HCDE 210 Ethics Interlude 2: Respect
Part 1: Critical Understanding
Clarification
According to the Belmont Report, “Respect for Persons” can be briefly explained in two aspects. First, respect means “acknowledge autonomy”. Researchers are obligated to make sure that participants 1) have sufficient information about the content and effects the research might have on them, 2) receive the relevant information in the way and context that is easy to understand for them, and 3) their choice to participate or not is free and voluntary. Second, respect requires researchers to “protect those with diminished autonomy”. Researchers need to make sure that if the participants are not fully able of self-determination, protection should be made for them. However, the specific definition of diminished autonomy can be misleading for people not familiar with the Belmont Report. One might easily think that a participant is only with diminished autonomy when there is an actual mental malfunction or immaturity. But in certain situations, participants are not able to make fully voluntary decision and action even if they are mentally healthy adults. For instance, if a research is to be conducted among a company, employees might feel forced to participate because of the worry that the decision of not participating will compromise their career. In this case, they are considered with diminished autonomy and need protection. Therefore, respect means that researchers should acknowledge autonomy, protect those with diminished autonomy, and overall focus on the autonomy aspect of the research.
Difficulties
Even with a clear understanding of what “respect” means in the research process, the specific principles might be still hard to apply. For example, there is a concept “blind experiment” in which the prerequisite of the experiment is to hide certain information from the participants so that the experiment can gather useful data. For example, a psychology experiment is interested in finding out participant’s reaction of surprise. That would raise a dilemma: how exactly should we define if the information is sufficient? While the accuracy of the result would be compromised if too much information about the experiment content is leaked because participant would not be “surprised” by what happened in the experiment , simply mentioning the presence of a surprise element might be considered insufficient from an autonomy perspective. Therefore, how specific the information should be becomes a dilemma.
Part 2: Application
Research example
A week ago, I conducted a user research about the passengers’ practice on light rail of Seattle. They way I did my research is mainly through field note composed of writing and sketching of activities that interested me. Whenever I saw a potential practice, I just record it. For example, I wrote down on my note “passengers interact with mobile device” when I saw a passenger was typing on her phone. In retrospect, my research method is lack of the “respect” spirit mentioned in the Belmont report. If I have the chance to conduct a similar field jotting again, I will do it with more cautious in terms of respect. Particularly, I will apply the principles in these ways:
- I will make sure the passengers being recorded by me have sufficient information about the user research I’m doing. If I witnessed a couple talking with each other and want to record this action, I will first talk to them that I want to write down their behavior for my user research, the way I’ll record is to write and sketch, and that my note will be used for only academic purposes. By doing so, I will guarantee they have sufficient information about the user research.
- I will employ appropriate manner to inform the passengers I’m interested in so that they can easily understand my purpose. For the communicating couple I mentioned above, I will talk to them in a tone that is civilized and easy to understand like “Hi, sorry to bother you but I’m taking a class at UW which require me to take some notes about what people usually do on the link, the note is for class use only and you will be remain totally anonymous” I would not mention some terminology like “practice”, “autonomy”, or even “reflexivity”, which will make my information hard to understand for people not familiar with HCDE.
- I will ask for their consent before any further action. For the same example in 1 and 2, I will ask “do you guys mind if I take notes about your behaviors?” I will not make any actual action until I received a voluntary response from the passengers that clearly express their decision. An acceptable answer would be “Go ahead, we do not mind”.
- Particularly, if there are passengers with diminished autonomy, I will pay specific attention to the protection of them. For example, if I saw a child running inside the train and want to write that down, I will consider the fact that a child is not mature enough to be considered as “self-determination” and therefore I will ask for opinions from his parents or guardians about the research so that his autonomy is fully taken care of and protected.
Design example
The design example I will use is my mobile app design in sprint 2. “Poison Ivy Shield” is an app I designed for citizen scientists to collect data about poison for the purpose of public health research. To apply the principles of respect in the app, I will make several changes:
- To protect autonomy of the users, I first need to give them enough information about the app. I will include a section in the app that gives a introduction about the function, purpose, and operating details of the app. For example, I might include a text description like “ Poison Ivy Shield is an app that can gather data about poison ivy witnessed by citizen scientists. The data gathered will be used to set up warning signs to remind people with allergy. Your name and personal information will not appear in the report.”
- The way I present the information is also important for users’ autonomy. For this specific example, I believe the order to present is the most significant factor to consider. The text should be popped up in the first page when user opened the app for the first time so that a clear description of the app can be received by the user. And there should be a section in the app where users can access multiples times.
- Voluntary consent is of same significance for respect. I will include a term agreement for the app. The function of the app is activated only if the user read through the agreement and click on “I agree” button. By including such a section, I can receive user’s response that they do understand and they agree the terms in the agreement.
- Protection for those with diminished autonomy should not be neglected in any time. In the term agreement, I will clearly ask whether the user is mature and mentally capable enough to use the app. They might not be able to evaluate the risk of using the app, which includes potential close exposure to poison ivy. For those not, I will state that the app is under correct usage only if the guardians of those users decide this app is appropriate for the users or should be used with the companion of the guardians.
References
“The Belmont Report.” HHS.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
