ethics of social work research

Skip to header navigation
Skip to primary navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer
Member login

International Federation of Social Workers

Global Online conference

Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles

July 2, 2018

Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles:

This Statement of Ethical Principles (hereafter referred to as the Statement) serves as an overarching framework for social workers to work towards the highest possible standards of professional integrity.

Implicit in our acceptance of this Statement as social work practitioners, educators, students, and researchers is our commitment to uphold the core values and principles of the social work profession as set out in this Statement.

An array of values and ethical principles inform us as social workers; this reality was recognized in 2014 by the International Federation of Social Workers and The International Association of Schools of Social Work in the global definition of social work, which is layered and encourages regional and national amplifications.

All IFSW policies including the definition of social work stem from these ethical principles.

Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that facilitates social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing . http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/

Principles:

Recognition of the Inherent Dignity of Humanity

Social workers recognize and respect the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings in attitude, word, and deed. We respect all persons, but we challenge beliefs and actions of those persons who devalue or stigmatize themselves or other persons.

Promoting Human Rights

Social workers embrace and promote the fundamental and inalienable rights of all human beings. Social work is based on respect for the inherent worth, dignity of all people and the individual and social /civil rights that follow from this. Social workers often work with people to find an appropriate balance between competing human rights.

Promoting Social Justice

Social workers have a responsibility to engage people in achieving social justice, in relation to society generally, and in relation to the people with whom they work. This means:

3.1 Challenging Discrimination and Institutional Oppression

Social workers promote social justice in relation to society generally and to the people with whom they work.

Social workers challenge discrimination, which includes but is not limited to age, capacity, civil status, class, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, language, nationality (or lack thereof), opinions, other physical characteristics, physical or mental abilities, political beliefs, poverty, race, relationship status, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, spiritual beliefs, or family structure.

3.2 Respect for Diversity

Social workers work toward strengthening inclusive communities that respect the ethnic and cultural diversity of societies, taking account of individual, family, group, and community differences.

3.3 Access to Equitable Resources

Social workers advocate and work toward access and the equitable distribution of resources and wealth.

3.4 Challenging Unjust Policies and Practices

Social workers work to bring to the attention of their employers, policymakers, politicians, and the public situations in which policies and resources are inadequate or in which policies and practices are oppressive, unfair, or harmful. In doing so, social workers must not be penalized.

Social workers must be aware of situations that might threaten their own safety and security, and they must make judicious choices in such circumstances. Social workers are not compelled to act when it would put themselves at risk.

3.5 Building Solidarity

Social workers actively work in communities and with their colleagues, within and outside of the profession, to build networks of solidarity to work toward transformational change and inclusive and responsible societies.

Promoting the Right to Self-Determination

Social workers respect and promote people’s rights to make their own choices and decisions, provided this does not threaten the rights and legitimate interests of others.

Promoting the Right to Participation

Social workers work toward building the self-esteem and capabilities of people, promoting their full involvement and participation in all aspects of decisions and actions that affect their lives.

Respect for Confidentiality and Privacy

6.1 Social workers respect and work in accordance with people’s rights to confidentiality and privacy unless there is risk of harm to the self or to others or other statutory restrictions.

6.2 Social workers inform the people with whom they engage about such limits to confidentiality and privacy.

Treating People as Whole Persons

Social workers recognize the biological, psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions of people’s lives and understand and treat all people as whole persons. Such recognition is used to formulate holistic assessments and interventions with the full participation of people, organizations, and communities with whom social workers engage.

Ethical Use of Technology and Social Media

8.1 The ethical principles in this Statement apply to all contexts of social work practice, education, and research, whether it involves direct face-to-face contact or through use of digital technology and social media.

8.2 Social workers must recognize that the use of digital technology and social media may pose threats to the practice of many ethical standards including but not limited to privacy and confidentiality, conflicts of interest, competence, and documentation and must obtain the necessary knowledge and skills to guard against unethical practice when using technology.

Professional Integrity

9.1 It is the responsibility of national associations and organizations to develop and regularly update their own codes of ethics or ethical guidelines, to be consistent with this Statement, considering local situations. It is also the responsibility of national organizations to inform social workers and schools of social work about this Statement of Ethical Principles and their own ethical guidelines. Social workers should act in accordance with the current ethical code or guidelines in their country.

9.2 Social workers must hold the required qualifications and develop and maintain the required skills and competencies to do their job.

9.3 Social workers support peace and nonviolence. Social workers may work alongside military personnel for humanitarian purposes and work toward peacebuilding and reconstruction. Social workers operating within a military or peacekeeping context must always support the dignity and agency of people as their primary focus. Social workers must not allow their knowledge and skills to be used for inhumane purposes, such as torture, military surveillance, terrorism, or conversion therapy, and they should not use weapons in their professional or personal capacities against people.

9.4 Social workers must act with integrity. This includes not abusing their positions of power and relationships of trust with people that they engage with; they recognize the boundaries between personal and professional life and do not abuse their positions for personal material benefit or gain.

9.5 Social workers recognize that the giving and receiving of small gifts is a part of the social work and cultural experience in some cultures and countries. In such situations, this should be referenced in the country’s code of ethics.

9.6 Social workers have a duty to take the necessary steps to care for themselves professionally and personally in the workplace, in their private lives and in society.

9.7 Social workers acknowledge that they are accountable for their actions to the people they work with; their colleagues; their employers; their professional associations; and local, national, and international laws and conventions and that these accountabilities may conflict, which must be negotiated to minimize harm to all persons. Decisions should always be informed by empirical evidence; practice wisdom; and ethical, legal, and cultural considerations. Social workers must be prepared to be transparent about the reasons for their decisions.

9.8 Social workers and their employing bodies work to create conditions in their workplace environments and in their countries, where the principles of this Statement and those of their own national codes are discussed, evaluated, and upheld. Social workers and their employing bodies foster and engage in debate to facilitate ethically informed decisions.

Spanish translation – Traducción Español

Chinese Translation 全球社會工作倫理原則聲明 (繁體字譯本)

The Global Statement of Ethical Principles was approved at the General Meetings of the International Federation of Social Workers and the General Assembly of the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) in Dublin, Ireland, in July 2018. IASSW additionally endorsed a longer version: Global-Social-Work-Statement-of-Ethical-Principles-IASSW-27-April-2018-1

National Code of Ethics

National Codes of Ethics of Social Work adopted by IFSW Member organisations. The Codes of Ethics are in the national languages of the different countries. More national codes of ethics will soon be added to the ones below:

Canada | Guidelines for ethical practice
Finland (Englis)
Finland (Finish)
Puerto Rico English | Spanish
South Korea English | Korean
Sweden English | Swedish
Switzerland English | German | French | Italian
Turkey English | Turkish
United Kingdom
Login / Account
Documentation
Online Participation
Constitution/ Governance
Secretariat
Our members
General Meetings
Executive Meetings
Meeting papers 2018
Global Definition of Social Work
Meet Social Workers from around the world
Frequently Asked Questions
IFSW Africa
IFSW Asia and Pacific
IFSW Europe
IFSW Latin America and Caribbean
IFSW North America
Education Commission
Ethics Commission
Indigenous Commission
United Nations Commission
Information Hub
Upcoming Events
Keynote Speakers
Global Agenda
Archive: European DM 2021
The Global Agenda
World Social Work Day

Technical Support
Find My Rep

The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Donna M. Mertens - Gallaudet University, USA
Pauline E. Ginsberg - Utica College, USA
Description

The Handbook of Social Research Ethics is the first comprehensive volume of its kind to offer a deeper understanding of the history, theory, philosophy, and implementation of applied social research ethics. Editors Donna M. Mertens and Pauline Ginsberg bring together eminent, international scholars across the social and behavioral sciences and education to address the ethical issues that arise in the theory and practice of research within the technologically advancing and culturally complex world in which we live. In addition, this volume examines the ethical dilemmas that arise in the relationship between research practice and social justice issues. Key Features

Situates the ethical concerns in the practice of social science research in historical and epistemological contexts
Explores the philosophical roots of ethics from the perspectives of Kant, J.S. Mill, Hegel, and others
Provides an overview and comparison of ethical regulations across disciplines, governments, and additional contexts such as IRBs, program evaluation, and more
Examines specific ethical issues that arise in traditional methods and methodologies
Addresses ethical concerns within a variety of diverse, cultural contexts

Intended Audience

ISBN: 9781412949187	Hardcover	Suggested Retail Price: $195.00	Bookstore Price: $156.00
ISBN: 9781483343464	Electronic Version	Suggested Retail Price: $156.00	Bookstore Price: $124.80

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Historically and epistemologically situates ethical concerns in the practice of social science research;
Contextualizes philosophical roots of ethics from the perspectives of Kant, J.S. Mill, Hegel, and others;
Provides an overview and comparison of ethical regulations across disciplines, governments, and additional contexts such as IRBs, program evaluation, and more;
Examines specific ethical issues that arise in traditional methods and methodologies (e.g., experimental design, lab research, archival and secondary data retrieval and analysis);
Addresses ethical concerns within a variety of diverse, cultural contexts such as race, ethnicity, age, class, religion, gender, and disability.

Select a Purchasing Option

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

The status of research ethics in social work

Affiliation.

1 a College of Social Work , Florida State University , Tallahassee , USA.
PMID: 29843568
DOI: 10.1080/23761407.2018.1478756

Research ethics provide important and necessary standards related to the conduct and dissemination of research. To better understand the current state of research ethics discourse in social work, a systematic literature search was undertaken and numbers of publications per year were compared between STEM, social science, and social work disciplines. While many professions have embraced the need for discipline-specific research ethics subfield development, social work has remained absent. Low publication numbers, compared to other disciplines, were noted for the years (2006-2016) included in the study. Social work published 16 (1%) of the 1409 articles included in the study, contributing 3 (>1%) for each of the disciplines highest producing years (2011 and 2013). Comparatively, psychology produced 75 (5%) articles, psychiatry produced 64 (5%) articles, and nursing added 50 (4%) articles. The STEM disciplines contributed 956 (68%) articles between 2006 and 2016, while social science produced 453 (32%) articles. Examination of the results is provided in an extended discussion of several misconceptions about research ethics that may be found in the social work profession. Implications and future directions are provided, focusing on the need for increased engagement, education, research, and support for a new subfield of social work research ethics.

Keywords: Research ethics; responsible conduct of research; social work ethics; social work research.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources

Other literature sources.

scite Smart Citations
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter Three: Ethics in social work research

Would it surprise you learn that scientists who conduct research may withhold effective treatments from individuals with diseases? Perhaps it wouldn’t surprise you, since you may have heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, in which treatments for syphilis were knowingly withheld from African-American participants for decades. Would it surprise you to learn that the practice of withholding treatment continues today? Multiple studies in the developing world continue to use placebo control groups in testing for cancer screenings, cancer treatments, and HIV treatments (Joffe & Miller, 2014). [1] What standards would you use to judge withholding treatment as ethical or unethical? Most importantly, how can you make sure that your study respects the human rights of your participants?

Chapter Outline

3.1 Research on humans
3.2 Specific ethical issues to consider
3.3 Ethics at micro, meso, and macro levels
3.4 The practice of science versus the uses of science

Content Advisory

This chapter discusses or mentions the following topics: unethical research that has occurred in the past against marginalized groups in America and during the Holocaust.

Joffe, S., & Miller, F. G. (2014). Ethics of cancer clinical trials in low-resource settings. Journal of Clinical Oncology , 32 (28), 3192-3196. ↵

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Module 1 Chapter 3: Ethical Conduct of Research

The NASW professional code of ethics has quite a lot to say about ensuring that research be conducted in an ethical manner, so here we revisit the code of ethics to review these research-specific standards. We begin with an overview of historical events that bring us to where we are today in the research ethics arena. This content is covered in greater depth and detail in your CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative) program training modules. Then, we return to the section of NASW’s (2017) Code of Ethics that we initially visited in Chapter 1.

In reading this chapter, you will learn:

Key facts about research ethics;
Statements from the NASW Code of Ethics specific to the ethical conduct of research

History and Research Ethics

Following the conclusion of World War II and subsequent “Doctors’ Trial” portion of the Nuremberg Trials, the 10-point Nuremberg Code was developed as a response to numerous examples of unethical, inhumane “medical” experiments conducted in concentration camps. The Nuremberg Code was relatively ignored for many years, at least in the United States. Subsequently, a number of grievously unethical experiments were conducted on prisoners, institutionalized patients, and children—disproportionately on poor and racial minority populations—including exposure to toxins, diseases, radiation, or torture. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment represents a critical turning point in the nation’s tolerance of unethical human research. In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service partnered with the Tuskegee Institute to study the natural course of syphilis among 399 black men. Over 40 years, the men believed they were being treated for syphilis, but were in fact receiving no treatment for the disease, even when penicillin proved to be an effective form of treatment by 1947. Beginning in 1968, concerns were being raised and condemning news reports were widely circulated in 1972, leading to the study being ended. By 1974, the Tuskegee Health Benefit Program was established by the U.S. government to ensure health and burial benefits to the study’s remaining survivors, wives, widows, and children.

In response to concerns about unethical research practices, a national group was formed (in 1974, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research), and created what is now known as The Belmont Report (1979). The Belmont Report, in turn, influenced development of federal policy (1981, revised 2009) concerning protections for human research subjects—the Common Rule. The Belmont Report presented a summary of ethical guidelines for engaging in research that involves human subjects. The guidelines are based on three core principles:

Respect for persons. This principle is founded on a conviction that “individuals should be treated as autonomous agents” (Belmont Report, 1979, p. 4). The report explains this autonomy in terms of respecting a person’s right to making considered, informed choices, and places a responsibility on researchers to ensure that a person has all of the information necessary for self-determined choices and is free from constraints on making self-determined choices. The discussion also addresses situations where a person might not be capable of self-determination and what protections might be necessary in these instances.
Beneficence. This principle is about an obligation for protecting participants from harm and “making efforts to secure their well-being” (Belmont Report, 1979, p. 5). This translates into ensuring that benefits to participants are maximized and possible harms or risks are minimized.
Justice. This principle is about fairness. Justice in this context is about ensuring a fair and just distribution of both the potential burdens and the potential benefits of participating in research. “Another way of conceiving the principle of justice is that equals ought to be treated equally” (Belmont report, 1979, p. 5).

These three core principles are closely aligned with the core values of our social work profession. Our code of ethics is based on principles that include respect for the dignity and worth of the individual, which includes fostering client self-determination, as well as practicing with integrity.

The Belmont Report (1979) also contains language about distinguishing between research and professional practice. The report defines practice in this way:

“…interventions that are designed solely to enhance the well-being of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success” (p. 3).

Research is defined in the Belmont Report as:

“…an activity designed to test an hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (p. 3).

These two types of professional activity are clearly contrasted—their goals are markedly different. Practice goals relate to benefits for the individuals being served; research goals are served by the individuals who participate.

Take a moment to complete the following activity.

Revisiting the NASW Code of Ethics

We previously examined what the NASW Code of Ethics had to say about the role of research and evidence in professional practice and the role of social work professionals in engaging with research and evidence. At this point, we turn again to the Code of Ethics to see what is specified in terms of the ethical conduct of research. These details are in addition to what was discussed earlier about research integrity.

Standard 5.02: Evaluation and Research continued . Let’s pick up where we left off in reviewing the NASW Code of Ethics content related to engaging in evaluation and research as a social work professional. The Code of Ethics (p. 27-28) replicates many elements found in the current federal policy concerning the protection of human subjects in research and in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The Code of Ethics states that:

(d) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should carefully consider possible consequences and should follow guidelines developed for the protection of evaluation and research participants. Appropriate institutional review boards should be consulted
(e) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should obtain voluntary and written informed consent from participants, when appropriate, without any implied or actual deprivation or penalty for refusal to participate; without undue inducement to participate; and with due regard for participants’ well-being, privacy, and dignity. Informed consent should include information about the nature, extent, and duration of the participation requested and disclosure of the risks and benefits of participation in the research.
(f) When using electronic technology to facilitate evaluation or research, social workers should ensure that participants provide informed consent for the use of such technology. Social workers should assess whether participants are able to use the technology and, when appropriate, offer reasonable alternatives to participate in the evaluation or research.
(g) When evaluation or research participants are incapable of giving informed consent, social workers should provide an appropriate explanation to the participants, obtain the participants’ assent to the extent they are able, and obtain written consent from an appropriate proxy.
(h) Social workers should never design or conduct evaluation or research that does not use consent procedures, such as certain forms of naturalistic observation and archival research, unless rigorous and responsible review of the research has found it to be justified because of its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and unless equally effective alternative procedures that do not involve waiver of consent are not feasible.
(i) Social workers should inform participants of their right to withdraw from evaluation and research at any time without penalty.
(j) Social workers should take appropriate steps to ensure that participants in evaluation and research have access to appropriate supportive services.
(k) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should protect participants from unwarranted physical or mental distress, harm, danger, or deprivation.
(l) Social workers engaged in the evaluation of services should discuss collected information only for professional purposes and only with people professionally concerned with this information.
(m) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should ensure the anonymity or confidentiality of participants and of the data obtained from them. Social workers should inform participants of any limits of confidentiality, the measures that will be taken to ensure confidentiality, and when any records containing research data will be destroyed.
(n) Social workers who report evaluation and research results should protect participants’ confidentiality by omitting identifying information unless proper consent has been obtained authorizing disclosure.
(o) Social workers should report evaluation and research findings accurately. They should not fabricate or falsify results and should take steps to correct any errors later found in published data using standard publication methods.
(p) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest and dual relationships with participants, should inform participants when a real or potential conflict of interest arises, and should take steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes participants’ interests primary.
(q) Social workers should educate themselves, their students, and their colleagues about responsible research practices.

Together, these 14 statements reflect a responsibility for social workers to :

participate in appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures,
ensure the safety and protection of participants in social work research and evaluation studies,
engage in effective informed consent procedures,
responsibly utilize information technology in research,
collect and discuss only information relevant to the study,
preserve participant privacy and confidentiality (or anonymity),
engage in research with integrity,
prevent or responsibly resolve conflict of interest instances, and
remain informed about responsible research practices.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

9 3.2 Specific ethical issues to consider

Learning objectives.

Define informed consent, and describe how it works
Identify the unique concerns related to the study of vulnerable populations
Differentiate between anonymity and confidentiality
Explain the ethical responsibilities of social workers conducting research
Identify the unique ethical concern posed by internet research

As should be clear by now, conducting research on humans presents a number of unique ethical considerations. Human research subjects must be given the opportunity to consent to their participation in research, fully informed of the study’s risks, benefits, and purpose. Further, subjects’ identities and the information they share should be protected by researchers. Of course, how consent and identity protection are defined may vary by individual researcher, institution, or academic discipline. In section 3.1, we examined the role that institutions play in shaping research ethics. In this section, we’ll take a look at a few specific topics that individual researchers and social workers in general must consider before embarking on research with human subjects.

Informed consent

A norm of voluntary participation is presumed in all social work research projects. In other words, we cannot force anyone to participate in our research without that person’s knowledge or consent (so much for that Truman Show experiment). Researchers must therefore design procedures to obtain subjects’ informed consent to participate in their research. Informed consent is defined as a subject’s voluntary agreement to participate in research based on a full understanding of the research and of the possible risks and benefits involved. Although it sounds simple, ensuring that one has actually obtained informed consent is a much more complex process than you might initially presume.

The first requirement is that, in giving their informed consent, subjects may neither waive nor even appear to waive any of their legal rights. Subjects also cannot release a researcher, her sponsor, or institution from any legal liability should something go wrong during the course of their participation in the research (USDHHS,2009). [1] Because social work research does not typically involve asking subjects to place themselves at risk of physical harm by, for example, taking untested drugs or consenting to new medical procedures, social work researchers do not often worry about potential liability associated with their research projects. However, their research may involve other types of risks.

For example, what if a social work researcher fails to sufficiently conceal the identity of a subject who admits to participating in a local swinger’s club? In this case, a violation of confidentiality may negatively affect the participant’s social standing, marriage, custody rights, or employment. Social work research may also involve asking about intimately personal topics, such as trauma or suicide that may be difficult for participants to discuss. Participants may re-experience traumatic events and symptoms when they participate in a study. Even if you are careful to fully inform your participants of all risks before they consent to the research process, you can probably empathize with participants thinking they could bear talking about a difficult topic and then finding it too overwhelming once they start. In cases like these, it is important for a social work researcher to have a plan to provide supports. This may mean providing referrals to counseling supports in the community or even calling the police if the participant is an imminent danger to themselves or others.

It is vital that social work researchers explain their mandatory reporting duties in the consent form and ensure participants understand them before they participate. Researchers should also emphasize to participants that they can stop the research process at any time or decide to withdraw from the research study for any reason. Importantly, it is not the job of the social work researcher to act as a clinician to the participant. While a supportive role is certainly appropriate for someone experiencing a mental health crisis, social workers must ethically avoid dual roles. Referring a participant in crisis to other mental health professionals who may be better able to help them is preferred.

Beyond the legal issues, most IRBs require researchers to share some details about the purpose of the research, possible benefits of participation, and, most importantly, possible risks associated with participating in that research with their subjects. In addition, researchers must describe how they will protect subjects’ identities; how, where, and for how long any data collected will be stored; and whom to contact for additional information about the study or about subjects’ rights. All this information is typically shared in an informed consent form that researchers provide to subjects. In some cases, subjects are asked to sign the consent form indicating that they have read it and fully understand its contents. In other cases, subjects are simply provided a copy of the consent form and researchers are responsible for making sure that subjects have read and understand the form before proceeding with any kind of data collection. Figure 3.1 showcases a sample informed consent form from a research project on child-free adults. Note that this consent form describes a risk that may be unique to the particular method of data collection being employed: focus groups.

One last point to consider when preparing to obtain informed consent is that not all potential research subjects are considered equally competent or legally allowed to consent to participate in research. Subjects from vulnerable populations may be at risk of experiencing undue influence or coercion. [2] The rules for consent are more stringent for vulnerable populations. For example, minors must have the consent of a legal guardian in order to participate in research. In some cases, the minors themselves are also asked to participate in the consent process by signing special, age-appropriate “assent” forms designed specifically for them. Prisoners and parolees also qualify as vulnerable populations. Concern about the vulnerability of these subjects comes from the very real possibility that prisoners and parolees could perceive that they will receive some highly desired reward, such as early release, if they participate in research. Another potential concern regarding vulnerable populations is that they may be underrepresented in research, and even denied potential benefits of participation in research, specifically because of concerns about their ability to consent. So, on the one hand, researchers must take extra care to ensure that their procedures for obtaining consent from vulnerable populations are not coercive. The procedures for receiving approval to conduct research on these groups may be more rigorous than that for non-vulnerable populations. On the other hand, researchers must work to avoid excluding members of vulnerable populations from participation simply on the grounds that they are vulnerable or that obtaining their consent may be more complex. While there is no easy solution to this double-edged sword, an awareness of the potential concerns associated with research on vulnerable populations is important for identifying whatever solution is most appropriate for a specific case.

Protection of identities

As mentioned earlier, the informed consent process includes the requirement that researchers outline how they will protect the identities of subjects. This aspect of the process, however, is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of research.

In protecting subjects’ identities, researchers typically promise to maintain either the anonymity or confidentiality of their research subjects. Anonymity is the more stringent of the two. When a researcher promises anonymity to participants, not even the researcher is able to link participants’ data with their identities. Anonymity may be impossible for some social work researchers to promise because several of the modes of data collection that social workers employ. Face-to-face interviewing means that subjects will be visible to researchers and will hold a conversation, making anonymity impossible. In other cases, the researcher may have a signed consent form or obtain personal information on a survey and will therefore know the identities of their research participants. In these cases, a researcher should be able to at least promise confidentiality to participants.

Offering confidentiality means that some identifying information on one’s subjects is known and may be kept, but only the researcher can link participants with their data and she promises not to do so publicly. Confidentiality in research is quite similar to confidentiality in clinical practice. You know who your clients are, but others do not. You agree to keep their information and identity private. As you can see under the “Risks” section of the consent form in Figure 3.1, sometimes it is not even possible to promise that a subject’s confidentiality will be maintained. This is the case if data are collected in public or in the presence of other research participants (e.g., in the course of a focus group). Participants who social work researchers deem to be of imminent danger to self or others or those that disclose abuse of children and other vulnerable populations fall under a social worker’s duty to report. Researchers must then violate confidentiality to fulfill their legal obligations.

Protecting research participants’ identities is not always a simple prospect, especially for those conducting research on stigmatized groups or illegal behaviors. Sociologist Scott DeMuth learned that all too well when conducting his dissertation research on a group of animal rights activists. As a participant observer, DeMuth knew the identities of his research subjects. So when some of his research subjects vandalized facilities and removed animals from several research labs at the University of Iowa, a grand jury called on Mr. DeMuth to reveal the identities of the participants in the raid. When DeMuth refused to do so, he was jailed briefly and then charged with conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism and cause damage to the animal enterprise (Jaschik, 2009).

Publicly, DeMuth’s case raised many of the same questions as Laud Humphreys’ work 40 years earlier. What do social scientists owe the public? Is DeMuth, by protecting his research subjects, harming those whose labs were vandalized? Is he harming the taxpayers who funded those labs? Or is it more important that DeMuth emphasize what he owes his research subjects, who were told their identities would be protected? DeMuth’s case also sparked controversy among academics, some of whom thought that as an academic himself, DeMuth should have been more sympathetic to the plight of the faculty and students who lost years of research as a result of the attack on their labs. Many others stood by DeMuth, arguing that the personal and academic freedom of scholars must be protected whether we support their research topics and subjects or not. DeMuth’s academic adviser even created a new group, Scholars for Academic Justice , to support DeMuth and other academics who face persecution or prosecution as a result of the research they conduct. What do you think? Should DeMuth have revealed the identities of his research subjects? Why or why not?

social work ethics and research

Often times, specific disciplines will provide their own set of guidelines for protecting research subjects and, more generally, for conducting ethical research. For social workers, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics section 5.02 describes the responsibilities of social workers in conducting research. Summarized below, these responsibilities are framed as part of a social worker’s responsibility to the profession. As representative of the social work profession, it is your responsibility to conduct and use research in an ethical manner.

A social worker should:

Monitor and evaluate policies, programs, and practice interventions
Contribute to the development of knowledge through research
Keep current with the best available research evidence to inform practice
Ensure voluntary and fully informed consent of all participants
Not engage in any deception in the research process
Allow participants to withdraw from the study at any time
Provide access for participants to appropriate supportive services
Protect research participants from harm
Maintain confidentiality
Report findings accurately
Disclose any conflicts of interest

internet researcH

It is increasingly common for the internet to be used as a tool for conducting research and as a source of data such as the content of websites, blogs, or discussion boards. Research ethical principles apply to internet research, but there are ethical considerations that are unique to internet research.

Some of the major tensions and considerations of internet research include defining human subjects, differentiating between what is public and what is private, and making appropriate distinctions between individuals and data. These tensions lead to new concerns about informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, and harm when conducting internet research. These are important considerations because they link to the fundamental ethical principle of minimizing harm. Does the connection between one’s online data and his or her physical person enable psychological, economic, or physical, harm?

Defining Human Subjects: In internet research, “human subject” has never been a good fit for describing many internet-based research environments. For example, should authors of web content be considered human subjects? This question is important because many regulatory bodies do not conduct ethical reviews if they determine that the research does not involve human subjects. Internet researchers have not reached a consensus about how to define the term “human subjects.” In fact, some contend that defining human subjects may not be as important as defining other terms such as harm, vulnerability, personally identifiable information, and so forth.
Differentiating between Public and Private: Individual and cultural definitions and expectations of privacy are ambiguous, contested, and changing. On the internet, people may operate in public spaces but maintain strong perceptions or expectations of privacy. Or, they may acknowledge that the substance of their communication is public, but that the specific context in which it appears implies restrictions on how that information is – or should be – used by other parties. For example, a user may feel comfortable broadcasting tweets to a public audience, following the norms of the Twitter community. However, to find out that these ‘public’ tweets had been collected within a data set and combed over by a researcher could possibly feel like an encroachment on privacy. Despite what a simplified conceptualization of “public/private” might offer, there is no categorical way to discern all eventual harm. Data aggregators or search tools make information accessible to a wider public than what might have been originally intended. Social, academic, or regulatory delineations of public and private as a clearly recognizable binary no longer holds in everyday practice.
Distinctions between individuals and data: The internet complicates the fundamental research ethics question of personhood. Is an avatar a person? Is one’s digital information an extension of the self? In the U.S. regulatory system, the primary question has generally been: Are we working with human subjects or not? If information is collected directly from individuals, such as an email exchange, instant message, or an interview in a virtual world, we are likely to naturally define the research scenario as one that involves a person. If the connection between the object of research and the person who produced it is indistinct, there may be a tendency to define the research scenario as one that does not involve any persons. This may oversimplify the situation–the question of whether one is dealing with a human subject is different from the question about whether information is linked to individuals: Can we assume a person is wholly removed from large data pools? For example, a data set containing thousands of tweets or an aggregation of surfing behaviors collected from a bot is perhaps far removed from the persons who engaged in these activities. In these scenarios, it is possible to forget that there was ever a person somewhere in the process that could be directly or indirectly impacted by the research. Yet there is considerable evidence that even ‘anonymized’ datasets that contain enough personal information can result in individuals being identifiable. Scholars and technologists continue to wrestle with how to adequately protect individuals when analyzing such datasets (Sweeny, 2009; Narayanan & Shmatikov, 2008, 2009).

These three issues represent ongoing tensions for internet research. Although researchers might like straightforward answers to questions such as “Will capturing a person’s Tweets cause them harm?” or “Is a blog a public or private space,” the uniqueness and almost endless range of specific situations has defied attempts to provide universal answers. The Association of Internet Researchers (Markham & Buchanan, 2012) has created a guide called Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research that provides a detailed discussion of these issues.

Key Takeaways

Researchers must obtain the informed consent of the people who participate in their research.
Social workers must take steps to minimize the harms that could arise during the research process.
If a researcher promises anonymity, she cannot link individual participants with their data.
If a researcher promises confidentiality, she promises not to reveal the identities of research participants, even though she can link individual participants with their data.
The NASW Code of Ethics includes specific responsibilities for social work researchers.
Internet research is increasingly common and has its own unique set of ethical considerations.
Anonymity- the identity of research participants is not known to researchers
Confidentiality- identifying information about research participants is known to the researchers but is not divulged to anyone else
Informed consent- a research subject’s voluntary agreement to participate in a study based on a full understanding of the study and of the possible risks and benefits involved

Image attributions

consent by Catkin CC-0

Figure 3.1 is copied from Blackstone, A. (2012) Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative methods. Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-sociological-inquiry-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/ Shared under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 License

Anonymous by kalhh CC-0

The full set of requirements for informed consent can be read online at the Office for Human Research Protections . ↵
The guidelines on vulnerable populations can be read online at the the US Department of Health and Human Services’ . ↵

Share This Book

Open access
Published: 07 August 2024

Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement

Jaime Garcia-Iglesias 1 ,
Iona Beange 2 ,
Donald Davidson 2 ,
Suzanne Goopy 3 ,
Huayi Huang 3 ,
Fiona Murray 4 ,
Carol Porteous 5 ,
Elizabeth Stevenson 6 ,
Sinead Rhodes 7 ,
Faye Watson 8 &
Sue Fletcher-Watson 7

Research Involvement and Engagement volume 10 , Article number: 83 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

687 Accesses

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

Public engagement with research (PEwR) has become increasingly integral to research practices. This paper explores the process and outcomes of a collaborative effort to address the ethical implications of PEwR activities and develop tools to navigate them within the context of a University Medical School. The activities this paper reflects on aimed to establish boundaries between research data collection and PEwR activities, support colleagues in identifying the ethical considerations relevant to their planned activities, and build confidence and capacity among staff to conduct PEwR projects. The development process involved the creation of a taxonomy outlining key terms used in PEwR work, a self-assessment tool to evaluate the need for formal ethical review, and a code of conduct for ethical PEwR. These tools were refined through iterative discussions and feedback from stakeholders, resulting in practical guidance for researchers navigating the ethical complexities of PEwR. Additionally, reflective prompts were developed to guide researchers in planning and conducting engagement activities, addressing a crucial aspect often overlooked in formal ethical review processes. The paper reflects on the broader regulatory landscape and the limitations of existing approval and governance processes, and prompts critical reflection on the compatibility of formal approval processes with the ethos of PEwR. Overall, the paper offers insights and practical guidance for researchers and institutions grappling with ethical considerations in PEwR, contributing to the ongoing conversation surrounding responsible research practices.

Plain English summary

This paper talks about making research fairer for everyone involved. Sometimes, researchers ask members of the public for advice, guidance or insight, or for help to design or do research, this is sometimes known as ‘public engagement with research’. But figuring out how to do this in a fair and respectful way can be tricky. In this paper, we discuss how we tried to make some helpful tools. These tools help researchers decide if they need to get formal permission, known as ethical approval, for their work when they are engaging with members of the public or communities. They also give tips on how to do the work in a good and fair way. We produced three main tools. One helps people understand the important words used in this kind of work (known as a taxonomy). Another tool helps researchers decide if they need to ask for special permission (a self-assessment tool). And the last tool gives guidelines on how to do the work in a respectful way (a code of conduct). These tools are meant to help researchers do their work better and treat everyone involved fairly. The paper also talks about how more work is needed in the area, but these tools are a good start to making research fairer and more respectful for everyone.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In recent decades, “public involvement in research” has experienced significant development, becoming an essential element of the research landscape. In fact, it has been argued, public involvement may make research better and more relevant [ 7 , p. 1]. Patients’ roles, traditionally study participants, have transformed to become “active partners and co-designers” [ 17 , p. 1]. This evolution has led to the appearance of a multitude of definitions and terms to refer to these activities. In the UK, the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, defines public engagement as the “many ways organisations seek to involve the public in their work” [ 9 ]. In this paper, we also refer to “public involvement,” which is defined as “research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them” (UK Standards for Public Involvement). Further to this, the Health Research Authority (also in the UK), defines public engagement with research as “all the ways in which the research community works together with people including patients, carers, advocates, service users and members of the community” [ 6 ]; [ 9 ]. These terms encompass a wide variety of theorizations, levels of engagement, and terminology, such as ‘patient-oriented research’, ‘participatory’ research or services or ‘patient engagement’ [ 17 , p. 2]. For this paper, we use the term ‘public engagement with research’ or PEwR in this way.

Institutions have been set up to support PEwR activities. In the UK these include the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research (supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research), INVOLVE, and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE). Most recently, in 2023, the UK’s largest funders and healthcare bodies signed a joint statement “to improve the extent and quality of public involvement across the sector so that it is consistently excellent” [ 6 ]. In turn, this has often translated to public engagement becoming a requisite for securing research funding or institutional ethical permissions [ 3 , p. 2], as well as reporting and publishing research [ 15 ]. Despite this welcomed infrastructure to support PEwR, there remain gaps in knowledge and standards in the delivery of PEwR. One such gap concerns the extent to which PEwR should be subject to formal ethical review in the same way as data collection for research.

In 2016, the UK Health Research Authority and INVOLVE published a joint statement suggesting that “involving the public in the design and development of research does not generally raise any ethical concerns” [ 7 , p. 2]. We presume that this statement is using the phrase ‘ethical concerns’ to narrowly refer to the kinds of concerns addressed by a formal research ethics review process, such as safeguarding, withdrawal from research, etc. Footnote 1 . To such an extent, we agree that public involvement with research is not inherently ‘riskier’ than other research activities.

Furthermore, a blanket need for formal ethical review risks demoting or disempowering non-academic contributors from the roles of consultants, co-researchers, or advisors to a more passive status as participants. Attending a meeting as an expert, discussing new project ideas, setting priorities, designing studies and, or interpreting findings does not require that we sign a consent form. Indeed, to do so clearly removes the locus of power away from the person signing and into the hands of the person who wrote the consent form. This particular risk is exacerbated when institutional, formal ethical review processes operate in complex, convoluted and obscure ways that often baffle researchers let alone members of the public.

However, we also recognize that PEwR is not without potential to do harm – something which formal research ethics review aims to anticipate and minimise. For example, a public lecture or a workshop could cause distress to audience members or participants if they learn for the first time that aspects of their lifestyle or personal history put them at higher risk of dementia. When patients are invited to join advisory panels, they may feel pressure to reveal personal details about their medical history to reinforce their expertise or legitimise their presence – especially in a room where most other people have potentially intimidating professional qualifications. Some patient groups may be exploited, if research involvement roles are positioned as an opportunity, or even a duty, and not properly reimbursed. When patients are more deeply involved in research roles, such as collecting or analysing data, they might experience distress, particularly if interacting with participants triggers their own painful or emotional memories [ 14 , p. 98]. Thus, at all levels of PEwR from science communication to embedded co-production, there is a danger of harm to patients or members of the public, and a duty of care on the part of the research team and broader institution who invited them in.

These concerns are not accessory to PEwR activities but rather exist at their heart. Following a review on the impacts of public engagement, Brett et al. conclude that “developing a wide view which considers the impact of PPI [public and patient involvement] on the people involved in the process can be critical to our understanding of why some studies that involve patients and the public thrive, while others fail” [ 1 , p. 388]. Despite the importance of these considerations, there is a stark absence of consistent guidance as to whether different forms of PEwR require formal ethical review. Nor is there, to our knowledge, any sustained attempt to provide a framework for ethical conduct of PEwR in the absence of formal review (see Pandya-Wood et al. [ 11 ]; Greenhalgh et al. [ 5 ]). This is, in part, due to there being a wide heterogeneity of practices, communities, and levels of engagement [ 8 , p. 6] that resists generalizable principles or frameworks.

The lack of frameworks about whether or how PEwR requires formal ethical review can, ironically, be a key barrier to PEwR happening. In our work as members of a university ethics review committee, we have found this lack of guidance to hamper appropriate ethical PEwR in several ways. Researchers may avoid developing PEwR initiatives altogether for fear of having to spend time or resources in securing formal ethical review (especially when this process is lengthy or resource-intensive). Likewise, they may avoid PEwR for fear that its conduction would be unethical. On the other hand, others could assume that the lack of a requirement for formal ethical review means there are no ethical issues or risks involved in PEwR.

Similarly, experts in PEwR who are not experienced with formal research ethics review may face barriers as their PEwR process becomes more elaborate, in-depth, or complex. For example, although a priority-setting exercise with members of an online community of people with depression was assessed as not requiring ethics review, the funding panel requested that formal ethics review be undergone for a follow-up exercised aimed at collecting data answering one of the priority questions identified in the previous priority-setting. It is crucial that innovations in PEwR and findings from this work are shared and yet academic teams may be unable to publish their work in certain journals which require evidence of having undergone formal ethical review. Finally, ethics committees such as ours often must rely on anecdotal knowledge to make judgements about what does or does not require formal ethical review, given the absence of standardized frameworks.

About this paper

In this paper, we report and reflect on the development of specific tools and processes for assessing the ethical needs of PEwR initiatives, as members of an ethics review committee for a large University medical school. These tools aim to delineate boundaries between research data collection and PEwR activities of various kinds, provide a self-assessment framework for ethical practice in PEwR and, overall, give people greater confidence when conducting PEwR work. We describe and critically reflect on the development of the following resources:

a taxonomy to define key terms relating to PEwR with associated resource recommendations.

a self-assessment tool to support people understanding where their planned activities fall in relation to research or PEwR.

a code of conduct for ethical conduct of PEwR (appended to the self-assessment tool).

We will, first, describe our work as part of an institutional ethics committee, the identification of a need for specific guidance, and our key assumptions; we will then describe the process of developing these tools and processes; provide an overview of the tools themselves; and reflect on early feedback received and future work needed.

Developing specific tools for PEWR in ethics

Identifying needs, goals and outputs.

The Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee (EMREC) provides ethical opinions to members of staff and postgraduate researchers within the University of Edinburgh Medical School in relation to planned research to be conducted on humans i.e. their data, or tissues. These research activities come from a wide range of disciplines, including public health, epidemiology, social science or psychology. EMREC does not review research that involves recruitment of NHS patients, use of NHS data, or other health service resources: such projects are evaluated by an NHS research ethics committee. EMREC is led by two co-directors and formed of over 38 members, which include experienced academics and academic-clinicians from a variety of disciplines. There are also 2–4 lay members who are not researchers.

EMREC receives regular enquiries about whether a specific piece of PEwR work (such as holding a workshop with people living with endometriosis to identify research priorities or interviewing HIV activists about their work during COVID-19) requires formal ethics review. In addition, often teams contact EMREC following completion of a PEwR activity that they want to publish because the journal in which they wish to publish has requested evidence of the work having undergone formal ethics approval. These enquiries are happening in the context of an institutional investment in staffing, leading to a significant degree of distributed expertise across the Medical School about diverse forms of PEwR.

Responding to this, in the summer of 2022, a Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement working group was formed by EMREC with the aim of developing new tools and processes to navigate the ethical implications of PEWR within the University of Edinburgh Medical School. The group’s original understandings were that:

PEwR is both important and skilled work that presents a unique set of ethical implications,

PEwR is a fragmented landscape where many people have relevant but different expertise and where a wide range of terminology is in use, and.

there is no existing widely-agreed framework for ethical PEwR.

This working group was designed to be temporary, lasting approximately six months. It was composed of eleven members with different degrees of seniority and disciplinary backgrounds - both members of EMREC and those from other parts of the Medical School, and other parts of the University of Edinburgh. Among these, there were both academics and PEwR experts in professional services (i.e. primarily non-academic) roles. The working group met four times (August, September and November 2022; and January 2023).

The group identified three key goals and, in relation to these, key outputs needed. The goals were: (1) help establish boundaries between research data collection (requiring an ethical opinion from EMREC) and PEwR activities of various kinds (requiring ethical reflection/practice but not a formal EMREC ethical opinion), (2) support colleagues to identify where their planned activities fell in the research-PEwR continuum and consequently the relevant ethical framework, and (3) identify ways of building confidence and capacity among staff to conduct PEwR projects. In relation to these goals, the working group initially agreed on producing the following key outputs:

A taxonomy outlining and defining key terms used in the PEwR work, with examples. While not universal or definitive, the taxonomy should help colleagues identify and label their activities and help determine the ethical considerations that would apply to conduct the work with integrity. It would also facilitate conversations between staff with varying levels and types of experience, and ensure that decisions around ethical conduct would be based on more than choice of terminology.

A self-assessment tool to provide a more systematic way to evaluate whether a given academic activity, involving a non-academic partner (organisation or individual) requires formal evaluation by a research ethics committee.

A list of resources collected both from within and beyond our institution that are relevant to the issue of ethics and PEwR and can serve as ‘further reading’ and training.

While we aimed to develop this work with a view to it being useful within the remit of the University of Edinburgh Medical School, we also understood that there was significant potential for these outputs to be of interest and relevance more widely. In this way, we aimed to position them as a pragmatic addition to existing guidance and resources, such as the NIHR Reflective Questions [ 2 ].

Our process

Across the first three meetings, the group worked together on the simultaneous development of the three outputs (taxonomy, self-assessment tool, and resources). The initial taxonomy was informed by the guidance produced by the Public Involvement Resource Hub at Imperial College London [ 10 ]. The taxonomy was developed as a table that included key terms (such as ‘public engagement’, ‘co-production’, or ‘market research’), with their definitions, examples, and synonyms. From early on, it was decided that different key terms would not be defined by the methods used, as there could be significant overlap among these – e.g. something called a focus group might be a part of a consultation, market research or research data collection.

A draft table (with just six categories) was presented in the first meeting and group members were asked to work on the table between meetings, including providing additional examples, amending language, or any other suggestions. This was done on a shared document using ‘comments’ so that contradictory views could be identified and agreements reached. The table was also shared with colleagues from outside the University of Edinburgh Medical School to capture the range of terminologies used across disciplines, recognising the interdisciplinary nature of much research.

Through this process, additional key terms were identified, such as “science communication” and “action research,” definitions were developed more fully, and synonyms were sometimes contextualized (by indicating, for example, shades of difference or usages specific to an area). Upon further work, three additional sections were added to the taxonomy tool: first, an introduction was developed that explained what terminology our specific institution used and noted that the boundaries between different terms were often “fuzzy and flexible.” In addition, the group agreed that it would be useful to provide a narrative example of how different forms of public engagement with research might co-exist and flow from one to another. To this end, a fictional example was developed where a team of clinical researchers interested in diabetes are described engaging in scoping work, research, co-production, science communication and action research at different times of their research programme. Finally, a section was also added that prompted researchers to reflect on the processes of negotiating how partners can be described in research (for example, whether to use terms such as ‘patient’ or ‘lay member’).

For the self-assessment tool, a first iteration was a table with two columns (one for research or work requiring formal ethical review and one for PEwR or work not requiring formal ethical review). The aim was for group members to fill the table with examples of activities that would fall under each category, with a view to identifying generalizable characteristics. However, this task proved complicated given the wide diversity of possible activities, multitude of contexts, and sheer number of exceptions. To address this, group members were asked to complete a case-based exercise. They were presented with the following situation: “I tell you I’m planning a focus group with some autistic folk” and asked how they would determine whether the activity would be a form of data collection for a research project (requiring formal ethical review) or another form of PEwR. Group members were asked, with a view to developing the self-assessment tool, to identify which questions they would ask to assess the activity. The replies of working group members were synthesized by one of the authors (SFW) and presented at the following meeting.

Through discussion as a group, we determined that the questions identified as useful in identifying if an activity required formal ethical review fell, roughly, under four main areas. Under each area, some indicators of activities were provided which were “less likely to need ethics review” and some “more likely to need ethics review”. The four umbrella questions were:

What is the purpose and the planned outcome of the activity? (see Table 1 for an excerpt of the initial draft answer to this question)

What is the status of the people involved in the activity? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “participants will be equal partners with academic team” or “participants will be advisors” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “participants will undertake tasks determined by academics” or “participants will contribute data or sign consent forms”).

What kind of information is being collected? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “asking about expert opinion on a topic” or “sessions will be minuted and notes taken” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “sessions will be recorded and transcribed” or “asking about participants’ personal experiences”).

What are the risks inherent in this activity? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “participants will be involved in decision-making” or “participants will be credited for their role in a manner of their choosing” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “participants’ involvement will and must be anonymized fully” or “participants have a choice between following protocol or withdrawing from the study”).

Upon further work, the group decided to modify this initial iteration in several ways leading to the final version. First, a brief introduction explaining the purpose of the tool was written. This included information about the aims of the tool, and a very brief overview of the process of formal research ethics review. It also emphasised the importance of discussion of the tool within the team, with PEwR experts and sometimes with EMREC members, depending on how clear-cut the outcome was. Second, we included brief information about what are ‘research’ and ‘public engagement with research’ with a view to supporting people who may not be familiar with how these concepts are used by ethics review committees (for example, lay co-applicants or co-researchers). Third, we included key guidance about how to use the tool, including ‘next steps’ if the activity was determined to be research or engagement. Importantly, this emphasised that none of the questions posed and indicators given were definitive of something needing or not needing formal research ethics review, but instead they should be used collectively to signpost a team towards, or away from, formal review.

Finally, while the four umbrella questions remained the same as in the previous iteration, the indicators under each were further refined. In discussing the previous version, the group agreed that, while some indicators could relate to an activity falling into either category (research or engagement) depending on other factors, there were others that were much more likely to fall under one category than the other. In other words, while no single indicator was deterministic of needing or not needing formal review, some indicators were more influential than others on the final self-assessment outcome. Thus, we divided the indicators associated with each umbrella question into two sub-groups. The more influential indicators were labelled as either “probably doesn’t need ethical review” or “almost certainly needs ethical review”. Less influential indicators were labelled as either “less likely to need ethical review” or “more likely to need ethical review.” This is shown in Table 2 .

This new format retains the awareness of the sometimes-blurry lines between research and PEwR for many activities, but also seeks to provide stronger direction through indicative activities that are more clear-cut, with a particular view to supporting early-career researchers and people new to ethics reviews and/or engagement processes.

A key concern of the group was what would happen next if a planned activity, using the self-assessment tool, was deemed as PEwR. The formal review process for research would not be available for a planned activity identified as PEwR i.e. completing a series of documents and a number of protocols to deal with issues such as data protection, safeguarding, etc. This would leave a vacuum in terms of guidance for ethical conduction of PEwR. The group was concerned that some people using the self-assessment tool might arrive at the conclusion that their planned activity was entirely without ethical risks, given that it was not required to undergo formal review. Others might be conscious of the risks but feel adrift as to how to proceed. This was a particular concern with early-career researchers and indeed established academics turning to PEwR for the first time: we wanted to facilitate their involvement with PEwR but we were also aware that many may lack experience and resources. To address this, the group decided to develop an additional output comprising a series of reflective prompts to guide researchers in planning and conducting engagement activities.

The prompts were organized under four headings. First, “Data Minimisation and Security” included information about required compliance with data protection legislation, suggestions about collecting and processing information, and ideas around ensuring confidentiality. Second, “Safeguarding Collaborators and Emotional Labour” prompted researchers to think about the risk of partners becoming distressed and suggested what things should be planned for in this regard. Third, “Professional Conduct and Intellectual Property” included advice on how to clearly manage partners’ expectations around their contributions, impact, and intellectual property. Finally, fourth, under “Power Imbalances”, the guidance discusses how researchers may work to address the inherent imbalances that exist in relationships with partners. It prompts the researcher to think about choice of location, information sharing, and authorship among others. While the Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee remains available for consultation on all these matters, as well as dedicated and professional PEwR staff, the group developed these guidelines with a view both to emphasizing the fact that an activity not requiring formal ethical review did not mean that the activity was absent of risk or did not require careful ethical planning; and to support those who may be unfamiliar with how to develop engagement activities. It was decided that this guideline should follow the self-assessment tool for clarity.

Finally, in the process of developing these outputs (the planned taxonomy and assessment tool, and the additional reflective prompts appended to the assessment tool), the group collected a large number of resources, including academic papers (e.g. Staniszewska et al. [ 16 ]; Schroeder et al. [ 13 ]; Redman et al. [ 12 ]; Fletcher-Watson et al. [ 4 ]), guidance produced by other institutions, and key online sites with information about national frameworks or policy. Among these, key resources were selected and appended to the taxonomy document. The final version of these documents can be found as appendices (Supplementary Material 1 : Assessment tool and reflective prompts; Supplementary Material 2 : Taxonomy and resources).

Further considerations and early results

The guidance and tools presented here are designed to clarify a boundary between research and engagement that is poorly defined and could cause harm if not well understood. In sharing them, we aim to facilitate researchers’ engagement with PEwR by providing familiarity with the terminology and approaches, examples, and suggesting key considerations. Most importantly, they support researchers to determine whether their planned activity should undergo a formal ethical review process or not – and if not, guides them towards ethical conduct in the absence of formal review. Reflecting on the process much of what we have explained essentially reflects a distinction between PEwR and research data collection that can be encapsulated within the idea of ‘locus of control’: namely that during PEwR the locus of control, as far as possible, sits with the engaged communities or members.

It should be noted, however, that researchers and these guidance and tools exist within a larger landscape, with added regulatory processes. Thus, researchers may need (regardless of whether their planned activity is research or engagement) to navigate additional compliance such as data protection or information security protocols and / or to consider reputational risk associated with certain topics. We are aware that the overlap of complex and sometimes obscure regulatory demands complicates the task of conducting both research and PEwR, as it requires researchers to juggle multiple procedures, documents, and approvals. This publication does not resolve all the questions that exist, but it does attempt to take a bold step towards confronting grey areas and providing systematic processes to navigate them.

The outputs described above were made available on the University of Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee intranet site under the heading “Public Engagement with Research.” While we do not collect statistics on the number of times the resources have been used, the committee has received positive feedback from people who have engaged with the documents. For example, one researcher commented that, in the process of developing an engagement activity, they had been “grappling with precisely these questions (of whether this qualifies as research, and whether it requires ethical review)” and that the documents were “quite timely and helpful. It allows me to think about these considerations in a systematic manner and it’s handy for me to send on to others as a framework for discussion should we have differing opinions.” It was this mention to the possibility of these documents being used as a framework for discussion that prompted us to write this paper as a way of sharing them beyond the University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (where they are already used for training early-career researchers and in the MSc in Science Communication and Public Engagement). While we think they can be useful, we also encourage potential users to adapt them to their specific contexts, with different institutions potentially establishing differing procedures or requirements. To that end, we have shared in this paper the process of writing these documents so that other people and teams may also think through them productively and creatively.

Final reflections

In developing these documents, we sought to answer a need among members of our immediate community, seeking to better assess whether an activity required formal ethical review and wanting guidance to ethically conduct PEwR work. However, we also came to realize the limitations of existing approval and governance processes. In our case, a key reason why these documents were developed is because existing formal ethical review processes would not be adequate to capture the particularities and complexities of PEwR in our large, diverse Medical School.

Looking back at the tools we developed and the feedback received, we are also satisfied with the pragmatic approach we took. There is a vast amount of resources and literature available about how to conduct PEwR, as well as a multitude of accounts and reflections both of an anecdotal and epistemological nature. Building on this conceptual work and associated principles, we sought to develop pragmatic, clear, applicable tools, without overwhelming users with a multitude of available resources and complex theory. This is, we feel, particularly applicable to contexts like ours: a large, very diverse medical school which encompasses biomedical to social science disciplines where researchers and funders have vastly differing expectations and knowledge of PEwR.

This process also led us to reflect on the practical functions of formal ethical review. Formal ethics approval provides applicants with structured resources to think and plan about their work, feedback and guidance about their plans, and—most commonly—a code and letter than can be used to easily report to journals that your research has met a specific ethical threshold. With these documents we have sought to provide some similar, pragmatic guidance to support and empower people, through a self-assessment process. This begs the question, what, if any, formal approval processes should be developed for PEwR? Are such formal processes in any way adequate to the ethos of PEwR? Would formal independent review necessarily conflict with the values of PEwR, namely the empowerment of community members as decision-makers and experts? Thus, these documents and this paper contribute to an ongoing conversation as PEwR continues to develop in frequency and sophistication in health and social care research.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

The difference between research and public engagement is a complex one. Formal ethics approval, which is often seen as a regulatory or compliance mechanism, may not always be a good marker of this boundary, as it may ignore complex issues such as the distribution of power, the ethos of the activities, or their aims. Furthermore, different institutions use different criteria to determine what activities require ethics approval or are considered research. In this paper we reflect on the process of developing tools which we intended as pragmatic interventions that would support researchers, especially those without previous experience of PEwR to label their planned activities and understand their implications. Thus, we employ—even if not at all times comfortably—the framework that equates research with activities requiring ethics approval and PEwR with activities not requiring ethics approval.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Davies R, Andrews H, Farr M, Davies P, Brangan E, and D Bagnall. Reflective questions to support co-produced research (version 1.2). University of Bristol and University of West of England. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ARC West and People in Health West of England; 2020.

De Simoni A, Jackson T, Inglis Humphrey W, Preston J, Mah H, Wood HE, Kinley E, Gonzalez L, Rienda, Porteous C. Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00424-7 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fletcher-Watson S, Brook K, Hallett S, Murray F, Catherine J, Crompton. Inclusive practices for Neurodevelopmental Research. Curr Dev Disorders Rep. 2021;8:88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-021-00227-z .

Article Google Scholar

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888 .

Health Research Authority. 2023. Putting people first - embedding public involvement in health and social care research. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/public-involvement/putting-people-first-embedding-public-involvement-health-and-social-care-research/ .

Health Research Authority / INVOLVE. 2016. Public involvement in research and research ethics committee review. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HRA-INVOLVE-updated-statement-2016.pdf .

Institute for Community Studies, and UK Research and Innovation. An equitable future for research and innovation. The Young Foundation; 2022.

National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. n.d. Introducing Public Engagement. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/introducing-public-engagement .

NIHR Imperial BRC Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC). A rough guide to public involvement (version 1.4). London: Imperial College London; 2021.

Google Scholar

Pandya-Wood R, Barron DS, Elliott J. A framework for public involvement at the design stage of NHS health and social care research: time to develop ethically conscious standards. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0058-y .

Redman S, Greenhalgh T, Adedokun L, Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Committee Co-production of Knowledge Collection Steering. Co-production of knowledge: the future. BMJ. 2021;372:n434. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n434 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Schroeder D, Chatfield K, Singh M, Chennells R. Peter Herissone-Kelly, and SpringerLink. 2019. Equitable Research Partnerships: A Global Code of Conduct to Counter Ethics Dumping . 1st 2019. ed, Springer Briefs in Research and Innovation Governance . Cham: Springer.

Staley K, Virginia M. User involvement leads to more ethically sound research. Clin Ethics. 2016;1(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1258/147775006777254489 .

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman DG, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453 .

Staniszewska S, Hickey G, Coutts P, Thurman B, Coldham T. Co-production: a kind revolution. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00340-2 .

Tscherning SC, Bekker HL, Vedelo TW, Finderup J, Rodkjaer LO. How to engage patient partners in health service research: a scoping review protocol. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00268-z .

UK Standards for Public Involvement. UK Standards for Public Involvement. https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/home .

Download references

Acknowledgements

For the purposes of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

This research was supported, in part, by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/X003604/1].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Jaime Garcia-Iglesias

Centre for Inflammation Research, Institute for Regeneration and Repair, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Iona Beange & Donald Davidson

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Suzanne Goopy & Huayi Huang

School of Health in Social Science, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Fiona Murray

Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Carol Porteous

Biomedical Teaching Organisation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Elizabeth Stevenson

Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Sinead Rhodes & Sue Fletcher-Watson

College for Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Faye Watson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JGI: conceptualisation and writing (original draft); IB, DJD, SG, HH, FM, CP, ES, SR, FW: conceptualisation, writing (editing and reviewing); SFW: conceptualisation and writing (original draft).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime Garcia-Iglesias .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Garcia-Iglesias, J., Beange, I., Davidson, D. et al. Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement. Res Involv Engagem 10 , 83 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00617-8

Download citation

Received : 03 May 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 07 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00617-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Public engagement
Ethical approval
Ethical review
Responsibility
Managing risks
Patient-oriented research
Patient-centred research
And patient engagement

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Author Biographies
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Impacts of generative artificial intelligence in higher education: research trends and students’ perceptions.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods.

“Generative Artificial Intelligence” or “Generative AI” or “Gen AI”, AND;
“Higher Education” or “University” or “College” or “Post-secondary”, AND;
“Impact” or “Effect” or “Influence”.
Q1— Does GenAI have more positive or negative effects on higher education? Options (to choose one): 1. It has more negative effects than positives; 2. It has more positive effects than negative; 3. There is a balance between positive and negative effects; 4. Don’t know.
Q2— Identify the main positive effect of Gen AI in an academic context . Open-ended question.
Q3— Identify the main negative effect of Gen AI in an academic context . Open-ended question.

3.1. Impacts of Gen AI in HE: Research Trends

3.1.1. he with gen ai, the key role that pedagogy must play, new ways to enhance the design and implementation of teaching and learning activities.

Firstly, prompting in teaching should be prioritized as it plays a crucial role in developing students’ abilities. By providing appropriate prompts, educators can effectively guide students toward achieving their learning objectives.
Secondly, configuring reverse prompting within the capabilities of Gen AI chatbots can greatly assist students in monitoring their learning progress. This feature empowers students to take ownership of their education and fosters a sense of responsibility.
Furthermore, it is essential to embed digital literacy in all teaching and learning activities that aim to leverage the potential of the new Gen AI assistants. By equipping students with the necessary skills to navigate and critically evaluate digital resources, educators can ensure that they are prepared for the digital age.

The Student’s Role in the Learning Experience

The key teacher’s role in the teaching and learning experience, 3.1.2. assessment in gen ai/chatgpt times, the need for new assessment procedures, 3.1.3. new challenges to academic integrity policies, new meanings and frontiers of misconduct, personal data usurpation and cheating, 3.2. students’ perceptions about the impacts of gen ai in he.

“It harms the learning process”: ▪ “What is generated by Gen AI has errors”; ▪ “Generates dependence and encourages laziness”; ▪ “Decreases active effort and involvement in the learning/critical thinking process”.

4. Discussion

Training: providing training for both students and teachers on effectively using and integrating Gen AI technologies into teaching and learning practices.
Ethical use and risk management: developing policies and guidelines for ethical use and risk management associated with Gen AI technologies.
Incorporating AI without replacing humans: incorporating AI technologies as supplementary tools to assist teachers and students rather than replacements for human interaction.
Continuously enhancing holistic competencies: encouraging the use of AI technologies to enhance specific skills, such as digital competence and time management, while ensuring that students continue to develop vital transferable skills.
Fostering a transparent AI environment: promoting an environment in which students and teachers can openly discuss the benefits and concerns associated with using AI technologies.
Data privacy and security: ensuring data privacy and security using AI technologies.
The dynamics of technological support to align with the most suitable Gen AI resources;
The training policy to ensure that teachers, students, and academic staff are properly trained to utilize the potential of Gen AI and its tools;
Security and data protection policies;
Quality and ethical action policies.

5. Conclusions

Database constraints: the analysis is based on existing publications in SCOPUS and the Web of Science, potentially omitting relevant research from other sources.
Inclusion criteria: due to the early stage of scientific production on this topic, all publications were included in the analysis, rather than focusing solely on articles from highly indexed journals and/or with a high number of citations as recommended by bibliometric and systematic review best practices.
Dynamic landscape: the rate of publications on Gen AI has been rapidly increasing and diversifying in 2024, highlighting the need for ongoing analysis to track trends and changes in scientific thinking.

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

Akakpo, Martin Gameli. 2023. Skilled for the Future: Information Literacy for AI Use by University Students in Africa and the Role of Librarians. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 28: 19–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
AlAfnan, Mohammad Awad, Samira Dishari, Marina Jovic, and Koba Lomidze. 2023. ChatGPT as an Educational Tool: Opportunities, Challenges, and Recommendations for Communication, Business Writing, and Composition Courses. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology 3: 60–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Almaraz-López, Cristina, Fernando Almaraz-Menéndez, and Carmen López-Esteban. 2023. Comparative Study of the Attitudes and Perceptions of University Students in Business Administration and Management and in Education toward Artificial Intelligence. Education Sciences 13: 609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Al-Zahrani, Abdulrahman. 2023. The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Athilingam, Ponrathi, and Hong-Gu He. 2023. ChatGPT in nursing education: Opportunities and challenges. Teaching and Learning in Nursing 19: 97–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Álvarez-Álvarez, Carmen, and Samuel Falcon. 2023. Students’ preferences with university teaching practices: Analysis of testimonials with artificial intelligence. Educational Technology Research and Development 71: 1709–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bannister, Peter, Elena Alcalde Peñalver, and Alexandra Santamaría Urbieta. 2023. Transnational higher education cultures and generative AI: A nominal group study for policy development in English medium instruction. Journal for Multicultural Education . ahead-of-print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bearman, Margaret, and Rola Ajjawi. 2023. Learning to work with the black box: Pedagogy for a world with artificial intelligence. British Journal of Educational Technology 54: 1160–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Boháček, Matyas. 2023. The Unseen A+ Student: Evaluating the Performance and Detectability of Large Language Models in the Classroom. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 3487: 89–100. Available online: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=9ZKJLYg5EQ (accessed on 7 January 2024).
Chan, Cecilia Ka Yuk. 2023. A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20: 38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chan, Cecilia Ka Yuk, and Wenjie Hu. 2023. Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20: 43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chan, Cecilia Ka Yuk, and Wenxin Zhou. 2023. An expectancy value theory (EVT) based instrument for measuring student perceptions of generative AI. Smart Learning Environments 10: 64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chang, Daniel H., Michael Pin-Chuan Lin, Shiva Hajian, and Quincy Q. Wang. 2023. Educational Design Principles of Using AI Chatbot That Supports Self-Regulated Learning in Education: Goal Setting, Feedback, and Personalization. Sustainability 15: 12921. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chiu, Thomas. 2023. The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chun, John, and Katherine Elkins. 2023. The Crisis of Artificial Intelligence: A New Digital Humanities Curriculum for Human-Centred AI. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 17: 147–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cowling, Michael, Joseph Crawford, Kelly-Ann Allen, and Michael Wehmeyer. 2023. Using leadership to leverage ChatGPT and artificial intelligence for undergraduate and postgraduate research supervision. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 39: 89–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Crawford, Joseph, Carmen Vallis, Jianhua Yang, Rachel Fitzgerald, Christine O’Dea, and Michael Cowling. 2023a. Editorial: Artificial Intelligence is Awesome, but Good Teaching Should Always Come First. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 20: 01. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Crawford, Joseph, Michael Cowling, and Kelly-Ann Allen. 2023b. Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT: Character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence (AI). Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 20: 02. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Currie, Geoffrey. 2023a. A Conversation with ChatGPT. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 51: 255–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Currie, Geoffrey. 2023b. GPT-4 in Nuclear Medicine Education: Does It Outperform GPT-3.5? Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 51: 314–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Currie, Geoffrey, and Kym Barry. 2023. ChatGPT in Nuclear Medicine Education. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 51: 247–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Currie, Geoffrey, Clare Singh, Tarni Nelson, Caroline Nabasenja, Yazan Al-Hayek, and Kelly Spuur. 2023. ChatGPT in medical imaging higher education. Radiography 29: 792–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dai, Yun, Ang Liu, and Cher P. Lim. 2023. Reconceptualizing Chatgpt and Generative AI as a Student-driven Innovation in Higher Education. Procedia CIRP Volume 119: 84–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dogru, Tarik, Nathana Line, Lydia Hanks, Fulya Acikgoz, Je’Anna Abbott, Selim Bakir, Adiyukh Berbekova, Anil Bilgihan, Ali Iskender, Murat Kizildag, and et al. 2023. The implications of generative artificial intelligence in academic research and higher education in tourism and hospitality. Tourism Economics 30: 1083–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Duong, Cong Doanh, Trong Nghia Vu, and Thi Viet Nga Ngo. 2023. Applying a modified technology acceptance model to explain higher education students’ usage of ChatGPT: A serial multiple mediation model with knowledge sharing as a moderator. The International Journal of Management Education 21: 100883. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Eager, Bronwyn, and Ryan Brunton. 2023. Prompting Higher Education Towards AI-Augmented Teaching and Learning Practice. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 20: 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Elkhodr, Mahmoud, Ergun Gide, Robert Wu, and Omar Darwish. 2023. ICT students’ perceptions towards ChatGPT: An experimental reflective lab analysis. STEM Education 3: 70–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Farrelly, Tom, and Nick Baker. 2023. Generative Artificial Intelligence: Implications and Considerations for Higher Education Practice. Education Sciences 13: 1109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Farrokhnia, Mohammadreza, Seyyed Banihashem, Seyyed Kazem Banihashem, Omid Noroozi, and Arjen Wals. 2023. A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 61: 460–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gong, Furong. 2023. The Impact of Generative AI like ChatGPT on Digital Literacy Education in University Libraries. Documentation, Information & Knowledge 40: 97–106, 156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Han, Bingyi, Sadia Nawaz, George Buchanan, and Dana McKay. 2023. Ethical and Pedagogical Impacts of AI in Education. In Artificial Intelligence in Education . Edited by Ning Wang, Genaro Rebolledo-Mendez, Noboru Matsuda, Olga Santos and Vania Dimitrova. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer, pp. 667–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hassoulas, Athanasios, Ned Powell, Lindsay Roberts, Katja Umla-Runge, Laurence Gray, and Marcus J. Coffey. 2023. Investigating marker accuracy in differentiating between university scripts written by students and those produced using ChatGPT. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6: 71–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hernández-Leo, Davinia. 2023. ChatGPT and Generative AI in Higher Education: User-Centered Perspectives and Implications for Learning Analytics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings , 1–6. Available online: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3542/paper2.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2024).
Hidayat-ur-Rehman, Imdadullah, and Yasser Ibrahim. 2023. Exploring factors influencing educators’ adoption of ChatGPT: A mixed method approach. Interactive Technology and Smart Education . ahead-of-print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ilieva, Galina, Tania Yankova, Stanislava Klisarova-Belcheva, Angel Dimitrov, Marin Bratkov, and Delian Angelov. 2023. Effects of Generative Chatbots in Higher Education. Information 14: 492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Javaid, Mohd, Abid Haleem, Ravi Pratap Singh, Shahbaz Khan, and Haleem Ibrahim. 2023. Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT Tool towards ameliorating the education system. Bench Council Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations 3: 100115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kaplan-Rakowski, Regina, Kimberly Grotewold, Peggy Hartwick, and Kevin Papin. 2023. Generative AI and Teachers’ Perspectives on Its Implementation in Education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 34: 313–38. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/222363/ (accessed on 7 January 2024).
Karunaratne, Thashmee, and Adenike Adesina. 2023. Is it the new Google: Impact of ChatGPT on Students’ Information Search Habits. Paper presented at the European Conference on e-Learning (ECEL 2023), Pretoria, South Africa, October 26–27; pp. 147–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kelly, Andrew, Miriam Sullivan, and Katrina Strampel. 2023. Generative artificial intelligence: University student awareness, experience, and confidence in use across disciplines. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 20: 12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kohnke, Lucas, Benjamin Luke Moorhouse, and Di Zou. 2023. Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5: 100156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Laker, Lauren, and Mark Sena. 2023. Accuracy and detection of student use of ChatGPT in business analytics courses. Issues in Information Systems 24: 153–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lemke, Claudia, Kathrin Kirchner, Liadan Anandarajah, and Florian Herfurth. 2023. Exploring the Student Perspective: Assessing Technology Readiness and Acceptance for Adopting Large Language Models in Higher Education. Paper presented at the European Conference on e-Learning, (ECEL 2023), Pretoria, South Africa, October 26–27; pp. 156–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Limna, Pongsakorn, Tanpat Kraiwanit, Kris Jangjarat, and Prapasiri Klayklung. 2023a. The use of ChatGPT in the digital era: Perspectives on chatbot implementation. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6: 64–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Limna, Pongsakorn, Tanpat Kraiwanit, Kris Jangjarat, and Yarnaphat Shaengchart. 2023b. Applying ChatGPT as a new business strategy: A great power comes with great responsibility [Special issue]. Corporate & Business Strategy Review 4: 218–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lopezosa, Carlos, Carles Lluís Codina, Carles Pont-Sorribes, and Mari Vállez. 2023. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Training of Journalists: Challenges, Uses and Training Proposal. Profesional De La información Information Professional 32: 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Martineau, Kim. 2023. What Is Generative AI? IBM Research Blog . April 20. Available online: https://research.ibm.com/blog/what-is-generative-AI (accessed on 7 January 2024).
Mondal, Himel, Shaikat Mondal, and Indrashis Podder. 2023. Using ChatGPT for Writing Articles for Patients’ Education for Dermatological Diseases: A Pilot Study. Indian Dermatology Online Journal 14: 482–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moorhouse, Benjamin, Marie Alina Wan, and Yuwei Wan. 2023. Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world’s top-ranking universities. Computers and Education Open 5: 100151. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Overono, Acacia L., and Annie Ditta. 2023. The Rise of Artificial Intelligence: A Clarion Call for Higher Education to Redefine Learning and Reimagine Assessment. College Teaching , 1–4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pechenkina, Ekaterina. 2023. Artificial intelligence for good? Challenges and possibilities of AI in higher education from a data justice perspective. In Higher Education for Good: Teaching and Learning Futures . Edited by Laura Czerniewicz and Catherine Cronin. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, pp. 239–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Perkins, Mike, Jasper Roe, Darius Postma, James McGaughran, and Don Hickerson. 2023. Detection of GPT-4 Generated Text in Higher Education: Combining Academic Judgement and Software to Identify Generative AI Tool Misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics 22: 89–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pitso, Teboho. 2023. Post-COVID-19 Higher Learning: Towards Telagogy, A Web-Based Learning Experience. IAFOR Journal of Education 11: 39–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Plata, Sterling, Maria Ana De Guzman, and Arthea Quesada. 2023. Emerging Research and Policy Themes on Academic Integrity in the Age of Chat GPT and Generative AI. Asian Journal of University Education 19: 743–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rudolph, Jürgen, Samson Tan, and Shannon Tan. 2023a. War of the chatbots: Bard, Bing Chat, ChatGPT, Ernie and beyond. The new AI gold rush and its impact on higher education. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6: 364–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rudolph, Jürgen, Samson Tan, and Shannon Tan. 2023b. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6: 342–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ryall, Adelle, and Stephen Abblitt. 2023. “A Co-Pilot for Learning Design?”: Perspectives from Learning Designers on the Uses, Challenges, and Risks of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education. In People, Partnerships and Pedagogies. Proceedings ASCILITE 2023 . Edited by Thomas Cochrane, Vickel Narayan, Cheryl Brown, MacCallum Kathryn, Elisa Bone, Christopher Deneen, Robert Vanderburg and Brad Hurren. Christchurch: Te Pae Conference Center, pp. 525–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Santiago, Cereneo S., Steve I. Embang, Ricky B. Acanto, Kem Warren P. Ambojia, Maico Demi B. Aperocho, Benedicto B. Balilo, Erwin L. Cahapin, Marjohn Thomas N. Conlu, Samson M. Lausa, Ester Y. Laput, and et al. 2023. Utilization of Writing Assistance Tools in Research in Selected Higher Learning Institutions in the Philippines: A Text Mining Analysis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 22: 259–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Solopova, Veronika, Eiad Rostom, Fritz Cremer, Adrian Gruszczynski, Sascha Witte, Chengming Zhang, Fernando Ramos López, Lea Plößl, Florian Hofmann, Ralf Romeike, and et al. 2023. PapagAI: Automated Feedback for Reflective Essays. In KI 2023: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. KI 2023 . Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Cham: Springer, vol. 14236, pp. 198–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sridhar, Pragnya, Aidan Doyle, Arav Agarwal, Christopher Bogart, Jaromir Savelka, and Majd Sakr. 2023. Harnessing LLMs in Curricular Design: Using GPT-4 to Support Authoring of Learning Objectives. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 3487: 139–50. [ Google Scholar ]
Sullivan, Miriam, Andrew Kelly, and Paul McLaughlan. 2023. ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6: 31–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tominc, Polona, and Maja Rožman. 2023. Artificial Intelligence and Business Studies: Study Cycle Differences Regarding the Perceptions of the Key Future Competences. Education Sciences 13: 580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
van den Berg, Geesje, and Elize du Plessis. 2023. ChatGPT and Generative AI: Possibilities for Its Contribution to Lesson Planning, Critical Thinking and Openness in Teacher Education. Education Sciences 13: 998. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Walczak, Krzysztof, and Wojciech Cellary. 2023. Challenges for higher education in the era of widespread access to Generative AI. Economics and Business Review 9: 71–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wang, Ting, Brady D. Lund, Agostino Marengo, Alessandro Pagano, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Zoë A. Teel, and Jenny Pange. 2023. Exploring the Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on International Students in Higher Education: Generative AI, Chatbots, Analytics, and International Student Success. Applied Sciences 13: 6716. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Watermeyer, Richard, Lawrie Phipps, Donna Lanclos, and Cathryn Knight. 2023. Generative AI and the Automating of Academia. Postdigital Science and Education 6: 446–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wolf, Leigh, Tom Farrelly, Orna Farrell, and Fiona Concannon. 2023. Reflections on a Collective Creative Experiment with GenAI: Exploring the Boundaries of What is Possible. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 7: 1–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yilmaz, Ramazan, and Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz. 2023. The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 4: 100147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zawiah, Mohammed, Fahmi Y. Al-Ashwal, Lobna Gharaibeh, Rana Abu Farha, Karem H. Alzoubi, Khawla Abu Hammour, Qutaiba A. Qasim, and Fahd Abrah. 2023. ChatGPT and Clinical Training: Perception, Concerns, and Practice of Pharm-D Students. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 16: 4099–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

	Selected Group of Students		Students Who Answered the Questionnaire
	M	F	M	F

1st year	59	5	34	2
2nd year	36	5	29	4

1st year	39	3	24	2
2nd year	21	2	15	2

Country	N.	Country	N.	Country	N.	Country	N.
Australia	16	Italy	2	Egypt	1	South Korea	1
United States	7	Saudi Arabia	2	Ghana	1	Sweden	1
Singapore	5	South Africa	2	Greece	1	Turkey	1
Hong Kong	4	Thailand	2	India	1	United Arab Emirates	1
Spain	4	Viet Nam	2	Iraq	1	Yemen	1
United Kingdom	4	Bulgaria	1	Jordan	1
Canada	3	Chile	1	Malaysia	1
Philippines	3	China	1	Mexico	1
Germany	2	Czech Republic	1	New Zealand	1
Ireland	2	Denmark	1	Poland	1

Country	N.	Country	N.	Country	N.	Country	N.
Singapore	271	United States	15	India	2	Iraq	0
Australia	187	Italy	11	Turkey	2	Jordan	0
Hong Kong	37	United Kingdom	6	Denmark	1	Poland	0
Thailand	33	Canada	6	Greece	1	United Arab Emirates	0
Philippines	31	Ireland	6	Sweden	1	Yemen	0
Viet Nam	29	Spain	6	Saudi Arabia	1
Malaysia	29	South Africa	6	Bulgaria	1
South Korea	29	Mexico	3	Czech Republic	0
China	17	Chile	3	Egypt	0
New Zealand	17	Germany	2	Ghana	0

Categories	Nr. of Documents	References
HE with Gen AI	15	( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ).
	15	( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ).
	14	( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ).
	8	( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ).
Assessment in Gen AI/ChatGPT times	8	( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ); ( ).
New challenges to academic integrity policies	4	( ); ( ); ( ); ( ).

Have You Tried Using a Gen AI Tool?	Nr.	%
Yes	52	46.4%
No	60	53.6%

Categories and Subcategories	%	Unit of Analysis (Some Examples)
1. Learning support:
1.1. Helpful to solve doubts, to correct errors	34.6%
1.2. Helpful for more autonomous and self-regulated learning	19.2%
2. Helpful to carry out the academic assignments/individual or group activities	17.3%
3. Facilitates research/search processes
3.1. Reduces the time spent with research	13.5%
3.2. Makes access to information easier	9.6%
4. Reduction in teachers’ workload	3.9%
5. Enables new teaching methods	1.9%

Categories and Subcategories	%	Unit of Analysis (Some Examples)
1. Harms the learning process:
1.1. What is generated by Gen AI has errors	13.5%
1.2. Generates dependence and encourages laziness	15.4%
1.3. Decreases active effort and involvement in the learning/critical thinking process	28.8%
2. Encourages plagiarism and incorrect assessment procedures	17.3%
3. Reduces relationships with teachers and interpersonal relationships	9.6%
4. No negative effect—as it will be necessary to have knowledge for its correct use	7.7%
5. Don’t know	7.7%

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Saúde, S.; Barros, J.P.; Almeida, I. Impacts of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Research Trends and Students’ Perceptions. Soc. Sci. 2024 , 13 , 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13080410

Saúde S, Barros JP, Almeida I. Impacts of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Research Trends and Students’ Perceptions. Social Sciences . 2024; 13(8):410. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13080410

Saúde, Sandra, João Paulo Barros, and Inês Almeida. 2024. "Impacts of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Research Trends and Students’ Perceptions" Social Sciences 13, no. 8: 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13080410

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

Abbreviations
Bias-Free Language
Capitalization
In-Text Citations
Italics and Quotation Marks
Paper Format
Punctuation
Research and Publication
Spelling and Hyphenation
Tables and Figures

Full index of topics

Read the Code of Ethics

The NASW Code of Ethics is a set of standards that guide the professional conduct of social workers. The 2021 update includes language that addresses the importance of professional self-care. Moreover, revisions to Cultural Competence standard provide more explicit guidance to social workers. All social workers should review the new text and affirm their commitment to abide by the Code of Ethics. Also available in Spanish.

The first Section, "Preamble," summarizes the social work profession's mission and core values.
The second section, Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics , provides an overview of the Code's main functions and a brief guide for dealing with ethical issues or dilemmas in social work practice.
The third section, Ethical Principles , presents broad ethical principles, based on social work's core values, that inform social work practice.
The final section, Ethical Standards , includes specific ethical standards to guide social workers' conduct and to provide a basis for adjudication.

The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession’s dual focus on individual well-being in a social context and the well-being of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living.

Social workers promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of clients. “Clients” is used inclusively to refer to individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers are sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice. These activities may be in the form of direct practice, community organizing, supervision, consultation, administration, advocacy, social and political action, policy development and implementation, education, and research and evaluation. Social workers seek to enhance the capacity of people to address their own needs. Social workers also seek to promote the responsiveness of organizations, communities, and other social institutions to individuals’ needs and social problems.

The mission of the social work profession is rooted in a set of core values. These core values, embraced by social workers throughout the profession’s history, are the foundation of social work’s unique purpose and perspective:

social justice
dignity and worth of the person
importance of human relationships
competence.

This constellation of core values reflects what is unique to the social work profession. Core values, and the principles that flow from them, must be balanced within the context and complexity of the human experience.

Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics

Professional ethics are at the core of social work. The profession has an obligation to articulate its basic values, ethical principles, and ethical standards. The NASW Code of Ethics sets forth these values, principles, and standards to guide social workers’ conduct. The Code is relevant to all social workers and social work students, regardless of their professional functions, the settings in which they work, or the populations they serve.

The NASW Code of Ethics serves six purposes:

The Code identifies core values on which social work’s mission is based.
The Code summarizes broad ethical principles that reflect the profession’s core values and establishes a set of specific ethical standards that should be used to guide social work practice.
The Code is designed to help social workers identify relevant considerations when professional obligations conflict or ethical uncertainties arise.
The Code provides ethical standards to which the general public can hold the social work profession accountable.
The Code socializes practitioners new to the field to social work’s mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical standards, and encourages all social workers to engage in self-care, ongoing education, and other activities to ensure their commitment to those same core features of the profession.
The Code articulates standards that the social work profession itself can use to assess whether social workers have engaged in unethical conduct. NASW has formal procedures to adjudicate ethics complaints filed against its members.* In subscribing to this Code, social workers are required to cooperate in its implementation, participate in NASW adjudication proceedings, and abide by any NASW disciplinary rulings or sanctions based on it.

The Code offers a set of values, principles, and standards to guide decision making and conduct when ethical issues arise. It does not provide a set of rules that prescribe how social workers should act in all situations. Specific applications of the Code must take into account the context in which it is being considered and the possibility of conflicts among the Code’s values, principles, and standards. Ethical responsibilities flow from all human relationships, from the personal and familial to the social and professional.

* For information on the NASW Professional Review Process, see NASW Procedures for Professional Review.

Furthermore, the NASW Code of Ethics does not specify which values, principles, and standards are most important and ought to outweigh others in instances when they conflict. Reasonable differences of opinion can and do exist among social workers with respect to the ways in which values, ethical principles, and ethical standards should be rank ordered when they conflict. Ethical decision making in a given situation must apply the informed judgment of the individual social worker and should also consider how the issues would be judged in a peer review process where the ethical standards of the profession would be applied.

Ethical decision making is a process. In situations when conflicting obligations arise, social workers may be faced with complex ethical dilemmas that have no simple answers. Social workers should take into consideration all the values, principles, and standards in this Code that are relevant to any situation in which ethical judgment is warranted. Social workers’ decisions and actions should be consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of this Code.

In addition to this Code, there are many other sources of information about ethical thinking that may be useful. Social workers should consider ethical theory and principles generally, social work theory and research, laws, regulations, agency policies, and other relevant codes of ethics, recognizing that among codes of ethics social workers should consider the NASW Code of Ethics as their primary source. Social workers also should be aware of the impact on ethical decision making of their clients’ and their own personal values and cultural and religious beliefs and practices. They should be aware of any conflicts between personal and professional values and deal with them responsibly. For additional guidance social workers should consult the relevant literature on professional ethics and ethical decision making and seek appropriate consultation when faced with ethical dilemmas. This may involve consultation with an agency-based or social work organization’s ethics committee, a regulatory body, knowledgeable colleagues, supervisors, or legal counsel.

Instances may arise when social workers’ ethical obligations conflict with agency policies or relevant laws or regulations. When such conflicts occur, social workers must make a responsible effort to resolve the conflict in a manner that is consistent with the values, principles, and standards expressed in this Code. If a reasonable resolution of the conflict does not appear possible, social workers should seek proper consultation before making a decision. The NASW Code of Ethics is to be used by NASW and by individuals, agencies, organizations, and bodies (such as licensing and regulatory boards, professional liability insurance providers, courts of law, agency boards of directors, government agencies, and other professional groups) that choose to adopt it or use it as a frame of reference. Violation of standards in this Code does not automatically imply legal liability or violation of the law.

Such determination can only be made in the context of legal and judicial proceedings. Alleged violations of the Code would be subject to a peer review process. Such processes are generally separate from legal or administrative procedures and insulated from legal review or proceedings to allow the profession to counsel and discipline its own members.

A code of ethics cannot guarantee ethical behavior. Moreover, a code of ethics cannot resolve all ethical issues or disputes or capture the richness and complexity involved in striving to make responsible choices within a moral community. Rather, a code of ethics sets forth values, ethical principles, and ethical standards to which professionals aspire and by which their actions can be judged. Social workers' ethical behavior should result from their personal commitment to engage in ethical practice. The NASW Code of Ethics reflects the commitment of all social workers to uphold the profession’s values and to act ethically. Principles and standards must be applied by individuals of good character who discern moral questions and, in good faith, seek to make reliable ethical judgments.

With growth in the use of communication technology in various aspects of social work practice, social workers need to be aware of the unique challenges that may arise in relation to the maintenance of confidentiality, informed consent, professional boundaries, professional competence, record keeping, and other ethical considerations. In general, all ethical standards in this Code of Ethics are applicable to interactions, relationships, or communications, whether they occur in person or with the use of technology. For the purposes of this Code, “technology-assisted social work services” include any social work services that involve the use of computers, mobile or landline telephones, tablets, video technology, or other electronic or digital technologies; this includes the use of various electronic or digital platforms, such as the Internet, online social media, chat rooms, text messaging, e-mail and emerging digital applications. Technology-assisted social work services encompass all aspects of social work practice, including psychotherapy; individual, family, or group counseling; community organization; administration; advocacy; mediation; education; supervision; research; evaluation; and other social work services. Social workers should keep apprised of emerging technological developments that may be used in social work practice and how various ethical standards apply to them.

Professional self-care is paramount for competent and ethical social work practice. Professional demands, challenging workplace climates, and exposure to trauma warrant that social workers maintain personal and professional health, safety, and integrity. Social work organizations, agencies, and educational institutions are encouraged to promote organizational policies, practices, and materials to support social workers’ self-care.

Ethical Principles

The following broad ethical principles are based on social work’s core values of service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence. These principles set forth ideals to which all social workers should aspire.

Value: Service Ethical Principle: Social workers’ primary goal is to help people in need and to address social problems

Social workers elevate service to others above self-interest. Social workers draw on their knowledge, values, and skills to help people in need and to address social problems. Social workers are encouraged to volunteer some portion of their professional skills with no expectation of significant financial return (pro bono service).

Value: Social Justice Ethical Principle: Social workers challenge social injustice.

Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people.

Value: Dignity and Worth of the Person Ethical Principle: Social workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of the person.

Social workers treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of individual differences and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers promote clients’ socially responsible self-determination. Social workers seek to enhance clients’ capacity and opportunity to change and to address their own needs. Social workers are cognizant of their dual responsibility to clients and to the broader society. They seek to resolve conflicts between clients’ interests and the broader society’s interests in a socially responsible manner consistent with the values, ethical principles, and ethical standards of the profession.

Value: Importance of Human Relationships Ethical Principle: Social workers recognize the central importance of human relationships.

Social workers understand that relationships between and among people are an important vehicle for change. Social workers engage people as partners in the helping process. Social workers seek to strengthen relationships among people in a purposeful effort to promote, restore, maintain, and enhance the well-being of individuals, families, social groups, organizations, and communities.

Value: Integrity Ethical Principle: Social workers behave in a trustworthy manner.

Social workers are continually aware of the profession’s mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical standards and practice in a manner consistent with them. Social workers should take measures to care for themselves professionally and personally. Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices on the part of the organizations with which they are affiliated.

Value: Competence Ethical Principle: Social workers practice within their areas of competence and develop and enhance their professional expertise.

Social workers continually strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice. Social workers should aspire to contribute to the knowledge base of the profession.

Ethical Standards

The following ethical standards are relevant to the professional activities of all social workers. These standards concern (1) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to clients, (2) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to colleagues, (3) social workers’ ethical responsibilities in practice settings, (4) social workers’ ethical responsibilities as professionals, (5) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to the social work profession, and (6) social workers’ ethical responsibilities to the broader society. Some of the standards that follow are enforceable guidelines for professional conduct, and some are aspirational. The extent to which each standard is enforceable is a matter of professional judgment to be exercised by those responsible for reviewing alleged violations of ethical standards.

1. Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to Clients >>

2. social workers' ethical responsibilities to colleagues >>, 3. social workers' ethical responsibilities in practice settings >>, 4. social workers' ethical responsibilities as professionals >>, 5. social workers' ethical responsibilities to the social work profession >>, 6. social workers' ethical responsibilities to the broader society >>.

Revised Code of Ethics

Order a copy of the Code of Ethics
Order a copy of Código de Ética (Spanish version)

About the Revisions

2021 Highlighted Revisions to the Code of Ethics
Frequently Asked Questions

IMAGES

Social Work Values And Ethics
PPT
PPT
Ethics Of Social Work Research: A Comprehensive Guide
Introduction to Research Ethics
Social Work Values and Ethics

COMMENTS

Code of Ethics: English
The first Section, "Preamble," summarizes the social work profession's mission and core values. The second section, Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics, provides an overview of the Code's main functions and a brief guide for dealing with ethical issues or dilemmas in social work practice. The third section, Ethical Principles, presents broad ethical principles, based on social work's core ...
Full article: Ethical considerations in social work research
Attention to these considerations is especially important for researchers in social work who, by their professional discipline, code of ethics, or research foci are expected to demonstrate particular sensitivity to vulnerable populations, issues of social justice, conflicts of interest, and respect for dignity and privacy.
Social Work Ethics Resources and Research
Social Work Ethics Resources and Research. Below is an overview of social work research related to the profession's ethical standards and values, including examples of publications that provide an overview of: Research on Ethics - examples of knowledge-building about the role and function of various ethics components.
Code of Ethics
The NASW Code of Ethics defines the values, principles, and ethical standards that guide decision-making and everyday professional conduct of social workers. It is relevant to all social workers and social work students regardless of their specific functions or settings.The 2021 updates to the Code include new language in the Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics and Ethical Principles sections ...
(PDF) Ethical considerations in social work research
ethical expectations in the social work domain and the demands of various stages of the research. process. For the purposes of this paper, we o ﬀer two illustrative examples involving the ethics ...
Ethics in Research
Summary. Social work researchers hold themselves to ethical standards, compatible with social work ethics, for social science and biomedical research involving human beings. This article describes (a) the general ethical principles guiding research involving human subjects; (b) mechanisms for the ethical review of studies involving human beings ...
Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles
8.1 The ethical principles in this Statement apply to all contexts of social work practice, education, and research, whether it involves direct face-to-face contact or through use of digital technology and social media.
Ethics in Research
Summary. Social work researchers hold themselves to ethical standards for social science and biomedical research involving human beings, which are compatible with social work ethics. This article describes (a) the general ethical principles guiding research involving human subjects; (b) mechanisms for the ethical review of studies involving ...
The Handbook of Social Research Ethics
The Handbook of Social Research Ethics is the first comprehensive volume of its kind to offer a deeper understanding of the history, theory, philosophy, and implementation of applied social research ethics. Editors Donna M. Mertens and Pauline Ginsberg bring together eminent, international scholars across the social and behavioral sciences and education to address the ethical issues that arise ...
Ethics and the Practice of Qualitative Research
First, the ethics of qualitative research design pose distinctive demands on principles of informed consent, confidentiality and privacy, social justice, and practitioner research. I focus on consent — for its topicality, not because it is more important or difficult — and social justice.
The status of research ethics in social work
Research ethics provide important and necessary standards related to the conduct and dissemination of research. To better understand the current state of research ethics discourse in social work, a systematic literature search was undertaken and numbers of publications per year were compared between …
Social Work Research Ethics: Dual Roles and Boundary Issues
The ethical dilemmas may vary with the framework in which the research is conducted, the participants, and social work researchers themselves. The current article focuses on issues of informed consent, expectations, and anxieties of the research participants, and ethical dilemmas. It ends with suggestions for ethical social work research.
PDF Practice-Informed Research: Contemporary Challenges and Ethical
Abstract The 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) call for social work students to be prepared to "engage in practice-informed research and research-informed practice" (CSWE, 2015, p.8). This standard reinforces a position that ensures social workers are trained to utilize both practice and research proactively within ...
The Ethics of Qualitative Social Work Research
Abstract A study cannot be a good study unless proper ethical standards have been maintained. This article examines ethical thinking and practice in qualitative social work research. A review of a randomly selected sample of articles published in social work journals in the past decade was conducted, centered around four main issues: (a) prevention of harm; (b) empowerment-related aspects of ...
Chapter Three: Ethics in social work research
Chapter Outline 3.1 Research on humans 3.2 Specific ethical issues to consider 3.3 Ethics at micro, meso, and macro levels 3.4 The practice of science versus the uses of science Content Advisory This chapter discusses or mentions the following topics: unethical research that has occurred in the past against marginalized groups in America and during the Holocaust.
Module 1 Chapter 3: Ethical Conduct of Research
Module 1 Chapter 3: Ethical Conduct of Research The NASW professional code of ethics has quite a lot to say about ensuring that research be conducted in an ethical manner, so here we revisit the code of ethics to review these research-specific standards.
Ethical considerations in social work research
Attention to these considerations is especially important for researchers in social work who, by their professional discipline, code of ethics, or research foci are expected to demonstrate particular sensitivity to vulnerable populations, issues of social justice, conicts of interest, and respect for dignity and privacy.
5.2 Specific ethical issues to consider
Explain the ethical responsibilities of social workers conducting research. As should be clear by now, conducting research on humans presents a number of unique ethical considerations. Human research subjects must be given the opportunity to consent to their participation, after being fully informed of the study's risks, benefits, and purpose.
A Code of Ethics for Social Work and Social Care Research
A Code of Ethics for social work and social care research. 1. At all stages of the research process, from inception, resourcing, design, investi. gation and dissemination, social work and social care researchers have a duty to maintain an active, personal and disciplinary ethical awareness and to take prac.
3.2 Specific ethical issues to consider
As representative of the social work profession, it is your responsibility to conduct and use research in an ethical manner. A social worker should: Monitor and evaluate policies, programs, and practice interventions. Contribute to the development of knowledge through research.
The International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics
The Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics examines the ethical and values issues that impact and are interwoven with social work practice, research, and theory development.
Social workers' approaches to ethical dilemmas
Applications The pilot study is expected to serve as a catalyst for discussion of social workers' ethical conduct and professional practice, to promote professional ethics training and education and to support the development of professional guidelines.
Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for
Public engagement with research (PEwR) has become increasingly integral to research practices. This paper explores the process and outcomes of a collaborative effort to address the ethical implications of PEwR activities and develop tools to navigate them within the context of a University Medical School. The activities this paper reflects on aimed to establish boundaries between research data ...
Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to the Social Work Profession
(b) Social workers should uphold and advance the values, ethics, knowledge, and mission of the profession. Social workers should protect, enhance, and improve the integrity of the profession through appropriate study and research, active discussion, and responsible criticism of the profession.
PDF Pg. 1 SAMPLE MSW FOUNDATION LEARNING CONTRACT/EVALUATION
Competency #2: Apply social work ethical principles to guide professional practice. Social workers have an obligation to conduct themselves ethically and engage in ethical decision-making. They are knowledgeable about the value base of the profession, its ethical standards, and relevant law.
Social Sciences
In this paper, the effects of the rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) in higher education (HE) are discussed. A mixed exploratory research approach was employed to understand these impacts, combining analysis of current research trends and students' perceptions of the effects of Gen AI tools in academia. Through bibliometric analysis and systematic literature ...
How to cite ChatGPT
This post outlines how to create references for large language model AI tools like ChatGPT and how to present AI-generated text in a paper.
Read the Code of Ethics
Social workers should consider ethical theory and principles generally, social work theory and research, laws, regulations, agency policies, and other relevant codes of ethics, recognizing that among codes of ethics social workers should consider the NASW Code of Ethics as their primary source.

Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles

National Code of Ethics

You are here

The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

Select a Purchasing Option

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

The status of research ethics in social work

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Chapter Three: Ethics in social work research

Chapter Outline

Content Advisory

Share This Book

Module 1 Chapter 3: Ethical Conduct of Research

Share This Book

9 3.2 Specific ethical issues to consider

Informed consent

Protection of identities

social work ethics and research

internet researcH

Key Takeaways

Image attributions

Share This Book

Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement

Plain English summary

Introduction

About this paper

Developing specific tools for PEWR in ethics

Our process

Further considerations and early results

Final reflections

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Additional information

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Material 1

About this article

Share this article

Research Involvement and Engagement

Information

Initiatives

Article Menu

JSmol Viewer

1. Introduction

3.1. Impacts of Gen AI in HE: Research Trends

The Student’s Role in the Learning Experience

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

How to cite ChatGPT

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

Related and recent

APA Style Monthly

APA Style Guidelines

Read the Code of Ethics

Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics

Ethical Principles

Ethical Standards

1. Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to Clients >>

Revised Code of Ethics

About the Revisions

IMAGES

COMMENTS