Using deception ethically: Practical research guidelines for researchers and reviewers.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article reviews highlights in the literature on existing recommendations for ethical use of deception in psychological research. We conclude that ethical guidelines and aspirational statements set out by research policies and advisory panels on ethics must eventually be operationalized into concrete terms when introducing deception into a research design. Specific directives for using deception are especially important for new researchers developing projects and also for university/departmental reviewers who are being asked to evaluate the ethical standing of proposed research. We offer a checklist designed to cultivate the understanding of junior researchers and to facilitate the review process by instantiating the relevant general guidelines into a set of Y/N questions about intended research. Finally, the article presents empirical data from researchers and ethics reviewers who provided end-user evaluations of the tool. Keywords: ethics, deception, teaching, instruments, review Current ethical guidelines regarding the use of deception in psychological research are outlined in the recent revision of the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS; Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics, 2009) used in Canada, as well as in ethics codes of both the Canadian and American Psychological Associations. These documents, however, do not adequately operationalize deception or differentiate among forms of deception in a way that is as accessible as it could be for concrete implementation and discussion, something that is particularly important for a range of stake holders from student researchers to the members of research ethics review boards. Given that current ethical guidelines fail to provide a mechanism to ensure that, for example, a junior researcher's professional judgement is well informed, this ambiguity is a hindrance to researchers attempting to conduct studies involving deception. Similarly, multidisciplinary reviewers (particularly at the university and departmental level) tasked with evaluating the ethical suitability of a study are left without specific criteria by which to assess the acceptable use of deception. The result is that criteria for acceptable practise sometimes are a moving target: as membership of a review board changes, so too can the interpretation of general guidelines and ethical codes for using deception. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a considerable amount of inconsistency exists among both researchers and review boards regarding what constitutes the ethical use of deception in psychological research. A study by Ceci, Peters, and Plotkin (1985), for example, documented considerable inconsistency even between two review boards located in the same community. Pittenger (2002) has proposed several recommendations aimed at combating the current systemic limitations regarding the use of deception in psychological research. These include: (a) die establishment of an official mechanism allowing psychologists to exchange information regarding the treatment of ethically sensitive aspects of deception and impairments that require ethical attention immediately; (b) the development of a comprehensive definition of deception, including the differentiation of specific types of deception according to their associated risks; (c) transformation of the current informed consent process, with an aim to increase the protection of participants' right to autonomy in permitting the use of deception in a study of human behaviour; and (d) a widespread requirement for researchers to include details of ethically sensitive practises in their published work. These details should include: a recounting of the ethical rationale for researchers' procedures, the methods used to decrease harm, debriefing procedures, and a record of participants' reactions during debriefing on deceptive practises. Taken together, these recommendations are intended to enhance the systematic education of psychological researchers through the provision of objective information which is subject to evaluation by the community. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,717 | 0,858 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,020 | 0,025 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,027 |
| Communication savante | 0,028 | 0,037 |
| Science ouverte | 0,014 | 0,021 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,033 | 0,033 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,027 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».