Category: Research

In this three-part essay I examine some of the different ways editors collect data for and about editors, editing and the profession as whole, and the types of research they may be interested in. I explore some of the ethical issues associated in doing so and how we might go about ensuring best practice. I also offer pointers for consideration if you are approached to provide your data. Click here for Part 1. Click here for Part 2.

Parts 1 and 2 approached the question of data collection from the perspective of the editor as data collector and/or researcher. But most editors are not researchers – we are more likely to be approached for our input or our personal data, or we may encounter posts online that solicit our involvement.

This part of the essay starts with a case study and then explores some ethical issues that arose. It suggests questions to consider when you are approached to provide your personal data or to participate in research.

Case study

Recently, along with a small group of other women, I was invited to a friend’s house to view a demonstration of a brand of essential oils. We had fun testing the products and socialising over tea and nibbles. Then came the inevitable: presentation of the product lists, specials and prices. Needless to say, the products were not cheap – in fact, they were eye-wateringly expensive.
Although our hosts did not ask us directly to buy the products, I felt obligated. Having ooh-ed and ahh-ed over the tantalising fragrances and the possibilities of what I could do with the essential oils, it seemed churlish, then, to say thanks and leave without buying anything.
This kind of social pressure used to be known as ‘keeping up with the Joneses’.
Had this been a negative pressure (e.g. to consume alcohol when I didn’t feel like it, or to endorse a bigoted statement) I would have felt confident about saying no. But I figured I would use – and probably enjoy – the products, and at the same time I would be helping a friend to establish her business. All of the other women present bought something from the catalogue.
To purchase the products, we were required to fill out a printed form, including credit card details for payment. Which I did – except that I left off the security number and sent that separately by text message. I was concerned that the form could end up in someone’s rubbish bin over time, and then our household’s complete credit card details would be out there in world.
Before we left the host provided us each with a copy of the product brochure, including an agreement, which included an enormous amount of ‘fineprint’ that could only have been written by crack legal team in the United States (it was).
But it didn’t end there. After committing to our purchases we found out that the next step was for our host to create an online account for each of us. Later that day she texted me to ask for my birth date. This time I said no. It seemed absurd to have to give this level of personal detail just to purchase some essential oils. The host sent me a link so I could create the account myself, and it gave me a chance to have a look around the website.
Turns out, this brand/company uses multi-level marketing as its sales model. Individuals are recruited as ‘distributors’ to sell the product and earn money from those sales, then they in turn recruit other distributors to work under them (downline) and receive a percentage of their sales as passive income. I discovered later that each person who purchases the products has to sign up to a membership, effectively as a distributor, which includes the terms and conditions of a legally enforceable agreement.

What, if any, are the ethical issues in this case study?

1. Lack of transparency. When I accepted the invitation to attend I had an inkling that I would be invited to buy the products demonstrated. But I wasn’t told upfront that to buy anything I would need to sign up as a distributor.
2. Benefits and risks. Although the benefits of the products were emphasised, there was no mention of risks. I had no idea that just to buy a few essential oils I would need to provide so much personal information. In the wrong hands, that information puts me at risk of identity theft.
3. Informed consent. Our host did not ensure that we were provided with all the relevant information prior to purchasing/signing up.

Ethically, what should have been done?

Just to be clear, as far as I could tell, the host did not do anything illegal.

However, transparency and informed consent should be the cornerstones of ethical conduct when collecting data from anyone, for any purpose whatsoever.

First, when inviting people to the demonstration, the host could have been explicit by informing everyone that:

• The products would be available for sale.
• Purchasers would be required to create an account with the company.
• Signing up for an account required personal information to be provided, including full name, address, date of birth, telephone and email contact details.
• Signing up for an account required agreement with the company’s terms and conditions, including their detailed legal agreement, which was exclusively subject to a foreign jurisdiction.
• Purchasers would, in effect, also become ‘distributors’, regardless of whether they actually sold the product/membership to anyone else.

This information could have been provided with a quick email prior to the event.

Second, during the presentation the host could have explained the company’s sales model and answered any questions that arose. Third, she could have been transparent about how she would benefit from the transactions that might take place, and fourth, she could have described the risks of signing up. Fifth, and finally, she could have put people like me at ease by stating that there was no obligation to purchase – and ensuring that this was in fact the case. I suspect I wasn’t the only one who felt obligated to purchase.

To be sure, as an adult with all of her faculties intact, I could have pulled out of this transaction at several time-points. However, upon reflection, the social pressure I felt to contribute held me back from asking about all the details, including risks, of the purchase. It would’ve seemed too confronting in what was set up as a social event between friends.

Provision of personal data

In this section we look at what questions to ask if you are approached to provide your data, opinion or other input. You may be approached informally by someone wanting to write a blog post, or for formal purposes, such as market research by a company or a colleague; industry research by IPEd or another organisation; social research by an individual or research team; or journalism or some other purpose.

Following are important questions to consider – you don’t have to ask all of them, but ask enough to provide you with the reassurance you need.

• Who is collecting the information and for what purpose?
  Are those purposes aligned with your personal/professional values and principles?

• How is the information being collected?
  For example, online, email, post, survey or interview in person or by phone, video or other method.

• What information is being requested, and from whom?
  Who else is being asked? Is the person collecting the data an officer, employee or volunteer in the organisation? What codes of conduct govern their activity in collecting this data?

• Why have you been approached to provide this information?
  Are you the appropriate target audience?

• What will happen to your personal information?
  How and where is it being stored? Who will have access to it? What processes and security are in place? When and how will the information be destroyed?

• Will any of your personal information be provided to a third party?
  Who, when and under what circumstances? Could you have a copy of any information that is provided about you?

• Will you be able to withdraw your personal information?
  Whom should you contact, when and how?

• Will any of your personal information be published?
  What, where and under what circumstances?
  Will you be able to request correction or amendment of your personal information? How soon will the information be updated?

• Will there be any follow-up?
  Will you receive further correspondence about the activity/ project?

• What, if any, are the benefits of providing this information?
  There may be none to you, and you may be fine with that.

• What are the risks of providing this information?
  Don’t accept ‘none’ – there are ALWAYS risks. Even ‘low’ or ‘negligible’ risk is relevant and you should be the one to decide on the relevance or potency of that risk.
  How will these risks be mitigated?

• What will happen if there is a breach, or if something goes wrong?
  How will you find out? Are there avenues for redress?

• Whom should you contact in the event of a breach or other concern?
  What, if any, industry or professional laws and/or codes of conduct govern this activity?

Participation in research

In many ways, research is the lifeblood of contemporary society. We value highly and seek fidelity in evidence, particularly evidence arising from research. Although most research with humans is conducted safely and responsibly, it can involve risks. Whether those risks are high, low or negligible, there is always a possibility that things can go wrong.

Ethical review

That’s why any research involving human participants should be reviewed by a body such as a research review committee or a human research ethics committee (HREC).

HRECs and other review bodies assess the research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence, respect, risks and benefits outlined in research proposals before the research takes place. There may be risks and benefits of the research itself, as well as to the researchers and research participants, so ethical review takes in both the broader perspective and the individual circumstances of each research proposal.

HRECs typically include eight or more members, of which there should be equal numbers of men and women and about a third from outside the institution.

I have been a researcher member on the HREC of a major regional hospital since 2013 (and deputy chair since 2017), and also on the joint HREC for two federal government departments since 2017. I’ve learned so much from this involvement. Both positions have provided me with a depth of knowledge and an appreciation for critical review.

Which is why the first piece of advice I offer to any researcher is to seek independent review of their proposal before they seek ethical approval. Peer review is an invaluable contribution to the quality of any research proposal.

Questions to ask

If you are asked to participate in research, consider the following.

• Has the study been reviewed?
  Has the research proposed been independently reviewed for its merit and integrity?
  Has the research proposed been reviewed by an HREC or other ethical review body?

• What is the purpose of the research?

• What are the benefits of the research?
  For you, for the researchers, their institutions, your profession/industry/interest group and the community at large.

• What are the risks?
  Ask the researchers to spell this out in detail, including how these risks might be mitigated and what, if any, redress or support you might be entitled to in the event that something goes wrong.

• Who is involved?
  Who is conducting the research? Which organisation/s are sponsoring the study? Who has provided funding (if any) for the study? Who has approached you to participate and what is their role in the study? How will they benefit from the research? Is there a potential or actual conflict of interest?

• What’s your involvement?
  Why have you been approached to participate in this research? What is involved and what will you have to do – when and how? Will you be out of pocket if you agree to be involved? Will you be reimbursed? When and how?

• Plain language statement
  Ask the researchers to provide you with a copy of the Plain Language Statement (or Participant Information and Consent Form, PICF) approved by the ethical review body. This document should outline all the information you need to enable your informed consent to participate. It should also include details of how and when to withdraw if you ever wish to do so, and contact details for both the study coordinators and the person/s to whom complaints should be addressed.

• Personal information
  See above for questions to ask about the collection of personal data.

Research has contributed enormously to the good of society, and perhaps none more so than human research. As I stated earlier in this essay (Part 2), there is a dearth of research on editing, editors and the profession. To help us progress we need more research, particularly robust academic and industry research, to guide our efforts individually and as a profession. You can support quality research by getting involved and making sure you ask the right questions to ensure you are well informed.

Conclusion

Editors are increasingly collecting – and approaching others to collect – personal and other data. These may serve a range of good purposes, but there are always risks.

If you’d like to comment on this essay, if you’d like some advice or coaching to guide your own work, or even if you spot an errant typo, please do get in touch.

Suggested citation:
Otmar, R. (2019). Researching and collecting data for and about editors. Part 3: Considerations in providing your personal data, online essay. Viewed at https://reneeotmar.com.au/index.php/blog/.

In this three-part essay I examine some of the different ways editors collect data for and about editors, editing and the profession as whole, and the types of research they may be interested in. I explore some of the ethical issues associated in doing so and how we might go about ensuring best practice, and offer pointers for consideration if you are approached to provide your data. Click here for Part 1.

Research about editors and editing

Despite our enthusiastic interest, to date there has been very little robust academic or industry research about editing and editors.

In 2001, at a joint conference of editors and indexers held in Canberra, my friend Pamela Hewitt started the first national survey of editors. This subsequently became the IPEd National Survey of Editors, conducted more or less every couple of years.

As surveys go, this is a fairly blunt instrument, in that the questionnaire hasn’t been formally or scientifically validated and it relies on volunteers to crank out a rudimentary analysis. But the survey is useful in that it has a respectable response rate (35% in 2016) compared to many workforce surveys, and it gives us information about editors that would be otherwise very difficult to find. For example, the report of the 2016 survey tells us that the cohort of editors who responded is highly qualified and experienced, with 64 per cent having postgraduate qualifications and 75 per cent having more than 4 years’ editing experience.

What we don’t know about editors and editing

What surveys like these don’t tell us is how editors go about choosing editing as a career or about their experiences in finding employment/clients. Famous editors’ biographies, personal stories and anecdotes aside, we also know little, if anything, about other aspects of the profession – for example:

• how editors organise their daily/weekly/monthly/annual workflows
• how they make day-to-day decisions about technical matters
• how they develop and manage relationships with authors, clients and colleagues
• how (and why) they make career or business decisions
• whether (and how) organisational directives, professional networking, personal philosophies or ontological and/or epistemological stances influence their approaches to editing
• and so on.

What editors want to know

If you’re an editor you’ll be familiar with the adage that we all love to read about ourselves. Indeed, the story about the development of the publishing industry in Australia is a case study in our collective desire to see ourselves reflected in books and literature.

It’s widely held that seeing ourselves reflected in the arts helps to build a sense of community by validating and normalising our experiences and perspectives. Research has an important role to play in helping us to understand ourselves better as a profession.

Over the past couple of decades, in my roles as trainer, mentor, coach and champion for editors, I’ve found that novice and early career editors’ burning questions about the profession usually fall into three broad categories, in order of importance:

1. Employment-related information – how and where to obtain employment/clients, how much to charge/salary information, professional development opportunities and changes/trends in the market
2. Technical information – how to learn about or resolve problems related to the mechanics of writing and editing, editing relationships and various tools of the trade
3. Curiosity – about how editors, authors and others do things, what projects they work on, what they earn and personal information of a general nature.

Over time, this order is inverted as editors gain experience and become more established in their careers.

While many editors do share their experiences in online forums, many do not. And the shared stories tend toward extremes: announcements of happy, celebratory events, or recounts of disasters that serve as cautionary tales. Even if these extremes are widespread – and right now there’s no reliable way of being certain – we don’t know how typical or representative they are of the profession, as whole or of specific sectors or niches. We also have little evidence of editors’ attitudes, beliefs and perceptions about these and other professional matters.

What we need is committed, robust research to provide this kind of knowledge.

What is research?

Research is a clearly defined method by which investigators test hypotheses or explore a research question. Investigators conducting research with humans are expected to seek approval from an ethical review body (see below).

The three main categories of research – empirical science, applied research and experimental development (e.g. industry research and development) ­– investigate phenomena through a range of methods. The following relate to research undertaken with or about humans.

Scientific research

In the natural sciences, this kind of research is also known as ‘basic research’, ‘pure research’ or ‘fundamental research’. The empirical scientific method is used to verify phenomena through observation or experiment. Scientific researchers must adhere to strict rules about their approach and the conduct of the research, both of which are subjected to scrutiny by the scientific community in a predefined manner . This is known as ‘peer review’, and its extension involves research findings being able to be repeated independently.

Scientific research also includes applied research in medicine, such as laboratory studies and clinical trials, in which clinical and other interventions (including pharmaceuticals) are tested by comparing patients and healthy participants.

Academic research

Academic research may be empirical or applied research. Scientific research is often, but not always, conducted by academics. What we usually refer to as ‘academic research’ may be conducted in non-scientific disciplines, such as anthropology, history, philosophy, law and the social sciences, within the contexts of academic institutions like universities and research centres.

Market research

As the name suggests, this kind of applied research is done by or on behalf of businesses, corporations and governments, to collect and analyse information about their customers or constituents, such as their demographic profiles, needs, behaviours and opinions. Market research is used to make policy decisions, and decisions about product development, political campaigning, sales and communication with customers or constituents. Market research is also used to keep an eye on market trends and what the competition is doing.

Social research

Often closely related to market research, social research seeks to explore, describe, explain and predict human behaviour, particularly in group (social) settings. Social scientists use qualitative and quantitative methods to create or validate theory through collection and analysis of data.

Market and social research, including research commissioned by governments, is big business in Australia – in 2008 the sector was worth nearly $800 million, with a workforce of more than 10,000.

What is ethical conduct in research?

Best practice in market research

Market researchers typically use surveys, observation, field trials and online monitoring tools to gather quantitative data for statistical analysis. Simply put, the purpose is to test a given hypothesis on a predefined sample so that the results of the research can be applied to the entire population being studied. For example, you may need to recruit 200 editors to determine whether your survey’s results can be generalised to the entire population of Australian editors. Statistical calculations are used to work out the appropriate sample size to test an effect in a given population.

Market researchers also use qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups and observation, to explore participants’ perceptions, attitudes and opinions. For example, market researchers might use qualitative research to test editors’ responses to a draft revision of a given style manual.

Market researchers usually do not need to apply for ethics approval in the way that academic researchers or social scientists do, but they do follow industry codes of conduct and government regulations. For example, participation in market surveys must be voluntary and the companies who conduct these are prohibited by the Trade Practices Act from trying to sell you anything in the course of administering those surveys.

Ethical frameworks – starting with medical research

The following applies to scientific, academic and social research with humans.

Discussion and debate about ethics in medical research goes back to the ancient Greeks. In the wake of the Second World War and the Nuremberg Trials (1945–49), the World Medical Assembly adopted the Helsinki Declaration in 1964, which sets out guidelines for doctors conducting clinical research. Since then, many international human rights instruments have emerged to protect humans, and guidelines to articulate professional responsibility for research with and about humans.

In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 (Cwth) requires that guidelines be issued and applied to the conduct of research involving humans. This document is the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007, updated 2018), published jointly by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. The purpose of the National Statement is ‘to promote ethically good human research’ (p. 6).

Principles of ethical research

Regardless of the type of research, the methods, purposes or setting, the following principles should underpin ethical conduct in human research:

1. Research merit and integrity
2. Justice
3. Beneficence
4. Respect

For explanation and discussion of these principles, refer to the National Statement. There are many other guidelines and codes of practice that apply to specific areas of research.

 Responsibility for the ethical design, review and conduct of human research is in fact exercised at many levels, by: researchers (and where relevant their supervisors); HRECs and others conducting ethical review of research; institutions that set up the processes of ethical review, and whose employees, resources and facilities are involved in research; funding organisations; agencies that set standards; and governments. While the processes of ethical review are important in this field, individual researchers and the institutions within which they work hold primary responsibility for seeing that their research is ethically acceptable. (p. 4)

What is unethical conduct in research?

An action may be perfectly legal but considered unethical – and therefore discrediting of a research study. An investigator’s conduct may be deemed unethical if they cajole, pressure or otherwise directly or indirectly coerce people to participate; if they withhold from participants important information about the research, such as risks of participating (including privacy risks); or if they do not act to secure personal information. Unfortunately there are a great many examples of unethical conduct in research, especially in the collection of data. Most of the time the researchers have good intentions but poor understanding of the principles of ethical research, or they decide to take shortcuts because they wish to avoid ‘bureaucracy’.

In publishing the findings of research, unethical behaviours may include falsification of research data or findings, duplicate submission, plagiarism, authorship conflict and conflicts of interest.

Ethics in research by and about editors

It’s easy to argue why medical research should be conducted ethically, but what about other research involving humans – for example, research on editors? Is it any different if that research is conducted by editors who know each other?

In my view, and considering the range, diversity, potential benefits and risks of research that might be conducted on and about editors, there is no reason that the same high levels of ethical conduct expected of academic, scientific and marketing researchers should not also be expected of research by and about editors.

Indeed, all participants in human research, including editors and those conducting the research, should be accorded the respect and protection that is due to them. A simple statement that carries considerable weight and complexity.

Are you conducting research? Is it ethical?

As discussed in Part 1 of this essay, you should consider the types of information you are collecting, from whom and for what purpose. If you are employed by or conducting research under the aegis of an institution such as a university or research centre, you should consult the relevant policies and guidelines, including the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

If you are collecting data to provide the foundation for a conference presentation, a journal article or a book, you should ensure a careful, rigorous approach that takes account of the principles of ethical and responsible conduct of research.

Suppose you’re not conducting formal research – let’s say you’re just collecting anecdotes and information to give a bit of flavour to a blog or informal piece. Consider the nature of that information and the potential risks (however remote) for people who respond. Using social media to ask people for information about sensitive topics carries high risk, even if you’re inviting them to communicate via private message or email. This includes soliciting people’s experiences or perceptions of having edited works that report on violence, abuse, trauma and serious mental health issues.

Expectations of ethical conduct

Conference organisers, journal editors and publishers expect that you will present evidence for the facts, theories or statistics you present. For example, if you plan to present facts or theories about how Australian editors manage their health and wellbeing, you will be expected to present evidence that those facts/theories are representative of all Australian editors, or reasonably justify why not. You will also be expected to have conducted your research in a manner that is methodologically sound, has integrity, is just and justifies the risks of any harm or discomfort to participants.

Remember that perceptions of risk and harm can vary greatly between individuals. For example, in linking an editorial error with an individual, the risk of professional embarrassment can have harmful psychological, material and financial consequences for one editor yet mild (or no) discomfort for another.

Informed consent

If you are collecting data directly from individuals, you will need to retain evidence of informed consent, which is the bedrock of ethical conduct in human research. We are a relatively small profession, and our presence on social media makes the degree of separation between editors almost non-existent. Take all necessary steps to ensure that there is no possibility of a perception of coercion to participate, remembering that ‘begging’ and friendly cajoling fall into this category.

Intellectual property

If your research intends to collect data or recruit research participants through social media, be aware of the intellectual property (IP) claims of the platform. Most high-quality research tends to be collaborative these days, and intellectual property is an important aspect of agreement between individual researchers (and their employers).

Data security and privacy

Understand the security limitations of your software and other tools and instruments. Ethics review bodies in Australia generally do not accept claims of security when researchers use tools such as SurveyMonkey, for example (because of its claim to a limited licence to use your content, among other things). Offshore data storage is also of concern, since those services are subject to laws in other jurisdictions; check the location of cloud-based services.

If you plan to store your research data on your personal computer, consider security arrangements such as password protection and limiting the use of your computer to the research team. People sometimes forget this when they allow family members, including young children, to use their laptops or smartphones. The problem is not so much a lack of trust – recognising that our spouses and families usually don’t have nefarious intentions – but the potential for something to go wrong.

It’s not enough to say that participation in a survey is anonymous. Take the steps to ensure this is the case. (It’s actually quite difficult and expensive to ensure complete anonymity.)

If you tell potential participants that you won’t use their personal information, including their email address, for other purposes, then do not under any circumstances send them emails for reasons other than the research they have consented to participate in. Take steps to ensure this can’t occur accidentally.

Approval from an HREC

If you need to apply for approval from an ethics review body, such as a human research ethics committee (HREC), you will be expected to prepare (among other documents) a research protocol or proposal that outlines: a review of the literature, background and rationale for the research, funding and/or other support for the study, research design and methods, research process and conduct, benefits and risks of the study, expected outcomes, dissemination and communication of results and a data management plan, as well as a plain language statement to accompany the consent form to be signed by participants (or a reasonable alternative for online data collection).

Consult the National Statement and any guidelines and codes relevant to your research methods, industry, discipline and topic. Read the published literature on the topic and related topics, especially in academic journals and databases that publish current evidence. If you don’t have access to an academic library, as a starting point try searching Google Scholar.

Ask for help and advice

Due to space and time limitations, I haven’t covered everything there is to know about ethical conduct in collecting data for research or other purposes. Seek independent advice and review of your research proposal before you apply for ethical review, and certainly before you commence the research. Consider inviting collaboration or co-authorship from a colleague who has experience in the research methods you propose to use.

Best practice means being transparent and open to scrutiny. Some people avoid asking for help or collaboration because they fear that they may appear stupid or incompetent, or that they may be overshadowed by a more experienced professional. Asking for help or advice is a sign of strength, not weakness. And inviting collaboration is the ultimate compliment.

Conclusion

Like many professional editors, I’m keen to see more research about and for us. Above all, I want to see high-quality research being conducted and reported, regardless of its purpose or focus, and I am committed to contributing to the development of a body of literature we can be proud of.

Over the past few years I have observed editors collecting data online from their colleagues, including for market research and on highly sensitive topics, and this has caused me a great deal of concern. This essay is my personal and professional contribution to promoting transparency and ethical conduct. In Part 3: Considerations in providing your personal data (posted 4 October 2019) I offer tips and questions to consider if you are asked to provide your information.

If you’d like to comment on this essay, if you’d like some advice or coaching to guide your own work, or even if you spot an errant typo, please do get in touch.

Suggested citation:
Otmar, R. (2019). Researching and collecting data for and about editors. Part 2: Research by, for and about editors, online essay. Viewed at https://reneeotmar.com.au/index.php/blog/.