5 Ethics and Responsible Conduct in Research
Research (Mis)Conduct
The Inclusive Education Research Lab, and Brock University, are committed to ensuring research integrity, and we take a strong position against research misconduct. We will not tolerate fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Please make sure to read Brock’s policy on the Responsible Conduct of Research. If there is any element of this policy that you are uncertain about, please discuss this with the Lab Director.
One of the root causes of research misconduct is the perceived pressure to make progress, including in terms of specific external metrics (e.g., publish or present a lot, publish in specific “prestigious” journals). However, in our lab we focus instead on the quality of our work, including and especially the integrity of the scientific process, along with attention to care and collaboration during the research process. Remember that the goal of science is to arrive closer to the truth, to get as close as we can to facts about the world around us, so fabricating or falsifying data isn’t just a disservice to yourself (and one that risks your academic career), it is also a disservice to the field, setting back other researchers who may build on our findings and wasting valuable resources. It is never right and never worth it.
Remember to do work that you are proud of. Scientists have to be careful, so don’t rush your work. Think about it. Implement it. Double and triple check it. Ask others to look at your protocols or data if you need help or something looks off. It’s okay to makes mistakes, but mistakes shouldn’t be because of carelessness or rushed work. And if you do make a mistake, you should inform the Lab Director or Lab Manager (especially if impacts a paper being written up, already submitted, or already accepted). We admit our mistakes, correct them, and move on.
Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 Core Tutorial
The fundamental imperative of research involving human participants is encapsulated in three core principles: respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice. To this end, Brock University and the Inclusive Education Research Lab endorses and adheres to the principles set out in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022) as approved and amended by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
The online tutorial CORE-2022 (Course on Research Ethics) is an introduction to the TCPS 2 for the research community. It focuses on the TCPS 2 ethics guidance that is applicable to all research involving human participants, regardless of discipline or methodology.
All graduate students involved with human participant research projects are required to complete the TCPS 2 CORE tutorial before commencing research. This applies to all graduate student researchers (including doctoral students) completing an exit project (thesis, major research paper, dissertation etc.) that involves human participant research requiring Research Ethics Board clearance. It also applies to graduate students conducting course-based research, or working as research/laboratory staff, project managers, and research assistants, where they will be responsible for recruiting or interacting with human participants.
Research Ethics Board Approval
All human participant research, whether funded or non-funded, conducted under the auspices and/or jurisdiction of Brock must undergo review and receive ethics clearance from one of Brock’s Research Ethics Boards prior to the start of the project. This applies regardless of the Brock members’ contribution or the location of the research site and includes research conducted by faculty, staff and/or students, as well as course-based research undertaken by students for pedagogical purposes and/or course credit. The research of the Inclusive Education Research Lab falls under the purview of the Social Science Research Ethics Board (SREB) at Brock University. For more information about the REB approval process and to preview the application for ethics review visit the website of Brock University’s Office of Research Ethics.
Please note that in the Inclusive Education Research Lab, applications for ethics review are prepared and submitted with the support of the Lab Manager and the approval of the Lab Director.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
We recognize that researchers are increasingly tempted to use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as Open AI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, or Anthropic’s Claude to support discrete research tasks such as drafting or summarizing text, kickstarting literature reviews, summarizing or depicting data, or even generating new research ideas. However, in the Inclusive Education Research Lab (where our work focuses on ethical educational technologies, among other topics) it is essential that we critically consider potential uses and applications, mindful of the inaccuracies, negative environmental impact, exploitative labour practices, and algorithmic biases associated with this technology.
If you do choose to use a GenAI tool, it is critical that you are aware of privacy, confidentiality, and data security implications. For example, any content/intellectual property uploaded or pasted into these tools is automatically handed over to the organizations that operate the tools. This means that you should never upload or paste content into these tools that is sensitive, confidential, and to which you do not hold the intellectual property rights. This includes data collected as part of research projects in the lab, as doing so would violate the term of research ethics board approval.
You should also be aware of broader policies and guidelines concerning the use of GenAI in research, including the advice from the ad hoc generative AI panel of external experts, which recommends that Canadian funding agencies articulate clear expectations for applicants, including the following:
- The named applicant is ultimately personally accountable for the complete contents of the application.
- The applicant should “think through the core research problem themselves.” This includes the development of the primary questions and methodologies.
- The applicant is responsible for framing their work in the broader context of their field, and the research endeavour at large.
- The applicant should be required to disclose the usage of generative AI in the preparation of a proposal.
Considering all of the above, it is our position in the Inclusive Education Research Lab that researchers should only use GenAI tools to support their lab research work:
- if you are certain that your planned use will not violate protocols concerning privacy, confidentiality, and data security or the terms of REB approval;
- if you are aware of the limitations and negative effects of GenAI use and are comfortable with the associated tradeoffs; and
- if you disclose their use of GenAI to the Lab Manager or Lab Director.
In addition, all lab members are encouraged to discuss any questions concerning the use of GenAI (including potential uses or applications that they are considering) with the Lab Manager or Lab Director.
Note: Portions of this page draw on or have been inspired by the webpage of Brock University’s Office of Research Ethics and the lab manual of the Raineki Developmental Neuroscience Lab.