In order to meet human and societal needs, research is expected to be carried out with a high standard of ethical conduct and integrity. High quality research requires high quality methods and high standards of integrity in research relationships. Where researchers or institutions are not diligent about such things as participant consent or the security of data, for example, research results are compromised and the public’s trust in research and researchers is damaged. To develop a positive research culture, everyone involved in research needs to understand their responsibilities—that includes, researchers, students, staff, funders, administrators, as well as people who participate in research activities.
To illustrate some aspects of Responsible Conduct of Research, Cecily Nicholson, former Community Member of the Emily Carr University Research Ethics Board (ECU-REB), described the way art and research needs to be accountable to communities in the 2021 series, Conducting Creative Research. In a recording of the presentation Nicholson urges researchers to build ethical practices that centre the responsibilities of research and other university-based work.
This LibGuide draws on the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research and Emily Carr University’s Responsible Conduct of Research: Integrity + Scholarship Procedures (5.1.1). Most of the examples described in the Research Conduct LibGuide are borrowed from The Toolkit for Responsible Conduct in Research Creation, authored by a multi-disciplinary team of researchers at the University of Montreal in 2018. Cynthia Nourey, one of the Toolkit's authors, describes it in this presentation from the series, Conducting Creative Research, from 2021.
An environment of responsible conduct of research is one in which researchers propose and carry out their research with “scholarly rigour”. This means taking care in planning and carrying out the research. It includes the way research methods are determined, how data is recorded and analyzed, and the way research results are reported and published (RCR Framework, 2016, 3-4). Non-rigourous research may include falsification or mis-representation of research in funding proposals, consent forms, introductions, presentations or publications.
In this recording [link coming soon], Glen Lowry considers what “scholarly rigour” looks like in research-creation. Dr. Lowry speculates on ways to measure the rigour and quality of creative research. Drawing on Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the work of Jer Thorpe. Lowry concludes that researchers who use creative methods and social media data need to slow down and consider their responsibilities to the public, as Jer Thorpe’s use of data demonstrates.
These examples from RCRC Toolkit demonstrate “falsification” and “mis-representation” in scholarship (RCRC Toolkit, 100)
Case study, “Honesty in Practice” - This scenario from IDEO’s Little Book of Design Research Ethics describes how researchers were challenged to be rigorous in the way they presented their research team to participants, and in the way they negotiated consent.
On the way to an interview, one of our clients suggested we introduce her as someone from IDEO. She was worried the participant wouldn’t fully open up if he knew where she worked. She then suggested we say nothing and allow the participant to assume we were all from IDEO. As a regular client of ours, it was difficult explaining to her why I wasn’t comfortable “disguising” her as an employee. The participant had already been told a client would be present. With hindsight I realized I could have done a better job of preparing the client for the interview by making it clear that we would introduce her truthfully, but without revealing her specific affiliation. (29)
Some questions to consider about “scholarly rigour”:
The “Data Management” research guide includes “Introduction to Privacy in Research” (pdf) which highlights responsibilities and tools for university researchers.
Another description for researchers of data management tools and practices, including open access provisions, is available in this presentation for the Conducting Creative Research series (2021) by Chris Landry, Scholarly Communications Librarian, OCADU Library.
Breaches of privacy in data reveal the importance of good data management practices. The consequences of a breach can include personal harm to those whose data was leaked, internal or external investigations, delays in research, reputational damage, and loss of funding. In designing data management plans (DMPs), researchers must ensure that their plan meets privacy legislation in all of the jurisdictions in which the research takes place. Researchers should consider using a range of data protection measures during the “data life-cycle”. These include,
These examples from RCRC Toolkit demonstrate “falsification” in record keeping and data management (RCRC Toolkit, 92)
To generate discussion on artistic uses of data this RCRC Toolkit case study, “Fake News as an Awareness-raising Tool”, describes a project where invented data risked misleading the public.
“Ms K. is a PhD student in film studies. As part of her thesis in research-creation, funded by a public body, the student wants to study the use of a specific device as a subterfuge strategy in activist art. To do so, she creates eight short video capsules that borrow the norms and style of documentaries. The video reports take the viewer to the core of a scientific study on Arctic climate change, in which a powerful but unknown pathogen (resulting from glacial melting) has been discovered by the research team. The videos present the various stages of scientific research in a very concrete and detailed manner. In addition there are interviews with experts in the field, who are very concerned about the situation—that is, the rapid spread of the pathogen and the impact on the health of populations in all Nordic countries. In fact, the videos are staged: the data presented are not real and the experts interviewed are actors whose words were entirely scripted by the doctoral student. Through her work, Ms K. wants to provoke a public reaction and raise awareness on the impact our lifestyles and habits have on the environment and, by extension, on population health. In stimulating a personal reflection on the part of viewers, the project seeks to awaken a collective consciousness. Ms K.’s work is presented in an art gallery, which already gives the public a clue to the aesthetic strategy being used. Added to this is an academic text (printed on the gallery walls and in a booklet), addressing the potential power of subterfuge for the artist as a means to provoke social action. Meanwhile, to increase the visibility of the event, the gallery director suggests that the researcher-creator publish one of her videos on the web. Ms K., who does not wish to modify her work, would like the video to go online, as is. But she is aware that outside the context of the gallery, the contrived nature of the information presented may not be immediately understood as such, and could thus cause harm. She wonders about her freedom of action: should she include some form of warning or a note in the video to alert the public?” (RCRC Toolkit, 90-91)
Some questions to consider about conduct in “record keeping, data management, and privacy”:
Researchers are expected to be accurate in the way they reference contributions to their research. This includes “published and unpublished work, including theories, concepts, data, source material, methodologies, findings, graphs and images.” (RCR Framework, 98)
There are many opportunities to develop accurate referencing skills at Emily Carr University, including at The Writing Centre and the Library.
In the presentation “Attribution, Authorship, and Acknowledgement,” Heather Fitzgerald, Jacqueline Turner, and Dr. Sara Osenten of The Writing Centre discuss citational ethics and professional standards in collaborations and other contributions to research. It was presented in the 2020 series, Conducting Creative Research that was co-hosted by the research offices of Emily Carr University and OCADU.
This example from RCRC Toolkit demonstrates a breach of research conduct related to authorship (RCRC Toolkit, 86) -
“… [A] faculty member asks one of their colleagues to return a favour by acknowledging them as co-author of an academic article even though they have not really made a contribution.” (RCRC Toolkit, 86)
To generate further discussion on acknowledgement practices in creative research this RCRC Toolkit case study, “Using a Front Man to Increase Credibility”, describes a research project that wrestles with invalid authorship.
“Professor B. is a professor of communication in a college. She is researching the dimensions of communication and degrees of interactivity in video games. As part of a research-creation project funded by a public body, Professor B., in collaboration with her students, has created a video game that is downloadable from various social media platforms. Through these platforms, the researcher wants to study the impact of appropriation and involvement by the video game community. After she discusses her dissemination strategies with a friend who works in the film industry, and who has designed some video games, the friend suggests adding his name to the project as co-author of the game. Professor B. concludes that her friend’s reputation would have several positive spin-offs for the project as it would benefit from his contacts and popularity on social media. In addition, the game would have much more visibility, which could only increase the rate of participation in the study, and thus ensure enough data to reach conclusive results. Although the filmmaker does not really plan to get involved in the research project on a regular basis, he proposes attending a few team meetings. However, adding the filmmaker as co-author is strongly resisted by Professor B.’s research team, and creates tensions with those who have already done a substantial amount of the work from the beginning.” (RCRC Toolkit, 86)
This RCRC Toolkit case study, “Teamwork and Choice of Author(s)”, describes the consequences of an artist not adequately crediting engineers after they made substantial contributions to an artwork.
“Mr N. is a researcher-creator in visual arts. He wants to create a robotic exoskeleton to investigate the possible transformation of the body by machines and explore the biological and cultural limits of the body. However, the researcher-creator does not have the necessary knowledge of robotics to carry out his project. He decides to hire a team of engineers, used to university collaborations, to help him build the prototype of the exoskeleton. Given the gap between the technical viability of the original concept and the actual feasibility of the exoskeleton, the participating engineers propose several alternative technical solutions. In addition, the engineering team identified the need for soft, lightweight materials, so the entire exoskeleton structure had to be modified to give the artist greater mobility during his performance. During the discussions, which involved a great deal of input from the engineers, not only was the appearance of the original prototype transformed, but so too were the key concepts and aspects of the project. Consequently, the final exoskeleton no longer resembled the original prototype as conceived by the researcher-creator. However, in conferences on his work or publications related to his project, the researcher thanked the engineering team in general but did not name them individually. The engineers, who are used to working with professors in the life sciences, expected to be acknowledged as co-authors in these resulting publications. They felt unfairly treated and that their work was not adequately recognized. In contrast, Mr N. was used to a different authorship culture: he has always been the only author of his works, projects and articles, even though he regularly works with a technical team. Thus, he proceeded as usual in this case, despite significant changes to the original project and concepts, which came about directly from his collaboration with the engineers. (Project inspired by the work of Australian artist Stelarc)” (RCRC Toolkit, 88-89)
Some questions to consider about “accurate referencing, authorship, and acknowledgement” in creative research and practice:
Responsible conduct in research requires researchers to identify and manage any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest that may affect their research. Conflicts of interest (COI) or conflicts of commitment (CC) could include a researcher’s family, business, commercial or financial interests that might overlap with or interfere in some way with their research. Since it is common for artists and design researchers to manage both independent art or design practices and separate research projects, management of COI and CC needs careful consideration.
The RCRC Toolkit lists examples that illustrate a range of COI and CC issues found in art and design contexts.
This RCRC Toolkit case study, “Time, Artistic Prestige and Academic Responsibilities: How and where to get involved?”, describes a dilemma in reconciling conflict of commitment between the demands of academic and artistic reputations.
“Professor M. is a contemporary artist and a professor in a visual arts department at a Québec university. During a given semester, the artist, who does not yet have tenure, has a chance to exhibit her interactive installations at the prestigious Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York. This exhibition is a unique career opportunity. It will give great visibility to her work and contribute to her artistic reputation. Furthermore, exhibiting her work will allow Professor M. to further develop her research-creation project, through which the artworks were made and which has been funded with a research grant. However, the organization of the exhibition in New York means that Professor M. is often away. Thus, she will not be able to fulfill her professorial obligations in the same way as if she had stayed in Québec. The time devoted to the exhibition will also prevent her from carrying out the other research projects to which she has committed, and she will also miss several weeks of teaching and departmental obligations (meetings, committees, etc.). One of Professor M.’s colleagues in visual arts will have to take over her teaching responsibilities during her absence, which is causing tension in the department. Also, for a significant period of time, Professor M. will be less available to supervise her Master’s and PhD students. Professor M. is worried about her promotion application. She also wonders what recognition she will receive for her creative work, teaching, research, publications and the potential prestige associated with the conduct of this research-creation project, as well as its dissemination. Although it is exciting, this research-creation project is particularly time-consuming and will produce limited publishable results. The researcher-creator is therefore torn between her obligations as a professor, her personal desire to give her work visibility, as well as the possible contribution to the university’s reputation through this international event and presence in one of the world’s most prestigious museums.” (RCRC Toolkit, 84)
Some questions to consider about “managing conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment” in creative research and practice:
“Module A7 – Conflict of Interest”, TCPS2:CORE (Course on Research Ethics) [link, https://tcps2core.ca/welcome]
Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2016) [link, https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/framework-cadre.html ]
Emily Carr University 8.11.1 Conflict of Interest Procedures” [link https://www.ecuad.ca/assets/pdf-attachments/8.11.1-Conflict-of-Interest-Procedures-revised-Nov-2014.pdf ]
Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2016) [link to https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/framework-cadre.html ]
Researchers are responsible for managing grant or award funds in the way expected by the policies of the funders. This includes the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration [link, https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/interagency-interorganismes/TAFA-AFTO/guide-guide_eng.asp] and any other finance guidelines available from funders or the university.
The RCRC Toolkit lists examples of issues in the management and procurement of funds that are found in art and design contexts.
Further, The RCRC Toolkit offers the case study “Refinancing a Completed Project to Win in Freedom” to examine mismanagement when research funding and arts funding become entangled,
“Professor F. is a writer and has been a professor in a Department of Literature of a Québec university for the last fifteen years. To her great regret, all of her recent grant applications for creative projects have been rejected. At the same time, she has enjoyed a great deal of success with funding for her research. Her colleagues often tease her about this, saying that she is no longer really a writer and that she has gone over to the side of ‘hard-core’ researchers. Despite her desire to receive funding for a literary creation project, Professor F. feels overwhelmed and no longer in the race. Several years have passed since her last creative publication. She firmly believes that current funding for creative projects is too limited in proportion to the number of applicants, that competition has become extreme and unfair, and that it is always the same artists or creators who are awarded grants. She doesn’t really know where she belongs or where she should turn as she is trying to legitimate her place among creators. When a public granting agency announces new funding specifically for research-creation projects, Professor F. sees this as an opportunity to get back on the creative track and at the same time showcase her research. She is considering proposing a project on experimental forms of writing, with continuous interaction between research and creation, that would result in a major collection of experimental poetic essays. However, Professor F. has already completed the theoretical research as part of another funded project, and so would only have to do the creative part of the project in order to be able to finally submit the work to a publisher.” (RCRC Toolkit, 101)
Some questions to consider about “managing research funds” in creative research and practice:
Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration [link, https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/interagency-interorganismes/TAFA-AFTO/guide-guide_eng.asp]
Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2016) [link to https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/framework-cadre.html ]
Researchers are responsible for ensuring that their research complies with policies and legislated standards such as, research ethics guidelines, animal care policies and certifications, environmental assessments, research licenses, privacy laws, Indigenous Protocols, First Nations ownership and more. Failing to gain approval from required review committees such as research ethics boards, health authorities, or territorial research councils prior to the start of research activities, is a breach of research conduct.
The RCRC Toolkit offers these examples of breaches in policy compliance which might occur in an art and design context.
In the RCRC Toolkit description of the policy environment, responsible conduct of research is described as including two categories: research integrity and research ethics. “Research integrity” or “research conduct”, as it is labeled in this LibGuide, is distinct from “research ethics” in a few ways. While it is ethical for researchers to adopt the principles of research conduct that are described here, the research ethics board (REB) is not the body that reviews it. The primary concern of REBs is the protection of research participants, not the prevention of breaches in research conduct throughout the research lifecycle. In other words research conduct and integrity expand beyond the mandate of REBs. As you have read in this LibGuide, research conduct is guided by university policies for research integrity in financial accounting, privacy, intellectual property and contracts, data management, publishing, conflicts of interest, and more.
To reiterate: ethical conduct in research is the responsibility of everyone, not just the research ethics board.
Breaches of research conduct are managed by the office of the Associate Vice President of Research (AVP Research). The process is described in Emily Carr University’s Responsible Conduct of Research: Integrity + Scholarship Procedures (5.1.1).
There are processes for both formal and informal reporting of alleged breaches of research conduct. Informal reporting, including questions related to reporting, of alleged breaches of research conduct are received in confidence. All allegations are reviewed to determine if no action is required or if a formal investigation is required. If informal complaints are dismissed, the complainant can pursue a formal complaint in writing. Formal complaints will automatically result in a formal investigation. A formal investigation will involve an investigating committee made up of independent reviewers with relevant experience and without close connection to the research or those involved. If research with external funding is the subject of an investigation of a breach of research conduct, the funding agency may be involved in the formal investigations.
According to the RCR Framework a positive research environment is required to “maximize the quality and benefits of research.” (RCR Framework 2016, 1) The examples and case studies in this LibGuide indicate situations where the quality of research is reduced and, as a result, the benefit of the research to society is compromised.
Research misconduct has direct and long-lasting impacts on individuals and communities. When there are incidents of misconduct in publicly-funded research, public trust in researchers and their institutions can be badly harmed. The Nuu-chah-nulth blood study is a case of research misconduct that is frequently cited when researchers and Indigenous community members discuss research standards in Canada. It describes research misconduct that violated the individual and community rights of the Nuu-chah-nulth community and seriously eroded their trust in academic researchers. Gail Macdonald’s article “A vision for principled research” (p. 48) offers a short summary of the Nuu-chah-nulth blood study.
In another case, a competitive market influenced research conduct and ultimately put human health and public trust at risk in VWs “Defeat Device” scandal. Here is a summary:
“In 2009 VW’s Jetta with its high-efficiency diesel motor was awarded “Green Car of the Year” for its fuel economy, low emissions, green manufacturing and high performance. By 2015, however, a whole new vocabulary of terms was assigned to this car and the VW company. That year, researchers at the International Council on Clean Transportation, an independent American research group, discovered that in road-testing (rather than in lab testing) the vehicles, they were found to produce 15 to 35 times the allowable quantities of nitrogen oxides and dioxides. The emissions had not appeared in the lab tests because electronic systems within the engines were programmed to cheat when they detected the lab test processes. The term “defeat device” was coined to describe the software fix. For engineers this issue has spurred discussion about how they are entangled in “a deep systemic problem” of corporate deceit that leads to public harm and threatens public trust in their work overall. Prachi Patel, writing for IEEE says, “Of course there is no single solution to such a deep systemic problem. To prevent something like this from happening again would require an overhaul of the regulatory structure, business ethics, corporate culture, and also engineering education.” To protect the public from systemic misconduct in research and development of product design, research conduct and ethics need to be part of designers’ and researchers’ education as well as work environments.” Lois Klassen, Research Ethics Workshops (delivered to students and faculty of Emily Carr University, 2016-2019).
Some questions to consider about “compliance with research policies” in creative research and practice:
McDonald, Gail. “A Vision for Principled Research: First Nations Will Be Stewards of Information That Pertains to Them.” Canadian Nurse, November 9, 2013. p.48
“Module A8 – Research Ethics Review” and “Module A9 – Research Involving Indigenous Peoples”, TCPS2:CORE (Course on Research Ethics)
Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2016)
Emily Carr University’s Responsible Conduct of Research: Integrity + Scholarship Procedures (5.1.1)
library@ecuad.ca 
604-844-3840 520 East 1st Avenue, Vancouver, BC