In:Ethical Issues in Applied Linguistics Scholarship
Edited by Peter I. De Costa, Amr Rabie-Ahmed and Carlo Cinaglia
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 7] 2024
► pp. 328–340
Chapter 18Research ethics and decisions
Cases of engagement and science communication
Published online: 21 November 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.7.21ste
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.7.21ste
Abstract
Within academia, we often compartmentalizes our work into research, service, and teaching. This
creates an illusion of separation, neglecting the interconnectedness of these activities. A typical day involves a
blend of tasks — meetings, mentoring, teaching, emails — sometimes leaving limited time for research, the very
activity that often defines our scholarly value. Thus a conundrum exists: How can we excel in research if its time
allotment is constantly squeezed by other necessary duties? Further complicating matters, these pressures can push
scholars towards ethically questionable research practices (QRPs) with far-ranging outcomes.
This chapter explores this very issue by discussing two non-research projects, one in community
engagement and another in science communication. Both projects aligned with my scholarly role, yet presented
unforeseen ethical dilemmas. While not being ‘research’ in the traditional sense, both projects had an impact on my
ability to ethically conduct research. By discussing the challenges that arose during these projects, the chapter
highlights the importance of understanding research decision making and how decisions made in one sphere of our
academic lives can impact others.
Article outline
- Contextualizing ethics
- Community engagement, science communication, and research ethics
- Ethics-in-practice
- The projects and issues
- Migrant farm education project
- Teacher training
- Commentary and reflection
- Resolving the ethical issues
- Implications
References
References (15)
Anjos, S., Russo, P., & Carvalho, A. (2021). Communicating
astronomy with the public: Perspectives of an international community of
practice. Journal of Science
Communication, 20(3), A11.
Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). A
meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics &
Behavior, 19(5), 379–402.
Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The
role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who we study determine what we
know? TESOL
Quarterly, 38(4), 689–700.
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science
communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of
Science, 12(2), 183–202.
Gass, S., & Sterling, S. (2017). Ethics
in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition (pp. 577–595). Routledge.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics,
reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics
creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative
Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.
Msoroka, M. S., & Amundsen, D. (2018). One
size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with
diversity. Research
Ethics, 14(3), 1–17.
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2019). Do
teachers care about research? The research-pedagogy dialogue. ELT
Journal, 73(1), 1–10.
Sanders Thompson, V. L., Ackermann, N., Bauer, K. L., Bowen, D. J., & Goodman, M. S. (2021). Strategies
of community engagement in research: Definitions and
classifications. Translational Behavioral
Medicine, 11(2), 441–451.
Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The
lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science
communication? Public Understanding of
Science, 25(4), 400–414.
Steneck, N. (2004). ORI
introduction to the responsible conduct of research, 2004. Retrieved
on 26 June
2024 from [URL]
Steneck, N., & Bulger, R. (2007). The
history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of
research. Academic
Medicine, 82(9), 829–834.
