Handling of research material Seminar I, Chapter 4 Robin Tyburski Lei Tian Belinda Rimgard Antonia Kotronia

Chapter summary Premise: Research material should be documented since it is the ground for new knowledge. Two main questions: 1) Who owns the research material? The sponsors, researchers and/or research objects 2) Does the research material relate other individual/group interest? Dilemma: Openness and Protection/ Confidentiality Openness helps people’s understanding and creates new knowledge Protection/ Confidentiality may be good for the interests of individual/group

Chapter summary A sophisticated balance needs to be reached. During the processing of research results certain values/interests need to be taken into account: 1) Secrecy 2) Professional secrecy 3) Anonymity 4) Confidentiality

Problem formulation

Problem analysis Adam has conducted a study and promised the participants full confidentiality The results have been published and there are now reviewers asking for the raw data Adam has to either lose his credibility as a researcher or to break his promise Should Adam’s colleagues get involved in the situation and if so, how?

Possible solutions 1. Delete the data immediately without consenting with others 2. Leave the decision to Adam 3. Hand over the data to the reviewers without consenting with others 4. Communicate with all other stakeholders to reach a common decision

Stakeholders Adam’s co-authors Scientific community as a whole Adam’s family Study participants Adam Other research groups Funding agencies Research group Journal Reviewers Society in general

Values, interests, duties, standpoints and attitudes Scientific duty Transparency Credibility Maintaining relationships Justice Trust Reputation Helping others Funding Honesty Career

Strengths and weaknesses (I) 1 Original promise to the participants (confidentiality) is kept Time/effort invested in study lost Will create trust issues within research group Cannot use data produced to help others (society, research groups) Loss of credibility/good reputation and perhaps funding, career (for both Adam and his research group) No transparency 2 The colleagues show respect by not involving in Adam’s issues The relationship between coworkers will most likely be alright The colleagues lose control over the outcome of the situation Risk for loss of credibility if Adam destroys the data Risk for scandal regarding the confidentiality breach if Adam later on hands it over to the reviewers

Strengths and weaknesses (II) 3 The group’s scientific credibility will not be harmed The time/effort put in the study is not lost The results may be used in order to help other scientific groups/ the society in general Will create trust issues within research group Will probably be the end of Adam’s career Will create mistrust for the scientific community (due to mistreatment of sensitive information) No transparency 4 Full transparency Less risk of ending up with a scandal Relationships and trust are maintained to a higher degree since everybody is involved in the decision-making Certain loss of control over the outcome since several parts are involved Risking deletion of results, as much as risking publishing of results without the participants’ consent

Communicate with all other stakeholders to reach a common decision Final resolution Communicate with all other stakeholders to reach a common decision Most likely keeps initial promise of confidentiality Transparent process since all parts involved are made aware of the situation Trustworthiness is kept, the relationships between the parts are not likely to be severely affected A choice is given to the participants to still contribute to the research by consenting to make the raw data available The previous point is something that most participants will probably agree to Hence, most likely no result withdrawal/scandal concerning the credibility of the results

Thank you for your attention! Questions/comments?