CA51023 – Accounting Research

Methods

RESEARCH ETHICS IN
ACCOUNTING
Learning Objective:
At the end of the lesson, the student should be able to:
LO1. define research ethics;
LO2. discuss the goal and issues covered in research ethics;
LO3. identify what constitutes the goal of “no harm” for participant,
researcher and research sponsor;
LO4. summarize the differing ethical dilemmas and responsibilities of
researchers and research assistants.
What ethics is (Cooper & Schindler, 2014, pp. 28)

Ethics are norms or standards of behavior that guide moral choices

about our behavior and our relationships with others.
The goal of ethics in research is to ensure that no one is harmed or
suffers adverse consequences from research activities. This goal is
usually achieved.
Unethical activities, however, are pervasive and include violating
nondisclosure agreements, breaking participant confidentiality,
misrepresenting results, deceiving people, using invoicing irregularities,
avoiding legal liability and more.
Example: clinical trials of vaccines for COVID-19

https://www.cnet.com/health/where-and-how-to-volunteer-for-a-covid-vaccine-trial/
Ethical or Not? (Portus, Barrios, Conaco, and Go, 2018, p. )

The fundamental tenet in the practice of ethical social science research

is “do no harm”.
A very important question that you need to answer in assessing
whether or not the research that you are about to embark on is ethical
is this:
“Will you be able to put sufficient safeguards in place to protect the rights, privacy
and welfare of your human subjects, and to prevent or mitigate possible adverse effects,
both direct and indirect?”
Goals in research ethics (Cooper & Schindler, 2014)

Whether data are gathered in an experiment, interview, observation, or

survey, the participant has many rights to be safeguarded. In general,
research must be designed so that a participant does not suffer physical
harm, discomfort, pain embarrassment or loss of privacy. To safeguard
against these, the researcher should follow three guidelines:
1. Explain study benefits.
2. Obtain informed consent.
3. Explain participant right and protections.
Explain study benefits.

Whenever direct contact is made with a participant, the researcher

should discuss the study’s benefits, being careful to neither overstate
nor understate the benefits.
In the case of an interview, the interviewer should begin an
introduction with his or her name, the name of the research
organization and a brief description of the purpose and benefit of the
research.
Explain study benefits.

Sometimes, the actual purpose and benefits of your study or

experiment must be concealed from the participants to avoid
introducing bias. The need for concealing objectives leads directly to
the problem of deception.
Deception occurs when the participants are told only part of the truth
or when the truth is fully compromised. The American Psychological
Association’s ethics code stated that the use of deception is
inappropriate unless deceptive techniques are justified by the study’s
expected scientific, educational, or applied value and equally effective
alternatives that do not use deception are not feasible.
Informed consent

Securing informed consent from participants is a matter of fully

disclosing the procedures of the proposed survey or other research
design before requesting permission to proceed with the study. A
signed consent must be signed by the parent or guardian when the
participant is a minor. A signed consent form is also necessary when
doing research with medical or psychological ramifications.
Cooper (2014, p. 31)
Participants’ rights to privacy

The privacy guarantee is important not only to retain validity of the

research but also to protect participants. Imagine the harm that could
be caused by releasing information on the viewing habits of certain
citizens. Clearly, the confidentiality of survey answers is an important
aspect of the participants’ right to privacy. Once the guarantee of
confidentiality is given, protecting that confidentiality is essential.
Participants’ rights to privacy

To address these rights, ethical researchers do the following:

• Inform participants of their right to refuse to answer any questions or
participate in the study.
• Obtain permission to interview participants.
• Schedule field and phone interviews.
• Limit the time required for participation.
• Restrict observation to public behavior only.
Participants’ rights to privacy

But privacy is more than confidentiality.

A right to privacy means one has the right to refuse to be interviewed
or to refuse to answer any question in an interview. Potential
participants have a right to privacy in their own homes, including not
admitting researchers and not answering telephones. And they have
the right to engage in private behavior in private places without fear of
observation.
Participants’ rights to privacy

The researcher protects participant confidentiality in several ways:

• Obtaining signed nondisclosure documents.
• Restricting access to participant identification.
• Revealing participant information only with written consent.
• Restricting access to data instruments where the participant is
identified.
• Not disclosing data subsets.
Ethical issues in business research (Smith, 2017, p. 69)
Any consideration of the ethics of a research proposal would normally
address at least the following issues:
• Appropriate written permissions from participating organizations;
• Eliminating opportunities for personal harm, physical or mental, to
research participants, including the researcher;
• Informing participants of the motives for the research;
• Providing feedback of the results to the participants;
Ethical issues in business research (Smith, 2017, p. 69)
• Gaining permission from participating individuals (other than for mail
surveys, where return of the questionnaire is taken to imply permission);
• Avoiding coercion in management settings;
• Guaranteeing and delivering both confidentiality and anonymity to the
participants;
• Granting the right of withdrawal to participants at any time; and
• Guaranteeing the safe storage of research data, usually for a period of up
to seven years.
 Ethical
Principals
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/
bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
Ethical
Principals
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/
resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cf
m
 Ethical
Principals
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resourc
es/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
Ethical
Principals
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resourc
es/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
Ethical decision making in Research

• Although codes, policies and principals are very important and useful,
like any set of rules, they do not cover every situation; they often
conflict, and they require considerable interpretation.
• It is therefore important for researchers to learn how to interpret,
assess and apply various research rules and how to make decisions
and to act ethically in various situations. The vast majority of
decisions involve the straightforward application of ethical rules.
Actions regarded as unethical
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
Actions regarded as unethical
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)

In an organizational setting, the researcher should look on the sponsoring

manager as a client. An effective sponsor–researcher relationship is not
achieved unless both fulfill their respective obligations and several critical
barriers are overcome.
The obligations of managers are to specify their problems and provide
researchers with adequate background information and access to
company information gatekeepers. It is usually more effective if managers
state their problems in terms of the decision choices they must make
rather than the information they want. If this is done, both manager and
researcher can jointly decide what information is needed.
The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)

Researchers also have obligations. Organizations expect them to develop a

creative research design that will provide answers to important business
questions. Not only should researchers provide data analyzed in terms of
the problem specified, but they also should point out the limitations that
affect the results.
In the process, conflict may arise between what the decision maker wants
and what the researcher can provide ethically or thinks should be
provided. The sponsor wants certainty and simple, explicit
recommendations, while the researcher often can offer only probabilities
and hedged interpretations.
The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)
This conflict is inherent in their respective roles and has no simple
resolution. However, a workable balance can usually be found if each
person is sensitive to the demands, ethical constraints, and restrictions
imposed on the other.
Among the sources of manager–researcher conflict are:
• Knowledge gap between the researcher and the manager.
• Job status and internal, political coalitions to preserve status.
• Unneeded or inappropriate research.
• The right to quality research.
The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)
Knowledge Gap
Some conflicts between decision makers and researchers are traced to
management’s limited exposure to research. Managers seldom have either
formal training in research methodology, the various aspects of research
ethics, or research expertise gained through experience. And, due to the
explosive growth of research technology in recent years, a knowledge gap
has developed between managers and research specialists as more
sophisticated investigative techniques have come into use
The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)
Job Status
In addition, managers often see research people as threats to their
personal status. Managers still view management as the ___domain of the
“intuitive artist” who is the master in this area. They may believe a request
for research assistance implies they are inadequate to the task. These fears
are often justified. The researcher’s function is to test old ideas as well as
new ones. To the insecure manager, the researcher is a potential rival.
The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)
Internal Coalitions
The researcher will inevitably have to consider the corporate culture and
political situations that develop in any organization. Members strive to
maintain their niches and may seek ascendancy over their colleagues.
Coalitions form and people engage in various self-serving activities, both
overt and covert.
As a result, research is blocked, or the findings or objectives of the research
are distorted for an individual’s self-serving purposes. To allow one’s
operations to be probed with a critical eye may be to invite trouble from
others competing for promotion, resources, or other forms of
organizational power.
The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)
Unneeded or Inappropriate Research
Not every managerial decision requires research. Business research has an
inherent value only to the extent that it helps management make better
decisions. Interesting information about consumers, employees, or
competitors might be pleasant to have—but its value is limited if the
information cannot be applied to a critical decision. If a study does not help
management select more efficient, less risky, or more profi table
alternatives than otherwise would be the case, the researcher has an
ethical responsibility to question its use.
 The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)
Right to Quality Research
An important ethical consideration for the researcher and the sponsor is the
sponsor’s right to quality research. This right entails:
• Providing a research design appropriate for the research question.
• Maximizing the sponsor’s value for the resources expended.
• Providing data-handling and data-reporting techniques appropriate for the
data collected.
The researcher should propose the design most suitable for the
problem. The researcher should not propose activities designed to maximize
researcher revenue or minimize researcher effort at the sponsor’s expense.
 The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)
Sponsor’s Ethics
Occasionally, research specialists may be asked by sponsors to participate in
unethical behavior. Compliance by the researcher would be a breach of ethical
standards. Some examples to be avoided are:
• Violating participant confidentiality.
• Changing data or creating false data to meet a desired objective.
• Changing data presentations or interpretations.
• Interpreting data from a biased perspective.
• Omitting sections of data analysis and conclusions.
• Making recommendations beyond the scope of the data collected.
 The Sponsor-Researcher Relationship (Cooper et al, 2014, p. 37)
Sponsor’s Ethics
What’s the ethical course? Often, it requires confronting the sponsor’s
demand and taking the following actions:
• Educate the sponsor to the purpose of research.
• Explain the researcher’s role in fact finding versus the sponsor’s role in
decision making.
• Explain how distorting the truth or breaking faith with participants leads to
future problems.
• Terminate the relationship with the sponsor, in case moral persuasion fails.
References
• Cooper, D. &. Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Methods 12th Edition. New York:
McGrawHill Education.
• Portus, L., Barrios, E., Conaco, M.C. & Go, S. (2018). Doing Social Science Research: A
Guidebook. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
• Smith, M. (2017). Research Methods in Accounting 4th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Ltd.
• https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
• https://www.cnet.com/health/where-and-how-to-volunteer-for-a-covid-vaccine-trial/