Real-World Research Ethics (Module 13)
Thursday, June 18
Eggers Hall, Room 032
Diana Kapiszewski (Georgetown University) and Amanda Weiss (Cornell University)
This module guides attendees through the fundamentals of real-world research ethics. We begin with the basics of legal doctrine and institutional expectations related to protecting human participants in our research—including the why and how of seeking participants’ informed consent in different settings, and what it means for research to be just—and how social science research can benefit participants. We discuss a range of implementation questions including handling traumatic disclosures, fairly but not coercively compensating participants for their time, and designing culturally sensitive research materials. We then consider how research ethics impact a broader range of research imperatives including data management and privacy, case selection and concept formation, and supporting the wellbeing of researchers and research teams. Attendees will gain an awareness of common ethical principles and concerns as well as a set of practical strategies for addressing ethical challenges in multiple types of research.
Real-World Research Ethics (M13, June 18)
8:45am - 10:15am – Planning Ethical Research: Norms and Rules
In this session we consider the basics of research ethics as a legal and normative topic. We begin with a discussion of what ethical principles should guide applied research. The session then covers the research ethics framework created by US federal legislation and discusses why and how ethics regulations and institutional standards came to be. We then cover more recent developments in the institutional research ethics landscape, including evolving expectations that researchers obtain approval from in-country ethics boards when conducting research abroad. The session concludes by discussing gaps in legal expectations.
Required readings:
Fujii, L. A. (2012). Research ethics 101: Dilemmas and responsibilities. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(4), 717–723.
Robey, D. J., Baron, H., Karcher, S., Kirilova, D., Baumann, J., Campbell, R., & Swartz, T. Cross-Disciplinary Lessons for Improving Informed Consent Procedures in Research. Working paper available at: osf.io/xu7rc
Suggested readings:
Kitchener, K. S., & Kitchener, R. F. (2009). Social Science Research Ethics: Historical and Philosophical Issues. In The Handbook of Social Research Ethics. New York: Sage Publications.
American Political Science Association. 2020. “Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research.” Available at: https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/diversity%20and%20inclusion%20prgms/Ethics/Final_Principles%20with%20Guidance%20with%20intro.pdf
Porisky, A., & MacLean, L. M. (2026). The Ethics of Compensation in Political Science Research. Comparative Political Studies, 59(5), 1043–1082.
Tapscott, R. (2025). “Beneficence” and Its Discontents: A Call to Revisit the Role of the IRB in Social and Political Science Research. Global Perspectives, 6(1), 133863.
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2016). Encountering your IRB 2.0: What political scientists need to know. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(2), 277–286.
1:30pm - 3:00pm – Ethics in Practice
This session considers ethics in practice, discussing challenges that arise in the course of research that cannot be predicted or planned for when designing research. We consider general frameworks that guide research in practice, including the idea of reflexivity and trauma-informed research practice. Attendees will be invited to reflect upon particular types of situations that raise difficult power dynamics and biases that shape interactions with research participants, especially though not exclusively in vulnerable contexts. Time allowing, we may consider whether ethical challenges vary depending on if researchers use quantitative vs. qualitative methods.
Required readings:
Kapiszewski, D., & Wood, E. J. (2022). Ethics, epistemology, and openness in research with human participants. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 948–964.
Weiss, A. (2025). Beyond retraumatization: Trauma-informed political science research. British Journal of Political Science, 55, e82.
Suggested readings:
Morris MacLean, Posner, Thomson, & Wood (2019). Research ethics and human subjects: A reflexive openness approach. American Political Science Association Organized Section for Qualitative and Multi-Method research, Qualitative Transparency Deliberations, Working Group Final Reports, Report i. 2. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3332887
Cronin-Furman, K., & Lake, M. (2018). Ethics abroad: Fieldwork in fragile and violent contexts. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 607–614.
Desposato, S. (2018). Subjects and scholars’ views on the ethics of political science field experiments. Perspectives on Politics, 16(3), 739–750.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.
Phillips, T. (2021). Ethics of field experiments. Annual Review of Political Science, 24(1), 277–300.
Naurin, E., & Öhberg, P. (2021). Ethics in elite experiments: a perspective of officials and voters. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 890–898.
Findley, M. G., Ghosn, F., & Lowe, S. J. (2024). Vulnerability in research ethics: A call for assessing vulnerability and implementing protections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(34), e2322821121.
3:30pm - 5:00pm – Ethical Engagement at All Stages of Research
The final session of the module covers topics in research ethics beyond direct participant interaction. Attendees will be encouraged to raise their own questions and thoughts. We will reflect especially on the ethical aspects of (1) posing research questions, forming concepts, and selecting cases, (2) managing and analyzing data, and (3) supporting researchers and research teams. We will also dedicate time to processing and reflecting upon the lessons of the module and what kinds of support we can offer each other and draw on moving forward.
Required readings:
Henry, C., Gohdes, A., & Dorff, C. (2022). Digital footprints and data-security risks for political scientists. PS: Political Science & Politics, 55(4), 804–808.
Davis, J. M., & Wilfahrt, M. (2024). Enumerator experiences in violent research environments. Comparative Political Studies, 57(4), 675–709.
Suggested readings:
Hoover Green, A., & Cohen, D. K. (2021). Centering human subjects: The ethics of “desk research” on political violence. Journal of Global Security Studies, 6(2), ogaa029.
Knott, E. (2019). Beyond the field: Ethics after fieldwork in politically dynamic contexts. Perspectives on Politics, 17(1), 140–153.
Kapiszewski, D., & Karcher, S. (2021). Transparency in practice in qualitative research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 285–291.
Parkinson, S. E. (2022). (Dis)courtesy bias: “Methodological cognates,” data validity, and ethics in violence-adjacent research. Comparative Political Studies, 55(3), 420–450.
Baron, H., & Young, L. E. (2022). From principles to practice: Methods to increase the transparency of research ethics in violent contexts. Political Science Research and Methods, 10(4), 840–847.