A Practical Guide to Ethical Research Involving Humans

• ACM Executive Council. (1993). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. Communications of the ACM, 36(2), 99–105. http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html.

• American Anthropological Association. (2004). Statement on Ethnography and Institutional Review Boards.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, 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.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Australian Research Council (ARC). (2007). Research Ethics. www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/research_ethics.htm.

• Becker-Kornstaedt, U. (2001). Descriptive software process modeling–how to deal with sensitive process information. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 353–367.

  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Beecher, H. K. (1966a). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–1360.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Beecher, H. K. (1966b). Consent in clinical experimentation: myth and reality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 195(1), 124–125.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). (1997, October). CAUT responds to tri-council 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). 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 (1). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

  Google Scholar 

• 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 (2). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (1995). On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research (2nd edn). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

  Google Scholar 

• 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-Emam, K. (2001). Ethics and open source. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 291–292.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). (2007). Funding Guide. Swindon, UK: EPSRC.

  Google Scholar 

• Faden, R. R. & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Fleuhr-Lobban, C. (1994). Informed consent in anthropological research: we are not exempt. Human Organization, 53(1), 1–10.

  Google Scholar 

• Fowler, F. J. Jr. (1993). Survey Research Methods (1) (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Frankel, M. S. (1989). Professional codes: why, how, and with what impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(2), 109–115.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Freedman, B. (1987). Scientific value and validity as scientific requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 9(6), 7–10.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gotterbarn, D., Miller, K., & Rogerson, S. (1999). Software engineering code of ethics is approved. Communications of the ACM, 42(10), 102–108.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Harrison, W. (1998). An issue of ethics: responsibilities and obligations of empirical software engineering researchers. Empirical Software Engineering, 3, 7–9.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Heath, E. (1998). The noninstitutional review board: what distinguishes us from them? IRB, 20(5), 8–11.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jeffrey, D. R. & Votta, L. G. (1999). Guest editor’s special section introduction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4), 435–437.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• 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.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lane, B. (2006, August 16). Ethics draft provokes anger. The Australian.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/.

• 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.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• McNeill, P. (1993). The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• 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).

  Google Scholar 

• National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2007). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Australian Government.

  Google Scholar 

• Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD). (1980). OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. OECD.

  Google Scholar 

• Patrick, A. S. (2006). Privacy practices for HCI research. HOT Topics!, 5(2). http://www.carleton.ca/hotlab/hottopics/Articles/February2006-PrivacyPract.html.

• 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 (45CFR§46), (2005), http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm.

• Schrier, J. (1992). Reducing stress associated with participating in a usability study. In Proceedings of Human Factors’ Society 36th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.

  Google Scholar 

• Sieber, J. E. (1992). Planning Ethically Responsible Research: A Guide for Students and Internal Review Boards (31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Sieber, J. E. (2001a). Not your ordinary research. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 323–327.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sieber, J. E. (2001b). Protecting research subjects, employees and researchers: implications for software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 329–341.

  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

• 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.

  Google Scholar 

• Singer, J. & Vinson, N. G. (2002). Ethical issues in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(12), 1171–1180.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Singer, J. & Vinson, N. (2001). Why and how research ethics matters to you. Yes, you!. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 287–290.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• 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.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• 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.

• Vinson, N. & Singer, J. (2001). Getting to the source of ethical issues. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 293–297.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Vinson, N. G. & Singer, J. (2004). Consent issues raised by observational research in organisations. NCEHR Communiqué, 12(2), 35–36.

  Google Scholar 

• Worchel, S. & Cooper, J. (1979). Understanding Social Psychology, Revised Edition. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Wright, D. R. (2006). Research ethics and computer science: an unconsummated marriage. In Proceedings of SIGDOC ‘06, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA.

  Google Scholar 

Download references