To prompt discussion:To prompt discussion:To prompt discussion:Chapter 12 – Private People, Secret Places: Ethical Research in PracticeIain Hay and Mark IsraelActivitiesACTIVITY 12.1: RESEARCH ETHICS—THE REGULATORY CONTEXTGoal: To explore, understand, and interrogate the institutional and organizational contexts within which research is considered to be ethical. Overview: Novice researchers need to be aware of the research ethics expectations and requirements of institutions and organizations. This exercise encourages participants to work independently and collectively to uncover the ethical codes, guidelines, and regulations that may bear on their work. It also challenges researchers to give preliminary consideration to the power relations behind those regulations and to the fraught relationship between ethical regulation and ethical conduct. Activity Type: Following a short introduction, this activity is best used as a take-home assignment followed by a group discussion in which participants report back onand discuss their findings. Time: About 10 minutes for introduction in Session 1 and 1 hour for group discussionin Session 2 following participant opportunity (perhaps over 7–10 days between meetings) for individual research.Readings:1. Research Ethics chapter from this book, Aspiring Academics.2. Optional reading: Israel, M., & I. Hay. 2006. Research Ethics for Social Scientists: Between Ethical Conduct and Regulatory Compliance. London: Sage (especially Chapter 4).Procedure:Session 11. Lead brief preliminary discussion on Aspiring Academics research ethics chapter focusing on the need to be aware of and understand the broad institutional and organizational contexts within which research ethics are considered.2. Ask participants to complete the following tasks before the next group meeting:a) Read Israel and Hay (2006, especially 41–45).b) Collate information about the proposal submission requirements of the appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) or in Canada, the Research Ethics Board (REB) that will deal with any specific research application they might submit. Lists of registered boards can be found for the United States at the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protection(OHRP) IRB Guidebook web site and, for Canada, at the Canadian Association of Research Ethics Boards. c) Search for those professional ethical codes or guidelines that are most relevant to their specific research and disciplinary interests (e.g., AAG, URISA). Manyethical codes can be found through the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Codes of Ethics online archive.d) Prepare answers to the following questions: i) Do the submission requirements, codes and guidelines help you understand what constitutes ethical conduct in research? If so, how? If not, why not? ii) On which guidelines are you expected to place greatest weight? Why? Does this reflect the moral authority of the guidance or is the mandate drawn fromother sources (e.g., economic power, legislative authority, biomedical expertise)? iii) Does compliance with institutional and organizational guidelines and requirements lead to more ethical research? How? Does it cause any problems?Session 21. Ask participants to identify the full range of codes and guidelines they uncovered and their source (e.g., URL). Record these on a whiteboard, overhead transparency, or computer as a shared record. 2. Have participants form into groups of three, and spend 15–20 minutes explaining to one another their answers to Question d (i, ii, and iii). 3. Reconvene and invite comments about the answers from the entire class, taking account of the full list of codes and guidelines. This might take 20–25 minutes. If required, some useful prompts for additional discussion and closing might include:a) Why is there an abundance of ethical guidelines? b) How, as geographers, sometimes working in cross-disciplinary and cross-national areas, can we best negotiate this terrain? ExtensionThis Activity can be extended by asking participants to apply the institutional and organizational codes to one or more Case Studies set out in the next Activity, “A Case for Ethics.” This may reveal both the value and limitation of basing our ethical decision making on formal codes. 2ACTIVITY 12.2: A CASE FOR ETHICS Goal: This exercise is intended to help encourage ethically critical practice among researchers. It uses a case-based learning approach to stimulate participants’ moral imaginations, help early and experienced researchers recognize ethical issues, developanalytical skills, foster a sense of personal responsibility for decision making, and offer an opportunity to engage with the values of pluralism while promoting respect for the points of view of other people (Hay and Foley 1998; Hay and Israel 2005). Overview: To support its goals, the core of this practical activity is an extensive set ofreal practical dilemmas intended to form the basis of individual and collective consideration about ethical decision making. The cases are preceded by instructions for teachers/facilitators planning to use these resources. The approach adopted here follows advice set out elsewhere in Hay and Foley (1996) and Hay and Israel (2005). Many of these materials have been brought together from our publications elsewhere (Hay 1998a, 1998b, 2003; Hay and Foley 1996; Hay and Israel 2006) and, where appropriate, modified to create a coherent set of resources for an American audience of graduate students and early career faculty in geography and related disciplines. Thefinal section challenges readers to identify new cases and develop their own responses.Activity Type: Ideally this activity should be completed as a discussion with small groups enrolled in a seminar or workshop, or even with an informal gathering of peersor colleagues. A longer, more thorough implementation is suited to a graduate seminar where the activity can be divided between different meeting times, with opportunity in between for participants to prepare thoughtful reflections on selected cases. Time: A minimum of 1 hour. The exercise is better allocated 2–3 hours in two sessions separated by 7–10 days so participants can develop detailed responses to selected cases.Readings:1. Research Ethics chapter from this book, Aspiring Academics.2. Local, relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Research Ethics Board (REB) regulations.3.