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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Problem formulation

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Thank you for your attention!
Questions/comments?