
Professor Walker had provided no serious advice but only said; ‘You
may choose the theme on which you wish to work’.

Her first tutorial with Professor Walker finished in just 5 minutes.
Sofia is a diligent student: she has published several papers in peerreviewed reputable journals. When Sofia sent the manuscripts andrevised versions of her papers to Professor Walker, he provided little
advice and few comments upon her works.

At the moment Sofia, is at the final stage to finish her
dissertation: she is convinced that 85% of the manuscript
has been written up. However, the tutorials are very shortand only happen once in a couple of months. Furthermore,
Professor Walker’s advice and comments are as few as ever.

Sofia feels that it is getting difficult to pick up her pace tofinish her dissertation. She sometimes feels that she iswrapping herself up in suspicion that Professor Walker
does not read her manuscript seriously, because most of
his advice and comments either miss the point or are
extremely superficial. On one occasion, Professor Walker
made just one comment: he suggested using of a semicolon in a short pass.

Many times, Sofia considered the change ofsupervisor; however, Professor Walker isthe only faculty staff who is familiar with
her area of research at her university.
Professor Walker is a world-renowned
scholar in her discipline: he has been
granted numerous large research funds andpublished a number of books and papers.
Furthermore, Professor Walker’s
professional reputation from his colleagues
is extremely high; he is the president of aninternational academic society as well as afellow of the national academy.

Sofia is very concerned that she will get involved in trouble anddifficulties while pursuing her professional career in the future if
she puts Professor Walker in a bad mood.

What should Sofia do?

眞嶋俊造、奥田太郎、河野哲也（共編）『人文・社会科学のための研究倫理ガイドブック』（慶應義塾大学出版会、2015）、129130ページ、「考えてみよう」の事例から一部改変、英訳。

Case 5: ‘Media-savvy Intellectual?’

Dr Taylor has been working on an extremely minor research theme for a longtime and steadfastly obtained major findings. One day, Dr Taylor had aninterview with a reporter on his research theme, and it was covered in anarticle of a local newspaper. The article acted as a trigger to draw huge publicattention to Dr Taylor. He gradually received media exposure and became an Alist celebrity.

Generally speaking, research in humanities and social sciences are, incomparison to research in the natural sciences, often considered to beof little use to society; it is not industry-ready, practical, or useful.
Above all, Dr Taylor’s research area is regarded as one which provides
no practical utility. However, this was the first occasion that Dr Taylors
work was highly appreciated by society: people eventually understoodthat Dr Taylor’s research had a huge potential to make an enormous
breakthrough on many social problems if and when it succeeded.

Dr Taylor is a very modest person, a stereotypical researcher who prefers
reading and writing at his office to receiving media exposure. Indeed he is amedia-shy person. However, Dr Taylor reluctantly received interviews and media
coverage because he held a strong belief that his media exposure drew publicattention, not only to his little known research area, but also to its social
significance. Dr Taylor’s colleagues see his media activities very favourably.

Gradually but surely, Dr Taylor noticed more frequently that morestatements being credited to him were not actually those which hemade. As a celebrity, on many occasions, Dr Taylor was asked to givecomments on a wide variety of issues from politics to earthquakes tosports, which are not his expertise at all.

Although when making comments Dr Taylor put a disclaimer---‘it is mypersonal opinion because I am not an expert on that matter…’, thispart was always cut out from the coverage and his commentssounded as if those were made by an expert.

After having those experiences many times, Dr Taylor became fed up with media
exposure. So Dr Taylor consulted with a colleague of his, who also received media
exposure. The colleague told him, ‘What you have done with media is a very
important social contribution. People want it, the media wants it. We have a lot ofsmall misunderstandings everyday: but no one cares. Get over it. You will soon begetting accustomed to these problems’.

What should Dr Taylor do?

眞嶋俊造、奥田太郎、河野哲也（共編）『人文・社会科学のための研究倫理ガイドブック』（慶應義塾大学出版会、2015）、155156ページ、「考えてみよう」の事例から一部改変、英訳。

Case 6 : ‘Troublesome Boss ’Dr Lee started his career as a research fellow at the globallyrenowned research institute.
Dr Lee’s boss, Professor Smith, is a world-famous researcher. He has
obtained largescale research grants, and leads several large-scale
research projects.

Indeed, Professor Smith’s research capabilities are extraordinary;
he works day and night, and has achieved many significant results.
Dr Lee respects Professor Smith from the bottom of his heart.
However, Dr Lee has only one concern about Professor Smith.

Professor Smith is the kind of person who wants to manage and check every
little detail of all administrative work by himself, even though he not only hasmuch more important things to attend to, but is also actually quite bad at suchwork. As a consequence, Professor Smith was unable to manage all of his
workload and has made mistakes several times in the past.

One day, while surfing the net on his down time, Dr Lee found an anonymous
chatroom post with a serious allegation against Professor Smith which claimed
that he has been misusing his research grants.
The allegation was given in great detail: Anyone in the same discipline would
certainly expect that the “whistleblower” was a member of the same research
project.

Needless to say, however, Professor Smith is not the kind of
person who would intentionally, or even inadvertently
commit research misconduct. He is incredibly hard on bothhimself and those who study under him. He also conducts
research in accordance with a strict code of research
integrity. Furthermore, those who have studied under
Professor Smith before, many of whom used to work for him,learned a lot of valuable things from their mentor. Indeed,
they are now world-leading researchers as well as exquisite
teachers.

However, Professor Smith is not very good at administrative
paperwork. He has no idea how to write the documents
needed to use his research grants or the contracts with the
suppliers of research apparatuses. It is therefore highly
likely Professor Smith unwittingly committed improperaccount processing of the grants.

Dr Lee has become distressed about this situation.
If Professor Smith’s improper account processing is true and its degree andextent are so huge, the projects will forcibly be terminated and Professor Smith
might be disciplined, fired from the institution, or expelled from academia. If
this occurs, the advancement of the research field driven forward by Professor
Smith will seriously be slowed down, or even possibly take a step backwards.

There is no problem at all with the research Professor
Smith leads and conducts itself. The problem is, however,the use of the grants could be controversial. If their use is
not corrected, this could be a big scandal, if not only
because the research projects are so big that a hugeamount of tax money is spent on them.
What should Dr Lee do in this situation? What action could
ethically be permissible or required? If you were in Dr Lee’s
position, what would you do?

眞嶋俊造、奥田太郎、河野哲也（共編）『人文・社会科学のための研究倫理ガイドブック』（慶應義塾大学出版会、2015）、183184ページ、「考えてみよう」の事例から一部改変、英訳。