UPI Study › Courses › Research Methods in Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 2.4 Free with a free account
Maintaining Ethical Standards in Practice
Research Methods in Psychology · Chapter 2: Ethics and Integrity in ResearchSection 2.4 · lesson 11 of 9410 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Research Methods in Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Research Methods in Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Avoiding Deception in Research →← Recognizing and Managing Risks to ParticipantsNext lesson: Avoiding Deception in Research →
In this lesson
Translating ethical principles into consistent day-to-day research conduct.
- Identify ethical obligations at every research stage
- Explain responsible data management and confidentiality
- Describe duties around authorship and data sharing
- Evaluate what sustains an ethical research culture
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,391 words). Read along, or search it.
Ethics and Integrity in Research
Ethical Standards in Practice
This is the practical heart of the chapter on ethics. You may already know the ethical principles. This section is about living by them. Because knowing a principle, and acting on it every day, are different skills. Ethics is not a form you sign before a study begins. It is a set of decisions you keep making, from the first design meeting onward. By the end you will identify ethical duties at every stage of research. You will explain what responsible data management and participant confidentiality actually require. You will describe the obligations attached to authorship, publication, and data sharing. And you will judge what keeps an ethical culture alive inside a research team. That last one turns out to matter more than any individual rule.
Not A Checkbox
Ethics Is an Ongoing Commitment
Start with an uncomfortable fact about ethics training. Understanding the principles is necessary. It is not sufficient. A researcher can know every principle and still run an unethical study. The gap is translation, from principle into daily practice. And that practice spans every phase of a project. Initial design. Data collection. Analysis, reporting, and dissemination. Ethics is not a box to be checked at the start of a project. It shapes every research decision that follows the first one. Good research ethics is not only about avoiding harm. It is about cultivating honesty, transparency, and accountability, in every dimension of scientific practice.
The Life Cycle
Where Ethical Duties Actually Land
Ethical obligations do not sit in one place in a project. They apply continuously, across all stages of research. It helps to map them onto the life cycle of a study. The first block is design and review. Minimize participant risk, justify your sample size, pre-register your hypotheses. Then recruitment and consent, where coercion and undue influence are the risks. Then collection and storage, where the protocol you approved must be the protocol you run. And finally analysis and reporting, where the record of what happened gets written. Each phase carries its own duty, and its own characteristic way of failing. Learning the map is how you notice a failure before it happens.
Before The Data
Design, Review, Recruitment, Consent
Take the first four stages one at a time. At study design, the obligations are about proportion. Minimize participant risk, justify your sample size, and pre-register your hypotheses. At review, the obligation is candor with the board. Provide complete and accurate information, and disclose any conflicts of interest. And obtain approval before data collection, not alongside it. At recruitment, avoid coercion and undue influence. Apply inclusion and exclusion criteria fairly, and protect vulnerable populations. At consent, follow the approved procedures, and document what participants agreed to. If the study changes along the way, you go back and obtain consent again.
During And After
Collection, Management, Analysis, Reporting
The second half of the life cycle is where most of the damage happens. During data collection, adhere to the approved protocol. Monitor participants for distress, use stopping rules, and treat people with respect. In data management, store data securely, and anonymize wherever you can. Control who has access, and retain the data for the required period. Then analysis, which is the stage students most often underestimate. Avoid selective reporting. Avoid p-hacking. Avoid HARKing. Report all pre-specified analyses, and acknowledge the limitations honestly. Finally reporting and publication. Report findings accurately and completely. Credit all contributors, disclose funding and conflicts, and share data where appropriate. Selective reporting distorts the scientific record, and contributes to the replication crisis.
Two Promises
Confidentiality Is Not Anonymity
Two words get used as if they meant the same thing. They do not. Confidentiality means the researcher knows who provided particular data. But will not disclose that to unauthorized parties without consent. Anonymity is stronger. Identities are never linked to the data at all. Nobody can reveal what nobody can reconstruct. So anonymity is the better protection, but it is not always feasible. Where it is possible, anonymize data at the earliest stage you can. Early matters, because a file that links names to answers is a file that can leak. And limit access to identified data to the minimum number of team members necessary. Participants have a right to expect that what they share will be protected.
Keeping It Safe
Data Security and Retention
Digital research data has to survive three different threats. Unauthorized access, loss, and corruption. The protections are unglamorous, and they are very specific. Encrypt data, both in storage and in transmission. Store identifying information separately from the research data itself. Use role-based access controls, so only the people who need data have it. Keep regular backups, enforce strong passwords, and maintain audit trails for access. Hold it all together with a data management plan, kept current through the study. Then the question everyone forgets. How long do you keep it? Institutions typically require retention for a minimum of five to ten years after publication. And when that period ends, the disposal has to be secure too.
Where It Breaks
The Limits of Confidentiality
Here is a promise you are not able to make. Confidentiality is not absolute, and pretending otherwise is itself a failure. There are circumstances in which it may have to be broken. Disclosure of an intent to harm oneself, or others. Evidence of child abuse or neglect. And disclosure ordered by a court. Researchers must inform participants of these limits at the very outset. Not when the disclosure happens. Before they agree to take part. The limits must be described explicitly in the informed consent document. A participant who learns of them afterward was never offered a real choice. Which is exactly why this belongs on the consent form.
Report It All
Selective Reporting, HARKing, p-hacking
Now the part of research where integrity quietly erodes. Researchers must report findings accurately, and completely. That includes null results, unexpected findings, and results that contradict the hypothesis. Especially those. They are the ones nobody wants to write up. Selective reporting distorts the scientific record, and feeds the replication crisis in psychology. Two named practices deserve special attention. HARKing is hypothesizing after results are known. You present a hypothesis formed afterward as if it had been specified in advance. In practice, a researcher analyzes the data, and finds an unexpected significant result. They rewrite the introduction to present that finding as a prediction. It misleads readers, inflates false positive rates, and violates the principle of integrity. P-hacking is its close cousin. Run many analyses, report only the significant ones. That misrepresents the evidentiary value of the data.
Credit And Responsibility
Who Counts as an Author
Authorship looks like a reward. It is also a liability. It carries credit and responsibility at the same time. The criteria usually require all four of the following, not just the first. A substantial contribution to conception, design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation. Drafting the work, or critically revising it. Final approval of the published version. And agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Two failures here have names. Ghost authorship omits genuine contributors from the list. Gift authorship includes people who made no substantive contribution. Both are misconduct. Everyone else who helped belongs in the acknowledgments, not on the byline.
Disclose And Open Up
Conflicts of Interest and Open Science
Disclosure is the cheapest ethical act in research, and one of the most skipped. Researchers must disclose any financial or personal interest that could look like influence. Funding sources, consulting relationships, equity holdings. Notice the standard. Not proven influence, only the perception of it. Disclosure lets readers evaluate the research in full context, and failing to disclose is a serious breach. The open science movement pushes transparency further still. Pre-registration of study designs and hypotheses, before data collection begins. Sharing raw data and analysis code in public repositories. And open-access publication, so the work can be scrutinized by anyone. These practices enhance reproducibility, allow scrutiny of methods, and accelerate scientific progress. Many journals and funding bodies now require pre-registration and data sharing. And notice what pre-registration removes. The opportunity to HARK.
Culture Beats Rules
Sustaining Ethical Practice in a Team
Individual researchers do not work alone. They work inside teams, departments, and institutions that shape the ethical climate. Senior researchers and supervisors carry particular responsibility for that climate. Principal investigators set the tone for entire research teams through their own conduct. Everyone on the team needs ethics training, including assistants and students. Before they begin work, not after something has gone wrong. Create open channels where team members can raise ethical concerns safely. Deviations from an approved protocol must be documented, justified, and re-approved where required. And supervise junior researchers regularly, so ethical uncertainty is addressed early. Maintaining ethical standards takes vigilance across every phase of the research process. Culture, supervision, and transparency are what sustain it over time.
About Research Methods in Psychology at UPI Study
Research Methods in Psychology (Psychology 111) is a self-paced online course of 94 video lessons in 16 chapters, from the scientific method and research ethics to designs, data collection, sampling, measurement, validity, experiments, descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Research Methods vs Statistics
Why take it here
Why students take Research Methods in Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Research Methods in Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Maintaining Ethical Standards in Practice
What is the difference between confidentiality and anonymity in research?
What is HARKing in research?
When can a researcher break participant confidentiality?
What is the difference between ghost authorship and gift authorship?
About the Research Methods in Psychology course
How many college credits is Research Methods in Psychology?
How much does Research Methods in Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Research Methods in Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Research Methods in Psychology.
94 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →