Situation
Professor Tom Joli routinely teaches an undergraduate research methods course which has a large number of students enrolled, including majors from other departments. He has no teaching assistants assigned to him but believes strongly in a “hands on” approach to teaching and learning. Each year, he assigns students to conduct a research project which involves asking the undergraduates to collect data on purchasing patterns from “a few of their friends”, code the surveys and enter the data into the computer. Professor Joli sees this as a way for students to do both collaborative and active learning and as a valuable experience in the “nuts and bolts” of research work. He uses the data as the basis for sole authored papers for presentation at national meetings and for subsequent publication.
Questions
- What is the quality of this research?
- Are the classroom students being exploited? How could proper credit for the collaboration be given?
- What are Professor Joli’s responsibilities for supervision and instruction to students in the research process? What are the ramifications for other social science researchers on campus?
- What are the messages given to students and colleagues about dual-role relationships in research? Are there concerns about the rights of human subjects that Professor Joli is not addressing?
Discussion
As a learning experience, this assignment may well serve a purpose. Given the informal way that this is set up regarding the lack of attention to sampling, training and informed consent, Professor Joli should consider what he is communicating to students about the nature, methods and quality of social science research. From an ethical point of view, it is in the gray area regarding the need for approval by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB). Some institutions would see no need for approval or application; others would require an application with an “exempt” status; and still others would require application under the expedited category. More serious issues arise when this exercise becomes the base for his own research. Most importantly, the quality of this re-search is very poor. The students appear to have little training in survey research, the sample is more than suspect, and it not clear that Professor Joli has given the students any understanding of human subjects issues (in fact, asking them to do the survey with their friends is a poor choice in this regard). In addition, if Dr. Joli is using students as defacto research assistants, then the lack of compensation presents a problem and any attempt to provide many forms of compensations (e.g., money, extra credit) is also problematic because of the conflict with the student role and the unacceptable use of teaching resources and situations for other purposes. In any case, as soon as Professor Joli decides to use these data for research, they are subject to approval by the IRB (see the case listed above).
