A practical guide to ethical research involving humans

Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 229-256

  Vinson, Norman G ^a   Singer, Janice ^a  

^a NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959972754     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_9     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. ACM Executive Council. (1993). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. Communications of the ACM, 36(2), 99-105.
2. http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html American Anthropological Association. (2004). Statement on Ethnography and Institutional Review Boards
3. http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/index.htm American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html Anderson
4. R. E., Johnson, D. G., Gotterbarn, D., & Perrolle, J. (1993). Using the new ACM code of ethics in decision making. Communications of the ACM, 36(2), 98-107.
5. Australian Research Council (ARC). (2007). Research Ethics. www.arc.gov.au/about-arc/research-ethics.htm
6. Becker-Kornstaedt, U. (2001). Descriptive software process modeling -how to deal with sensitive process information. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 353-367.
7. Beecher, H. K. (1966a). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354-1360.
8. Beecher, H. K. (1966b). Consent in clinical experimentation: myth and reality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 195(1), 124-125.
9. Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). (1997, October). CAUT responds to tricouncil code. CAUT Bulletin. www.caut.ca/en/bulletin/issues/ 1997-oct/tricouncil.htm Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (2005)
10. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Public Works and Government Services Canada. www.pre.ethics.gc.ca Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (1992). Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process
11. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (1993). Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process
12. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (1995)
13. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research (2nd edn). Washington DC: National Academy Press. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). (undated). Research Ethics Framework. Swindon, UK: ESRC. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC- Re-Ethics-Frame-tcm6-11291.pdf El
14. Emam, K. (2001). Ethics and open source. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 291-292.
15. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). (2007). Funding Guide. Swindon, UK: EPSRC
16. Faden, R. R. & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press
17. Fleuhr-Lobban, C. (1994). Informed consent in anthropological research: we are not exempt. Human Organization, 53(1), 1-10.
18. Fowler, F. J. Jr. (1993). Survey Research Methods (1) (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
19. Frankel, M. S. (1989). Professional codes: why, how, and with what impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(2), 109-115.
20. Freedman, B. (1987). Scientific value and validity as scientific requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 9(6), 7-10.
21. Gotterbarn, D., Miller, K., & Rogerson, S. (1999). Software engineering code of ethics is approved. Communications of the ACM, 42(10), 102-108.
22. Harrison, W. (1998). An issue of ethics: responsibilities and obligations of empirical software engineering researchers. Empirical Software Engineering, 3, 7-9
23. Heath, E. (1998). The noninstitutional review board: what distinguishes us from them? IRB, 20(5), 8-11.
24. Jeffrey, D. R. & Votta, L. G. (1999). Guest editor's special section introduction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4), 435-437.
25. Kelman, H. C. (1972). The rights of the subjects in social research: an analysis in terms of relative power and legitimacy. American Psychologist, 27, 989-1016.
26. Lane, B. (2006, August 16). Ethics draft provokes anger. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian. news.com.au
27. Lethbridge, T. C. (2001). Mixing software engineering research and development -what needs ethical review and what does not? Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 319-321.
28. McNeill, P. (1993). The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation. New York: Cambridge University Press
29. Mirvis, P. H. & Seashore, S. E. (1982). Creating ethical relationships in organizational research. In J. Sieber (Ed.), The Ethics of Social Research, New York: Springer-Verlag, (pp. 79-104)
30. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. (2007)
31. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Australian Government. Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD). (1980). OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. OECD
32. Patrick, A. S. (2006). Privacy practices for HCI research. HOT Topics!, 5(2). http://www.carleton. ca/hotlab/hottopics/Articles/February2006- PrivacyPract.html
33. Penslar, R. L. (1993). Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook. Washington DC: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Government Printing Office. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb-guidebook.htm Public Welfare, Protection of Human Subjects, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Pt. 46 (45CFR46), (2005), http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/ 45cfr46.htm
34. Schrier, J. (1992). Reducing stress associated with participating in a usability study. In Proceedings of Human Factors' Society 36th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA
35. Sieber, J. E. (1992). Planning Ethically Responsible Research: A Guide for Students and Internal Review Boards (31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
36. Sieber, J. E. (2001a). Not your ordinary research. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 323-327.
37. Sieber, J. E. (2001b). Protecting research subjects, employees and researchers: implications for software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 329-341.
38. Singer, J., Sim, S. E., & Lethbridge, T. C. (2008). Software engineering data collection for field studies. In F. Shull et al. (Eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, Springer
39. Singer, J. & Vinson, N. G. (2002). Ethical issues in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(12), 1171-1180.
40. Singer, J. & Vinson, N. (2001). Why and how research ethics matters to you. Yes, you!. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 287-290.
41. Smith, S. & Richardson, D. (1983). Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological research: the important role of debriefing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 1075-1082.
42. University of Toronto Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Board (SSH REB). (2005). Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Participant Observation. http://www.research.utoronto.ca/ethics/eh-policy.html
43. Vinson, N. & Singer, J. (2001). Getting to the source of ethical issues. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 293-297.
44. Vinson, N. G. & Singer, J. (2004). Consent issues raised by observational research in organisations. NCEHR Communiqué, 12(2), 35-36.
45. Worchel, S. & Cooper, J. (1979). Understanding Social Psychology, Revised Edition. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press
46. Wright, D. R. (2006). Research ethics and computer science: an unconsummated marriage. In Proceedings of SIGDOC '06, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA