Human research ethics: Is construction management research concerned?

Stewart, I; Fenn, P and Aminian, E (2017) Human research ethics: Is construction management research concerned? Construction Management and Economics, 35(11-12), pp. 665-675. ISSN 0144-6193

Abstract

Construction Management Research (CMR) depends upon human beings participating in research, the quality of treatment of participants having direct effect on the quality of their participation, in turn that of the research itself, making treatment of humans and the ethical dilemmas that can ensue an important area of competence for CM (Construction Management) researchers. Does the growing field of CMR demonstrate appropriate concern for human research ethics? Evidence of typical CMR research is taken from the online Cooperative Network for Building Researchers (CNBR), particularly a search for "informed consent" collateral. It was found that there was little concern with human research ethics, which we argue is also evident in the lack of research on this matter in CMR-related literature, or any reference to these matters in the relevant professional and institutional bodies. Reasons as to why this might be are proposed. The consequences of the apparent level of concern are that participants can be exposed to "wrongs", despite pressures for compliance from institutional ethics boards. However, the discipline of critically evaluating human research approach through a framework of ethical considerations is not only morally correct, at least according to the morality that is concerned for consequences to participants, but is also objectively useful to researchers, improving the reliability and validity of their research and lowering barriers to participation.;Construction Management Research (CMR) depends upon human beings participating in research, the quality of treatment of participants having direct effect on the quality of their participation, in turn that of the research itself, making treatment of humans and the ethical dilemmas that can ensue an important area of competence for CM (Construction Management) researchers. Does the growing field of CMR demonstrate appropriate concern for human research ethics? Evidence of typical CMR research is taken from the online Cooperative Network for Building Researchers (CNBR), particularly a search for "informed consent" collateral. It was found that there was little concern with human research ethics, which we argue is also evident in the lack of research on this matter in CMR-related literature, or any reference to these matters in the relevant professional and institutional bodies. Reasons as to why this might be are proposed. The consequences of the apparent level of concern are that participants can be exposed to "wrongs", despite pressures for compliance from institutional ethics boards. However, the discipline of critically evaluating human research approach through a framework of ethical considerations is not only morally correct, at least according to the morality that is concerned for consequences to participants, but is also objectively useful to researchers, improving the reliability and validity of their research and lowering barriers to participation.;

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: ethics; ethics approval; informed consent; construction management research; morality; researchers; informed consent; research; construction management; building components
Index terms: informed consent, direct effect, approval, morality, building component, management research, evidence, ethics, compliance, validity, competence
Subjects: personnel development, evaluation and assessment methods, health safety and environment, research design and methodology, architectural elements, professional ethics, factor and component analysis, contractual role, ethical practice
Topics: Health and Safety, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Contract Administration, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here