Skip to main content
Log in

Coding Ethical Decision-Making in Research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents methods and challenges attendant on the use of protocol analysis to develop a model of heuristic processing applied to research ethics. Participants are exposed to ethically complex scenarios and asked to verbalize their thoughts as they formulate a requested decision. The model identifies functional parts of the decision-making task: interpretation, retrieval, judgment and editing and seeks to reliably code participant verbalizations to those tasks as well as to a set of cognitive tools generally useful in such work. Important difficulties in the reliability and external validity of measurement are evaluated and a small set of illustrative data is used in support of that discussion. Results indicate that both intuitive emotional but also more deliberative cognition is present which is consistent with work in related literatures in expertise and in neuropsychology. Finally, the theoretical and practical potential of the approach is elaborated, particularly through links to a framing in Aristotelian ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Important exceptions that are particularly resonant with our approach are discussed in the conclusion.

  2. These were derived from the logic and examples of a literature search that relied heavily on the work of Sudman et al. (1996), Wimsatt (2007), Kahneman et al. (1982) and Gigerenzer et al. (1999).

  3. As Mumford et al. 2008 concluded, “We would not argue, of course, that the seven metacognitive strategies trained in the present effort represent the only strategies that might be trained or prove of value in ethical decision-making. … However, it is clear that ethics training in the sciences might benefit from a systematic analysis of strategies contributing to ethical decision-making and attempts to encourage application of these strategies through sensemaking-based training interventions. … The present results suggest that mental models, cases, and metacognitive reasoning strategies may represent critical underlying mechanisms shaping ethical decision-making”.

  4. See Moran and Diamond (2006) and Garrison et al (2006) for instructive efforts to perform similarly complex functional coding of “speech turns” in talk-aloud protocols.

  5. The external validity problem is that we require or at least encourage extended cognitive attention because of the presentation of the scenario as a problem requiring resolution. Absent the requirement for “solving the problem now”, latent frames and judgments may operate differently—perhaps more powerfully as they are out of reach of critical reflection.

  6. Even when reliably applied, any theoretically derived set of concepts will capture only part of the contextualized complexity of the case (or part thereof) as Toulmin (1989, 201 and passim) and innumerable others have pointed out. Third level codes in part came from this dissatisfaction but that is, of course, only a first step toward grounded conceptual elaboration.

  7. We want to thank an anonymous reviewer for recommending that a brief presentation of quotes in this section would significantly enhance the reader’s ability to assess the approach.

  8. Indeed, while IF codes tend to appear early, they can come much later, after a fair amount of other cognitive work has been articulated.

  9. The social cohesion explanation is persuasive but also teleological as functional explanations can tend to be. It is important in utilizing such approaches to push for the empirical variability in patterns of cognition, for example, to assess whether, to what extent and with what variability various system needs are indeed served. And of course the causes of variability remain a logically distinct question from whatever functional needs may or may not be met (c.f., Giddens 1977). Similarly, supposedly pervasive functional responses tend to be quite broad and consequently operate more as a limit to explanation than as an explanation generative of localized intervention (in training or institutional policy for example). For example, while imitating one’s peers is no doubt an important tendency and often socially useful, resisting authority is also widespread and useful. Likewise, equality is ingrained but so too is partiality toward closer kin and father’s may generally spend more time with sons than daughters despite an equality heuristic—there is simply a lot more going on both in the environment and in other dispositions of varying levels of universality. In sum, such high-level human dispositions are real and must be recognized but may not get us far enough in terms of desirable research ethics interventions. I think social scientists go too far when they argue that one can safely ignore these broad human limits as a harmful form of biological reductionism and we should rather remember that Wimsatt (2007) explored reductive explanation as itself a form of heuristic—one with both bias and payoff.

References

  • Bowie, N. E. (2009). How empirical research in human cognition does and does not affect philosophical ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 635–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock, M. E., Vert, A., Kligyte, V., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Mental models: An alternative evaluation of a sensemaking approach to ethics instruction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1871). The origin of species and the descent of man (pp. 393–1000). New York: The Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doris, J. M. (2002). Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freese, J., Jui-Chung, A. L., & Wade, L. D. (2003). The potential relevances of biology to social inquiry. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education., 9(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1977). Functionalism: Après la lute. In Studies in social and political theory (pp. 96–134). New York: Basic Books.

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2009).  Moral staisficing: Rethinking moral behavior as bounded rationality. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 528–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D. (2009). The cognitive neuroscience of moral judgment. The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4, 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunsalus, K. C., Bruner, E. M., Burbules, N., Dash, L. D. Jr., Finkin, M., Goldberg, J., Greenough, W., Miller, G., & Pratt, M. G. (2006). The Illinois White Paper—Improving the System for protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB Mission Creep. U Illinois Law and Economics Research Paper No. LE06-016.

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, H. (2015). Virtue ethics, positive psychology, and a new model of science and engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 441–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, H., Glover, G. H., & Jeong, C. (2014). Cultural influences on the neural correlate of moral decision making processes. Behavioral Brain Research, 259, 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty; heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kristjansson, K. (2014). Phronesis and moral education: Treading beyond the truisms. Theory and Research in Education,. doi:10.1177/1477878514530244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Wolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G. S., & Diamond, G. M. (2006). The modified cognitive constructions coding system: Reliability and validity assessments. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Waples, E. P., & Davenport, L. D. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 18, 315–339. Retrieved from NIH Public Access with pagination 1–25.

  • Musschenga, A. W. (2009). Moral intuitions, moral expertise and moral reasoning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43, 597–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2005). The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In D. Lapsley & D. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 140–165). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilsen, F. (1994). Sociobiology and sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 267–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. J. (2006). A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: Implications for study and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 737–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (1999). When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell?  In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd & teh ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 141–168). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Rogerson, M. D., Gottlieb, M. C., Handelsman, M. N., Knapp, S., & Younggren, J. (2011). Nonrational processes in ethical decision making. American Psychologist, 66, 614–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica, 81, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1022–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2005). Moral heuristics.  Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 531–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1989). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods: A cognitive perspective. In T. Thomas, M. Straf, & R. Tourangeau Jabine (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valey, T., Fuqua, W., Hartmann, D., Evans, A., Staros, K., & Walmsley, C. (2014). Ethical actions: A comparison of individual and group recommendations. Sociological Focus, 47(4), 268–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valey, T., Hartmann, D., Fuqua, W., Evans, A., Ing, A. D., Meyer, A., et al. (2015). The process of ethical decision-making: Experts vs. novices. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13, 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by National Science Foundation Grant, SES-0924751, “The Nature of Ethical Decision-making in Research”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Hartmann.

Appendix: Sample of Coded Protocols for “Natasha”

Appendix: Sample of Coded Protocols for “Natasha”

“Natasha is a graduate student interested in studying the roles of alcohol consumption on risk assessment and decision making in acquaintance rape situations. She proposes to recruit female college students to listen to an audio recording of an interaction between a man and woman that becomes increasingly coercive and ends with a rape. Each subject will be instructed to indicate at what point in the recording the man’s effort to persuade his female companion becomes unacceptable. In addition, each subject will be asked what action she would recommend the woman take. Prior to the actual research, all the subjects will consume two six ounce drinks. All of the participants will be instructed that their drinks contain vodka, when in fact, only half contain significant amounts. Natasha presents her proposal to her advisor. If you were Natasha’s advisor, what would you do?”

See Fig. 1 for the codes used in the table below.

1. Ethicist

2. Regulatory official

Well, first off, I think Natasha has probably been the victim of date rape

IF

Well, I think here, um, again, there’s no indication of an ethics board or IRB reviewing approval

IS

That is my first off the top of my head thought

IH

This is a high-risk study

IF

The second off the top of my head thought

IH

I’m assuming, um, that she’s gonna be working with students that would be of drinking age

ICz

Is that she is going to be missing a significant proportion of her population if she is looking at universities because you cannot serve alcohol to anyone under 21

IS

But it did not say that

IH

And most university, uh, undergraduates, particularly, uh, freshman and sophomores, are 18, 19, and 20. So she’s only now dealing with older students who may, in fact, have a different perspective on things than younger students would

IA

And in college, you have your first—well, I don’t know where she’s—

IH

Um, personally, I think she would have difficulty with the audio recording of an interaction between a man and a woman that becomes increasingly coercive and ends with rape

JF

It says college student, so that could be anything from 17 to 20

IA

I’m not sure how she’s going to make that recording herself and how she would be able to do something that was realistic by herself, which means she’d probably have to pay to have it done

IS/RS

Which could all be students that would be committing an illegal act if they were given alcohol

IF

Which, um, again, I don’t know, seems out of the league for a graduate student

JH

And the actual investigator would be contributing to a minor’s delinquency

JF

The, um—the additional ethical problem here in terms of human subjects issues is the fact that she’s going to be deceiving her patients—not patients, her—her participants

JF

So, I would tell her that, you know, she would need to consider the age bracket

JF

By telling them that they’re all drinking something. It may be that some students will come into the study, uh, interested in the opportunity to drink something

JS

And, um, how she would go about that

JH

Not highly likely in many, uh, college campuses. But I can envision some students saying yeah, that’s the drink study

JCz

That would be a critical statement

JCu

Um, but in addition to the—the question of giving, um, under aged students alcohol

JF

Um, in listening to the recording, this persuasion of the girl to have sex

JS

She’s got the challenge of finding a safe and environment in which to give the numbers of people whom she will give drinks to, um, drink in a safe environment where they will then be able to, um—to leave afterwards without driving home

JCz

Um, would this recording be presented in a way in which the two people were over a phone or in person?

JCz

Um, Natasha presented her proposal to advisor and asked her questions. If you were Natasha’s advisor, what would you do? Well, all right

IS

Interviewer: I don’t know that answer. I’m sorry

 

So again, not a good question at the end

JF

Interviewee: Um, because I think that will be helpful

JF

If I were Natasha’s advisor, we would have started with a much different set of presuppositions and not simply had me see this at the end after she’s already come up with something

JF

When you have a phone, you have a bit of a buffer

JH

So we would have built it up from a—a smaller set of steps into something that would have been feasible

JF

Um, what it says—let me see here—increasing—it says it ends in rape

JS

This is not my field, so I don’t know what those smaller steps would have looked like

JH

So I’m assuming that if it ends in rape, ah, they would have to be in person

JS

But I think the question that would be important to ask is what is it that she’s actually trying to establish here? Does he have a hypothesis?

JF

Well, I don’t know. But it doesn’t say that

JH

It doesn’t look like she does

JCu

So, if it were to end in rape, more than likely they would have to be in person for that to actually happen

JCu

Is she trying to establish that, um, women who have had something to drink have different decision points than women who have not?

JF

Um, it doesn’t go into a lot of detail about, um, the actual relationship between the two people

IS

It’s not clear to me

JH

It just says they kind a know each other

IS

And I don’t know if that was part of the intent of the way the case was written or if, in fact, you all, um, wrote the case without thinking about that

E

Um, well, so that also would be an issue

IF

Since I know that the importance of a hypothesis is different from field to field

RF

I would also question if, um, the student would be evaluating if any other potential participants have been victims of rapes or violent crimes

ICz

Um, I don’t think this is very good research

JCu

And how they would address either screening them out or getting them additional, ah, support or help after going through listening to something to that affect

JF

Again, I don’t—I mean, the ethical issues involved with it, again, have more to do with the fact that the research question itself was not well defined. And so the variables she’s looking at are a mess. And that’s all

ECu

Um, also, I’m not sure where the actual, um, study would take place

JCz

  

But if they are consuming alcohol, ah, if they are driving home that would be a problem

JCu

  

I would like to know how she would be transporting them or how they would transport themselves

JCu

  

Um, I don’t think alcohol poisoning would be an issue with the amount

JF

  

But then again, it depends on the person

JH

  

So, that’s all I can think of on that one

No action

Discussion of Appendix

The first protocol is from an ethicist. The pattern of codes employed is roughly describable as consistent with an alteration of interpretive work (largely framing) with attempts at judgment. Various frames are tried out and filled in a bit by concretization, some hesitation is evidenced by the use of hedges, and conclusions are reached. Explicit attention to the researcher as interlocutor is provided as well (the editing). What can only be seen in the full set of coded scenarios is whether there are distinct patterns, either by form or detail, and whether they vary by group membership.

The second protocol in “Appendix”, is similar in detail but distinguishable as to a greater alteration of interpretation and judgment and a tendency to carefully work out frames without formalizing an action. Its tone is more advisory (stressing points to consider) and less directive as to ethical standards per se. Whether such an interpretation is ultimately sustainable, much less whether it is an example of a generic pattern, are tasks for the substantive work currently under way. In any event, our interpretations are theoretical and perspectival and must be clearly distinguished from the coded protocols themselves. This second protocol happens to be from a regulatory official. Although group membership is mentioned in this discussion section, we obviously do not imply that the single scenario from each of the two groups presented cast any light on what might turn out to be group differences. That work will be advanced by the full analysis of results in process. Even then, it will be necessarily preliminary and cautious. That analysis concentrates first on simple counts of the codes used, second on their combinations into sequences and third on commonalities of sequences (what may justify the term “patterns”) within and between groups.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hartmann, D.J., Van Valey, T. & Fuqua, W. Coding Ethical Decision-Making in Research. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 121–146 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9756-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9756-3

Keywords

Navigation