CHAPTER TWO: THE TRI-COUNCIL POLICY DOCUMENT

Background

My response to the request to resubmit my initial proposal for research was emotional. I resented being told what I could and could not do in my classroom. I also felt that I was being asked to water down my research to fit it into a mould that would ultimately change my questions into someone else's. I felt keenly that the nature of the created knowledge was at stake, as well the kind of theory that would be generated (McNiff, 2000). I felt pushed in a direction in which I did not want to go.

The questions asked by the Senate Research Ethics Board were also impossible for me to answer. I was going to study how I taught my students; I could not ethically not teach them because I was researching. I was going to identify myself in my research and therefore all confidentiality was de facto breached. Finally, I saw coercion -- albeit benevolent -- as being at the heart of teaching. It was my job to get students to do things that they expressed little or no interest in doing, and, if they refused, it would affect their academic record. I saw my job also as getting students to want to learn what they need to know. The Senate Research Ethics Board wanted to know how I planned to deal with power relationships in my research and my emotional answer was: "That is my whole job!"

Although intellect and emotion are generally kept apart in our academic tradition (Conle, 2000), I believed that -- certainly for me -- emotion drove my intellect. When Michael Manley-Casimir casually suggested that it would be necessary for me to look at the document that gave rise to the Senate Research Ethics Board, I was driven to examine the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. I needed to know why I was asked the questions I was asked.

The Policy Document

The Senate Research Ethics Board (SREB) of Brock University was set up in response to the publication, in 1998, of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans jointly developed by the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The document replaced the SSHRC's Ethics Guidelines for Research with Human Subjects, the MRC's Guidelines on Research Involving Humans, and the MRC's Guidelines for Research on Somatic Cell Gene Therapy in Humans. It is important to note also that the Councils would "consider funding (or continued funding) only to individuals and institutions which [certified] compliance with this policy regarding research involving human subjects" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.1). Thus there was significant pressure brought to bear on institutions to adopt the policies of the document.

The purpose of the document was clear and undeniably important. It was intended to address "duties to research subjects," "articulate ethical norms," "harmonize the ethics review process," express the "shared principles and wisdom of researchers in diverse fields," and finally it sought "(a) to outline guiding principles and basic standards and (b) to identify major issues, and points of debate and consensus, which are essential to the development and implementation of coherent policies for research ethics" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.2-3). In Stuart's (1998) treatment of the document she identified the approach taken by the Tri-Council as positivistic and favouring ethical objectivism, a "principled approach . . . based on the view of people as rational beings," that was "fundamental to a research paradigm based on objectivity (p. 304)." The framework from which the document arose, showed evidence of those principles.

The Ethical Framework

The writers recognized a general need for research and the benefits that it imparted. Although there was a recognition that "knowledge sometimes benefits subjects, (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.4) the concept of research as primarily benefiting subjects and researchers was not recognized. The benefits of research were generally seen to be for society in general. Respect for human dignity was seen as a moral imperative, and there could be no argument against this principle. However, the writers of the document applied this principle in the light of ethical objectivism and it was with the application of the principle that I experienced the conflict. The writers translated a respect for human dignity into a refusal to "treat persons solely as means (mere objects or things)," and a "requirement that the welfare and integrity of the individual remain paramount" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.5). To my mind, my research had the same goals, and indeed, since the benefits of my research were to be primarily for my students, I was more respectful of the welfare and integrity of my students than this document required. Secondly, I was engaged in research that expressly dismissed the idea of objectifying subjects. My research was designed to improve the education of my students. They were not to be objectified as test scores or tables of attitudinal responses, but rather as specific people with specific needs and feelings and responses. I held to the spirit but not the interpretation of the document. The interpretation of what constituted respect for human dignity shaped the other principles.

Free and Informed Consent

The second principle was that of respect for free and informed consent. The paradigm was that of a researcher who knew what would happen in the research. Researchers were expected to provide a "comprehensive statement of the research purpose, the identity of the researcher, the expected duration and nature of participation, and a description of research procedures" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 2.5). Consent was wrapped around degrees of transparency and/or timing of information. Researchers could have the necessity for consent waived if the Research Ethics Board (REB) saw fit, and indeed the writers recognized that some research would require manipulation or misdirection so as to disguise the true nature of the research. However, the understanding was that at some point the researchers would make it clear to the subjects what happened. In my case, I could have argued that my research posed no risk to the students and that the project (teaching) could not have gone forward without some element of misdirection on the part of the teacher and thus did not require informed consent. However, the converse was also true in that my research required the full support of all my students, and they needed to be fully aware and involved with all parts of the project. My research also emerged over time, the only time at which the project could possibly be fully known would be at the end. I could not inform my students of that which I did not know.

In the explanation of the ethical principle of informed consent, the writers accept that gaining consent would translate into the "dialogue, process, rights, duties, and requirements for free and informed consent" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.5). I interpreted this in light of the assumption that the research was a process. Thus the dialogue, duties, rights and requirements became part of the research model and the whole project became a process of gaining consent to continue in a journey. I saw education as a process of getting students to want to learn what they need to know -- a process of gaining consent. In explaining the need for a subject-centred perspective, the writers suggested that students might be "overly influenced by such factors as trust in the researcher" Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.7)" and implied that REBs should be cautious in these cases because the subjects may not have weighed the pros and cons carefully enough. When I applied this to my situation, I felt that it did not take into account the realities of teaching. I felt that the writers' interpretation was predicated on the assumption that the benefits of the research would not be for the subjects and thus they should not be unduly coerced into a potentially harmful situation. Within that interpretation, the caution was justified. However, I saw teaching as getting students to take small or large leaps into the unknown-- to embrace that which they did not know-- a potentially dangerous situation. The students had to trust me, just as I had to be worthy of that trust, and it was my job to gain their trust. I believed that students learned more if they trusted the teacher and thus it would have been irrational for me to assume that they would have participated in the research for any reason other than trust in me.

Voluntariness

Included in the principle of free and informed consent was the concept of voluntariness. Voluntariness involved the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the subjects. In this research paradigm, the role of researcher was ideally seen as separate from any other role. Not only must REBs have approved the inclusion of subjects from the classrooms of teachers but in the event that those relationships existed, researchers must have separated their "role as researcher from their roles as therapists, caregivers, teachers, advisors, consultants, supervisors, students, or employers and the like" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 2.8). To have done otherwise would have been to "abuse the trust on which many professional relations [resided]" Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 2.8). Even when a researcher held dual roles, the expectation was that he/she would have "disassociate[d] their role as researcher from other roles, in the recruitment process and throughout the project" Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 2.8). Therefore, it was understood that if the researchers held multiple roles, they would create specific times when they were solely "researchers" and the other role was not in effect. These statements made it difficult for me to envision my research as organic to my teaching. I was being pushed to see research and teaching as separate entities. Hence the SREB gained validation for their claim that I was going beyond normal classroom practice because of the dualistic conception of research and teaching. I wanted to meld the two and claim that research was integral to my practice and thus not subject to restrictions of voluntariness. More offensive to me was the notion that, by researching, I was running the risk of abusing the relationship of trust I had with my students.

Respect for Vulnerable Persons

The principle of respect for vulnerable persons revolved around the need to protect the interests of those deemed incapable of making fully informed decisions on their own. The writers placed children in a border category and recognized that they may be able to make informed decisions as their competence was in the process of development. I felt that my job was predicated on my respect for vulnerable persons, namely my students. It was my job to develop their ability to make informed and correct choices. Moreover, I was in a position of trust where my subjective conception of a correct choice was accepted. I believed that the profession of teaching relied upon the ability of all groups involved in education to trust the integrity of teachers. This was not to say that all teachers were de facto trustworthy. However, it was to say that the system could not operate in an atmosphere of mistrust.

"Privacy [was] a fundamental value, perceived by many as essential for the protection and promotion of human dignity" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 3.1). Where personal information was being shared, the policy advocated anonymity as the "best protection of the confidentiality of personal information" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 3.2). The policy stated that "data released should not contain names, initials or other identifying information" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 3.4). I felt that this was further evidence that research was to be viewed as opposed to human dignity, having value only in its application to wider society and not to the subjects or participants. The idea that subjects or participants might demand that personal information be published did not appear to have been considered. I also felt that applying this demand stringently would make it virtually impossible to carry out any self-study research where third parties were involved.

The last important principle was that of balancing harms and benefits- non-maleficence and beneficence. The possible harms of research were generally seen to arise from the research itself, whereas benefits were seen to accrue primarily "for society and for the advancement of knowledge" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.6). This further suggested the assumption that research caused harm to subjects unless it could be shown not to do so. Also, the balance of harms and benefits pitted society against the subject. If the benefits to society (and that was where most benefits accrued in this paradigm) were great, then, with informed consent, research could inflict some harm upon subjects. As long as the researcher had attempted to minimize harm by using the smallest number of subjects with the smallest number of tests, the research was allowed to proceed. I wanted to argue for the consideration of harms arising from not doing research. If the benefits were profoundly in the subjects' favour, would it not be unethical not to research?

The SREB clearly stated that the principles outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans were those that would guide research at Brock University.

Researchers must be guided by the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans issued jointly by the Medical Research Council, The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. This document contains a detailed discussion of the procedures to be followed in research involving humans. Researchers must be familiar with the guidelines contained in this document. (Brock University: Faculty Handbook, 1999, 8.2)

The document quoted directly from the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and laid claim to the principles that were outlined above. Thus it was clear that the model of research put forth by the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans was the same as that advocated by Brock University.

Taken together, I believed that it was possible to articulate the ideal research model supported by both Brock and the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. The purpose of outlining this model was not to claim that the model was wrong, but rather as an exercise to show how it did not fit with my concept of research.

The Ideal Research Model

1. The researchers showed the highest regard for human dignity and weighed all the ethical principles to arrive at a balance so that, as much as possible, they protected the bodily, psychological and cultural integrity of their subjects. Care was taken to ensure that the conclusions reached by the researcher in the course of the project were reasonable and defensible.
2. The researchers knew precisely what would happen in the research and they fully disclosed the nature of the research to the subjects. In the event that the researchers did not fully disclose to the subjects, they still fully outlined the nature of the research to the REB in order to defend their position against full disclosure.
3. All the subjects chose to participate in the project/research of their own free will. They were able to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or repercussions. The subjects had no relationship with the researchers so that no coercion was implied or inferred.
4. The researchers did not fulfill any role other than researcher with respect to the subjects. It would have been possible for the research to have been conducted by anyone, given the model outlined by the primary researcher.
5. The researchers went to great lengths to ensure that the research did not violate any obligations to vulnerable persons. Children, or other persons who did not have, or were developing competence, had their participation authorized by a third party who received full disclosure about the research.
6. All elements of the research were anonymous. Nothing in the data contained information that could be linked to individuals. The data that was released did not contain names, initials or other identifying information.
7. The researcher balanced the harms and benefits of the research. The benefits to society far outweighed any harms that accrued for the subjects. The harms to the subjects-if any- were minimal, and minimized.

The Assumptions of the Research Model

In my view, this was a fundamentally pessimistic view of research. The fact that decisions had to be "reasoned and defensible" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.5) showed that the "chapters [in the history of research on human subjects] on the misuse or serious abuse of research subjects" loomed large in the minds of the writers of this document Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 5.1). And indeed they should have. Nothing in this analysis should be taken to imply that the principles stated in the document were misguided. It was just that I saw them as assumptions that did not hold for all research models. There were other ways to view research, ones that did not hold to such a negative view of research relationships. I saw ethics guidelines as being set up, in part, to protect the institution and the researchers from legal action stemming from the practice of research (Tilley, 1998). Not all research models required the same degree of protection.

Ethical guidelines protected researchers because research was often seen as something that researchers do to subjects. The researchers were expected to know, as much as could be foreseeable, what was to take place in the research. Methods, procedures, questions, and harms were known and were, ideally, disclosed to the subjects. I saw this as assuming that research was inflicted upon subjects. Thus harms had to be minimized because research was, in effect, a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Too much harm, and the subjects would not participate. Since the subjects were seen as in control of themselves (i.e., they could leave whenever they wanted) but not in control of any elements of the research, their voluntary participation had to be vigorously protected since it was the only option left for them. On the other hand, my research required the voluntary participation of all my students as part of its design. My method of teaching centred upon negotiation. I had to negotiate a research/teaching model that was, as much as possible, acceptable to all my students since it was the only option available to me. I was not in full control of the research, although I might lead the process.

Bound up in the assumption of complete researcher control was the idea that the benefits of the research would be for society. Although the writers appeared to conceive of times when benefits would accrue to the subjects, the general situation produced benefits for society.(Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. i.6) I felt that when research was seen as something that was inflicted, it was natural to assume that some subjects would experience some psychological harm simply because they chose to put some aspect of their life under the control of another person.

Along with appearing to present a pessimistic world view, this research model was undeniably objective in mode. When the document referred to the need for researchers to "disassociate their role as researcher from other roles" (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998, p. 2.8) the writers showed the interplay of these two views. They recognized the inevitability of power relationships, but they did not offer a way past those relationships. Since the researcher was seen to have complete power in the research, there was no way to justify the mingling of two power relationships in the same person. The document did not appear to support researchers who were not in control of the research process, thus relinquishing the research aspect of their power.

The other danger inherent in the dual roles was conflict of interest. The answer to the problem of conflict of interest was to eliminate the conflict. The assumption here was that conflicts of interest could be eliminated through maintaining distance in the research. Subjectivity was seen as a hindrance to research, but it assumed that subjectivity can be eliminated. A view of research such as Whitehead's that harkened back to Polanyi (1964) could not be based on the assumption that subjectivity could or indeed even should be eliminated. For me, my subjectivity was the core of my research. I acknowledged my biasses, but I did not try to eliminate them.

Finally, this research paradigm exacerbated the divide between theory and practice; between research and teaching. As Schön (1987) so rightly pointed out, "practice is a confounding environment in which to experiment." The writers of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans favoured a model of control because they demanded to know the research process before it began. They had to minimise any forays into the realm of practice. I felt that I could not research and teach at the same time because my teaching was my research, and my teaching was a journey with an undefined ending, based as it was on negotiation and student input. I could not know what my students would learn before I taught them.

Assumptions about Life

In addition to the positions negating the personal, subjective narrative, two assumptions that I saw as inherent in the document held particular interest for me because they conflicted with assumptions that I held about life. The divide between research and teaching struck me as similar to theological dualism as expressed in the faith/works debate. Secondly, the movement away from subjectivity parallelled the debate between liberation theologies and systematic theologies. I disagreed theologically with the position of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and I had to explore that disagreement.