empirical research unethical

• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2015

The normative background of empirical-ethical research: first steps towards a transparent and reasoned approach in the selection of an ethical theory

• Sabine Salloch 1 ,
• Sebastian Wäscher 1 ,
• Jochen Vollmann 1 &
• Jan Schildmann 1  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  16 , Article number:  20 ( 2015 ) Cite this article

10k Accesses

19 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Empirical-ethical research constitutes a relatively new field which integrates socio-empirical research and normative analysis. As direct inferences from descriptive data to normative conclusions are problematic, an ethical framework is needed to determine the relevance of the empirical data for normative argument. While issues of normative-empirical collaboration and questions of empirical methodology have been widely discussed in the literature, the normative methodology of empirical-ethical research has seldom been addressed. Based on our own research experience, we discuss one aspect of this normative methodology, namely the selection of an ethical theory serving as a background for empirical-ethical research.

Whereas criteria for a good ethical theory in philosophical ethics are usually related to inherent aspects, such as the theory’s clarity or coherence, additional points have to be considered in the field of empirical-ethical research. Three of these additional criteria will be discussed in the article: (a) the adequacy of the ethical theory for the issue at stake, (b) the theory’s suitability for the purposes and design of the empirical-ethical research project, and (c) the interrelation between the ethical theory selected and the theoretical backgrounds of the socio-empirical research. Using the example of our own study on the development of interventions which support clinical decision-making in oncology, we will show how the selection of an ethical theory as a normative background for empirical-ethical research can proceed. We will also discuss the limitations of the procedures chosen in our project.

The article stresses that a systematic and reasoned approach towards theory selection in empirical-ethical research should be given priority rather than an accidental or implicit way of choosing the normative framework for one’s own research. It furthermore shows that the overall design of an empirical-ethical study is a multi-faceted endeavor which has to balance between theoretical and pragmatic considerations.

Peer Review reports

Empirical-ethical research constitutes a relatively new field of enquiry which is characterized by the fact that socio-empirical research and ethical analysis are integrated for the treatment of concrete moral questions in modern medicine [ 1 ]. A broad variety of methodologies for empirical-ethical research has been suggested in recent years [ 2 - 4 ] and has been applied to concrete studies [ 5 - 7 ]. In this article, the argumentative structure upon which empirical-ethical research is based will be understood as “mixed judgments”, which contain both normative and descriptive or prognostic propositions ([ 8 , p. 9]). Regarding the methodology of empirical-ethical research, all the different aspects of this argumentative structure should be considered: the justification and origin of the normative premises, the development of the empirical premises and the integration of both into an ethical judgment. However, not all of these parts are currently addressed in the literature on empirical-ethical research to the same extent.

The question of normative-empirical interaction , i.e. the interplay between empirical data and normative elements, has been extensively investigated in recent years [ 9 - 11 ]. Methodological questions related to the empirical research which forms part of empirical-ethical studies have also been debated to a considerable extent [ 12 , 13 ]. By contrast, the normative methodology of empirical-ethical research remains rather underexposed so far. Therefore, this article focuses on the normative side of empirical-ethical research methodology and aims to shed light on one particular aspect: based on our experience, we will make a suggestion of how to proceed in the selection of a normative background for a concrete empirical-ethical study. Our own ETHICO project (“Empirical-Ethical Interventions in Oncology”), which forms a multistep empirical-ethical study for the development of interventions supporting clinical decision-making, made us aware of key aspects which are relevant for the selection of a normative background.

In the first section of this article, we discuss several meta-theoretical preconditions which underlie the idea of theory selection in ethics. We then address the consequences which emanate from the pluralism of ethical theories for philosophical ethics and for the applied ethics domain. Subsequently, we will present three criteria which we encountered as relevant in our own empirical-ethical study: the adequacy of the ethical theory for the issue at stake, the suitability of the theory for the purposes and design of the empirical-ethical research project and the interrelation between the ethical theory selected, and the theoretical backgrounds of the socio-empirical research. These criteria will be illustrated by reference to the ETHICO project and the limitations of our theory selection will be discussed. The article closes with a short summary of the main points developed.

Our main aim in this article is to provide, based on our own experience, a first suggestion of how to develop a strategy for utilizing normative-ethical theories in empirical-ethical research. However, the topic of theory selection in empirical-ethical research touches on a number of fundamental problems in ethical theory and the philosophy of science, such as whether the plurality of normative-ethical theories can be reduced to one overarching approach [ 14 ] or whether a rational selection between scientific theories is possible at all [ 15 , 16 ]. These and other challenges can only be dealt with superficially in this article. We do not aim to provide answers to these highly controversial issues, but to stimulate and enhance the current research practice of empirical-ethical studies.

Meta-theoretical considerations

The question of how to determine, justify and make the normative framework explicit for empirical-ethical research is a crucial one because direct inferences from descriptive data to normative conclusions are problematic for theoretical, methodological and pragmatic reasons [ 17 ]. Furthermore, depending on the normative background chosen, the impact of the empirical data for ethical judgment differs with regard to which type of data is needed and how it is processed within normative deliberation. There are different types of normative background which could be principally considered when conducting empirical-ethical research. Researchers can, for example, refer to a common morality or they can build on their private moral opinion. The potential of philosophical-ethical theory for concrete questions in medical ethics has been doubted for various reasons, such as a perceived lack of practical usefulness or problems arising from morally pluralistic societies [ 18 , 19 ]. However, the authors of this article appreciate the potential of philosophical-ethical theories to be utilized for empirical-ethical research. One reason for this position lies in the idea that philosophical-ethical theories (in contrast to theories which have a descriptive or explanatory character) do not primarily aim to fit the world as it is, but to guide human agency [ 20 ]. Due to this reverse “direction of fit” of philosophical-ethical theories compared to other types of theory, the question of the justification or well-foundedness of the theory is of particular importance in ethics. Ethical theories are usually based on elaborated accounts of normative justification. Building on such theories permits an external critical evaluation of the moral issues at stake. By contrast, only referring to the “lived morality” of stakeholders’ moral experiences and beliefs is fraught with the danger of perpetuating wrongful practices. In this respect, we see the benefit of utilizing philosophical-ethical theories for empirical-ethical research.

This article should generally be understood as a plea for a more transparent and reasoned approach in selecting an ethical-theoretical background for empirical-ethical research. Consequently, we will start from the assumption that there is a plurality of coexisting normative-ethical theories which could be applied to a concrete issue [ 21 ]. In contrast to philosophy of science, where skepticism towards a universal theory of justification has been widespread since the beginning of the 20 th century, the idea of a comprehensive theory is still vivid in ethical theory ([ 22 ], p. 312 f.). However, a generally accepted overarching ethical meta-theory, integrating all accounts without losing their specific perspectives, is not available. Following Julian Nida-Rümelin’s coherentist approach, the plurality of normative-ethical accounts mirrors the variety within our actual moral thinking ([ 22 ]; p. 314 f.). In our everyday moral judgments, we operate with a diversity of moral concepts and criteria, such as rights, duties and principles. Theory selection in empirical-ethical research, along these lines, can be understood as the question of what aspect of moral thinking should have priority in the current discussion. While different theoretical accounts could be applied similarly to a certain subject there are also reasons, why one theory might be a better fit than another. Our article tries to elucidate some of these reasons and to make a suggestion of how to proceed explicitly and deliberately in theory selection.

The issue of theory selection is not a matter of rational argument alone. In research practice, personal and biographical factors and pragmatic considerations of acceptance in the scientific community have a strong influence on researchers’ decisions regarding which ethical theory to choose. Reflection on the researchers’ own socio-cultural embeddedness is, thus, crucial for dealing with conflicts of interest and biases in bioethical research [ 23 ]. In the context of this article, we would like to stress the need to develop a critical stance towards one’s own ethical-theoretical commitments based on systematic criteria for theory selection. Along these lines, we will start by discussing the consequences which arise from the plurality of normative-ethical theories for philosophical ethics and applied ethics.

Dealing with the pluralism of ethical theories

In philosophical ethics, the plurality of normative theories does not usually lead to major practical problems. By contrast, within the ethical-theoretical sphere, the diversity of accounts about normative justification often serves as a reference point for fruitful discussions about ethical concepts and the general nature of morality. There is also an intensive reflection in philosophy about the interrelation between different types of theory, such as contractualist and consequentialist accounts. In general, a large number of current discussions in philosophical ethics are (next to meta-ethical topics) dedicated to issues of discussing, modifying and combining divergent accounts of normative justification.

This situation of (more or less) harmonic coexistence changes when we leave the theoretical realm and enter the field of applied ethics. The relationship between the emerging branch of empirical-ethical research and the more traditional idea of “applied ethics” is ambiguous. In this article, the term “applied ethics” is used in a rather broad sense, and is not restricted to one particular methodology or to so-called “top down” -approaches ([ 24 ], p. 321 ff.). Empirical-ethical research will, therefore, be regarded as one option to follow working in applied ethics. Applied ethics (including empirical-ethical research) is supposed to deal with concrete ethical problems. If normative solutions are provided, this often has far-reaching consequences for society and the future of individuals. Using different ethical theories as starting points can lead to divergent answers regarding concrete ethical problems [ 24 , 25 ]. A main difference can be observed between consequentialist theories and theories arguing on a deontological basis, for example, in referring to human dignity. These approaches often result in divergent normative evaluations, for example with regard to the question of how much protection must be given to early forms of human life. Hence, it often makes a great difference in the sphere of applied ethics whether a certain problem is treated on one ethical-theoretical background or the other. Or, as Konrad Ott puts it: “If you are unlucky, you will catch an adherent of Singer, Tooley or colleagues when you are a disabled infant, or as an asylum seeker, somebody who defends a mixture of ‘hard’ communitarianism and evolutionary ethics” ([ 26 ], p. 73; own translation).

The selection of an ethical theory underlying one’s own research is, thus, a crucial factor which influences the outcome of applied ethics, including empirical-ethical research. Unfortunately, the topic is rarely addressed in textbooks or introductory seminars on applied ethics. Philosophical-ethical theories are presented and discussed much more often without much explanation regarding their inherent relatedness or the ways of selecting one for the treatment of a concrete ethical issue [ 27 - 29 ]. It is also rather uncommon for authors writing in applied ethics to declare explicitly why they feel themselves committed to a specific ethical theory ([ 30 ], p. 62). In some instances, this may be an issue of the author’s individual preferences or a byproduct of their academic socialization. However, in light of the practical relevance of applied ethics work, the selection of a normative background is far from being of mere scholarly interest. Instead, it is closely linked to the researcher’s commitment to diligence and transparency and, thus, can be regarded as a core aspect of the ethics of carrying out ethics research.

Criteria for theory selection: theoretical considerations and their application in the ETHICO project

How, then, can the selection of a normative background proceed with regard to empirical-ethical research? In the following, three criteria for theory selection which we encountered as being relevant in our own project will be discussed. The ETHICO project aims at the development of interventions which support clinical decision-making on an empirical-ethical basis. It has a double-tracked structure encompassing qualitative empirical research as well as normative analysis. The interrelation between descriptive and normative aspects and theories applied is of central interest within the project. The ETHICO project has a model character and takes place in the oncology department of one German hospital [ 31 ]. It consists of six stages which range from the identification of ethical problems up to the development, implementation and evaluation of an intervention to support the clinical decision-making. The general structure of the project can be seen below:

The ETHICO project (“Empirical-ethical interventions in oncology”)

Main Features:

→ development of interventions to support clinical decision-making in oncology

→ empirical-ethical methodology

“Preparation“

development of a framework for the empirical-ethical intervention project

“Exploration “

qualitative research to identify ethical challenges in the context of an oncologic department

“Deliberation“

development of an empirically and normatively founded solution for the ethical problems identified

“Development“

development of empirical-ethical interventions to support the decision making

“Intervention“

implementation of the interventions (communication guidance for the ward team, leaflet with questions for the patients)

“Evaluation“

evaluation of the intervention and the overall study concept.

The requirements for the selection of a normative background in the ETHICO project differ from both philosophical ethics and “general” applied ethics. In philosophical ethics , normative theories are typically understood as systematic accounts regarding the question of what constitutes morally right or wrong actions, or – in an evaluative sense – good or bad human conduct ([ 32 ], p. 1). Criteria for the good quality of an ethical theory are mainly related to aspects which are inherent to the theory itself, such as clarity, coherence and simplicity ([ 33 ], p. 352 ff.). These criteria are not only valid for ethical theory, but are also well-known from the philosophy of science regarding other fields of scientific enquiry. A main focus in philosophical ethics, thus, lies on the well-foundedness and acceptability of a normative-ethical account, while only rarely other more practice-related requirements towards an ethical theory are discussed.

When we enter the field of applied ethics , additional criteria become relevant regarding the question of what constitutes a “good ethical theory.” Applied ethics, as a practice-related discipline, is supposed to deliver answers and support with regard to concrete and often urgent ethical issues, such as challenges arising from new technologies or societal developments. Applied ethics is, thus, expected to provide a normative orientation which is helpful in practice. To develop such an action-guiding potential, the normative theory applied, for example, needs to be compatible with the stakeholders’ actual moral thinking and behavior ([ 24 ], p. 325). Therefore, not only the theory’s acceptability (in the sense of its well-foundedness), but also its factual acceptance by the stakeholders has to be considered. Hence, ethical theories in applied ethics – more than in the “pure” philosophical realm – gain the character of “problem-serving tools”. This leads to additional, more pragmatic requirements becoming relevant compared to the use of the theories in the philosophical ethics field [ 34 ].

In the specific interdisciplinary field of empirical-ethical research , of which the ETHICO project forms part, even more facets must be considered for the selection of a normative background. Socio-empirical research in ethics serves a variety of different aims, ranging from the mere description of ethically relevant attitudes, through normative evaluations of the respective practices, to intervening in practice to modify people’s behavior [ 9 , 35 ]. Furthermore, empirical-ethical research forms a particularly intricate research field, as the demands of empirical research methodology have to be integrated with criteria for a good normative-ethical analysis [ 36 ]. In the following, we will discuss three relevant requirements which we encountered in our own empirical-ethical study. The aspects do not provide an exhaustive list of all relevant considerations; other aspects are also important, such as the researchers’ competence to deal with certain theoretical concepts or the acceptance of the theory’s results by the stakeholders involved. The three points discussed can, thus, be seen as main examples for what has to be considered when selecting the normative background for an empirical-ethical research project. All three aspects will firstly be first presented in a more abstract manner. Subsequently, the concrete outcome of theory selection in the ETHICO project will be briefly sketched.

The adequacy of the ethical theory for the issue at stake has to be considered in the selection of a theoretical background

An ethical theory which is selected to underlie an empirical-ethical research project has to fit the study’s thematic subject. Subject here means the practical problems and the empirical context to which the study is directed. This idea of a fit between an ethical theory and its subject needs further explanation: Most philosophical-ethical theories are – by their own self-understanding – not restricted to a specific field of practice, but are supposed to guide human action in general ([ 26 ], p. 73). However, normative concepts and principles contain descriptive elements [ 37 ] in referring to aspects of human life, such as happiness, preferences, moral experience, and much more. Hence, empirical characteristics form part of normative premises which are integrated into ethical judgment. It can, therefore, be argued that an ethical theory fits a certain subject if it is in line with salient features of the issue which is under discussion. Ethical theories can also fail in this respect, by not matching particular problems. Utilitarianism, for example, has its focus on particular aspects of the social reality (such as benefit and harm), but does not capture other aspects which are of equal importance to understand the moral phenomenon under discussion. A utilitarian account, therefore, might not adequately address ethical questions about caring relations at the end of life.

A second line of argument which is important for the fit between an ethical theory and the issue at stake is the more pragmatic consideration of an alignment between the ethical-theoretical background and the stakeholders’ actual moral deliberation and behavior, which form part of the moral phenomenon observed. If the ethical theory applied does not fit the stakeholders’ actual moral thinking, ethical interventions might not be successful ([ 24 ], p. 321). Therefore, the ethical theory selected also has to be in line with the lived normativity already embedded in practice.

It is also important to take into consideration that theories which, at first glance, do not seem to fit a certain subject very well, bear the potential of shedding a new and fresh light on the issue at stake, especially if they highlight aspects which might have been overlooked without that specific theoretical perspective. Using a virtue ethics framework for questions of distributive justice, for example, might not be the most obvious option, but helps to gather a new and broader understanding of the issue. The capability approach, for instance, rests on the idea of human thriving and, therefore, goes beyond “traditional” approaches to distributive justice which focus on personal utility, negative freedoms or comparisons of resource holdings [ 38 ].

Considering the relationship between an ethical theory and the specific research topic is relevant for applied ethics in general. However, it occurs in a specific form with respect to empirical-ethical research. Empirical-ethical research bears the characteristic that many features of the issue at stake are not well-known prior to the empirical research, because a better knowledge about the empirical characteristics is one of the expected outcomes. The fit of a theoretical background, therefore, often cannot be fully evaluated ex ante in empirical-ethical research. How then can the matching between the study’s subject and the ethical theory proceed in empirical-ethical studies? Different strategies could be principally applied here. A first option would be to determine the ethical-theoretical background before starting on the empirical research. As – depending on the theory chosen – different types of data are needed (e.g. a preference utilitarian needs different empirical data for the ethical analysis compared to a virtue theorist [ 17 ]), the choice of a specific theory has a strong influence on the selection and processing of empirically gathered data. This would lead to a preponderance of ethical theory which might contradict the methodological requirements and aims of social science research – especially in the case of qualitative social research. A second strategy would, thus, be to conduct the empirical research first and then designate an ethical theory for normative evaluation. However, going along this road would miss the potential of ethical theories for gaining a more comprehensive understanding of an empirical issue. Therefore, the third (and preferable) strategy is to stay rather undetermined in terms of ethical theory before the beginning of data gathering. If the field is then approached empirically, the researcher has the opportunity to select a theory which is best suited to capture the relevant features of the ethical problem. A constant interchange between the normative theory selected and the empirical data ensures that both sides are respected as playing an important role in the empirical-ethical research process ([ 4 ], p. 473 f.). The reflection has a cyclical character: the empirical phenomenon is understood against the background of the ethical theory and, on the other hand, helps to provide a deeper understanding of the semantic implications of the normative concepts and principles applied.

It was important for the ETHICO project that the normative background could be linked with the core features of oncologic practice, especially with empirical aspects of decision-making in advanced cancer. However, the researchers did not have full knowledge about the clinical practice in the department before conducting the empirical research. A spectrum of possibly suitable ethical theories was, therefore, prepared before the beginning of the empirical research based on a literature review which focused on normative theories which had been applied to similar issues previously. Our empirical study then consisted of a triangulation of qualitative methods (interviews, non-participant observation and focus groups). During our empirical research, we were aware of the spectrum of ethical theories which could be applied for a normative analysis and we correlated this with our (preliminary) empirical results. The final selection of a theoretical background was not made until the qualitative research had progressed to a stage which allowed us to gather a first understanding of the most important empirical characteristics of the social phenomenon observed. The ethical theory subsequently selected had an influence on the further qualitative data gathering, while, at the same time, the empirical data collected were used to specify and adjust the ethical theory with respect to the particular context. Hence, in a circular process, the selection of an ethical framework was considered during the empirical research, while, simultaneously, the theory selection was influenced by our preliminary empirical results.

As a result of preliminary data collection and analysis, we identified the issue of respect for the patient’s will as being important in the different settings of decision-making (tumor conference, ward round, outpatient clinic). This finding could be related to concepts of patient autonomy from the medical-ethical literature. It also became obvious that the way in which patient autonomy is exercised in practice is very much dependent on structures of decision-making [ 31 ]. We, therefore, decided to select an ethical theory which did not conceptualize autonomy in a liberalistic way but stressed the importance of institutional structures which promote patient autonomy [ 39 ].

The selection of a normative background has to account for the purposes and design of the empirical-ethical research project

Empirical research in medical ethics can contribute to normative arguments in a variety of ways. Examples are the identification of morally relevant problems, the provision of facts important for normative arguments, the description of the actual conduct of a group of stakeholders [ 9 ], the analysis of moral concepts, the construction of a normative standpoint, or the implementation of an intervention to enhance the moral quality of a practice ([ 30 ], p. 45 f.). Therefore, the purposes and design of concrete empirical-ethical studies can vary to a considerable extent. One ethical theory might be more adequate than others, depending on the exact aims of the empirical-ethical research project. The idea of the “application” of an ethical theory to a concrete issue should be understood as having a three-sided relationship: something is applied to something to some end ([ 26 ], p. 58 f.). “Application,” thus, always carries a teleological momentum, as it is inherently related to a purpose to which the application is supposed to serve. The selection of a normative background, therefore, should take into account the purposes of the concrete research project.

There are some approaches in the spectrum of philosophical-ethical theories which seem to be quite well-fitted to develop clear normative guidance. Other approaches are better suited to providing rich and comprehensive descriptions of moral phenomena. This latter type can be designated as “normatively weak” approaches [ 40 ]. This does not mean that these theories are less elaborate. Instead, they are not primarily directed towards normative evaluation, but serve better for other purposes. One example of such a “normatively weak” approach would be narrative ethics [ 41 , 42 ]. Narrative ethics uses the medium of stories to better understand phenomena such as sickness, dependency or disability, which are of great importance for medical ethics. Therefore, it serves different aims than ethical theories which have been developed to serve concrete practical (e.g. political) purposes and, consequently, carry a stronger action-guiding character. Classical utilitarianism, as presented by John Stuart Mill, for example, is based very much on the author’s political ideas and targets concrete suggestions for an improvement of practice. Utilitarianism is, thus, more than narrative ethics directed towards normative evaluation. While both types of theory can contribute principally to an improvement of practice, their different aims and character should be considered in the selection of a normative background. If an empirical-ethical research project is, for example, supposed to contribute to a clear-cut normative evaluation, it would be advisable to select an ethical theory which allows for concrete action-guiding suggestions. If the project aims more at a fuller understanding of a moral phenomenon, a “normatively weak” approach, such as narrative ethics, might be the better choice.

In the ETHICO project, we had to face the challenge that the ethical theory selected was supposed to serve a variety of aims during the different stages of the research (see section  The ETHICO project (“Empirical-ethical interventions in oncology”) ). In the “deliberation” stage, for example, the ethical-theoretical framework was needed to guide the normative deliberation aiming at an ethically justified assessment of the moral problems which had been identified in the earlier project stages. Therefore, the ethical theory had to indicate what would be an appropriate solution to the moral deficits observed. Another example would be the “evaluation” stage, where a normative background was needed to determine whether the ethical quality of the practice had improved subsequent to the empirical-ethical intervention. The development of evaluation criteria is of great importance here. While there are some ethical theories (such as utilitarianism) which may even allow for a quantitative measurement, other theories (e.g. Kantian accounts) may not provide good opportunities for an empirical evaluation of the ethical quality of a practice.

The diverging aims of the different project stages finally led us to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to stick to one and the same ethical theory throughout the project. Instead, we drew on different normative backgrounds (partly in combination), depending on the purposes of each stage in the ETHICO project. During its first stages, which aimed at the identification and characterization of ethical problems, we stayed rather open and considered different theories which are suitable to deliver an empirically rich understanding of the moral phenomenon observed (such as narrative ethics or virtue ethics accounts). In stage three, “deliberation”, which aimed at the development of an ethically justified solution, we referred to O’Neill’s account on principled autonomy [ 39 ], which also had an influence on the intervention, which was then designed to establish trustworthy structures in the respective oncological department. In the final “evaluation” stage, we included, in addition to O’Neill’s account, Alan Gewirth’s theory, which considers basic structures of human agency [ 43 ]. We then tried to assess how far patients were enabled to exercise their right to self-determination in hospital,and whether they are hindered by factors, such as misinformation or a symptom burden, which do not allow them to exercise their autonomy.

The combination of diverse ethical theories and, thus, different approaches to ethical justification (e.g. virtues ethics and Kantian accounts) became necessary due to the comprehensive structure of the overall project, which is an empirical-ethical intervention study and, therefore, combines different aims. In addition, this approach mirrors our meta-theoretical view that the plurality of normative-ethical accounts corresponds to the variety within actual moral thinking. It was, therefore, necessary to draw on more than one ethical theory to deal adequately with the multifaceted phenomenon of decision-making in advanced cancer from a normative perspective.

The interrelation between the ethical theory selected and theoretical backgrounds of the socio-empirical research should be reflected

Empirical-ethical research includes socio-empirical inquiry as well as normative analysis. Hence, methodological requirements and theoretical backgrounds on “both sides” and their interrelationship should be taken into consideration throughout a project [ 36 ]. The choice of an ethical theory, therefore, has to consider the interrelation between the ethical theory selected and the theoretical backgrounds of the empirical research which forms part of the study. Empirical research methodologies carry certain normative assumptions which can be either in line or in tension with central ethical concepts. It has been stressed, for example, that quantitative surveys constitute society and subjects in a way in which the survey method can succeed [ 44 ]. This may contradict ethical notions, such as civic liberty or the person’s right to self-determination.

Besides this implicit normativity, socio-empirical research is laden with theoretical presuppositions about the social reality observed. Social theories make assumptions about what counts as a social phenomenon and which concepts should be regarded as core items in this context (e.g. agency, interaction or communication) ([ 45 ], p. 237). Such socio-theoretical presuppositions, which underlie empirical data gathering and analysis, and their relationship to the ethical theory selected should be respected when planning and conducting an empirical-ethical study [ 45 ]. There are some social theories which share the central premises of main philosophical-ethical theories, while others rest on assumptions which cannot be linked to ethics so easily. One “linking element” in the first respect would be the assumption that there are rational actors ([ 45 ], p. 239). This idea underlies, for instance, Grounded Theory methodology [ 46 ], which is based on the concept of interactiondeveloped by George Herbert Mead [ 47 ]. Regarding the idea of actors being the main concept, Grounded Theory stands in a “harmonic relationship” with most ethical theories which similarly focus on action ([ 45 ], p. 239). In other respects, a tension can be noticed when Grounded Theory is applied in the context of ethics. The understanding of reality, for example, as a social interaction with others and shared interpretative process is in contrast with those ethical theories which have a rather individualistic account of human agency.

The tension between ethics theory and social theory also becomes obvious when other socio-theoretical backgrounds are taken for empirical-ethical studies. One example in this respect would be systems theory, developed by Niklas Luhmann [ 48 , 49 ]. In systems theory, actors are not the main concept, therefore, it cannot be as easily aligned with ethical theory. We do not want to suggest that social theory and ethical theory should be congruent in all relevant features, however, researchers should be aware of whether the ethical theory they select harmonizes or stands in a strained relationship with the socio-theoretical presuppositions on which they draw. When this is not respected, there is a danger of missing ethically problematic issues if they are not in the focus of the social theory which underlies the empirical research.

We decided on a qualitative research methodology in the ETHICO project. We used an observational research method which is based on Symbolic Interactionism [ 50 ] in the “exploration” stage to investigate the clinical practice with regard to the question, which ethical problems are relevant and how can they be further characterized [ 31 ]. We tried to understand and reconstruct the meanings which certain objects and actions had for the research participants. An underlying presupposition of Symbolic Interactionism is the existence of intentional actors who stand in relationship with other actors and choose means to achieve their aims. This interaction is based on processes of mutual interpretation. The socio-theoretical model of intentional actors can be linked to many approaches from the spectrum of philosophical-ethical theories, which equally start from the assumption of purposeful human agency.

Therefore, the socio-theoretical framework selected gave us ample scope for the choice of an appropriate ethical theory in the ETHICO project. All ethical theories selected rest on the assumption of actors who make their choices on the basis of preferences and information. In addition, O’Neill’s non-individualistic account of autonomy stresses the importance of (social) structures and human interaction and can, therefore, serve as a linking element between the social-theoretical reconstruction and the ethical reflection on social practices in oncological decision-making.

Limitations

We generally tried to apply a transparent and reasoned approach regarding the choice of a normative background in the ETHICO project. However, the issue of theory selection appeared to be highly complex and led to a need for compromises, especially with regard to the tension between the theoretical well-foundedness of normative-ethical accounts and their applicability in practice. As displayed above, there are criteria inherent to an ethical theory which are important for judging its quality. If an ethical theory is insufficient with respect to clarity and coherence, it should not be applied in empirical-ethical research – even if it fits the designated subject very well, is in line with the overall aims of the project and matches the project’s socio-empirical research methodology very nicely. In addition to these three aspects which pertain to the appropriateness of a theory within a specific project, normative theories fulfil a critical function. When there is no theoretical justification apart from the suitability for the research, this external critical evaluation is not executed. A theoretical justification independent of the concrete context of application is crucial for empirical-ethical research to develop a critical stance towards the social practice observed. However, even the best-founded ethical theory cannot be successfully applied when any link between the theoretical notions and the empirical reality is missing. Researchers into the practice of empirical-ethical study should be aware of this ambivalence and the problems which arise from a preponderance of either the theory’s well-foundedness or its suitability within the concrete project.

A second important result emerging from our research is the need to apply diverging ethical theories within the different stages of the ETHICO project. This necessity mainly arises from the varying purposes we had during the research project: from the designation of an ethical problem up to the designing, implementation and evaluation of an intervention. While one ethical theory serves better for a deeper understanding of the relevant empirical phenomena, other normative backgrounds are better suited to measure the ethical quality of a social practice. This finding suggests that ethical theoriesin empirical-ethical research ethical theories cannot often be used in their “pure” form but have to be further modified to meet the requirements of the topic chosen and the aims of the respective research. A syncretic combination of different theories, which might be regarded as problematic from a philosophical perspective alone, can be justified in the context of an empirical-ethical research project. However, arbitrariness in theory selection should be avoided by explaining the reasons why certain approaches have been chosen, modified and combined for a concrete project.

In this paper, we aimed to stress that the specific set-up of empirical-ethical research necessitates a comprehensive reflection with regard to the selection of an ethical background theory. In contrast to traditional research in philosophical ethics, additional issues should be considered here which pertain to pragmatic aspects of conducting the research, as well as to more theoretical facets, such as the interrelation between the ethical-theoretical and the socio-theoretical background of the respective study.

It also became obvious that the requirements which are imposed on an ethical theory in the empirical-ethical field are rather high. Based on our practical experience in the ETHICO project, we have learned that there is probably no single ethical theory which fully accomplishes all the criteria relevant for theory selection. As a jack of all trades device consistent with all aspects discussed above will not be found in the spectrum of ethical theories, researchers should consider a modification or combination of different accounts. The overall design of an empirical-ethical study is a multi-faceted endeavor which has to balance between more theoretical and rather pragmatic considerations.

In summary, this paper aimed to show that a systematic and reasoned approach towards theory selection in empirical-ethical research should be given priority compared to an accidental or implicit way of choosing the normative framework for one’s own research (or to only referring to the researcher’s personal moral stances). The criteria discussed above may, therefore, serve as relevant points to consider when it comes to the matter of theory selection in the planning and conducting of an empirical-ethical research project.

Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K. The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics. 2005;19(1):49–71.

Article   Google Scholar  

Molewijk B. Integrated empirical ethics: in search for clarifying identities. Med Health Care Philos. 2004;7(1):85–7.

Leget C, Borry P, de Vries R. “Nobody tosses a dwarf!” The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics. 2009;23(4):226–35.

Dunn M, Sheehan M, Hope T, Parker M. Toward methodological innovation in empirical ethics research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2012;21:466–80.

Ebbesen M, Pedersen B. Using empirical research to formulate normative ethical principles in biomedicine. Med Health Care Philos. 2007;10(1):33–48.

Widdershoven G, Abma T, Molewijk B. Empirical ethics as dialogical practice. Bioethics. 2009;23(4):236–48.

Frith L. Symbiotic empirical ethics: a practical methodology. Bioethics. 2012;26(4):198–206.

Duwell M. Bioethics: Methods, Theories, Domains. London: Routledge Chapman & Hall; 2014.

Google Scholar  

de Vries R, Gordijn B. Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies. Bioethics. 2009;23(4):193–201.

Molewijk B, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W, Dupuis HM, Kievit J. Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Med Health Care Philos. 2004;7(1):55–69.

Sugarman J, Kass N, Faden R. Categorizing empirical research in bioethics: Why count the ways? Am J Bioeth. 2009;9(6–7):66–7.

Salloch S, Schildmann J, Vollmann J. Empirical research in medical ethics: How conceptual accounts on normative-empirical collaboration may improve research practice. BMC Med Ethics. 2012;13(1):5.

Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP. Methods in Medical Ethics. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 2001.

Parfit D. On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.

Book   Google Scholar  

Knorr-Cetina K. The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1981.

Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2010.

Salloch S, Vollmann J, Schildmann J. Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics. J Med Ethics. 2014;40(9):597–602.

Beauchamp TL. Does ethical theory have a future in bioethics? J Law Med Ethics. 2004;32(2):209. –217, 190.

Kymlicka W. Moral philosophy and public policy: the case of NRTs. Bioethics. 1993;7(1):1–26.

O'Neill O. Applied ethics: naturalism, normativity and public policy. J of App Philos. 2009;26(3):219–30.

Arras J. Theory and bioethics. [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theory-bioethics/ ]

Nida-Rümelin J. Theoretische und Angewandte Ethik: Paradigmen, Begründungen, Bereiche. In: Nida-Rümelin J, editor. Angewandte Ethik. Die Bereichsethiken und ihre theoretische Fundierung. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner; 2005. p. 2–87.

Ives J, Dunn M. Who's arguing? A call for reflexivity in bioethics. Bioethics. 2010;24(5):256–65.

Birnbacher D. Ethics and social science: which kind of cooperation? Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 1999;2(4):319–36.

Düwell M. Wofür braucht die Medizinethik empirische Methoden? Eine normativ-ethische Untersuchung. Ethik Med. 2009;21(3):201–11.

Ott K. Strukturprobleme angewandter Ethik und Möglichkeiten ihrer Lösung. In: Ott K, editor. Vom Begründen zum Handeln. Aufsätze zur angewandten Ethik. Tübingen: Attempto; 1996. p. 51–85.

Campbell A, Gillett G, Jones G. Medical Ethics. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2005.

Mepham B. Bioethics. An Introduction for the Biosciences. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

Stoecker R, Neuhäuser C, Raters M-L. Handbuch Angewandte Ethik. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler; 2011.

Birnbacher D. Welche Ethik ist als Bioethik tauglich? In: Ach JS, Gaidt A, editors. Herausforderungen der Bioethik. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog; 1993. p. 45–67.

Salloch S, Ritter P, Wäscher S, Vollmann J, Schildmann J. Medical expertise and patient involvement: a multiperspective qualitative observation study of the patient's role in oncological decision making. Oncologist. 2014;19(6):654–60.

Düwell M. Handbuch Ethik. Stuttgart: Metzler; 2006.

Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Brock DW. Truth or consequences: the role of philosophers in policy-making. Ethics. 1987;97(4):786–91.

de Vries R. How can we help? From “sociology in” to “sociology of” bioethics. J Law Med Ethics. 2004;32(2):279–92.

Mertz M, Inthorn J, Renz G, Rothenberger LG, Salloch S, Schildmann J, et al. Research across the disciplines: a road map for quality criteria in empirical ethics research. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:17.

Dietrich J. Die Kraft der Konkretion oder: Die Rolle deskriptiver Annahmen für die Anwendung und Kontextsensitivität ethischer Theorie. Ethik Med. 2009;21(3):213–21.

Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum M, Sen A, editors. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press Editors; 1993. p. 30–53.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

O’Neill O. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

Werner MH. Schwach normative und kontextualistische Ansätze. In: Düwell M, Hübenthal C, Werner MH, editors. Handbuch Ethik. Stuttgart Weimar: J.B. Metzler; 2011. p. 191–3.

Brody H. Stories of Sickness. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.

Charon R. Narrative Medicine. Honoring the Stories of Illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.

Gewirth A. Reason and Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995.

Ashcroft RE. Constructing empirical bioethics: Foucauldian reflections on the empirical turn in bioethics research. Health Care Anal. 2003;11(1):3–13.

Graumann S, Lindemann G. Medizin als gesellschaftliche Praxis, sozialwissenschaftliche Empirie und ethische Reflexion: ein Vorschlag für eine soziologisch aufgeklärte Medizinethik. Ethik Med. 2009;21(3):235–45.

Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: Sage; 2008.

Mead GH. Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Reprint Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2009.

Luhmann N. Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität. J.C.B. Mohr: Tuebingen; 1968.

Nassehi A. Die Praxis ethischen Entscheidens. Eine soziologische Forschungsperspektive. Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik. 2006;52(4):367–77.

Flick U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: Sage; 2009.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication is a result of the work of the NRW Junior Research Group “Medical Ethics at the End of Life: Norm and Empiricism” at the Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, which is funded by the Ministry for Innovation, Science and Research of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and the Open Access Publication Funds of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, NRW Junior Research Group “Medical Ethics at the End of Life: Norm and Empiricism”, Malakowturm – Markstr. 258a, D-44799, Bochum, Germany

Sabine Salloch, Sebastian Wäscher, Jochen Vollmann & Jan Schildmann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabine Salloch .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

SS, SW, JV and JS conducted the empirical study which forms the background for the arguments developed in this article. SS, SW and JS performed the empirical data collection. SW, JV and JS contributed to the development of the article’s main arguments. SS drafted the manuscript. JS and SW critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Salloch, S., Wäscher, S., Vollmann, J. et al. The normative background of empirical-ethical research: first steps towards a transparent and reasoned approach in the selection of an ethical theory. BMC Med Ethics 16 , 20 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0016-x

Download citation

Received : 10 November 2014

Accepted : 25 March 2015

Published : 04 April 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0016-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Empirical-ethical research
• Research methods
• Ethical theory
• Ethical interventions

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 25 May 2024

Neither right nor wrong? Ethics of collaboration in transformative research for sustainable futures

• Julia M. Wittmayer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4738-6276 1 , 2 ,
• Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang 3 ,
• Kristina Bogner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1871-9828 4 ,
• Evan Boyle 5 ,
• Katharina Hölscher 6 ,
• Timo von Wirth 2 , 7 ,
• Tessa Boumans 2 ,
• Jilde Garst 8 ,
• Yogi Hale Hendlin 9 ,
• Mariangela Lavanga   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-9509 10 ,
• Derk Loorbach 1 ,
• Neha Mungekar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4663-0716 1 , 2 ,
• Mapula Tshangela 11 ,
• Pieter Vandekerckhove 12 &
• Ana Vasques 13  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  677 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1288 Accesses

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Science, technology and society

Transformative research is a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions by working collaboratively with society. When engaging in such science-practice collaborations for transformative change in society, researchers experience ethical dilemmas. Amongst others, they must decide, what is worthwhile to be researched, whose reality is privileged, and whose knowledge is included. Yet, current institutionalised ethical standards, which largely follow the tradition of medical ethics, are insufficient to guide transformative researchers in navigating such dilemmas. In addressing this vacuum, the research community has started to develop peer guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour. These formal and informal guidelines offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions. However, they are only helpful when they have become a part of researchers’ practical knowledge ‘in situ’. By focusing on situated research practices, the article addresses the need to develop an attitude of leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes. It also highlights the significance of combining this attitude with a critical reflexive practice both individually and collaboratively for answering questions around ‘how to’ as well as ‘what is the right thing to do’. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors of this paper share their own ethical dilemmas in doing transformative research, discuss those, and relate them to a practical heuristic encompassing axiological, ontological, and epistemological considerations. The aim is to support building practical wisdom for the broader research community about how to navigate ethical questions arising in transformative research practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

A tool for reflecting on research stances to support sustainability transitions

Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research

Intentional Ecology: Integrating environmental expertise through a focus on values, care and advocacy

Introduction.

There is a growing recognition that current research has failed to adequately address persistent societal challenges, which are complex, uncertain, and evaluative in nature (Ferraro et al., 2015 ; Loorbach et al., 2017 ; Saltelli et al., 2016 ). Along with this recognition come calls for science to help address these increasingly urgent and complex challenges faced at a global and local level, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, or social inequalities (Future Earth, 2014 ; Parks et al., 2019 ; WBGU, 2011 ). This call is echoed from within academia (Bradbury et al., 2019 ; Fazey et al., 2018 ; Norström et al., 2020 ) and has also translated into corresponding research funding (Arnott et al., 2020 ; Gerber et al., 2020 ; Vermeer et al., 2020 ). The fundamental premise is that addressing complex societal challenges requires more than disciplinary knowledge alone and extends beyond the confines of academia (Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008 ; Lang et al., 2012 ). That is, addressing them necessitates interactive knowledge co-production and social learning with societal actors to produce actionable and contextually embedded knowledge for societal transformations (Chambers et al., 2021 ; Hessels et al., 2009 ; Schäpke et al., 2018 ). This trend has prompted a (re)surge of socially engaged approaches to research, including transdisciplinary research, phronetic social sciences, participatory research, action- and impact-oriented research, and transformative research. These approaches involve collaboration between academics and various societal stakeholders, such as policymakers, communities, enterprises, and civil society organisations.

However, often, such socially engaged research approaches are at odds with the institutional traditions designed for monodisciplinary knowledge production. Transformative research, for instance, does not claim an objective observer position; instead, it explicitly embraces a normative orientation. Its goal, as many have argued, is to facilitate transformative societal change towards justice and sustainability by recognising and addressing the deep and persistent socio-ecological challenges inherent in our current society (Mertens, 2007 ; Wittmayer et al., 2021 ). This motive to transform existing systems through collaborative research, in our view, obliges researchers to be more critical and vigilant in their decisions (Fazey et al., 2018 ). As we will present later in this paper, many of these decisions constitute ethical dilemmas, such as who decides what ‘good’ research is, whose knowledge to prioritise, or who should engage and under which circumstances. These ethical dilemmas are only poorly addressed by the ethical review processes in place at most universities, which remain dominated by linear and positivist framings of knowledge production and research design (Wood and Kahts-Kramer, 2023 ). Consequently, transformative researchers are often left struggling to choose “ between doing good (being ethically responsive to the people being researched) and doing good research (maintaining pre-approved protocols) ” (Macleod et al., 2018 , p. 10). The translation of the values and principles of transformative research into formal and informal ethical guidelines is only starting (Caniglia et al., 2023 ; Fazey et al., 2018 ; West and Schill, 2022 ).

Confronting these ethical dilemmas calls for greater reflexivity and dialogue with ourselves, among researchers, between researchers and their collaborators (including funders and professionals), and between researchers and the institutions within which they operate (Finlay, 2002 ; Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ). Attesting to this call, the authors of this paper engaged in a ‘collaborative autoethnography’ (Lapadat, 2017 ; Miyahara & Fukao, 2022 ; Phillips et al., 2022 ) to explore the following research question: Which ethical dilemmas do researchers face in research collaborations that seek to catalyse transformations? And how do they navigate these in their collaborative practice? Thus, as an interdisciplinary group of researchers affiliated with academic research institutes, we shared, compared, and discussed our experiences concerning ethical dilemmas in our transformative research endeavours. In these discussions, we considered our interactions, engagements, and relationships with collaborators along with how institutional rules and norms influence or constrain our practices and relations.

This paper begins with an overview of transformative research and the challenges that arise when working collaboratively. It also testifies to the formal and informal attempts to support researchers in navigating those challenges (“Ethics in transformative research”). From there, we develop the argument that formal or informal guidelines are most meaningful when they have become a part of the practical wisdom of researchers. When they are, they support researchers in leaning into the uncertainty of what constitutes morally good behaviour and in navigating collaboration ‘in situ’. Inspired by Mertens ( 2017 ), we relate our own dilemmas to the three philosophical commitments that comprise a research paradigm: axiology, ontology, and epistemology (“Transformative research practice investigated through collaborative autoethnography”, also for an elaboration of the terms). We share concrete dilemmas while embedding and relating them to a broader body of knowledge around similar dilemmas and questions (“Collaboration in transformative research practice”). We close the paper by pointing to the importance of bottom-up ethics and the need to embed those into revalued and redesigned ethical standards, processes, and assessments that can provide external guidance and accountability (“Concluding thoughts”).

Ethics in transformative research

In this section, we first introduce transformative research (TR) in terms of its underlying values and its ontological and epistemological premises (Mertens, 2007 , 2017 ) (“Introducing transformative research”). We then connect it to its institutional context, where ethical standards and procedures fit the linear production of knowledge, leading to tensions with TR practices (“Institutional context: Formal ethical standards and processes”). Finally, we outline how the research community tries to address this misfit and the felt need for understanding what constitutes morally ‘right’ behaviour by providing peer guidance on the ethical conduct of TR (“Peer context: Informal heuristics for transformative research”).

Introducing transformative research

TR refers to a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions (Hölscher et al., 2021 ; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018 ; Mertens, 2021 ; Schneidewind et al., 2016 ; Wittmayer et al., 2021 ). Transformative researchers thus start from the basic premise that “ all researchers are essentially interveners ” (Fazey et al., 2018 , p. 63). Consequently, they are explicit about the kind of normative orientation of their interventions to further a social justice and environmental sustainability agenda. There is no denying the fact that such research approaches can also be used with a different normative mindset and value orientation, which will have other ethical consequences.

TR builds on methodological and theoretical pluralism that knits together kindred, or even conflicting, perspectives to complement disciplinary specialism (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ; Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Midgley, 2011 ). As such, it also comes as a diverse phenomenon, and where such diversity is “ not haphazard […] we must be cautious about developing all-embracing standards to differentiate the ‘good’ from the ‘bad ’” (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 , p. 783). Such an ontological stance involves letting go of the idea of absolute truth and the need to tightly control the research process and outcomes (van Breda and Swilling, 2019 ). Instead, TR encourages continuous societal learning to generate actionable knowledge and transformative action that manifests in real-world changes in behaviours, values, institutions, etc. (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Hölscher et al., 2021 ). In doing so, TR is often based upon pragmatist assumptions about the ways knowledge and action inform one another, generating contingent knowledge in a process of action and experimentation (Harney et al., 2016 ; Popa et al., 2015 ). The research process serves as a means to assess ideas in practical application, blending a critical realist stance on socially constructed reality with acknowledging subjectivism and the existence of multiple realities (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 ).

TR also represents an epistemological shift from the notion of the distanced, presumably unbiased, and all-knowing researcher and recognises individuals as sense-makers, agency holders, and change agents (Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Hurtado, 2022 ). Collaboration enables the elicitation of different kinds of knowledge, including scientific knowledge across disciplines as well as phronetic and tacit knowledge from practice. It aims at capturing the plurality of knowing and doing that is relevant to specific contexts and actors (Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2016 ; Nugroho et al., 2018 ; Pohl, 2008 ). This sort of mutual social learning supports joint sense-making and experimental processes. These then invite us to rethink existing situations, (re)define desired futures, and (re)position short-term action (Fazey et al., 2018 ; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016 ; Schneider et al., 2019 ). The co-creation of knowledge and action can increase ownership, legitimacy, and accountability and can help facilitate trust-building among diverse societal groups (Hessels et al., 2009 ; Lang et al., 2012 ). The latter is an essential ingredient for tackling complex societal problems during times of discrediting science and the rise of populist, antidemocratic movements (Saltelli et al., 2016 ).

Institutional context: formal ethical standards and processes

The institutional environment is challenging for researchers engaging in TR for multiple reasons; one challenge is the formal ethical standards and processes. Current approaches to ethical assessment in social science emerged from several international conventions in the field of medical ethics (BMJ, 1996 ; General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 2014 ; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioural Research, 1979 ). Most formal research ethics reviews adopt the four principles of Beauchamp and Childress ( 2001 ), which include: (1) non-maleficence by attempting to not harm others; (2) respect for autonomy by attempting to provide information about the research that allows decisions to be taken; (3) beneficence by attempting to achieve useful outcomes outweighing the risks of participation; and (4) justice by attempting fairness in participation and distribution of benefits. These principles have found their way into formal ethical reviews, often practicing value-neutral and utilitarian ethics. This approach is debatable for TR approaches (Detardo-Bora, 2004 ) and seems more effective at protecting research institutions (foregrounding bureaucratically controllable compliance) than research participants (Christians, 2005 ). Indeed, many engaged in TR have raised concerns that neither these principles nor their formal translation account for the particularity, situatedness, epistemic responsibilities, and relationality that are key to the conduct and ethics of TR (Cockburn and Cundill, 2018 ; Lincoln, 2001 ; Parsell et al., 2014 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). In the following paragraphs, we highlight several tensions between the understanding of research, as it informs many ethical standards in place, and an understanding of TR.

First, a pre-defined versus an emerging research design. Due to its real-world orientation, TR needs to be able to deal flexibly with changing contexts and windows of opportunity that might arise (Hurtado, 2022 ). Due to the relationality of TR, it requires ongoing interaction and negotiation between researchers and their collaborators (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Bournot-Trites and Belanger, 2005 ; Williamson and Prosser, 2002 ). One-off general consent at the start (e.g., through informed consent forms), as is common for ethical review processes, is thus at odds with the emergent design of TR and is also argued to be insufficient in maintaining participants’ autonomy (Smith, 2008 ). As an alternative, Locke et al. ( 2013 ) posit that informed consent should be seen as a collective, negotiated, continuous process, especially in collaborative action research.

Second, assumed neutrality versus dynamic aspects of researchers’ positionalities. Ethical review protocols are geared towards upholding the objective position of researchers as outsiders in the investigated context, ensuring that they will not influence this research context in any way. However, TR explicates its ambition to influence real-world problems through engagement, acknowledging that research needs to confront existing hegemonic orders and emancipate those involved through a democratic process (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 ). Furthermore, researchers co-design, facilitate, and participate in the process of knowledge co-production, making them also participants and subjects of their own research (Janes, 2016 ). To enhance the validity and integrity of the research, Wood, and Kahts-Kramer ( 2023 ), among others, suggest that transformative researchers explicitly state their positionality. This involves reflecting on their assumptions, values, and worldviews.

Third, the primacy of knowledge generation versus the importance of action. Ethical review protocols, given their historical roots in medical practice, assume that the act of falsifying, generating, or improving theories alone would benefit participants, collaborators, and the public at large. Yet, researchers engaged in TR take a step further, seeking to develop both scientific and actionable knowledge in a way that addresses persistent societal problems and stimulates social change (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Caniglia et al., 2021 ; Greenwood and Levin, 2007 ). As put by Wood and Kahts-Kramer ( 2023 , p. 7), “ the ethical imperative of participatory research is to bring about positive change and generate theory from reflection on the purposeful action ”. This approach strengthens the responsiveness of research to societal and political needs (Stilgoe et al., 2013 ).

Transformative researchers thus perceive a lack of utility and guidance from ethical standards and processes in place that have institutionalised a certain understanding of research and related sets of principles. Following Clouser and Gert ( 1990 ), one might question whether such institutionalisation of a moral consciousness is possible in the first place. They argue that so-called ‘principlism,’ “ the practice of using ‘principles’ to replace both moral theory and particular moral rules and ideals in dealing with the moral problems that arise in medical practice ” (Clouser and Gert, 1990 , p. 219), has reduced the much-needed debates on morality vis-à-vis research and results in inconsistent and ambiguous directives for morally ‘right’ action in practice. In response to the vacuum left by institutionalised ethics standards and processes and the perceived necessity of defining morally ‘right’ behaviour, the research community is turning inward to develop peer guidance on ethical conduct in TR. The subsequent section highlights several contributions to this endeavour.

Peer context: Informal heuristics for transformative research

Transformative researchers have started offering general principles or frameworks as informal heuristics for what constitutes ‘ethical’ TR. Caniglia et al. ( 2023 ), for example, argue that practical wisdom can serve as a moral compass in complex knowledge co-production contexts, and propose four central ‘wills’ for researchers to follow: committing to justice, embracing care, fostering humility, and developing courage. Under the framing of post-normal or Mode-2 science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994 ; Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Nowotny et al., 2003 ), Fazey et al. ( 2018 ) present ten ‘essentials’ of action-oriented research on transforming energy systems and climate change research Footnote 1 . One of these essentials highlights that, as researchers, we intervene, and that failing to acknowledge and engage with this reality opens the doors to sustaining unjust power relations or positioning science as apolitical. To address this, they echo Lacey et al.’s ( 2015 , p. 201) assertion that such acknowledgment means “ be[ing] transparent and accountable about the choices made about what science is undertaken, and how it is funded and communicated ”.

Looking beyond sustainability scholarship, other researchers have also developed practical actions or strategies for enhancing their ethical behaviours in the research collaboration. Taking the unique attributes of community-based participatory research, Kwan and Walsh ( 2018 , p. 382) emphasise a “ focus on equity rather than equality ” and on practicing a constructive or generative use of power “ rather than adopting a power neutral or averse position ”. Others provide guiding questions to think about the forms and quality of relationships between researchers and participants (Rowan, 2000 ) and to support the navigation of the relationship between action research and other participants (Williamson and Prosser, 2002 ). Such questions should cover not only process-focused questions but also the risks and benefits of the intended outcomes, as well as questions around purpose, motivation, and directionalities (Stilgoe et al., 2013 ). Others also propose broader guidelines in which they pay attention to non-Western and non-human-centred virtue ethics, such as ‘Ubuntu’ (I am because we are) (Chilisa, 2020 ). In forwarding climate change as a product of colonisation, Gram-Hanssen et al. ( 2022 ) join Donald’s ( 2012 ) call for an ethical relationality and reiterate the need to ground all transformation efforts on a continuous process of embodying ‘right relations’ (see also Chilisa, 2020 ; Wilson, 2020 ).

Yet, as argued before, ethics in collaboration cannot be approached through developing principles and strategies alone. Not only might they not be at hand or on top of one’s mind when being immersed in a collaborative practice, which often requires a certain reaction on the spot. They also cannot or should not replace the quest for what morality means within that collaboration (cf. Clouser and Gert, 1990 ). Further questions have been prompted about the necessary skillsets for realising ethical principles in practice (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ; West and Schill, 2022 ). Caniglia et al. ( 2023 ), for example, propose that researchers need skills such as dealing with plural values with agility and traversing principles and situations with discernment. Others focus on competency building among research participants (Menon and Hartz-Karp, 2023 ). The subsequent section turns to the point of supporting researchers in navigating collaboration ‘in situ’ and in leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes—in concrete TR contexts that are plural and uncertain.

Transformative research practice investigated through collaborative autoethnography

Transformative research as a situated practice.

The aforementioned institutionalised ethical standards and procedures, as well as the informal peer heuristics, are two vantage points for guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour for transformative researchers. These existing vantage points are either developed based on theoretical and philosophical framings or based on researchers’ actual experiences of doing TR. They do offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions in ethical dilemmas during research collaborations. However, it is not until such heuristics or principles have become part of the practical knowledge of researchers that they are useful for actual TR in situ.

Considering research more as a practice situates it as a social activity in a ‘real-world context’. In such a practice, researchers often make decisions on the spot. Moreover, due to the constraints posed by available time and resources, researchers often engage in what Greenwood and Levin ( 2007 , p. 130) term “ skilful improvisation ” or “ pragmatic concessions ” (Greenwood and Levin, 2007 , p. 85). This “ improvisational quality ” (Yanow, 2006 , p. 70) of the research process does not mean it is not carried out systematically. Such systematicity is based on “ action repertoires ” (Yanow, 2006 , p. 71) that researchers creatively use and remake (Malkki, 2007 ). This improvisation is thus neither spontaneous nor random; rather, it builds on and is based on the practical knowledge of researchers (formed through their experiences and their situatedness) guiding their behaviours in normatively complex situations. Using ‘organic design’ (Haapala et al., 2016 ), the researchers blend real-world settings into formal spaces, fostering bricolage and driving sustainable institutional evolution over time. Such practical knowledge includes “ both ‘know how’ knowledge (techne), […] and ethical and political-practical knowledge (phronesis)” (Fazey et al., 2018 , p. 61). Research can thus be considered a craft (Wittmayer, 2016 ): the skilful mastery of which develops over time through learning based on experience and reflection (Kolb, 1984 ).

Such experiential learning should go beyond reflecting on what lies in view to include seeing how attributes of the viewer shape what is being viewed (cf. Stirling, 2006 ). Engaging in TR includes being one’s own research instrument, which puts a researcher’s positionality, i.e., their social, cultural, and political locations, centre stage. It reminds us that researchers are “ located within networks of power and participate in the (re)configuration of power relations ” (Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 , p. 74). This positionality, the sum of what makes a person and how this informs their actions (Haraway, 1988 ; Kwan and Walsh, 2018 ; Marguin et al., 2021 ), is increasingly being acknowledged in academia. It has a long history in feminist theories, participatory action research, and the critical pedagogy of decolonisation. Positionality refers to the “ researcher’s self-understanding and social vision ” (Coghlan and Shani, 2005 , p. 539) as well as their motivation to ‘better society’ (Boyle et al., 2023 ; Kump et al., 2023 ) and how these affect how researchers interpret ethical guidelines, conduct research, interpret data, and present findings. Consequently, one’s positionality can make certain research choices seem unethical. Mertens ( 2021 , p. 2), for example, considers “ continuing to do research in a business-as-usual manner” unethical as it makes the researcher “ complicit in sustaining oppression ”.

Acknowledging one’s positionality and normative role is part of a broader reflexive practice of critically questioning, reflecting on, and being transparent about values, as well as taking responsibility and accountability for research processes and outcomes (Fazey et al., 2018 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). Such a reflexive practice can support individual researchers to act ethically, but more so, to improve our collective ways of being and doing (i.e., an ethically informed research community) by constantly connecting what should be (i.e., the guidelines) and how it has been done (i.e., the practices) through critical reflexive practices. This improvement at the collective level includes a re-valuation and redesign of existing processes and guidelines for morally good research.

A collaborative autoethnography

Responding to this need for critical reflexivity, we engaged with our storied experience in navigating concrete and immediate ethical dilemmas that we have encountered when collaborating with others for TR in practice. We did so through collaborative autoethnography, a multivocal approach in which two or more researchers work together to share personal stories and interpret the pooled autoethnographic data (Chang et al., 2016 ; Lapadat, 2017 ; Miyahara and Fukao, 2022 ). Collaborative autoethnography is appropriate for our inquiry as it broadens the gaze from the dilemmas of the self to locate them within categories of experience shared by many. Interrogating our personal narratives and understanding the shared experiences through multiple lenses not only facilitates a more rigorous, polyvocal analysis but also reveals possibilities for practical action or intervention (Lapadat, 2017 ). Collaborative auto-ethnography can thus be considered an approach that moves “ beyond the clichés and usual explanations to the point where the written memories come as close as they can make them to ‘an embodied sense of what happened’ ” (Davies and Gannon, 2006 , p. 3). It also supports developing researcher reflexivity (Miyahara and Fukao, 2022 ).

Overall, we engaged in two types of collaborative activities over the course of a period of 18 months: writing and discussing. In hindsight, this period can be divided into three phases: starting up, exploring, and co-working. The first phase was kicked off by an online dialogue session with about 30 participants convened by the Design Impact Transition Platform of the Erasmus University Rotterdam in April 2022. The session was meant to explore and share experiences with a wide range of ethical dilemmas arising from TR collaboration in practice. Following this session, some participants continued deliberating on the questions and dilemmas raised in differing constellations and developed the idea of codifying and sharing our experiences and insights via a publication. In a second phase, we started writing down individual ethical dilemmas, both those we had discussed during the seminar and additional ones. These writings were brought together in an online shared file, where we continued our discussions. This was accompanied by meetings in differing constellations and of differing intensity for the researchers involved.

A third phase of intense co-work was framed by two broader online sessions. During a session in May 2023, we shared and discussed a first attempt at an analysis and sense-making of our individual dilemmas. During this session, we discerned the heuristic by Mertens et al. (2017) and discussed how it could be helpful in structuring our different experiences. Inspired by Mertens et al. (2017), we re-engaged with the three critical dimensions of any research paradigm to scrutinise our philosophical commitments to doing TR. A re-engagement with issues of axiology (the nature of ethics and values), ontology (the nature of reality), and epistemology (the nature of knowledge), as illustrated in Table 1 , allowed us to reconcile our ethical dilemmas and opened a space for a more nuanced understanding and bottom-up approach to the ethics of collaboration in TR. In moving forward, the heuristic also helped to guide the elicitation of additional dilemmas. This session kicked off a period of focused co-writing leading up to a second session in December 2023, where we discussed writing progress and specifically made sense of and related the ethical dilemmas to existing literature and insights.

Especially in this last phase, as we interacted dialogically to analyse and interpret the collection of storied experiences of ethical dilemmas, our thinking about the ethics of collaboration has evolved. It went beyond considering the inadequacy of institutional rules and how we navigated those, towards acknowledging their interplay with individual positionality and a researcher’s situated practice. Closer attention to the contexts within which the ethical dilemmas have arisen has led us to return to our philosophical commitments as transformative researchers and reflect on our assumptions about collaboration and research from a transformative standpoint.

The author team thus comprises a high proportion of those participating in the initial session, as well as others who joined the ensuing collective interpretation and analysis resulting in this paper. An important characteristic of the authors is that we are all affiliated with academic research institutions and that all but one of these institutions are based in high-income countries. It is in this context that we have shared our experiences, which is also limited by it. As such, this paper will mainly speak to other researchers affiliated with academic institutions in comparable settings. Acknowledging these limitations, we are from different (inter)disciplinary backgrounds Footnote 2 , nationalities, and work in different national settings and urban and rural locations. This diversity of contexts impacts the constellation of ethical dilemmas that we were faced with. We thus synthesise lessons from disparate yet still limited contexts, whilst remaining cognisant of the ungeneralisable nature of such a study.

Collaboration in transformative research practice

At the heart of our collaborative autoethnographic experience was the sharing and sensemaking of ethical dilemmas. In this section, we share those dilemmas (see Tables 2 – 4 ) clustered along the three philosophical commitments that served to deepen the analysis and interpretation of our storied experience. We embed our dilemmas with the broader body of knowledge around similar issues to discuss ways forward for practical knowledge around ‘what is good’ TR practice and ‘how to’ navigate ethical dilemmas.

Axiological dimension

Axiology is the study of value, which concerns what is considered ‘good’, what is valued, and most importantly, what ‘ought to be’. The axiological standpoint of TR is to address persistent societal problems and to contribute to transitions towards more just and sustainable societies. The commitment to knowledge development and transformative actions is also shaped by different personal judgements, disciplinary traditions, and institutional contexts. Together, these raise ethical concerns around the shape and form of research collaborations, the research lines being pursued, and where and for whom the benefits of the research accrue. Table 2 provides the details of the ethical dilemmas (described as encounters) that we discuss in the following.

Taking up a transformative stance goes hand in hand with individual researchers holding different roles at the same time (Hoffmann et al., 2022 ; Horlings et al., 2020 ; Jhagroe, 2018 ; Schut et al., 2014 ). Often resulting from this, they also perceive a wide range of responsibilities towards diverse groups (stakeholders, peers, the academic community, etc.). This is why transformative researchers face questions of who is responsible for what and whom in front of whom, and these questions influence and are influenced by what they consider the ‘right’ thing to do in relation to others in a collaborative setting. As a result, their axiological position is constructed intersubjectively in and through interactions unfolding in the communities of important others. It is thus relational and may differ depending on ‘the other’ in the research collaboration (Arrona & Larrea, 2018 ; Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ). Encounter 1 illustrates this through a constellation of the research collaboration that holds the potential to become a conflict of interest.

Such conflicts of interest can also occur in the very choice of which ‘community’ is being considered as the main beneficiary of the collaboration. The emphasis on action in TR, especially with regards to the principles of beneficence and justice that we mentioned in “Ethics in transformative research”, can increase this dilemma. Researchers are to continuously evaluate their (perceived) obligations. This includes, for example, obligations towards the scientific community (contributions to the academic discourse via publications) vs. obligations towards stakeholders (being a provider of free practical advice or consultant) vs. scientific requirements (academic rigour and independence) vs. stakeholder requests (answering practical questions). Researchers have to position themselves in this contested field of what ‘good research’ and ‘useful outcomes’ mean and sometimes question or challenge their peers or the academic system at large (see also Kump et al., 2023 ). This is the very question raised by Encounter 2 , where researchers are forced to decide which stakeholders’ values and needs should be prioritised in transforming clinical practice and improving the lives of patients.

Moreover, a similar prioritisation between the interests of different groups needs to be made between whether to create knowledge according to traditional scientific standards of systematicity and rigour or supporting collaborators in developing usable knowledge. This is surely a dilemma that arises from being embedded in an institutional context that judges according to different standards, but it also arises from the double commitment of TR to knowledge development and transformative action (Bartels et al., 2020 ). Huang et al. ( 2024 ) for example show how axiological assumptions serve as the base from which different notions of research excellence (e.g., scientific rigour, ‘impactful’ scholarship) are operationalised and supported institutionally. Encounter 3 reflects a similar dilemma as the lecturer juggles conflicting priorities that are inherent to the axiological concerns of TR. That is, can the goals of knowledge development in the traditional academic sense and transformative action be achieved simultaneously? The answer provided by Encounter 3 seems to suggest a redefinition of what ‘good’ scientific knowledge is, for immediate action to be possible.

Yet, perceived responsibilities—towards human and non-human actors, but also towards the own university, the institutional arrangements in which we partake, and what we understand as ethical behaviours—exist in a close, interdependent relationship with our inner ethical standards. Creed et al. ( 2022 , p. 358) capture this “ collection of sedimented evaluations of experiences, attachments, and commitments ” as an ‘embodied world of concern’. This can illustrate the complexity of how an individual researcher’s values, emotions, or sentiments tend to intertwine, and can sometimes clash, with the concerns of their communities and the social-political situation where they operate. Given that one’s embodied world of concern is not fixed but characterised by emerging pluralism, as Encounter 4 illustrates, the consequence of an ethical decision tends to fall more heavily on those with less axiological privilege, such as early career researchers or those located in regions where the opportunity for scientific publishing is limited (Kruijf et al., 2022 ).

As transformative researchers seek systemic change, their values cannot help but influence their research collaboration, including the choice of whom they work with and which methods to use. However, the intention of strengthening the responsiveness of research to societal and political needs through TR collaborations risks being co-opted by the interests of those funding research activities (Bauwens et al., 2023 ; Strydom et al., 2010 ). As illustrated in Encounter 5 , this might cause dilemmas when being approached by stakeholders (e.g., oil and gas companies) to do research, which may not sit well with the subjective judgements of the researcher or with an overall need for transformative change. Researchers can be caught in an odd position and left to wonder whether a compromise of values is worth the risks and end gain, depending on whether a positive contribution can still be achieved. Negotiating our axiological stances with collaborators thus allows researchers to be seen as social beings embedded in patterns of social interdependence, who are not only “ capable and can flourish ” but also “ vulnerable and susceptible to various kinds of loss or harm [and] can suffer ” (Sayer, 2011 , p. 1).

Ontological dimension

Ontology is the philosophical study of being, which concerns the nature of reality and what really exists. TR can start from diverse ontological stances, including critical realist, pragmatist, or subjectivist perspectives. This includes a strong acknowledgement that “ there are multiple versions of what is believed to be real ” (Mertens, 2017 , p. 21). Yet, such a pluralist stance remains a theoretical exercise up until the point that researchers ought to define what are ‘the things’ that need to be transformed and into what. In this situation, at least two debates arise: Do ‘the things’ exist based on a specific ontological commitment, such as the divide between measurable constructs and socially constructed understandings of risks and inequities. And is the existence of ‘the things’ universal or merely a construct of a specific time, space, or social group? As the researcher illustrated in Encounter 6 (see Table 3 for the detailed encounters), if maths anxiety and eco-anxiety are recognised as ‘real’ because of growing clinical research, why can’t the research team accept the construct of ‘science anxiety’ that their teacher collaborators have perceived in their classrooms? Collaboration thus remains especially challenging when researchers strive for academic rigour from an empiricist standpoint while having to cross paths or work with individuals from different ontological positions (Midgley, 2011 ).

Commitments to working collaboratively with members of ‘marginalised’ and ‘vulnerable’ communities add to this dilemma, as researchers are bound to encounter the ethical dilemmas of whose reality is privileged, whose reality can or should be legitimised and considered ‘true’ in a TR process (Kwan and Walsh, 2018 ). In Encounter 7 , for instance, research participants do not recognise themselves as ‘climate displaced persons’ or ‘climate migrants’ because they have a long history of migration for a plethora of reasons. Now, should researchers continue using this term with a view to gain political attention to the issues of climate change, or should they abstain from doing so? How does this relate to their commitment to transformative action, including shaping political agendas? The intention to target system-level change in TR (Burns, 2014 ; Kemmis, 2008 ) also means that researchers ought to interrogate the mechanisms that inflict certain perceived realities on the powerless in the name of good causes (Edelman, 2018 ; Feltham-King et al., 2018 ), the ways in which these narratives are deployed by powerful stakeholders (Thomas and Warner, 2019 ) and how these are translated into (research) action.

Moreover, research and action on ‘scientific’ problems can deflect attention from other problems that local communities most care about or lead to unexpected, even negative, implications for some stakeholders. With increasing pressure on the societal impact of research and funding tied to certain policy goals, the issues of labelling and appropriation might only perpetuate a deficit perspective on specific groups (Eriksen et al., 2021 ; Escobar, 2011 ; van Steenbergen, 2020 ). Encounter 8 highlights that, without caution, well-intended efforts risk perpetuating harm and injustice —upholding a certain deficit perspective of the community in question. Communities accustomed to ‘helicopter’ research, where academics ‘fly-in, fly-out’ to further their careers at the expense of the communities, may be reluctant to collaborate. This necessitates transparency, active listening, deliberative involvement, and trust building (Adame, 2021 ; Haelewaters et al., 2021 ). It also reminds us of the ‘seagull syndrome’,’ which attests to the frustration felt by community members towards outsider ‘experts’ making generalisations and false diagnoses based on what is usually a superficial or snapshot understanding of local community dynamics (Porter, 2016 ). In some incidents, transformative researchers may need to redesign collaboration processes in TR that centre on the realities of people in the study (Hickey et al., 2018 ).

Epistemological dimension

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and its primary concern is the relationship between the knower and what can be known. Transformative researchers usually work at the interface of disciplines, each with their own ideas on what constitutes ‘scientifically sound’ but also ‘socially robust’ or ‘actionable’ knowledge (Mach et al., 2020 ; Nowotny et al., 2003 ). Many thus hold the epistemological assumption that knowledge is created through multiple ways of knowing, and the processes of knowledge generation need to recognise how power inequities may shape the normative definition of legitimate knowledge. This stance raises ethical concerns about whose knowledge systems and ways of knowing are included, privileged, and/or legitimised in TR practice. Moreover, it raises concerns about ways of ensuring a plurality of knowledge spaces (Savransky, 2017 ).

Using an epistemological lens to interrogate collaborative practice in TR can illuminate a wide range of ethical dilemmas associated with longstanding critiques of Western norms and ‘scientific superiority’ (Dotson, 2011 ; Dutta et al., 2022 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). It also brings to the fore the power dynamics inherent within collaborative processes of TR for sustainability (de Geus et al., 2023 ; Frantzeskaki and Rok, 2018 ; Kanemasu and Molnar, 2020 ; Kok et al., 2021 ; Strumińska-Kutra and Scholl, 2022 ). A particular ethical challenge is related to the fact that it is typically researchers from the Global North who design and lead research collaborations, even when these take place in the Global South. This immediately creates “ an inequality that is not conducive to effective co-production ” and requires “ dedicated commitment to identify and confront the embodied power relations [and] hegemonic knowledge systems among the participants in the process ” (Vincent, 2022 , p. 890). See Table 4 for details on the ethical dilemmas that we discuss in the following.

Concerns about epistemic justice (Ackerly et al., 2020 ; Harvey et al., 2022 ; Temper and Del Bene, 2016 ) and interpretation of voices (Komulainen, 2007 ) are largely rooted in the deficit narratives about the capacity of certain groups for producing knowledge or for being knowers. Encounter 9 shows how easily certain voices can be muted as not being considered to speak from a position of knowledge. Research processes can usefully be expanded to include disinterested or disengaged citizens (Boyle et al., 2022 ), or those opposing a project or initiative so as to lay bare the associated tensions of knowledge integration and co-production (Cockburn, 2022 ). Encounter 10 illustrates that such silencing also relates to the question of who holds legitimate knowledge. This research has three parties that may hold legitimate knowledge: the researcher, the corporation, and the local community. However, the extent to which the researchers’ knowledge is heard remains unclear since the corporation does not consider it in its actions. It also illustrates common insecurities about what one can attain using certain research methods. The reliance of political institutions and citizens on expert advice, particularly when dealing with acute crises (e.g., Covid-19 pandemic), also tends to exacerbate the depoliticisation of decisions (Rovelli, 2021 ).

Moreover, TR practice nearly inevitably results in privileging certain ways of knowing and knowledges. Researchers make space for shared action or dialogue around a certain issue, inviting certain groups but not others, and choosing certain methods and not others. Encounter 11 illustrates the issue of favouritism in research collaboration. It elaborates on how thoughtful facilitation can intervene to level the playing field and provide a way out of the dilemma going beyond the question of whose benefit it serves. This facilitation enables meaningful collaboration among all parties involved. Particularly in policy sectors dominated by political and economic considerations, which exhibit strong vested interests, there is a need to foster meaningful and safe participation (Nastar et al., 2018 ). Skilled facilitation is crucial for uniting marginalised groups, preparing them to deal with the intricacies of scientific jargon and technological hegemony (Djenontin and Meadow, 2018 ; Reed and Abernethy, 2018 ). The contextual dimensions of collaborators, their associated worldviews, and the social networks in which they are situated are important epistemological foundations. Yet, these are not static and can shift over time throughout collaborative partnerships.

As explicated in “Introducing transformative research”, TR represents an epistemological shift to recognise researchers as sense-makers, agency holders, and change agents. This philosophical commitment can create dilemmas for ‘embedded researchers’ seeking to strengthen the science-policy interface. Encounter 12 illustrates how occupying a dual role — to dive into action and to publish scientifically — can be at odds. This encounter alludes to the fact that transformative researchers often navigate different roles, which come with different, at times conflicting, epistemological priorities and ways of knowing (e.g., roles as a change agent and a reflective scientist, the approach of ‘Two-Eyed Seeing’ by Indigenous scholars) (Bulten et al., 2021 ; Temper et al., 2019 ; Wittmayer and Schäpke, 2014 ). Importantly, such roles change over time in a TR practice and over the course of a researcher’s career (McGowan et al., 2014 ; Pohl et al., 2017 ).

Involving diverse stakeholders in knowledge co-production also inevitably leads to ethical questions concerning how to integrate diverse knowledge systems, especially those using multi-method research designs or models to aid decision-making (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ). Models can be useful in providing scenarios, however, they are constructed by people based on certain assumptions. These assumptions serve as the fundamental lenses through which complex real-world systems are simplified, analysed, and interpreted within the model framework. Despite the well-intention of researchers, the practice of establishing a shared understanding and reaching consensus about key constructs in a model is often unattainable. As Encounter 13 illustrates, participatory model building requires the capacity and willingness of all involved to knit together kindred, or even conflicting, perspectives to complement disciplinary specialism.

We explored the dilemmas of researchers pertaining to knowing ‘how to’ act in a certain situation and considering ‘what is doing good’ in that situation. Transformative researchers (re)build their practical knowledge of what doing research means through cultivating a reflexive practice that puts experiences in context and allows to learn from them. From a meta-perspective, doing TR is a form of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984 ) and doing TR involves traversing an action research cycle: experiencing and observing one’s action research practice, abstracting from it, building knowledge, and experimenting with it again to cultivate what has been referred to as first person inquiry (Reason and Torbert, 2001 ).

Concluding thoughts

In this article, we set out to explore which ethical dilemmas researchers face in TR and how they navigate those in practice. We highlighted that researchers engaging in TR face a context of uncertainty and plurality around what counts as ethically acceptable collaboration. With TR emphasising collaboration, it becomes important to discern the notion of ‘right relations’ with others (Gram-Hanssen et al., 2022 ), to attend to the positionality of the researcher, and to reconfigure power relations. Importantly, with TR emphasising the need for structural and systematic changes, researchers need to be aware of how research itself is characterised by structural injustices.

Using a collaborative autoethnography, we shared ethical dilemmas to uncover the messiness of collaborative TR practice. We established how guidance from institutionalised reference systems (i.e., ethical review boards and procedures) currently falls short in recognising the particularities of TR. We described how the research community generates informal principles, or heuristics to address this gap. However, we also appreciated that in actual collaboration, researchers are often ‘put on the spot’ to react ‘ethically’ in situ, with limited time and space to withdraw and consult guidelines on ‘how to behave’. Such informal heuristics are thus but a start and a helpful direction for developing the practical knowledge of researchers on how to navigate a plural and uncertain context.

This practical knowledge is based on an awareness of the uncertainty around what constitutes morally good behaviour and builds through experience and a critical reflexive practice. Our aim is not to share another set of principles, but rather to highlight the situatedness of TR and the craftsmanship necessary to navigate it and, in doing so, build practical knowledge through experiential learning and insight discovery (Kolb, 1984 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ). Such a bottom-up approach to research ethics builds on the experiences of researchers engaging in TR as a situated practice vis-à-vis their personal motivations and normative ambitions and the institutional contexts they are embedded in. This approach nurtures the critical reflexivity of researchers about how they relate to ethical principles and how they translate this into their normative assumptions, practical hypotheses, and methodological strategy.

Next to continuous learning, this critical reflexivity on TR as craftmanship can enhance practical wisdom not only for the individual but also for the broader community of researchers. We envision such wisdom not as a set of closed-ended guidelines or principles, but rather as a growing collection of ethical questions enabling the TR community to continuously deepen the interrogation of their axiological, ontological, and epistemological commitments (see Table 5 ). Only through this ongoing process of reacting, reflecting, and questioning—or as referred to by Pearce et al. ( 2022 , p. 4) as “an insight discovery process”—can we collectively learn from the past to improve our future actions.

However, such a bottom-up approach to ethics can only form one part of the answer, set in times of an evolving research ethics landscape. Researchers engaging in transformative academic work cannot and should not be left alone. Additionally, researchers’ ethical judgements cannot be left to their goodwill and virtuous values alone. Therefore, another important part of the answer is the carving out of appropriate institutions that can provide external guidance and accountability. This will require nothing less than structural and cultural changes in established universities and research environments. Rather than having researchers decide between doing good and doing ‘good’ research, such environments should help to align those goals.

From this work, questions arise on how institutional environments can be reformed or transformed to be more conducive to the particularities of TR, and to help nurture critical reflexivity. We highlight the critical role that ethic review boards can play in starting to rethink their roles, structures, and underlying values. Practical ideas include employing mentors for transformative research ethics, having ethical review as a process rather than as a one-off at the start of the project, or continuously investing in moral education. Thus, we underscore the importance of individual reflexivity and learning. However, we would like to set this in the broader context of organisational learning, and even unlearning, among academic institutions to overhaul our academic systems in response to the urgent imperative of tackling socio-ecological challenges globally. In this transformative endeavour, careful consideration of how the ethics of research and collaboration shape academics’ socially engaged work is indispensable.

The full set of essentials is the following: (1) Focus on transformations to low-carbon, resilient living; (2) Focus on solution processes; (3) Focus on ‘how to’ practical knowledge; (4) Approach research as occurring from within the system being intervened; (5) Work with normative aspects; (6) Seek to transcend current thinking; (7) Take a multi-faceted approach to understand and shape change; (8) Acknowledge the value of alternative roles of researchers; (9) Encourage second-order experimentation; and (10) Be reflexive. Joint application of the essentials would create highly adaptive, reflexive, collaborative, and impact-oriented research able to enhance capacity to respond to the climate challenge.

Disciplines include amongst others anthropology, business administration, climate change adaptation, cultural economics, economics, economic geography, education, health sciences, human geography, international development studies, philosophy, political science, sociology, urban planning.

Ackerly BA, Friedman EJ, Menon K, Zalewski M (2020) Research ethics and epistemic oppression. Int. Feminist J Politics 22(3):309–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2020.1771006

Article   Google Scholar  

Adame F (2021) Meaningful collaborations can end ‘helicopter research’. Nature d41586-021-01795–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01795-1

Arnott JC, Neuenfeldt RJ, Lemos MC (2020) Co-producing science for sustainability: can funding change knowledge use? Glob Environ Change 60:101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101979

Arrona A, Larrea M (2018) Soft resistance: balancing relationality and criticality to institutionalise action research for territorial development. In: Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds.) Action research in policy analysis. critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp 134–152

Bartels KPR, Greenwood DJ, Wittmayer JM (2020) How action research can make deliberative policy analysis more transformative. Policy Stud 41(4):392–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1724927

Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds) (2018) Action research in policy analysis. critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York

Bauwens T, Reike D, Calisto-Friant M (2023) Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it. Environ Innov Soci Transit 48:100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100749

Beauchamp T, Childress J (2001) Principles Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press

BMJ. (1996) The Nuremberg Code (1947). 313(7070), 1448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448

Bournot-Trites M, Belanger J (2005) Ethical dilemmas facing action researchers. J Educ Thought (JET)/Rev de La Pensée Éducative 39(2):197–215

Google Scholar  

Boyle E, Galvin M, Revez A, Deane A, Ó Gallachóir B, Mullally G (2022) Flexibility & structure: community engagement on climate action & large infrastructure delivery. Energy Policy 167:113050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113050

Boyle E, McGookin C, O’Mahony C, Bolger P, Byrne E, Gallachóir BÓ, Mullally G (2023) Understanding how institutions may support the development of transdisciplinary approaches to sustainability research. Research for All, 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.07.1.07

Bradbury H, Waddell S, O’Brien K, Apgar M, Teehankee B, Fazey I (2019) A call to action research for transformations: the times demand it. Action Res 17(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319829633

Bulten E, Hessels LK, Hordijk M, Segrave AJ (2021) Conflicting roles of researchers in sustainability transitions: balancing action and reflection. Sustain Sci 16(4):1269–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00938-7

Burns D (2014) Systemic action research: changing system dynamics to support sustainable change. Action Res 12(1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750313513910

Caniglia G, Freeth R, Luederitz C, Leventon J, West SP, John B, Peukert D, Lang DJ, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B, Fazey I, Russo F, von Wirth T, Schlüter M, Vogel C (2023) Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nat Sustain 6(5):493–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

Caniglia G, Luederitz C, von Wirth T, Fazey I, Martín-López B, Hondrila K, König A, von Wehrden H, Schäpke NA, Laubichler MD, Lang DJ (2021) A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Cassell C, Johnson P (2006) Action research: explaining the diversity. Hum Relat 59(6):783–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706067080

Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE, Klenk NL, Tengö M, Brennan R, Cockburn JJ, Hill R, Munera C, Nel JL, Österblom H, Pickering T (2021) Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustainability 4(11):983–996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

Chang H, Ngunjiri F, Hernandez K (2016) Collaborative autoethnography (Vol. 8). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315432137/collaborative-autoethnography-kathy-ann-hernandez-heewon-chang-faith-ngunjiri

Chilisa B (2020) Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

Christians C (2005) Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In: Y Lincoln (ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 139–164

Clouser K, Gert B (1990) A critique of principlism. J Med Philos 152(2):219–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/15.2.219

Cockburn J (2022) Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary sustainability science: Tools from applied critical realism. Sustain Dev 30(2):358–374

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Cockburn J, Cundill G (2018) Ethics in transdisciplinary research: Reflections on the implications of ‘Science with Society’. In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Springer, Cham, pp 81–97

Coghlan D, Shani ABR (2005) Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design. Syst Pract Action Res 18(6):533–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-9465-3

Creed WED, Hudson BA, Okhuysen GA, Smith-Crowe K (2022) A place in the world: vulnerability, well-Being, and the Ubiquitous evaluation that animates participation in institutional processes. Acad Manag Rev 47(3):358–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0367

Davies B, Gannon S (2006) The practices of collective biography. In: Davies B, Gannon S (eds) Doing collective biography. Investigating the production of subjectivity, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 1–15

de Geus T, Avelino F, Strumińska-Kutra M, Pitzer M, Wittmayer JM, Hendrikx L, Joshi V, Schrandt N, Widdel L, Fraaije M, Iskandarova M, Hielscher S, Rogge K (2023) Making sense of power through transdisciplinary sustainability research: insights from a transformative power lab. Sustain Sci. 18(3):1311–1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01294-4

Detardo-Bora K (2004) Action research in a world of positivist-oriented review boards. Action Res 2(3):237–253

Djenontin INS, Meadow AM (2018) The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ Manag 61(6):885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Donald D (2012) Indigenous Métissage: a decolonizing research sensibility. Int J Qual Stud Educ 25(5):533–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.554449

Dotson K (2011) Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia 26(2):236–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x

Dutta U, Azad AK, Hussain SM (2022) Counterstorytelling as epistemic justice: decolonial community‐based praxis from the global south. Am J Commun Psychol 69(1–2):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12545

Edelman NL (2018) Researching sexual healthcare for women with problematic drug use: returning to ethical principles in study processes. In: In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research, Springer, Cham, pp 47–62

Eriksen S, Schipper ELF, Scoville-Simonds M, Vincent K, Adam HN, Brooks N, Harding B, Khatri D, Lenaerts L, Liverman D, Mills-Novoa M, Mosberg M, Movik S, Muok B, Nightingale A, Ojha H, Sygna L, Taylor M, Vogel C, West JJ (2021) Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Dev 141:105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

Escobar A (2011) Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World, vol 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Fazey I, Schäpke N, Caniglia G, Patterson J, Hultman J, van Mierlo B, Säwe F, Wiek A, Wittmayer J, Aldunce P, Woods M, Wyborn C (2018) Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res Soc Sci 40:54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026

Feltham-King T, Bomela Y, Macleod CI (2018) Contesting the nature of young pregnant and mothering women: critical healthcare nexus research, ethics committees, and healthcare institutions. In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research, Springer, Cham, pp 63–79

Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ Stud 36(3):363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

Finlay L (2002) Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qua Res 2:209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205

Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N (2016) Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environ Sci Policy 62:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010

Frantzeskaki N, Rok A (2018) Co-producing urban sustainability transitions knowledge with community, policy and science. Environ Innov Soc Transit 29(August):47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.08.001

Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol Econ 10(3):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)90108-2

Future Earth (2014) Future Earth 2025 Vision. International Council for Science (ICSU), Paris. Online at: https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/future-earth_10-year-vision_web.pdf

General Assembly of the World Medical Association (2014) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent 81(3):14–18

Gerber A, Forsberg E-M, Shelley-Egan C, Arias R, Daimer S, Dalton G, Cristóbal AB, Dreyer M, Griessler E, Lindner R, Revuelta G, Riccio A, Steinhaus N (2020) Joint declaration on mainstreaming RRI across Horizon Europe. J Responsible Innov 7(3):708–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1764837

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzmann S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications, London

Gram-Hanssen I, Schafenacker N, Bentz J (2022) Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations. Sustain Sci 17(2):673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9

Greenwood DJ, Levin M (2007) Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Haapala J, Rautanen S-L, White P, Keskinen M, Varis O (2016) Facilitating bricolage through more organic institutional designs? The case of water users’ associations in rural Nepal. Int J Commons 10(2):1172. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.688

Haelewaters D, Hofmann TA, Romero-Olivares AL (2021) Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South. PLOS Comput Biol 17(8):e1009277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009277

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud 14(3):575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Harney L, Mccurry J, Wills J (2016) Developing ‘ process pragmatism ’ to underpin engaged research in human geography. Prog Hum Geogr 40(3):316–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515623367

Harvey B, Huang Y-S, Araujo J, Vincent K, Sabiiti G (2022) Breaking vicious cycles? A systems perspective on Southern leadership in climate and development research programmes. Clim Dev 14(10):884–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.2020614

Hessels LK, van Lente H, Smits R (2009) In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Sci Public Policy 36(5):387–401. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X442034

Hickey G, Richards T, Sheehy J (2018) Co-production from proposal to paper Three examples show how public participation in research can be extended at every step of the process to generate useful knowledge. Nature 562:29–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06861-9

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye, D, Pohl, C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3

Hoffmann S, Deutsch L, Klein JT, O’Rourke M (2022) Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):147. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41599-022-01138-Z

Hoffmann S, Pohl C, Hering JG (2017) Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Res Policy 46(3):678–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004

Hölscher K, Wittmayer JM, Hirschnitz-garbers M, Olfert A, Schiller G, Brunnow B (2021) Transforming science and society? Methodological lessons from and for transformation research. Res Eval 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa034

Horcea-Milcu A-I, Leventon J, Lang DJ (2022) Making transdisciplinarity happen: Phase 0, or before the beginning. Environ Sci Policy 136:187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.019

Horlings LG, Nieto-Romero M, Pisters S, Soini K (2020) Operationalising transformative sustainability science through place-based research: the role of researchers. Sustain Sci. 15(2):467–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00757-x

Huang YS, Harvey B, Vincent K (2024) Large-scale sustainability programming is reshaping research excellence: Insights from a meta-ethnographic study of 12 global initiatives Environ Sci Policy 155:103725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103725

Hurtado S (2022) The transformative paradigm. In: Pasque PA (ed) Advancing culturally responsive research and researchers: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, Routledge, London, pp 15–17

Jaeger-Erben M, Nagy E, Schäfer M, Süßbauer E, Zscheischler J (2018) Von der Programmatik zur Praxis: Plädoyer für eine Grounded Theory transformationsorientierter Forschung. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 27(1):117–121. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.1.5

Janes J (2016) Democratic encounters? Epistemic privilege, power, and community-based participatory action research. Action Res 14(1):72–87

Jhagroe S (2018) Transition scientivism: on activist gardening and co-producing transition knowledge ‘from below’. In: Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds) Action Research in Policy Analysis. Critical and Relational Appoaches to Sustainability Transitions, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp 64–85

Kanemasu Y, Molnar G (2020) Representing’ the voices of Fijian women rugby players: Working with power differentials in transformative research. Int Rev Sociol Sport 55(4):399–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690218818991

Kemmis S (2008) Critical theory and participatory action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, London, pp 695–707

Kok KPW, Gjefsen MD, Regeer BJ, Broerse JEW (2021) Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’ in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation. Sustain Sci 16(6):1811–1826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01033-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kolb, D (1984) The Process of Experiential Learning. In: Experiential Learning. Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, pp 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4

Komulainen S (2007) The Ambiguity of the Child’s ‘Voice’ in Social Research. Childhood 14(1):11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568207068561

Kruijf JV, Verbrugge L, Schröter B, den Haan R, Cortes Arevalo J, Fliervoet J, Henze J, Albert C (2022) Knowledge co‐production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects. Sustain Dev 30(2):393–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2281

Kump B, Wittmayer J, Bogner K, Beekman M (2023) Navigating force conflicts: a case study on strategies of transformative research in the current academic system. J Clean Prod 412:137374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137374

Kwan C, Walsh C (2018) Ethical issues in conducting community-based participatory research: a narrative review of the literature. Qual Rep. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3331

Lacey J, Howden SM, Cvitanovic C, Dowd A-M (2015) Informed adaptation: ethical considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers. Glob Environ Change 32:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.011

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Sci. 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lapadat JC (2017) Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qual Inq 23(8):589–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704462

Lincoln Y (2001) Engaging sympathies: Relationships between action research and social constructivism. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Participative inquiry and practice, SAGE Publications, London, pp 124–132

Locke T, Alcorn N, O’Neill J (2013) Ethical issues in collaborative action research. Educ Action Res 21(1):107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.763448

Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42(1):599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340

Lotz-Sisitka H, Ali MB, Mphepo G, Chaves M, Macintyre T, Pesanayi T, Wals A, Mukute M, Kronlid D, Tran DT, Joon D, McGarry D (2016) Co-designing research on transgressive learning in times of climate change. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.04.004

Mach KJ, Lemos MC, Meadow AM, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Arnott JC, Ardoin NM, Fieseler C, Moss RH, Nichols L, Stults M, Vaughan C, Wong-Parodi G (2020) Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002

Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) (2018) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Springer, Cham

Malkki LH (2007) Tradition and Improvisation in Ethnographic Field Research. In: Cerwonka A, Malkki LH, Improvising Theory. Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork, The University of Chicago Press, pp 162–187

Marguin S, Haus J, Heinrich AJ, Kahl A, Schendzielorz C, Singh A (2021) Positionality Reloaded: Über die Dimensionen der Reflexivität im Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft: Ein EditorialPositionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society: An Editorial. Historical Soc Res 46:734. https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.7-34

McGowan KA, Westley F, Fraser EDG, Loring PA, Weathers KC, Avelino F, Sendzimir J, Roy Chowdhury R, Moore M-L (2014) The research journey: travels across the idiomatic and axiomatic toward a better understanding of complexity. Ecol Soc 19(3):art37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06518-190337

Menon S, Hartz-Karp J (2023) Applying mixed methods action research to explore how public participation in an Indian City could better resolve urban sustainability problems. Action Res 21(2):230–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750320943662

Mertens DM (2007) Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mixed Methods Res 1(3):212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811

Mertens DM (2017) Transformative research: Personal and societal. Int J Transform Res 4(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2017-0001

Mertens DM (2021) Transformative research methods to increase social impact for vulnerable groups and cultural minorities. Int J Qua Methods 20:160940692110515. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211051563

Midgley G (2011) Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Syst Pract Action Res 24:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9176-2

Miyahara M, Fukao A (2022) Exploring the use of collaborative autoethnography as a tool for facilitating the development of researcher reflexivity. System 105:102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102751

Nastar M, Abbas S, Aponte Rivero C, Jenkins S, Kooy M (2018) The emancipatory promise of participatory water governance for the urban poor: Reflections on the transition management approach in the cities of Dodowa, Ghana and Arusha, Tanzania. Afr Stud 77(4):504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2018.1459287

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioral Research. (1979) The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research ( Vol. 1 ) . United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Online available here: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM, Canadell JG, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA, Gaffney O, Gelcich S, Jouffray JB, Leach M, Österblom H (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustainability 3(3):182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva 41(3):179–194

Nugroho K, Carden F, Antlov H (2018) Local knowledge matters: Power, context and policy making in Indonesia. Policy Press, Bristol

Parks S, Rincon D, Parkinson S, Manville C (2019) The changing research landscape and reflections on national research assessment in the future . RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3200.html

Parsell M, Ambler T, Jacenyik-Trawoger C (2014) Ethics in higher education research. Stud High Educ 39(1):166–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.647766

Pearce BJ, Deutsch L, Fry P, Marafatto FF, Lieu J (2022) Going beyond the AHA! moment: insight discovery for transdisciplinary research and learning. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01129-0

Phillips L, Christensen-Strynø MB, Frølunde L (2022) Thinking with autoethnography in collaborative research: a critical, reflexive approach to relational ethics. Qual Res 22(5):761–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211033446

Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001

Pohl C, Krütli P, Stauffacher M (2017) Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 26(1):43–51. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.10

Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

Porter A (2016) Decolonizing policing: indigenous patrols, counter-policing and safety. Theor Criminol 20(4):548–565

Reason P, Torbert W (2001) The action turn: toward a transformational social science. Concepts Transform 6(1):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.6.1.02rea

Reed MG, Abernethy P (2018) Facilitating Co-production of transdisciplinary knowledge for sustainability: working with canadian biosphere reserve practitioners. Soc Nat Resour 31(1):39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1383545

Rovelli C (2021) Politics should listen to science, not hide behind it. Nat Mater 20(2):272–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-020-00891-3

Rowan J (2000) Research ethics. Int J Psychother 5(2):103–110

Saltelli A, Ravetz JR, Funtowicz S (2016) Who will solve the crisis in science? In: Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Giampietro M, Guimaraes Pereira A, Ravetz J, Saltelli A, Strand R, van der Sluijs JP (eds) The rightful place of science: Science on the verge. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes

Savransky M (2017) A decolonial imagination: sociology, anthropology and the politics of reality. Sociology 51(1):11–26

Sayer A (2011) Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Schäpke N, Bergmann M, Stelzer F, Lang DJ (2018) Labs in the real world: advancing transdisciplinary research and sustainability transformation: mapping the field and emerging lines of inquiry. Gaia 27:8–11. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.4

Schneider F, Giger M, Harari N, Moser S, Oberlack C, Providoli I, Schmid L, Tribaldos T, Zimmermann A (2019) Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environ Sci Policy 102(October):26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017

Schneidewind U, Singer-Brodowski M, Augenstein K (2016) Transformative science for sustainability transitions. In: Handbook on sustainability transition and sustainable peace, Springer, pp 123–136

Schut M, Paassen AV, Leeuwis C, Klerkx L (2014) Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. 41(August 2013), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct048

Smith L (2008) Ethical principles in practice. Evidence from participatory action research. Kairaranga 9(3):16–21. https://doi.org/10.54322/kairaranga.v9i3.135

Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Stirling A (2006) Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. In: Voß JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 225–272

Strumińska-Kutra M, Scholl C (2022) Taking power seriously: towards a power-sensitive approach for transdisciplinary action research. Futures 135(December 2021):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102881

Strydom WF, Funke N, Nienaber S, Nortje K, Steyn M (2010) Evidence-based policymaking: a review. South Afr J Sci 106(5/6):8 pages. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v106i5/6.249

Temper L, Del Bene D (2016) Transforming knowledge creation for environmental and epistemic justice. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.05.004

Temper L, McGarry D, Weber L (2019) From academic to political rigour: insights from the ‘Tarot’ of transgressive research. Ecol Econ 164:106379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106379

Thomas KA, Warner BP (2019) Weaponizing vulnerability to climate change. Glob Environ Change 57:101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101928

van Breda J, Swilling M (2019) The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: learning experiences and reflections from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement, South Africa. Sustain Sci 14(3):823–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0606-x

van Steenbergen F (2020) Zonder marge geen centrum. Een pleidooi voor een rechtvaardige transitie. [PhD-Thesis]. Erasmus University Rotterdam

Vermeer J, Pinheiro H, Petrosova L, Eaton D (2020) Evaluation of the Belmont Forum: Final report. Technolopolis Group. https://www.belmontforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Belmont-Forum-External-Evaluation.pdf

Vincent K (2022) Development geography I: Co-production. Prog Hum Geogr 46(3):890–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132522107905

WBGU (2011) Flagship report: world in transition—a social contract for sustainability. In: Berlin: German Advisory

West S, Schill C (2022) Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):294. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01297-z

Wijsman K, Feagan M (2019) Rethinking knowledge systems for urban resilience: Feminist and decolonial contributions to just transformations. Environ Sci Policy 98:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.017

Williamson GR, Prosser S (2002) Action research: politics, ethics and participation. J Adv Nurs 40(5):587–593. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02416.x

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson S (2020) Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/research-is-ceremony-shawn-wilson

Wittmayer JM (2016) Transition Management, Action Research and Actor Roles: Understanding local sustainability transitions. Erasmus University Rotterdam

Wittmayer JM, Loorbach D, Bogner K, Hendlin Y, Hölscher K, Lavanga M, Vasques A, von Wirth T, de Wal M (2021) Transformative Research: Knowledge and action for just sustainability transitions (Design Impact Transition Platform Working Paper Series). Design Impact Transition Platform Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/transformative-research-knowledge-and-action-for-just-sustainabil

Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4):483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4

Wood L, Kahts-Kramer S (2023) But how will you ensure the objectivity of the researcher?’ Guidelines to address possible misconceptions about the ethical imperatives of community-based research. Res Ethics 19(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221135882

Yanow D (2006) Neither rigorous nor objective? Interrogating criteria for knowledge claims in interpretive science. In: Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P, Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, M.E. Sharpe, pp 67–88

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Julia M. Wittmayer, Derk Loorbach & Neha Mungekar

Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Julia M. Wittmayer, Timo von Wirth, Tessa Boumans & Neha Mungekar

Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Kristina Bogner

MaREI Centre for Energy Climate and Marine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Katharina Hölscher

Research Lab for Urban Transport (ReLUT), Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Timo von Wirth

Business Management & Organisation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Jilde Garst

Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Yogi Hale Hendlin

Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Mariangela Lavanga

Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Mapula Tshangela

Delft Centre for Entrepreneurship, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Pieter Vandekerckhove

Erasmus University College Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Ana Vasques

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Julia M. Wittmayer and Ying-Syuan Huang drafted the work for important intellectual content, substantially contributed to the concept and design of the work, and contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data for the work. Kristina Bogner, Evan Boyle, Katharina Hölscher, and Timo von Wirth substantially contributed to the concept or design of the work and contributed to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work. Tessa Boumans, Jilde Garst, Yogi Hendlin, Mariangela Lavanga, Derk Loorbach, Neha Mungekar, Mapula Tshangela, Pieter Vandekerckhove, and Ana Vasues contributed to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia M. Wittmayer .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wittmayer, J.M., Huang, YS.(., Bogner, K. et al. Neither right nor wrong? Ethics of collaboration in transformative research for sustainable futures. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 677 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03178-z

Download citation

Received : 21 December 2023

Accepted : 13 May 2024

Published : 25 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03178-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

3 Theory and methodology of empirical ethics: a pragmatic hermeneutic perspective

• Published: February 2008
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Empirical science and ethics are traditionally viewed as distinct disciplines. Empirical science deals with facts; ethics deals with norms and values. Empirical science is descriptive; ethics is prescriptive. Yet, if ethics wants to say things about the real world, it has to take into account facts. Medical ethics has been developed in close interaction with medical practice. Its problems come from practice, and solutions for these problems are found through interaction between ethicists and physicians.

Whereas interaction between ethicists and physicians has always been important in medical ethics, the notion of empirical ethics is more recent. Combining empirical research and philosophical analysis has become more accepted in twentieth century philosophy, such as ordinary language philosophy, phenomenology, and philosophy of science. In medicine, the plea for evidence-based practice has become prominent, implying the need for empirical research in all medical disciplines. These developments have influenced the rise of empirical ethics in the area of medicine (see Borry et al. , Chapter 4 in this volume).

Although empirical ethics has gained considerable attention over the past years, traditional doubts about merging facts and values have not vanished. It is not clear for everyone that empirical research and ethics can be combined in a productive way, without committing the naturalistic fallacy (see McMillan and Hope, Chapter 2 in this volume). Systematic reflection upon the theoretical and methodological issues involved in combining empirical research and ethics is scarce. Facts evidently matter for ethics, but how can the results of empirical research be integrated into ethical reasoning? How can normative conclusions be based upon empirical studies?

In this chapter, we will attempt to find an answer to these questions. We will first explain what it means to see practice as a source of ethics. Next, we sketch our theoretical perspective, combining two philosophical approaches: pragmatism and hermeneutics. In line with the view that practice is important for understanding and developing theory, we will present an example of an empirical ethical project in psychiatry, making use of a pragmatic hermeneutic approach. Reflecting upon this example, we will discuss the role of method in empirical ethics. We will argue, along with Gadamer, that truth is more fundamental than method. Furthermore, we explain the role of general rules and principles. Referring to Aristotle's notion of practical wisdom ( phronèsis ), we will argue that understanding general rules requires knowledge of their application to concrete situations. Finally, we will discuss the way in which our approach combines facts and norms. We will show that the normative outcome of the project is related to the process of negotiation about the claims of the participants.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) publishes empirical research and reviews of empirical literature on human research ethics. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics.

JERHRE is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Its distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles. Topics of recent articles include the following:

• Communication Issues: Recruitment; Informed consent; Deception; Relationships as a source of data; Community consultation and outreach; Language and meaning across cultures and contexts
• Acquisition and Use of Data: Privacy; Confidentiality; Uses of data
• Risk and Benefit: Risk, wrong and harm; Benefit, incentive, promise of social value; Risk/benefit assessment
• Theory, Method and Design: Validity; Modeling; Equitable treatment of participants; Technology, efficiency and sampling; Beliefs about knowledge
• Other Influences on Research : Research ethics committees; Other institutional-governance influences; Perceptions that influence research; Taboo, questionable and controversial topics of research; Scientific integrity and responsibility; Ethics and politics; Government and agency regulations and policies; Human-research literacy; Education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR)

Institutions and their researchers share concern about the responsible conduct of research (RCR), but can experience difficulty finding common ground around the interpretation of ethical principles and regulations. JERHRE seeks to create collaboration among these stakeholders by stimulating research and disseminating knowledge to foster the intelligent application of ethical principles in research contexts worldwide.

The basic aim of JERHRE is to improve ethical problem solving in human research. Stakeholders in human research grapple with conflict among various standards. Without evidence-based problem solving, many conflicts are unsatisfactorily settled by applying one-size-fits-all interpretation of principles or regulations, or resorting to anecdote as evidence for one or another interpretation. JERHRE creates collaboration among stakeholders, stimulates research, and disseminates knowledge to foster intelligent application of ethical principles in research contexts worldwide.

• BIOETHICSLINE©
• Bibliography of BioEthics
• Cabel’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Psychiatry and Psychology
• Clarivate Analytics: Social Science Citation Index
• ETHX on the Web
• Internationale Bibliographie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschatlichen
• Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen Wissenshcaftlicher Literatur
• PubMed: MEDLINE
• SwetsWise Index
• Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports
• Thomson-Reuters Science Citation Index
• Thomson-Reuters Web of Science

The following is intended to guide and expand, not limit, the scope of articles. As the environment of human research evolves, this section will evolve. If your intended contribution does not fit the categories described here, you are invited to consult with the Editor-in-Chief Doug Wassenaar at [email protected]

Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts should be transmitted in Word Document or LaTeX form through the journal’s Sage Track website at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jerhre .

Manuscripts prepared for submission to JERHRE should follow the 6 th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association and be written in English.

Manuscripts may be major articles (see Manuscript Types Considered For Submission ), brief reports of preliminary studies, or book reviews, which are usually by invitation of the Book Review Editor. Articles should be concise, useful and relevant to JERHRE ’s target audiences: researchers, members of research ethics committees/IRBs, empirical research ethics scholars/academics, research stakeholders, and research administrators. Articles should be about 4,000 words inclusive, but some flexibility is accommodated if justified. Use of supplemental digital content (SDC) is encouraged if additional detail would be of interest to some readers. Authors may send SDC to be considered for online posting. SDC may include text documents, data sets, replication code, zip files, additional images, and appendices as well as multimedia materials such as audio or video recordings; multimedia requirements are available upon request. For topics typically covered in articles, but not exclusively, fields and disciplines to address, and acceptable approaches to methods and data please read the detailed guide, Manuscript Types Considered for Submission . Authors may contact the editorial office ( [email protected] ) with potential submission ideas if they are in doubt as to whether or not they fit the scope or interests of the journal.

Because manuscripts are anonymize reviewed, the parts of the manuscript that reveal the identity of the author must be separate documents. Any figures and tables should also be transmitted as separate documents. Therefore, in the final preparation for submission, create the following as separate documents:

• Manuscript, minus figures, tables, and any identifying information
• Any figures, tables or supplementary online documents
• Acknowledgements, Author Note, Biographical Sketch(es)
• Cover letter

Please see the document Manuscript Preparation for more information on how to prepare these parts of your article for submission to JERHRE and comply with the journal’s submission requirements.

General Policies

Policies governing JERHRE 's authors, editors, and reviewers are those of the Council of Science Editors , the 6 th edition Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , and Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals . These policies are consistent with one another. Relevant aspects are described below.

Conflict of Interest (COI) - Authors are required to declare to the editor any conflicts of interest (any financial or other arrangements or commitments that could reasonably be perceived as sources of bias in the design, interpretation, or reporting of the results of the research) upon acceptance in the journal. If there is something you would be prudent to declare, please do so in your cover letter. If none of the authors have situations that might reasonably be perceived as a COI, please state this in your cover letter. Undisclosed conflicts later identified by a third party will be published in an "Errata" if the editors feel the readers should know about such conflicts.

Protection of Human Subjects - Manuscripts reporting data from human subjects research must state, in the Method section, what formal review and approval or waiver was granted by appropriate research ethics committee(s). The treatment of research participants must be in accord with ethical and other requirements, as set forth in the country in which the research was conducted and as specified by the sponsoring agency.

Informed Consent - The approach(es) and method(s) of obtaining informed consent should be described, including the reasons why any unconventional approaches or waivers were deemed more ethical and respectful in the particular culture and context. This discussion of the informed consent processes and rationales should be more than perfunctory, given that research published in JERHRE derives from a wide range of cultures that may require unconventional approaches to informed consent (e.g., Aboriginal communities), contexts (e.g., health outreach work in migrant communities), and methods (e.g., ethnographic studies of parents and children in pediatric research units). Considerable ethical problem solving often must enter into the development of effective research procedures including the establishment of a respectful relationship with the research participants and others in their community. Indeed, a major aim of JERHRE is to contribute to understanding and solving ethical problems of this nature.

If you or your funder wish your article to be freely available online to nonsubscribers immediately upon publication (gold open access), you can opt for it to be included in Sage Choice, subject to the payment of a publication fee. The manuscript submission and peer review procedure is unchanged. On acceptance of your article, you will be asked to let Sage know directly if you are choosing Sage Choice. To check journal eligibility and the publication fee, please visit Sage Choice . For more information on open access options and compliance at Sage, including self/author archiving deposits (green open access) visit Sage Publishing Policies on our Journal Author Gateway .

At Sage, we are committed to facilitating openness, transparency and reproducibility of research. Where relevant, The Journal encourages authors to share their research data in a suitable public repository subject to ethical considerations and where data is included, to add a data accessibility statement in their manuscript file. Authors should also follow data citation principles. For more information please visit the Sage Author Gateway , which includes information about Sage’s partnership with the data repository Figshare.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Student Subscription, Print Only

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

Empirical research on research ethics

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Psychology, California State University, Hayward, CA, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 16625736
• DOI: 10.1207/s15327019eb1404_9

Ethics is normative; ethics indicates, in broad terms, what researchers should do. For example, researchers should respect human participants. Empirical study tells us what actually happens. Empirical research is often needed to fine-tune the best ways to achieve normative objectives, for example, to discover how best to achieve the dual aims of gaining important knowledge and respecting participants. Ethical decision making by scientists and institutional review boards should not be based on hunches and anecdotes (e.g., about such matters as what information potential research participants would want to know and what they understand, or what they consider to be acceptable risks). These questions should be answered through empirical research. Some of the preceding articles in this special issue illustrate uses of empirical research on research ethics. This article places empirical research on research ethics into broader perspective and challenges investigators to use the tools of their disciplines to proactively solve ethical problems for which there currently exist no empirically proven solutions.

• Behavioral Research / ethics*
• Behavioral Research / legislation & jurisprudence
• Behavioral Research / standards*
• Empirical Research*
• Ethics Committees, Research
• Ethics, Research*
• Federal Government
• Government Regulation
• United States

Ethical Considerations In Psychology Research

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Ethics refers to the correct rules of conduct necessary when carrying out research. We have a moral responsibility to protect research participants from harm.

However important the issue under investigation, psychologists must remember that they have a duty to respect the rights and dignity of research participants. This means that they must abide by certain moral principles and rules of conduct.

What are Ethical Guidelines?

In Britain, ethical guidelines for research are published by the British Psychological Society, and in America, by the American Psychological Association. The purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect research participants, the reputation of psychology, and psychologists themselves.

Moral issues rarely yield a simple, unambiguous, right or wrong answer. It is, therefore, often a matter of judgment whether the research is justified or not.

For example, it might be that a study causes psychological or physical discomfort to participants; maybe they suffer pain or perhaps even come to serious harm.

On the other hand, the investigation could lead to discoveries that benefit the participants themselves or even have the potential to increase the sum of human happiness.

Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984) also discuss the potential costs of failing to carry out certain research. Who is to weigh up these costs and benefits? Who is to judge whether the ends justify the means?

Finally, if you are ever in doubt as to whether research is ethical or not, it is worthwhile remembering that if there is a conflict of interest between the participants and the researcher, it is the interests of the subjects that should take priority.

Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. All UK research requires ethical approval by one or more of the following:

• Department Ethics Committee (DEC) : for most routine research.
• Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) : for non-routine research.
• External Ethics Committee (EEC) : for research that s externally regulated (e.g., NHS research).

Committees review proposals to assess if the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These committees may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) have issued a code of ethics in psychology that provides guidelines for conducting research.  Some of the more important ethical issues are as follows:

Informed Consent

Before the study begins, the researcher must outline to the participants what the research is about and then ask for their consent (i.e., permission) to participate.

An adult (18 years +) capable of being permitted to participate in a study can provide consent. Parents/legal guardians of minors can also provide consent to allow their children to participate in a study.

Whenever possible, investigators should obtain the consent of participants. In practice, this means it is not sufficient to get potential participants to say “Yes.”

They also need to know what it is that they agree to. In other words, the psychologist should, so far as is practicable, explain what is involved in advance and obtain the informed consent of participants.

Informed consent must be informed, voluntary, and rational. Participants must be given relevant details to make an informed decision, including the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits. Consent must be given voluntarily without undue coercion. And participants must have the capacity to rationally weigh the decision.

Components of informed consent include clearly explaining the risks and expected benefits, addressing potential therapeutic misconceptions about experimental treatments, allowing participants to ask questions, and describing methods to minimize risks like emotional distress.

Investigators should tailor the consent language and process appropriately for the study population. Obtaining meaningful informed consent is an ethical imperative for human subjects research.

The voluntary nature of participation should not be compromised through coercion or undue influence. Inducements should be fair and not excessive/inappropriate.

However, it is not always possible to gain informed consent.  Where the researcher can’t ask the actual participants, a similar group of people can be asked how they would feel about participating.

If they think it would be OK, then it can be assumed that the real participants will also find it acceptable. This is known as presumptive consent.

However, a problem with this method is that there might be a mismatch between how people think they would feel/behave and how they actually feel and behave during a study.

In order for consent to be ‘informed,’ consent forms may need to be accompanied by an information sheet for participants’ setting out information about the proposed study (in lay terms), along with details about the investigators and how they can be contacted.

Special considerations exist when obtaining consent from vulnerable populations with decisional impairments, such as psychiatric patients, intellectually disabled persons, and children/adolescents. Capacity can vary widely so should be assessed individually, but interventions to improve comprehension may help. Legally authorized representatives usually must provide consent for children.

Participants must be given information relating to the following:

• A statement that participation is voluntary and that refusal to participate will not result in any consequences or any loss of benefits that the person is otherwise entitled to receive.
• Purpose of the research.
• All foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant (if there are any). These include not only physical injury but also possible psychological.
• Procedures involved in the research.
• Benefits of the research to society and possibly to the individual human subject.
• Length of time the subject is expected to participate.
• Person to contact for answers to questions or in the event of injury or emergency.
• Subjects” right to confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.

Debriefing after a study involves informing participants about the purpose, providing an opportunity to ask questions, and addressing any harm from participation. Debriefing serves an educational function and allows researchers to correct misconceptions. It is an ethical imperative.

After the research is over, the participant should be able to discuss the procedure and the findings with the psychologist. They must be given a general idea of what the researcher was investigating and why, and their part in the research should be explained.

Participants must be told if they have been deceived and given reasons why. They must be asked if they have any questions, which should be answered honestly and as fully as possible.

Debriefing should occur as soon as possible and be as full as possible; experimenters should take reasonable steps to ensure that participants understand debriefing.

“The purpose of debriefing is to remove any misconceptions and anxieties that the participants have about the research and to leave them with a sense of dignity, knowledge, and a perception of time not wasted” (Harris, 1998).

The debriefing aims to provide information and help the participant leave the experimental situation in a similar frame of mind as when he/she entered it (Aronson, 1988).

Exceptions may exist if debriefing seriously compromises study validity or causes harm itself, like negative emotions in children. Consultation with an institutional review board guides exceptions.

Debriefing indicates investigators’ commitment to participant welfare. Harms may not be raised in the debriefing itself, so responsibility continues after data collection. Following up demonstrates respect and protects persons in human subjects research.

Protection of Participants

Researchers must ensure that those participating in research will not be caused distress. They must be protected from physical and mental harm. This means you must not embarrass, frighten, offend or harm participants.

Normally, the risk of harm must be no greater than in ordinary life, i.e., participants should not be exposed to risks greater than or additional to those encountered in their normal lifestyles.

The researcher must also ensure that if vulnerable groups are to be used (elderly, disabled, children, etc.), they must receive special care. For example, if studying children, ensure their participation is brief as they get tired easily and have a limited attention span.

Researchers are not always accurately able to predict the risks of taking part in a study, and in some cases, a therapeutic debriefing may be necessary if participants have become disturbed during the research (as happened to some participants in Zimbardo’s prisoners/guards study ).

Deception research involves purposely misleading participants or withholding information that could influence their participation decision. This method is controversial because it limits informed consent and autonomy, but can provide otherwise unobtainable valuable knowledge.

Types of deception include (i) deliberate misleading, e.g. using confederates, staged manipulations in field settings, deceptive instructions; (ii) deception by omission, e.g., failure to disclose full information about the study, or creating ambiguity.

The researcher should avoid deceiving participants about the nature of the research unless there is no alternative – and even then, this would need to be judged acceptable by an independent expert. However, some types of research cannot be carried out without at least some element of deception.

For example, in Milgram’s study of obedience , the participants thought they were giving electric shocks to a learner when they answered a question wrongly. In reality, no shocks were given, and the learners were confederates of Milgram.

This is sometimes necessary to avoid demand characteristics (i.e., the clues in an experiment that lead participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for).

Another common example is when a stooge or confederate of the experimenter is used (this was the case in both the experiments carried out by Asch ).

According to ethics codes, deception must have strong scientific justification, and non-deceptive alternatives should not be feasible. Deception that causes significant harm is prohibited. Investigators should carefully weigh whether deception is necessary and ethical for their research.

However, participants must be deceived as little as possible, and any deception must not cause distress.  Researchers can determine whether participants are likely distressed when deception is disclosed by consulting culturally relevant groups.

Participants should immediately be informed of the deception without compromising the study’s integrity. Reactions to learning of deception can range from understanding to anger. Debriefing should explain the scientific rationale and social benefits to minimize negative reactions.

If the participant is likely to object or be distressed once they discover the true nature of the research at debriefing, then the study is unacceptable.

If you have gained participants’ informed consent by deception, then they will have agreed to take part without actually knowing what they were consenting to.  The true nature of the research should be revealed at the earliest possible opportunity or at least during debriefing.

Some researchers argue that deception can never be justified and object to this practice as it (i) violates an individual’s right to choose to participate; (ii) is a questionable basis on which to build a discipline; and (iii) leads to distrust of psychology in the community.

Confidentiality

Protecting participant confidentiality is an ethical imperative that demonstrates respect, ensures honest participation, and prevents harms like embarrassment or legal issues. Methods like data encryption, coding systems, and secure storage should match the research methodology.

Participants and the data gained from them must be kept anonymous unless they give their full consent.  No names must be used in a lab report .

Researchers must clearly describe to participants the limits of confidentiality and methods to protect privacy. With internet research, threats exist like third-party data access; security measures like encryption should be explained. For non-internet research, other protections should be noted too, like coding systems and restricted data access.

High-profile data breaches have eroded public trust. Methods that minimize identifiable information can further guard confidentiality. For example, researchers can consider whether birthdates are necessary or just ages.

Generally, reducing personal details collected and limiting accessibility safeguards participants. Following strong confidentiality protections demonstrates respect for persons in human subjects research.

What do we do if we discover something that should be disclosed (e.g., a criminal act)? Researchers have no legal obligation to disclose criminal acts and must determine the most important consideration: their duty to the participant vs. their duty to the wider community.

Ultimately, decisions to disclose information must be set in the context of the research aims.

Withdrawal from an Investigation

Participants should be able to leave a study anytime if they feel uncomfortable. They should also be allowed to withdraw their data. They should be told at the start of the study that they have the right to withdraw.

They should not have pressure placed upon them to continue if they do not want to (a guideline flouted in Milgram’s research).

Participants may feel they shouldn’t withdraw as this may ‘spoil’ the study. Many participants are paid or receive course credits; they may worry they won’t get this if they withdraw.

Even at the end of the study, the participant has a final opportunity to withdraw the data they have provided for the research.

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that provided they follow the BPS or APA guidelines when using human participants and that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with their research.

But consider the following examples:

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children participating would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, consider the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young children in daycare or those who recently have!

b)  IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are not harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

• Members of the social group being studied, such as racial or ethnic group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.
• Friends and relatives of those participating in the study, particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother.
• The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.
• The institution in which the research is conducted.

salso suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:

• The research question or hypothesis.
• The treatment of individual participants.
• The institutional context.
• How the findings of the research are interpreted and applied.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

Privacy : This refers to people rather than data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

Confidentiality: This refers to data. Information (e.g., about H.I.V. status) leaked to others may affect the participant’s life.

Sound & valid methodology : This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive. Academics can detect flaws in methods, but the lay public and the media often don’t.

When research findings are publicized, people are likely to consider them fact, and policies may be based on them. Examples are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.

Deception : Causing the wider public to believe something, which isn’t true by the findings, you report (e.g., that parents are responsible for how their children turn out).

Informed consent : Participants should be made aware of how participating in the research may affect them.

Justice & equitable treatment : Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicizing an idea, which creates a prejudice against a group, & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as controls.

Scientific freedom : Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.

Ownership of data : When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

Some people argue that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that other scientists can re-analyze them. If this had happened in Burt’s day, there might not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission of intelligence. George Miller (Miller’s Magic 7) famously argued that we should give psychology away.

The values of social scientists : Psychologists can be divided into two main groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology, objective data).

The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific approach was evaluating a counseling technique based on a humanistic approach, they would judge it on criteria that those giving & receiving the therapy may not consider important.

Cost/benefit analysis : It is unethical if the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits. However, it isn’t easy to assess costs & benefits accurately & the participants themselves rarely benefit from research.

Sieber & Stanley advise that researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

• They need to take more care over consent, debriefing, etc. when the issue is sensitive.
• They should be aware of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others.
• They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these.
• They should make the limitations of their research explicit (e.g., ‘the study was only carried out on white middle-class American male students,’ ‘the study is based on questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate,’ etc.
• They should be careful how they communicate with the media and policymakers.
• They should be aware of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they should tell the police/social services).
• They should be aware of their own values and biases and those of the participants.

Arguments for SSR

• Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
• SSR is the most scrutinized research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more SSR than any other form of research.
• By gaining a better understanding of issues such as gender, race, and sexuality, we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
• SSR has been of benefit to society, for example, EWT. This has made us aware that EWT can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of adults.
• Most research is still on white middle-class Americans (about 90% of research is quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.

Arguments against SSR

• Flawed research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at a disadvantage.
• Research has been used to discriminate against groups in society, such as the sterilization of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low intelligence, criminal, or suffered from psychological illness.
• The guidelines used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and, as a result, are unable to prevent indefensible research from being carried out.

American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”.  American Psychologist ,  19 (6), 421.

Caughy, M. O. B., DiPietro, J. A., & Strobino, D. M. (1994). Day‐care participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low‐income children.  Child development ,  65 (2), 457-471.

Harris, B. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In J. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188-212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Applying Hamlet’s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39(5) , 561.

Sieber, J. E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research.  American psychologist ,  43 (1), 49.

The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf

Further Information

• MIT Psychology Ethics Lecture Slides

BPS Documents

• Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018)
• Good Practice Guidelines for the Conduct of Psychological Research within the NHS
• Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals
• Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online

APA Documents

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Ethics

Empirical research in medical ethics: How conceptual accounts on normative-empirical collaboration may improve research practice

Sabine salloch.

1 Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, NRW-Junior Research Group "Medical ethics at the end of life: norm and empiricism", Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Jan Schildmann

Jochen vollmann.

The methodology of medical ethics during the last few decades has shifted from a predominant use of normative-philosophical analyses to an increasing involvement of empirical methods. The articles which have been published in the course of this so-called 'empirical turn' can be divided into conceptual accounts of empirical-normative collaboration and studies which use socio-empirical methods to investigate ethically relevant issues in concrete social contexts.

A considered reference to normative research questions can be expected from good quality empirical research in medical ethics. However, a significant proportion of empirical studies currently published in medical ethics lacks such linkage between the empirical research and the normative analysis. In the first part of this paper, we will outline two typical shortcomings of empirical studies in medical ethics with regard to a link between normative questions and empirical data: (1) The complete lack of normative analysis, and (2) cryptonormativity and a missing account with regard to the relationship between 'is' and 'ought' statements. Subsequently, two selected concepts of empirical-normative collaboration will be presented and how these concepts may contribute to improve the linkage between normative and empirical aspects of empirical research in medical ethics will be demonstrated. Based on our analysis, as well as our own practical experience with empirical research in medical ethics, we conclude with a sketch of concrete suggestions for the conduct of empirical research in medical ethics.

High quality empirical research in medical ethics is in need of a considered reference to normative analysis. In this paper, we demonstrate how conceptual approaches of empirical-normative collaboration can enhance empirical research in medical ethics with regard to the link between empirical research and normative analysis.

The methodology of medical ethics has shifted over the last two decades from a predominant use of normative-philosophical analyses to an increasing involvement of empirical methods. In the context of this so-called 'empirical turn' [ 1 ], a multitude of articles has been published in journals of medical ethics. The respective body of literature can be divided into two types of publications. The first type encompasses conceptual accounts of empirical ethics. Examples of this are publications which focus on the interplay between normative and empirical elements in empirical-ethical research [ 2 - 4 ], contributions on definitions of empirical ethics [ 5 ] or the various conceptual frameworks for empirical research in medical ethics [ 6 - 8 ]. A common feature of these publications is to conceptualise the ways in which empirical methods in combination with normative analysis can contribute to ethical research questions.

The second type of articles presents studies which use socio-empirical methods for research on concrete ethical issues. A broad range of topics has already been explored empirically in this way and the respective articles cover a wide spectrum in relation to their aims and the ways in which empirical research and normative analysis interact. Descriptive empirical studies in medical ethics restrict themselves to providing empirical knowledge on an ethical topic without further reference to or interaction with the normative debate. In contrast to these 'descriptive ethics studies', the work presented in other publications is based on a combination of empirical research and normative analysis. In these 'empirical-ethical studies', certain aspects of the empirical findings are linked to the ethical debate in order to demonstrate their contributions to normative reasoning. While the combination of normative reasoning and empirical research in some of these studies takes place against the background of specific concepts of empirical ethics [ 6 - 9 ], other studies do not aim at a systematic connection between their empirical data and the underlying normative questions (see, for example, [ 10 , 11 ]).

In this paper, we will argue that high quality empirical research in medical ethics is in need of a considered reference to normative research questions. Furthermore, we will defend the position that theoretical concepts of normative-empirical collaboration can enhance empirical research in medical ethics. To substantiate our claim, we will, firstly, present two typical shortcomings of empirical studies in medical ethics. We will then present and analyse two theoretical accounts of normative-empirical collaboration. In a further step, we will illustrate how these conceptual accounts can serve as remedies for the deficits of current practice of empirical research in medical ethics. Based on our analysis and our own experience with empirical research in medical ethics, we will conclude with a sketch of concrete criteria which may facilitate the planning and conducting of empirical studies in medical ethics.

Shortcomings of empirical research in medical ethics

In a considerable number of the empirical studies which are currently published in journals of medical ethics or bioethics, the link between the empirical research and a normative analysis on the respective topic is not clear [ 12 - 14 ]. We would argue that publications on empirical studies in medical ethics as a normative discipline should always include at least some reference to normative analysis. Furthermore, we hold the view that an explicit connection between empirical data and normative reflection is a criterion for good quality empirical research in medical ethics. In the following, we will try to substantiate our claims with regard to good quality empirical research in medical ethics. In a first step, we will point out two deficits which concern the linkage between empirical and normative analysis and which can be encountered in the current practice of empirical research in medical ethics: (1) The complete lack of normative analysis in such research, and (2) cryptonormativity and a missing account with regard to the relationship between "is" and "ought" statements.

The lack of normative analysis: Purely descriptive studies in medical ethics

The first shortcoming of empirical studies in medical ethics concerns the complete lack of normative analysis or, to put it differently, the missing link between the empirical research and the ethical debate. A considerable number of the articles which are currently published in journals of medical ethics or bioethics present the results of empirical studies but remain on a descriptive level in their discussion and conclusion sections. One type of empirical research in medical ethics where these purely descriptive studies can particularly be found are quantitative surveys on stakeholders' attitudes regarding ethically challenging topics. An example of this type of research with regard to end-of-life decisions is the survey published by Craig et al. in 2007 [ 15 ]. This study examined the attitudes of a sample of 1,052 physicians towards physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the US state of Vermont. One interesting finding of the empirical research is that physicians' opinions about the legalisation of PAS are polarised. Moreover, about half of the physicians indicated they would participate in PAS if it became legal in Vermont. In the end, the authors concluded: "Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of some of the issues surrounding PAS. Specifically, we identified factors influencing physicians' opinions, and aspects of the PAS debate about which compromise is unlikely" [ 15 ], p. 403. In discussing their empirical findings, the authors remain on the descriptive level. However, there is no link between the study's findings and the normative issues relevant to the debate about an ethical justification of PAS.

Descriptive studies in medical ethics, such as the work of Craig et al., can be of excellent methodical quality measured against the background of the criteria established for socio-empirical research. In addition to their possible contributions to debates in social science such empirical studies can also be valuable for the field of medical ethics. This is the case, for example, if they deliver detailed and systematic analyses of stakeholders' moral experiences and attitudes and, therefore, contribute to a context-sensitive insight into certain moral practices in health care. Nevertheless, we would argue that the missing reflection on the impact of the empirical data for normative questions can be criticised as a shortcoming of empirical research from a medical ethics perspective. The most important reason for this position is that while the general need for empirical information in applied ethics is non-controversial, the specific kind of information which is required in argumentations about certain topics is dependent on the normative-ethical background which underlies the ethical evaluation [ 16 , 17 ]. As the specific need for empirical information is dependent on the underlying account of ethical justification, different kinds of empirical data on an ethical issue are not of the same use for a normative evaluation of the respective topic. Just to mention one quite obvious example: An ethical deliberation on a utilitarian basis will usually need other empirical information than an argumentation which is based on a Kantian view of morality. Hence, if empirical data are gathered without prior reflection about their significance within a normative deliberation on the respective topic, these data's relevance for ethics as a normative discipline must be regarded as more or less accidental. Therefore, a reflection on the presumably ethical significance of empirical data prior to the beginning of an empirical study would be desirable.

A considered reference to the normative side is also important in the case of empirical studies in medical ethics which aim at identifying new ethical challenges in practice which have not yet been recognized and discussed. The 'exploratory function' of empirical research is also dependent on normative-ethical presuppositions which decide if and in what sense the empirically identified issue can be seen as an ethical problem and not as a practical problem of another origin. The chosen background of ethical evaluation, furthermore, determines the kind of additional data which is needed to arrive at an ethical judgment about the respective issue. Therefore, we would argue that at least some conception of the relationship between the empirical research question and the normative debate on the respective topic should underlie empirical studies which want to contribute to medical ethics as a normative field.

Cryptonormativity and the is-ought problem

A second shortcoming frequently identified and criticised in empirical research in medical ethics rests upon the problem of drawing normative conclusions from empirical findings [ 3 , 4 , 16 ]. Studies which derive normative statements from their descriptive data alone run the risk of an is-ought fallacy by ignoring the fact that ethical values, norms and principles play an irreducible role in ethical judgment. Whereas it is of great importance for ethics to investigate the cultural, historical and psychological contexts of moral decision-making, this does not mean that empirically detected moral motives and behaviour are together ethically justified.

Studies which draw normative conclusions from empirical results often have a cryptonormative character, which means that they implicitly take normative statements as the basis of their ethical argumentation without mentioning or reflecting on them.

This drawback can frequently be found in publications of empirical studies which entail normative statements in their conclusion sections. Two types of unclear normative conclusions can be distinguished here. In the first case, normative statements are directly drawn from the empirical findings. In the second case, normative statements are found in the conclusion sections which are not explicitly linked to the results of the empirical study, but nevertheless, it can be asked from where these statements are derived. In both cases, the normative premise is not made explicit in the argument but is necessary to arrive at the normative conclusion.

One illustration of the second type of unclear relationship between empirical data and normative conclusions is a paper by Bendiane et al. which, in a similar way to the study of Craig mentioned above, deals with the issue of physician-assisted suicide [ 18 ]. In this study, French hospital nurses were asked whether euthanasia and PAS should be legalised for patients with incurable conditions. The study showed that 48% of the nurses supported the legalisation of euthanasia and 29% supported the legalisation of PAS. Furthermore, the authors showed that reported training in palliative care was negatively correlated with nurses' support for a legalisation of PAS. The authors concluded that: "Improving professional knowledge of palliative care would improve the management of end-of-life situations, but it could also help to clarify the debate over euthanasia" [ 18 ], p. 243.

While the demand for an improved training in palliative care as such is important, in the context of this study's empirical results, the authors' claim can be misleading. This is because, in our view, the normative statement (improvement of palliative care education) cannot be linked to the empirical findings (better education is associated with a decrease in the support of PAS). If such a link between the empirical results and the normative statement in the conclusion section is made, this can be problematic: For example, one may read the paper as if the authors do not make a hidden normative statement explicit when they plead for a better education in palliative care. Following the results of the empirical study, a better knowledge in palliative care might lead to a decrease in the support for legalisation of euthanasia and PAS in France. However, the question whether euthanasia and PAS should be legalised is itself a normative question which has strong ethical implications. Therefore, if the authors plead for better palliative training in the conclusion of this study, their statement can be understood as implicitly taking a stand against the legalisation of euthanasia and PAS in France. However, this ethical standpoint has not been discussed normatively in the study but is implicitly taken as a basis for argumentation.

After this characterization of two drawbacks in the current practice of empirical research in medical ethics, we will now present two theoretical conceptions of the normative-empirical relationship which may contribute to an improved practice of empirical research in medical ethics.

Conceptual accounts of normative-empirical collaboration and their contributions to research practice

In recent years, a number of conceptual accounts regarding the normative-empirical collaboration in medical ethics have been published. In the following, we will present two of these conceptual frameworks which may be useful for researchers who are planning empirical studies in medical ethics and who aim at an integration of empirical research and normative analysis. Although both models presented may not be fully sufficient to provide concrete guidance for planning and conducting an empirical study, we appreciate both models as they acknowledge that a social practice can be judged by both the gathering of empirical data and normative ethical analysis. Furthermore, the two models conceptualize the interaction between both elements in a plausible and systematic way which may be the most important criterion for a good concept of empirical research in medical ethics.

Birnbacher's as well as Leget et al.'s model share the characteristic that they rest upon certain meta-ethical claims, such as a cognitivist view of ethics and the acknowledgement of the fact-value distinction. Hence, the models provide a suitable theoretical background for those researchers who are in accordance with these presuppositions. In contrast to other accounts, the models of Birnbacher and Leget have not been tested in empirical studies so far.

They can be distinguished from other models currently applied in medical ethics, such as hermeneutic ethics or reflective equilibrium, for example, [ 7 - 9 ], which provide alternative accounts of the normative-empirical relationship and different methodological strategies.

However, the two models on normative-empirical collaboration chosen differ in several important characteristics, such as their disciplinary background and their aims. The first model by Dieter Birnbacher, a German philosopher, provides a concept of the relationship between ethics as a theoretical discipline and morals as an empirical phenomenon [ 17 , 19 ]. He discusses different steps in the examination of concrete ethical problems from the perspective of an ethicist. In contrast to this, the second model by Leget and colleagues [ 20 ] draws on a categorisation of methods for integrating empirical research and normative ethics which has been developed in the context of the "empirical turn" [ 21 ]. Leget et al., more than Birnbacher, make reference to the interdisciplinary challenge of doing empirical research in bioethics. Although the two approaches have the aforementioned and other differences, we believe that both can be useful for researchers who aim to improve the integration of empirical research and normative deliberation in medical ethics. Both approaches will be presented in a short form, followed by a discussion of how they can be used as remedies for the two shortcomings of empirical research in medical ethics which have been discussed previously.

Birnbacher's four tasks of applied ethics

One of the first, but still vividly discussed, concepts of the collaboration between ethics and social sciences is that of Dieter Birnbacher [ 17 , 19 ]. Birnbacher displays a model of the interrelationship between empirical information and ethical thinking where he distinguishes four interdependent aspects of an ethical examination of empirical moral phenomena. He firstly describes the analysis part, which consists of a clarification and reconstruction of moral concepts, arguments and ways of reasoning [ 19 ], p. 45. The next step, called critique , is a critical assessment of concepts and explanatory statements used in a certain moral context to arrive at clarity, unambiguousness and plausibility. Construction , which follows, means the development of an ethical approach and evaluation of the moral issue at stake; for instance, a construction of ethical norms that are specific to this particular context. The last aspect Birnbacher mentions is moral pragmatics , which is concerned with the practical, political or educational, implementation of moral norms, assuming that it is not only sufficient for an ethicist to discuss the moral rightness or wrongness of a certain practice on a theoretical level, but also to think about the conditions under which a moral norm or value can become effective in society.

According to Birnbacher, the construction and the pragmatic part are particularly dependent on empirical information and, therefore, on interdisciplinary cooperation. While in the construction part, empirical data are necessary for the development of context-specific moral norms, in the implementation phase, knowledge from empirical disciplines is needed to effectively influence people's attitudes and behaviour. Nevertheless, Birnbacher's position can be completed in pointing out that the first two tasks of ethics which he describes ("analysis" and "critique") similarly rely on empirical cooperation: For a clarification and reconstruction of moral arguments, empirical knowledge about the arguments which are employed in a certain context is also very important, as empirical data are necessary for a critical examination of the truth of certain claims on which ethical argumentations are based.

Birnbacher's general account of empirical-normative collaboration can be applied to empirical studies in medical ethics. In general, it may be helpful for scientists conducting empirical studies in medical ethics to think about where to position their scientific work within this model of ethical reasoning. This positioning has an influence on the kind of information which is needed for a normative discussion of the respective issues. If researchers, for instance, want to contribute to the analysis part, other empirical studies may be more useful than if they want to be conducive on the level of moral pragmatics. In helping to clarify the significance of empirically derived knowledge in specific ethical deliberations, Birnbacher's approach may provide support for those empirical studies in medical ethics which suffer from a lack of normative analysis. Here it can be said, just to mention one example, that an empirical study can contribute on the level of moral pragmatics. The empirical results of a study on people's moral attitudes may provide policy makers with relevant information about chances and challenges if the regulation of an ethically relevant issue was to be changed. Knowing beforehand that the public is highly polarised regarding this issue, for example, may enable policy makers to think about appropriate provisions before the implementation of a new law. In general, Birnbacher's model may help to make clear in which part of an ethical deliberation empirical data are to be integrated.

Leget et al.'s 'critical applied ethics'

A second conceptual approach on empirical-normative collaboration was presented by Leget et al. in 2009 under the title of 'Critical Applied Ethics' [ 20 ]. The authors describe a close interdisciplinary collaboration between ethicists and social scientists. Normative and empirical aspects are seen as two independent foci on one bioethical 'ellipse', which means that both perspectives are kept distinguished, but that they, nevertheless, influence each other in a fruitful way [ 20 ], p. 231. Normative and empirical disciplines investigate the same social practice using their respective methods during the five stages of the research process which are described by the authors: Determination of the problem, description of the problem, effects and alternatives, normative weighing, and evaluation of the effects of a decision. At the level of problem description, for example, possible empirical contributions can encompass the careful study of people's motives, actions and intentions by the social scientist, while the ethicist's task consists of a critical look at the concepts and vocabulary used in this specific context. At the point of "normative weighing", which forms a later stage of the research process, normative theory renders moral judgment, while the descriptive sciences' task is a critical examination of the ethical theories brought into play and the detection of possible empirical (for example, anthropological) premises within them. Thus, the strong interdisciplinary collaboration allows for a mutually critical look at each other's discipline and its premises and presuppositions, as well as at the social practice which is examined and criticized.

This model of interdisciplinary cooperation, as described by Leget et al., can be very useful for researchers in medical ethics, as it provides a systematic account of the different stages of an empirical study in medical ethics. Furthermore, this model can help the representatives of the empirical, as well as of the normative sciences, to become aware of and explicit about the different roles they fulfil as the research process progresses. Along these lines, the concept of 'Critical Applied Ethics' may also lead to a clearer distinction between normative and descriptive statements in the publications of empirical studies. It can also it can help to avoid unclear normative statements as conclusions from empirical data in discussing openly the normative presuppositions which underlie the research project and in reflecting on them critically up to the point of data interpretation.

Conceptual and practical aspects of empirical-normative collaboration - further perspectives

The preceding analysis illustrates how conceptual accounts of empirical-normative collaboration may contribute to the practice of empirical research in medical ethics. Reference to the existing models can stimulate a reflection on how to combine empirical research and normative analysis in a systematic way. While the focus of our paper is to analyse the contribution of conceptual accounts of normative-empirical collaboration to empirical research, it should be noted that the practice of empirical research in medical ethics may also be of value for the conceptual accounts of empirical-normative collaboration in medical ethics. Only a few of these concepts have so far provided the basis for concrete empirical-ethical studies, such as approaches which are based on a reflective equilibrium [ 9 ], a symbiotic model of empirical ethics [ 6 ] or a hermeneutic account [ 7 ]. At the same time, there are many other concepts which, to our knowledge, have not yet been empirically 'tested' in this sense, such as the approaches of Birnbacher [ 19 ] and Leget et al. [ 20 ], which have been presented previously. Nevertheless, conducting an empirical study may offer the opportunity to check the practicability of conceptual approaches and can lead to their refinement or modification. Such a modification of a conceptual account could, for example, necessitate a redevelopment of the different stages which are described in the theoretical model. Another reason for modification may be triggered by the fact that research practice reveals problems in interdisciplinary communication or cooperation which are not considered in the theoretical model but should, nevertheless, be integrated.

Our analysis also sheds light on the current discourse about quality criteria for empirical research in medical ethics [ 22 , 23 ]. As outlined in the introductory part, the premise of our article is that the development and analysis of empirical work in medical ethics should take place with reference to the relevant normative debate(s). Based on this assumption, we have defended the thesis that the quality of empirical studies in medical ethics can be enhanced by a closer connection between empirical research and theoretical approaches to the normative-empirical collaboration in medical ethics. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our view of normative analysis as a core feature of research in medical ethics needs further specification to determine which quality criteria should be applied for empirical studies in medical ethics. This is true with respect to the threshold of what amount and type of normative analysis should be expected from these studies. While it is outside the scope of this paper to elaborate further on this question, it should be noted that, depending on the respective conception of empirical-normative collaboration, there will be different criteria for good quality in empirical-ethical research. In any case, we expect that, to some degree, such research has to meet the basic standards of both empirical and normative methods. Over and above quality criteria for the empirical research which is done (for example, "Have the empirical methods been applied appropriately?" or "Are the results presented in a clear and transparent way?"), standards should be formulated which bear on the articulation between normative and empirical aspects [ 23 ]. The development of quality criteria for empirical studies in medical ethics should take into account the challenges which arise from the need for an integration of empirical research findings and normative analysis which is specific for these studies.

Not least because of these aspects, empirical research in medical ethics is an especially challenging form of interdisciplinary research. However, a number of the already existing theoretical accounts of normative-empirical collaboration do not provide researchers with information which is concrete enough to set up an empirical study in medical ethics on their basis alone. Based on our analysis in this article, as well as our own practical experience with doing empirical research in medical ethics [ 24 - 26 ], we suggest the following concrete steps when considering an empirical study on a specific topic.

1) Empirical and normative research questions should be formulated in a careful way before starting empirical research in medical ethics. At the same time, it should be considered how these research questions are interrelated, for example, if and how the answer to the empirical question is necessary to answer the normative research question. Furthermore, the identification of possible biases is a crucial point: Normative interests can lead to bias in the interpretation of the empirical data, and the state of empirical research may lead to a bias in the formulation of the normative question.

2) The conceptual and effective interplay between normative and empirical aspects should be considered from the beginning of an empirical study, and this reflection should continue up to the point of data interpretation and publication of the results. This also means that a mutually critical view of the disciplines involved is desirable during the whole research process. This mutually critical reflection may concentrate on implicit normative or empirical premises, as well as on underlying assumptions of theories and methods which are applied in the research project.

3) Empirical research in medical ethics should take place in the form of an ongoing, open and constructive cooperation between representatives of the normative and the empirical sciences. This means that the participating researchers should be open to critique and re-adjustment of their own positions, and acknowledge that there are different perspectives on the same topic which should be integrated to arrive at an empirically informed ethical judgment.

4) The results of empirical studies in medical ethics should be presented in a clear and transparent way which is compatible with the basic standards of the disciplines involved. In addition, the development of new forms of publication of empirical-ethical studies would be preferable (for example, an adaptation of journal standards) which account for the specific demands of this form of interdisciplinary research.

We do not intend to display a new model for normative-empirical collaboration here. Possibly, the implementation of already existing theoretical conceptions into the research practice of empirical medical ethics may be even more desirable at this point than an extension of the spectrum of different approaches to normative-empirical collaboration. In allowing for a reflection of the interaction between normative and empirical elements in ethical deliberation, empirical research in medical ethics can become a very fruitful enterprise and can aid the treatment of the complex ethical challenges of modern health care.

A considered reference to normative research questions can be expected from good quality empirical research in medical ethics. In this paper, we have defended the thesis that the quality of empirical research in medical ethics can be enhanced by taking into account conceptual accounts of the normative-empirical relationship. Overcoming the missing connection between theory development and research practice in empirical medical ethics may also prove profitable for the theoretical concepts of empirical-normative cooperation. Our research further suggests that the discussion on quality criteria for empirical studies in medical ethics should take into account the specific challenges which arise from the need to bring together normative and empirical aspects in this interdisciplinary research field. We concluded with some further suggestions regarding the research practice of empirical studies in medical ethics.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors have contributed substantially to the conception and design of the manuscript. SS and JS have drafted the manuscript. They contributed equally. JV has critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

This publication is a result of the work of the NRW Junior Research Group "Medical Ethics at the End of Life: Norm and Empiricism" at the Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-University Bochum which is funded by the Ministry for Innovation, Science and Research of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/13/5/prepub

• Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K. The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics. 2005; 19 :49–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00424.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molewijk B. Integrated empirical ethics: in search for clarifying identities. Med Health Care Philos. 2004; 7 :85–87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Vries R, Gordijn B. Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies. Bioethics. 2009; 23 :193–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01710.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K. What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis. Med Health Care Philos. 2004; 7 :41–53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMillan J, Hope T. In: Empirical ethics in psychiatry. Widdershoven G, McMillan J, Hope T, van der Scheer L, editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. The possibility of empirical psychiatric ethics; pp. 9–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frith L. Symbiotic empirical ethics: a practical methodology. Bioethics. 2012; 26 (4):198–206. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abma TA, Baur VE, Molewijk B, Widdershoven GAM. Inter-Ethics: towards an interactive and interdependent bioethics. Bioethics. 2010; 24 :242–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01810.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Vries M, Van Leeuwen E. Reflective equilibrium and empirical data: third person moral experiences in empirical medical ethics. Bioethics. 2010; 24 :490–498. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebbesen M, Pedersen B. Using empirical research to formulate normative ethical principles in biomedicine. Med Health Care Philos. 2007; 10 :33–48. doi: 10.1007/s11019-006-9011-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buiting HM, van der Heide A, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Rurup ML, Rietjens JA, Borsboom G, van der Maas PJ, van Delden JJ. Physicians' labelling of end-of-life practices: a hypothetical case study. J Med Ethics. 2010; 36 :24–29. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.030155. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Bruchem-van de Scheur A, van der Arend A, van Wijmen F, Abu-Saad HH, Ter Meulen R. Dutch nurses' attitudes towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Nurs Ethics. 2008; 15 :186–198. doi: 10.1177/0969733007086016. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nilstun T, Melltorp G, Hermeren G. Surveys on attitudes to active euthanasia and the difficulty of drawing normative conclusions. Scand J Public Health. 2000; 28 :111–116. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller FG, Wendler D. The relevance of empirical research in bioethics. Schizophr Bull. 2006; 32 :37–41. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solbakk JH. Use and abuse of empirical knowledge in contemporary bioethics. Med Health Care Philos. 2004; 7 :5–16. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Craig A, Cronin B, Eward W, Metz J, Murray L, Rose G, Suess E, Vergara ME. Attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide among physicians in Vermont. J Med Ethics. 2007; 33 :400–403. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018713. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Düwell M. Wofür braucht die Medizinethik empirische Methoden? Eine normativ-ethische Untersuchung. Ethik Med. 2009; 21 :201–211. doi: 10.1007/s00481-009-0019-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birnbacher D. Ethics and social science: which kind of cooperation? Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 1999; 2 :319–336. doi: 10.1023/A:1009903815157. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bendiane MK, Bouhnik AD, Galinier A, Favre R, Obadia Y, Peretti-Watel P. French hospital nurses' opinion about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a national phone survey. J Med Ethics. 2009; 35 :238–244. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.025296. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birnbacher D. In: Herausforderungen der Bioethik. Ach JS, Gaidt A, editor. Frommann-Holzboog: Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt; 1993. Welche Ethik ist als Bioethik tauglich; pp. 45–67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leget C, Borry P, de Vries R. 'Nobody tosses a dwarf!' The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics. 2009; 23 :226–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01711.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molewijk B, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W, Dupuis HM, Kievit J. Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Med Health Care Philos. 2004; 7 :55–69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strech D. Evidence-based ethics - what it should be and what it shouldn't. BMC Med Ethics. 2008; 9 :16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-9-16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hurst S. What 'empirical turn in bioethics'? Bioethics. 2010; 24 :439–444. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01720.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schildmann J, Hoetzel J, Mueller-Busch C, Vollmann J. End-of-life practices in palliative care: a cross sectional survey of physician members of the German Society for Palliative Medicine. Palliat Med. 2010; 24 :820–827. doi: 10.1177/0269216310381663. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schildmann J, Vollmann J. [Treatment decisions in advanced cancer. An empirical-ethical study on physicians' criteria and the process of decision making] Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010; 135 :2230–2234. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1267505. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salloch S, Breitsameter C. Morality and moral conflicts in hospice care: results of a qualitative interview study. J Med Ethics. 2010; 36 :588–592. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.034462. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Main Navigation

• Contact NeurIPS
• Code of Ethics
• Code of Conduct
• Create Profile
• Journal To Conference Track
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Proceedings
• Future Meetings
• Exhibitor Information
• Privacy Policy

NeurIPS Code of Ethics

The Code of Ethics aims to guide the NeurIPS community towards higher standards of ethical conduct as it pertains to elements of research ethics and the broader societal and environmental impact of research submitted to NeurIPS. It outlines conference expectations about the ethical practices that must be adopted by the submitting authors, members of the program and organizing committees. The Code of Ethics complements the NeurIPS Code of Conduct , which focuses on professional conduct and research integrity issues, including plagiarism, fraud and reproducibility concerns. The points described below also inform the NeurIPS Submission Checklist, which outlines more concrete communication requirements. 

Potential Harms Caused by the Research Process 

Research involving human subjects or participants:

• Fair Wages: all human research subjects or participants must receive appropriate compensation. If you make use of crowdsourcing or contract work for a particular task as part of your research project,  you must respect the minimum hourly rate in the region where the work is carried out.
• Research involving human participants: if the research presented involves direct interactions between the researchers and human participants or between a technical system and human participants, authors are required to follow existing protocols in their institutions (e.g. human subject research accreditation, IRB) and go through the relevant process. In cases when no formal process exists, they can undergo an equivalent informal process (e.g. via their peers or an internal ethics review).

Data-related concerns:

The points listed below apply to all datasets used for submissions, both for publicly available data and internal datasets.

• Privacy: Datasets should minimize the exposure of any personally identifiable information, unless informed consent from those individuals is provided to do so. 
• Consent: Any paper that chooses to create a dataset with real data of real people should ask for the explicit consent of participants, or explain why they were unable to do so.
• Deprecated datasets: Authors should take care to confirm with dataset creators that a dataset is still available for use. Datasets taken down by the original author (ie. deemed obsolete, or otherwise discontinued), should no longer be used, unless it is for the purposes of audit or critical assessment. For some indication of known depreciated datasets, please refer to the NeurIPS list of deprecated datasets.
• Copyright and Fair Use: While the norms of fair use and copyright in machine learning research are still evolving, authors must respect the terms of datasets that have defined licenses (e.g. CC 4.0, MIT, etc). 
• Representative evaluation practice:  When collecting new datasets or making decisions about which datasets to use, authors should assess and communicate the degree to which their datasets are representative of their intended population. Claims of diverse or universal representation should be substantiated by concrete evidence or examples. 

Societal Impact and Potential Harmful Consequences

Authors should transparently communicate the known or anticipated consequences of research: for instance via the paper checklist or a separate section in a submission.

The following specific areas are of particular concern:

• Safety: Contributors should consider whether there are foreseeable situations in which their technology can be used to harm, injure or kill people through its direct application, side effects, or potential misuse. We do not accept research whose primary goal is to increase the lethality of weapons systems.
• Security: Researchers should consider whether there is a risk that applications could open security vulnerabilities or cause serious accidents when deployed in real world environments. If this is the case, they should take concrete steps to recommend or implement ways to protect against such security risks.
• Discrimination: Researchers should consider whether the technology they developed can be used to discriminate, exclude, or otherwise negatively impact people, including impacts on the provision of services such as healthcare, education or access to credit.  
• Surveillance: Researchers should consult on local laws or legislation before collecting or analyzing any bulk surveillance data. Surveillance should not be used to predict protected categories, or be used in any way to endanger individual well-being. 
• Deception & Harassment: Researchers should communicate about whether their approach could be used to facilitate deceptive interactions that would cause harm such as theft, fraud, or harassment, and whether it could be used to impersonate public figures and influence political processes, or as a tool to promote hate speech or abuse.
• Environment: Researchers should consider whether their research is going to negatively impact the environment by, e.g., promoting fossil fuel extraction, increasing societal consumption or producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gasses.
• Human Rights: We prohibit circulation of any research work that builds upon or facilitates illegal activity, and we strongly discourage any work that could be used to deny people rights to privacy, speech, health, liberty, security, legal personhood, or freedom of conscience or religion.
• Bias and fairness:  Contributors should consider any suspected biases or limitations to the scope of performance of models or the contents of datasets and inspect these to ascertain whether they encode, contain or exacerbate bias against people of a certain gender, race, sexuality, or other protected characteristics.

Impact Mitigation Measures 

We propose some reflection and actions taken to mitigate potential harmful consequences from the research project. 

• Data and model documentation: Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset or the model as part of their submissions via structured templates.
• Data and model licenses: If releasing data or models, authors should also provide licenses for them. These should include the intended use and limitations of these artifacts, in order to prevent misuse or inappropriate use.
• Secure and privacy-preserving data storage & distribution : Authors should leverage privacy protocols, encryption and anonymization to reduce the risk of data leakage or theft. Stronger measures should be employed for more sensitive data (e.g., biometric or medical data). 
• Responsible release and publication strategy: Models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, e.g. by requiring that users adhere to a code of conduct to access the model. Authors of papers exposing a security vulnerability in a system should follow the responsible disclosure procedures of the system owners.
• Allowing access to research artifacts: When releasing research artifacts, it is important to make accessible the information required to understand these artifacts (e.g. the code, execution environment versions, weights, and hyperparameters of systems) to enable external scrutiny and auditing.
• Disclose essential elements for reproducibility: Any work submitted to NeurIPS should be accompanied by the information sufficient for the reproduction of results described. This can include the code, data, model weights, and/or a description of the computational resources needed to train the proposed model or validate the results.
• Ensure legal compliance: Ensure adequate awareness of regional legal requirements. This can be done, for instance, by consulting with law school clinics specializing in intellectual property and technology issues. Additional information is required from authors where legal compliance could not be met due to human rights violations (e.g. freedom of expression, the right to work and education, bodily autonomy, etc.). 

Violations to the Code of Ethics should be reported to [email protected] . NeurIPS reserves the right to reject the presentation of scientific works that violate the Code of Ethics. Notice that conference contributors are also obliged to adhere to additional ethical codes or review requirements arising from other stakeholders such as funders and research institutions.

Further reading

UNDERSTANDING LICENSES

• Towards Standardization of Data Licenses: The Montreal Data License
• Behavioral Use Licensing for Responsible AI  
• Choose an open source license  

MODEL AND DATA DOCUMENTATION TEMPLATES

• Model Cards for Model Reporting
• Datasheets for Datasets
• Using AI Factsheets for AI Governance
• ML Lifecycle Documentation Practices

SOCIETAL IMPACT

• Safety: Key Concepts in AI Safety: An Overview
• Security: SoK: Security and Privacy in Machine Learning
• Discrimination:  Bias in algorithms – Artificial intelligence and discrimination ; What about fairness, bias and discrimination?
• Surveillance: The Human Right to Privacy in the Digital Age
• Deception & Harassment: Generative Language Models and Automated Influence Operations: Emerging Threats and Potential Mitigations  
• Environment: Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learning  
• Human Rights: Technology and Rights | Human Rights Watch  
• Bias and fairness:  Fairness and machine learning  
• Dual use problem:  Dual use of artificial-intelligence-powered drug discovery 
• Data Enrichment: Responsible Sourcing for Data Enrichment
• Synthetic Media: PAI’s Responsible Practices for Synthetic Media

RELATED ENDEAVORS

• ACM Code of Ethics  
• ACL Ethics FAQ
• ICLR Code of Ethics
• Responsible Conduct of Research Training  

RELATED RESEARCH COMMUNITIES

• IEEE SaTML 2023
• Aies Conference
• FORC 2022  

Letters to the Editor: There’s no excuse for using medical research done by Nazi doctors

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

To the editor: UCLA medical professor Dr. Kalyanam Shivkumar’s work to replace the widely used anatomical atlas by Nazi physician Eduard Pernkopf is commendable, and others in the medical field should aggressively follow his lead. There must be numerous examples of ethically bankrupt medical research resulting in seemingly indispensable contemporary reference documents.

As a high school science teacher, I had an ethics lesson that asked students to examine the moral conundrum of the contemporary use of hypothermia research done by Nazi scientists on non-consenting Allied airmen, in violation of medical ethics and the Geneva Conventions. My objective was to get them thinking about questions of whether good could come from evil.

In this case, I could let my students off the hook because the so-called researchers were sadists and their scientific rigor was poor, rendering their results unscientific.

Today we have tremendously sophisticated diagnostic and computational tools to examine the human body, and abundant ways to obtain new and better medical knowledge. Ethically compromised resources should be ferreted out and replaced, wherever they occur.

David Seidel, Beverly Hills

To the editor: My father, a Jewish general surgeon, was totally enamored of his Pernkopf anatomy texts, which he felt were far better than those by Dr. Frank Netter or even Gray’s Anatomy. When I became a surgeon, he gave them to me.

I have known about their origins for 10 years and have struggled over whether or not to burn them. I decided to keep them not only to honor my father, but also to “never forget.”

Judith Braslow Zacher, M.D. Palm Desert

More to Read

Letters to the Editor: Voters want arts education in schools. Why aren’t school districts delivering?

May 21, 2024

Letters to the Editor: ‘Disgrace’? That describes Donald Trump, not the guilty verdict in New York

May 30, 2024

Letters to the Editor: This election isn’t about Trump’s policies. It’s about whether there will even be elections

May 29, 2024

More From the Los Angeles Times

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor: Who cares what polls might say? Trump was convicted, and that’s important

June 1, 2024

Letters to the Editor: With Trump convicted, is our long national nightmare almost over?

May 31, 2024

Letters to the Editor: Justice Alito was in the Army. His upside-down flag excuse isn’t believable

Letters to the Editor: Ignore faith-based opposition to human composting, the greenest burial option

• Open access
• Published: 28 May 2024

Relational aggression in romantic relationship: empirical evidence among young female adults in Malaysia

• Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin 2 ,
• Shalini Munusamy 1 ,
• Chong Sheau Tsuey 2 &
• Hilwa Abdullah & Mohd Nor 2  

BMC Psychology volume  12 , Article number:  305 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

77 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Aggressive behaviour in romantic relationship is a social problem of great concern. Studies related to the influence of psychosocial factors on relational aggression are still limited. Furthermore, these factors have not been widely studied in the local context, resulting in the issue of relational aggression among young female adults still not being addressed. This study aims to explore whether psychosocial factors such as big five personality traits, adult attachment style and loneliness could predict relational aggression in romantic relationships among young female adults in Malaysia. In addition, this study aims to identify the moderating effect of social support in the relationship between psychosocial factors and relational aggression in romantic relationship.

A quantitative research approach was used with 424 young female adults in Malaysia aged between 18 and 30 years old (mean age = 24.18) were recruited through multistage sampling design by completing a questionnaire consisting of the Big Five Inventory (BFI), Experiences in Close Relationships Scale II (ECRS-II), Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, Measure of Relational Aggression and Victimization (MRAV) and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS).

Multiple regression analysis predicted significant relationship between agreeableness personality, loneliness, avoidant attachment style and anxious attachment style with relational aggression in romantic relationships. Hierarchical regression analysis found a significant effect of social support as a moderator between loneliness with relational aggression in romantic relationships.

Conclusions

Thus, the results show that young female adults with low level of agreeableness, high level of loneliness, avoidant attachment style and anxious attachment style are at a higher risk of engaging in relational aggression in romantic relationships. The implication of this study can help in understanding the psychosocial factors that form the basis of relational aggression in romantic relationships. Hence, the gap in knowledge warrants further research.

Peer Review reports

The development of romantic relationships among early adulthood is crucial in forming views about intimate relationships and exhibiting intimacy, power, and control [ 1 ]. Emerging adulthood is a key developmental stage for creating a healthy romantic relationship. Some romantic relationships involve aggressive behaviour between partners, which can manifest in various forms such as physical, non-physical, direct, or indirect aggression, overt or covert aggression [ 2 ]. Aggressive behaviour is a criminogenic trait linked to various violent crimes including dating violence [ 3 ]. Physical aggression involves intentionally using physical force to hurt the partner, ranging from mild actions like pushing to severe violence like choking, slapping or weapon use [ 4 ]. Emotional abuse is also a common form of abuse in romantic relationships [ 5 ]. The online dating scam is another alarming form of dating violence that can result in financial loss and severe emotional and psychological suffering ( 6 – 7 ). Relational aggression is a form of non-physical and covert aggression, involves threatening others by manipulating and acting to jeopardize romantic relationships [ 8 ]. Unlike physical aggression, relational aggression occurs without any physical force or physically threatening the individual and can be considered a type of psychological aggression, targeting perceptions, feelings, or behaviour in romantic relationship [ 9 ]. Relational aggression can be indirect, such as through negative facial expressions or spreading rumors about a partner. While there has been extensive research on physical aggression and violence in romantic relationships [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], there is relatively less research on relational aggression in romantic relationships.

Relational aggression in romantic relationships might appear as threats to end the relationship if the other person doesn’t cooperate, flirting with other people to make the other person envious, or treating the other person silently while upset [ 9 ]. In terms of relational aggression, females who utilized high levels of relational aggression had a strong tendency to see other people’s acts as hostile and malevolent, whereas males did not [ 13 ]. Examining relational aggression and its relationship with adaptive functioning in females may shed light on the critical mechanisms involved in females’ dating violence. In this study, we hope to study the psychosocial factors most related with relational aggression in females by looking at components known to relate to aggression in females, such as individual characteristics and environmental factors. There is little evidence from research on female gender to differentiate the experience of relational aggression in romantic relationships, female perpetrators will be the greatest risk of this aggressive behaviour and young female adults may experience greater psychological stress than men ( 13 – 14 ). Therefore, this study focuses only on female samples and will be done using Malaysian samples. Despite research, little is known about how relational aggression originate, persist, and have an impact on romantic relationships, including whether men and women experience these issues differently ( 13 – 14 ). Romantic relational aggression has also been linked to relationship quality, violence, psychosocial maladjustment, impulsivity, hostile attribution biases, loneliness, emotional sensitivity to relational incitements, and abuse history [ 13 ].

In addition, this study emphasizes the psychosocial aspect of a person that can cause the tendency to behave aggressively in romantic relationships. It is important to identify the psychosocial aspects of a person who tends to engage in relational aggression in romantic relationships. The link between relational aggression and psychosocial factors such as loneliness, attachment styles, and personality type has been established ( 15 – 16 ). Personality traits of aggressors have been known to be associated with dating violence ( 15 – 16 ). This study used the “Big Five” personality model (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) as one of the psychosocial factors. Each main trait from this model can be divided into several aspects to provide a more detailed analysis of a person’s personality. Several theorists argue that personality variable is an important predictor of aggressive behaviour in romantic relationship [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Agreeableness dimensions are often associated with aggressive behaviour [ 18 , 20 , 21 ]. Besides that, a study conducted by Ulloa et al. (2016) found individuals with a high neuroticism personality tend to be victims in relational aggression during intimate relationships [ 22 ]. The findings of this study are also supported by other research that neuroticism trait as the main personality trait that gives a strong influence on relational aggression ( 23 – 24 ).

In addition to personality traits, other factors such as the level of loneliness are also considered to be a strong predictive factor of relational aggression especially the tendency to be a victim [ 25 ]. Generally, loneliness can be associated with individuals having a lack of social support as well as showing no interest in social networks [ 25 ]. Many studies have linked aggressive behaviour with loneliness [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Loneliness is defined as a negative emotional response to the discrepancy between the desired and achieved quality of one’s social network [ 27 ]. In addition, relational aggression is caused by the loneliness faced by an individual [ 28 ]. Individuals who are lonely describe themselves negatively and have negative ideas about others. As a result, loneliness leads to a bad perception of oneself, such as being unwanted and unaccepted by others, and it leads to aggression, which is a means of using force to influence other people in interpersonal relationships [ 29 ]. Individuals with high level of loneliness are at high risk of engaging in relational aggression in romantic relationship ( 30 – 31 ). Another psychosocial aspect often associated with relational aggression is attachment style. Attachment style is said to be able to shape the probability of an individual being involved in incidents of relational aggression in romantic relationship.

An expanding corpus of research has highlighted attachment theory as a crucial paradigm for comprehending emotional and interpersonal processes that take place across the lifespan [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. The foundation of attachment theory is the idea of an attachment behavioural system, in which attachment actions are grouped together to strengthen a particular attachment figure. A sense of personal security within the relationship can be established or maintained by intimate partner violence, according to the attachment theory. People feel startled when they sense a threat to their attachment connection, and the ensuing anxiety causes them to act in ways that protect their attachment system [ 35 ]. Individuals with different attachment style also have an influence strongly to the involvement of individuals in the occurrence of aggression ( 36 – 37 ). Besides that, individuals with avoidant attachment shows high relational aggression in romantic relationship ( 38 – 39 ). Besides that, individuals who often exhibit anxious attachment to their partners such as fear of rejection and dependency on their partner are more likely to experience relational aggression in romantic relationships ( 40 – 41 ).

The potentially moderating role of Social Support

In relation to that, social support is used as a moderator based on previous literature studies [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Social support is also defined as interpersonal relationships and support provided by social groups that aim to provide well-being to individuals [ 42 ]. Social support from family and friends is important in contributing to positive psychological health among early adulthood and influences the act of aggressive behaviour [ 45 ]. Previous studies have shown that social support has a significant relationship with big personality traits, especially with extraversion and agreeableness [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. In addition, a few studies also found that family members with agreeableness trait also provide more social support [ 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Besides that, people who experience loneliness interact less with friends and family than people who do not feel lonely. In other words, the less social support a person has, the higher the level of loneliness [ 50 ]. According to earlier research, there have been negative association between relational aggression and social support as well positive association between relational aggression and psychosocial maladjustment during major developmental stages including childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood [ 51 , 52 , 53 ].

According to research, individuals with little social support from their parents were more likely to engage in verbal, physical, and relational aggression [ 54 ] whereas individuals who reported high perceived social support from peers were less likely to engage in overt and relational aggression [ 55 ]. Besides that, individuals who have supporting friends and family have lower relational aggression. Family and peer support can help to mitigate the harmful effects from using relational aggression behaviour in their romantic relationship. Adults with high levels of social support outperformed those with low levels of family and peer support in exhibiting relational aggression behaviour in romantic relationships [ 56 ]. Although both relational aggression and social support are empirically connected to maladjustment, research on the interaction effect of psychosocial factors and social support on relational aggression is still limited ( 57 – 58 ).

Besides that, a study done in US had found that there is no evidence of social support act as a moderator between psychosocial factors and dating violence [ 59 ]. Only a small amount is allocated in the extent literature to research the triad of the relationship. In accordance with that, this study will further explore to develop an understanding of the role of social support in the association between psychosocial factors and relational aggression. Among several theories of social behaviour, for this study we have used Albert Bandura (1986) social cognitive theory to help provide researchers with a comprehensive framework to understand the factors that may influence aggressive human behaviour. Although Bowlby (1969) prioritized and focused on understanding the nature of caregiver’s relationship with his infant, at the same time he also believed that bonding features are present in human life experience from “cradle to grave” [ 30 ]. Besides that, attachment style and social support combine the theory-based prediction that people with an insecure attachment style are more likely to evaluate others’ reactions negatively [ 60 ].

This study can give awareness to young female adults about the issue of relational aggression that can happen in a romantic relationship. This is because relational aggression is an issue that is not given attention in romantic relationships by women and only aggressive behaviour such as physical and sexual is considered more harmful in romantic relationships. This study can give awareness to young female adults about the characteristics of an individual who practices relational aggression in a romantic relationship and can help in finding a solution from practicing relational aggression in romantic relationship. This study can also help young adults to identify this issue so that it does not continue and affect romantic relationships in adulthood. Relational aggression is known to be a relevant social problem factor which can be a precursor to abusive romantic relationships in later adulthood [ 61 ].

A conceptual framework in this study was built based on the social cognitive theory introduced by Albert Bandura in 1986, attachment theory developed by John Bowlby (1907–1990) and the big five personality theory developed in 1949 by D. W. Fiske (1949) as well as from the findings of research on previous studies in the field of psychosocial factors and relational aggression in romantic relationship. In general, this study aims to explore whether psychosocial factors could predict relational aggression in romantic relationships. There is not much direct research that examines covert set of manipulative behaviors in romantic relationships such as relational aggression. Besides that, there are only a few studies conducted in Malaysia about relational aggression in romantic relationships compared to studies conducted in Western countries [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Therefore, it is important to conduct this study using respondents from Malaysia so that it can help psychologists and other parties involved to identify individuals using relational aggression in romantic relationships and from being involved in psychological problems.

The present study

This study was designed to explore whether psychosocial factors such as big five personality traits, attachment style and loneliness could predict relational aggression in romantic relationship among young female adults in Malaysian context and aims to extend findings from previous studies in this field. The researchers hypothesize that psychosocial factors, such as personality trait, attachment styles, and loneliness, will play a significant role in determining the presence and severity of relational aggression in romantic relationships. In addition, it is believed that social support will act as a moderating factor in the relationship between psychosocial factors and relational aggression. As a result, this study aims to shed light on the drivers behind relational aggression in romantic relationships and to better understand the relationship between psychosocial factors and relational aggression. This study is regarded novel because there are no known studies on relational aggression in romantic relationship in the Malaysian context as this will be the first Malaysian study to define the relational aggression in romantic relationship among the sample of young female adults in Malaysia.

Participants

An online survey was conducted with a total of 424 females from early adulthood stage, aged between 18 and 30 years old in Malaysia. According to DOSM (2021), the total population of women in early adulthood in Malaysia is 15,758.2(‘000). From the entire population in each state, the respondents aged between 18 and 30 were selected in this study using Raosoft formula. Proportionate stratified random sampling was used to recruit respondents from 13 states in Malaysia to get sufficient sample size from each state through Raosoft formula calculation in July 2022. Then, convenience sampling was used to select a study sample from the population to get a sufficient sample from each state where an advertisement was posted in social media. Inclusion criteria: [ 1 ] participants must be Malaysian; [ 2 ] female participants aged between 18 to 30 years old only; [ 3 ] currently in a romantic relationship for more than 3 months; [ 4 ] must answer all questions in relation to the most recent partner or romantic relationship; [ 5 ] informed and voluntary participation in the study. The study sample for this research consists of different races, occupation, and education background so that they will have equal opportunity to be selected as a respondent.

Instruments

Big five inventory (bfi).

The Malay version of Big Five Inventory (BFI; 63) which was developed by Muhammad et al., [ 63 ] was used to measure the five basic personality dimensions, namely extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism. The 44-item BFI is rated on a 5-point Likert Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). After reverse scoring, the mean score of each subscale is obtained. The Malay version of the BFI shows good internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity [ 63 ]. The internal reliability of this scale in the current study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha calculation of 0.78 to 0.88 with a mean of 0.81.

UCLA loneliness scale-3

The Malay version of the Rusell’s [ 64 ] UCLA Loneliness Scale [ 65 ] was used to measure loneliness. This tool consists of 20 items and is rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (Always). Loneliness was assessed by averaging the scores of all items with higher scores indicating higher levels of loneliness. The internal reliability of this scale in the current study reported with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83.

Experiences in close relationships– II (ECR-II)

The Experiences in Close Relationships Scale II (ECRS-II; 67) assessed individual differences in anxious attachment style (i.e., the extent to which individuals feel secure versus insecure about romantic partner relationships and reactions) and avoidant attachment style (i.e., the extent to which individuals feel uncomfortable with having close relationships with others versus feel safe to rely on others). The Malay version of the ECR-II [ 66 ] was used in this study. The internal reliability of this scale in the current study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha calculation of 0.82 to 0.83 with a mean of 0.83.

Measure of relational aggression and victimization (MRAV)

This instrument was developed by Linder et al. [ 67 ]. This 56-item instrument consists of six subscales that measure six dimensions of aggression, namely relational aggression, physical aggression, relational victimization, physical sacrifice, exclusivity, and prosocial behaviour. For this study, only the subscales of relational aggression (5 items) were used. Items in this tool are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Not at all True) to 7 (Very True). This questionnaire was translated into Malay language using Forward-Backward translation method and followed by content validation. CVR technique was used to measure the content validity of this questionnaire. The CVR was in the range 0.7-1 for all items and the overall mean CVR values were 0.83. According to Rahim et al. [ 68 ], in the context of measuring psychological test, tools which are available in their own native language will be more appropriate and measurement will be more accurate compared to other languages. The internal reliability of this scale in the current study was high with a Cronbach’s alpha calculation of 0.88 with a mean of 0.89.

Multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS)

This questionnaire was developed by Zimet et al. [ 69 ] and was used to measure social support of an individual. The MSPSS consists of 12 items assessing three specific sources of social support namely family, friends, and others. This test tool uses a 7-point Likert scale where (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). In this study, the Malay version of the MSPSS tool was used which was translated and validated by Ng et al., [ 70 ]. The internal reliability of this scale in the current study was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha calculation of 0.93.

The survey was conducted from July 1 to July 26, 2022. According to Connelly [ 71 ], previous studies suggest that the sample size of the pilot study should be 10% of the sample size used for the actual study. Therefore, a pilot study was carried out before the real study with 44 respondents in the state of Selangor. The researcher chose Selangor because it is the state where the researcher is currently living, and this will make it easier to carry out the study. In the actual study, 424 participants were recruited based on Table  2 . This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of The National University of Malaysia (No: 2022 − 549). All participants were informed of the research objectives and their rights on the first screen (voluntary participation, the right to withdraw at any time and anonymity). This study was not conducted with any minors. At the start of the test, informed permission was acquired, this study only moved forward if the subject ticked the box that said, “Yes, I offer my consent to participate.” The participants’ privacy was guaranteed by the test’s anonymity and the numerical coding of their replies.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were calculated using SPSS 26.0. For inferential statistics multiple regression and hierarchical regression has been used in this study. Multiple regression was used to explore whether psychosocial factors such as big five personality traits, attachment style and loneliness could predict relational aggression in romantic relationship. A single dependent variable and numerous independent variables can be analysed using the statistical method known as multiple regression. The value of R, the multiple correlation coefficient, is shown in the “R” column. The “R Square” column displays the R 2 value, also known as the coefficient of determination, which is the percentage of the dependent variable’s variance that can be explained by the independent variables. R can be thought of as one indicator of the accuracy of the dependent variable’s prediction [ 72 ]. It is the proportion of variation accounted for by the regression model above and beyond the mean model. Hierarchical regression was used to study the effect of social support as a moderator in the relationship between psychosocial factors (personality trait, attachment style and loneliness) with relational aggression in romantic relationship. The moderation effect analysis was carried out using SPSS hierarchical regression. The hierarchical regression is a more appropriate method for determining whether a quantitative variable has a moderating effect on the relationship between two other quantitative variables [ 72 ]. If the moderation test result fell within the 95% confidence interval and contained 0, it meant that the moderation impact of social support was not significant; if it did not, it meant that the moderation effect of social support was substantial. In this study, p  <.05 was regarded as statistically significant. In this study, SPSS 26.0 software were used to analyse the data.

Descriptive statistics

A total of 500 participants have completed the online survey but only 424 (M ± SD = 24.18 ± 3.21 years) participants’ responses were included after 76 questionnaires were rejected from this study as it did not meet the inclusion criteria. The highest level of education obtained by the participants is degree education. 18.2% of participants had engaged in aggression towards their romantic partner.

Inferential statistics

Table  2 shows the results of a multiple regression analysis in predicting relational aggression based on big five personality traits, attachment styles, and loneliness among young female adults in Malaysia. Among the five subscales of personality trait, agreeableness showed a significant predictor. In addition, loneliness, avoidant attachment style, and anxious-attachment style also showed significant prediction with relational aggression. Overall, the results of the regression analysis showed that agreeableness, loneliness, avoidant attachment style, and anxious attachment style together can predict 30.3% of the variance in relational aggression (R²=0.303), where [F (3,269) = 22.561, p  < 0 0.05]. The subscale of agreeableness showed negative prediction (β=-0.305, p  <.05) with relational aggression whereas loneliness (β = 0.364, p  <.05), avoidant attachment style (β = 0.420, p  <.05), and anxious attachment style (β = 0.321, p  <.05) showed positive prediction with relational aggression. These findings showed that higher level of agreeableness trait contributes to lower level of relational aggression in romantic relationships. Besides that, high levels of loneliness, avoidant attachment style, and anxious attachment style contribute to higher level of relational aggression in romantic relationship.

For hierarchical regression analysis, only those variables that were significant in the multiple regression analyses were entered into hierarchical regression models which are agreeableness trait, loneliness, avoidant attachment style, and anxious attachment style. Table  3 shows the hierarchical regression analysis where R² value for Model 1 is 0.097, F (25.735) = 22.545, p  <.05. This means that the agreeableness dimension accounts for 9.7% of the variance in relational aggression. While the R² value obtained for Model 2 is 0.098, F (17.410) = 15.240, p  <.05. This means that social support and agreeableness dimensions contribute as much as 9.8% of the variance to relational aggression in romantic relationships. These results showed that the percentage of variance only increases by 0.1% (9.8%– 9.7%) with the presence of a moderator in this model. The results in Table  3 showed that the dimension of agreeableness as a predictor is significant with a value of β =-0.296, t = -6.333, p  <.05. While social support as a predictor is not significant with β value = -0.062, t = -1.331, p  >.05. After entering the moderator, the interaction term of social support and agreeableness is not significant with a value of β = -0.406, t = − 0.816 and p  >.05. The agreeableness subscale was a significant predictor in the first block ( p  <.05) but did not reach significance in the second block ( p  =.415).

Table  4 shows the hierarchical regression analysis where R² value for Model 1 is 0.135, F (35.826) = 32.761, p  <.05. This means that the loneliness level dimension accounts for 13.5% of the variance in relational aggression. While the R² value obtained for Model 2 is 0.146, F (25.874) = 23.915, p  <.05. This means that social support and loneliness level dimensions contribute as much as 14.6% of the variance to relational aggression in romantic relationships. These results show that the percentage of variance only increases by 1.1% (14.6%– 13.5%) with the presence of a moderator in this model. The results in Table  4 show that the dimension of loneliness as a predictor is significant with a value of β = 0.383, t = 7.767, p  <.05. While social support as a predictor is not significant with a value of β = 0.048, t = 0.964, p  >.05. After entering the moderator, the interaction term of social support and loneliness is significant with a value of β = 0.550, t = 2.349 and p  <.05. The loneliness subscale was a significant predictor in all blocks ( p  <.05), with p  =.019 in the second block.

Table  5 shows the hierarchical regression analysis where R² value for Model 1 is 0.231, F (40.936) = 42.014, p  <.05. This means that the attachment style dimension accounts for 23.1% of the variance in relational aggression. While the R² value obtained for Model 2 is 0.237, F (25.225) = 25.976, p  <.05. This means that social support and attachment style dimensions account for 23.7% of the variance in relational aggression in romantic relationships. These results show that the percentage of variance only increases by 0.6% (23.7%– 23.1%) with the presence of a moderator in this model. The results in Table  5 show that the dimension of avoidant attachment style as a predictor is significant with a value of β = 0.368, t = 8.345, p  <.05 and the dimension of anxious attachment style as a predictor is significant with a value of β = 0.244, t = 5.364, p  <.05. While social support as a predictor is.

not significant with a value of β = 0.20, t = 0.447, p  >.05. After entering the moderator, the interaction term of social support and attachment style was not significant on the relational aggression with values ​​of β = 0.155, t = 0.676, p  >.05 and β = 0.520, t = 2.925, p  >.05. The ECR’s anxious and avoidant subscale were significant predictor in the first block ( p  <.05) but did not reach significance in the second block ( p  =.328;0.105).

The participants that have been selected for this study are young female adults between the age of 18 to 30 (M ± SD = 22.08 ± 3.21 years) who are currently in a romantic relationship for more than three months. Regression analysis was done, and it was found that only agreeableness trait showed significant predictor on relational aggression in romantic relationship and the other four dimensions of the big five personality in the psychosocial factor variable, which are extraversion, openness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness are not predictors or contributors to relational aggression in romantic relationships. Therefore, the findings prove that the importance of the relative contribution of personality traits of agreeableness. Generally, in an interpersonal context, personality is known to play an important role in determining the likelihood of engaging in an aggressive act. Negative emotions are generally harmful to romantic relationships. The result from our study is contradictory with the research findings by Burton et al. [ 73 ] where they have found that higher relational aggression was associated with higher levels of neuroticism and lower level of conscientiousness.

In addition, in some studies it has been found that individuals who tend to engage in relational aggression are more likely to show lower traits of agreeableness, openness and conscientiousness [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 ]. In our study, none of the big five personality traits except for agreeableness show significant prediction towards relational aggression in romantic relationships. This may be due to in general agreeableness traits may have stronger predictive utility than other personality traits ( 78 – 79 ). It has also been shown that agreeableness trait is negatively associated with relational aggression [ 80 , 81 , 82 ]. Agreeableness characterized as cooperation and understanding is an aspect related to motivation to maintain positive interpersonal relationships [ 83 ]. Likewise, the relationship between agreeableness and mind suggests that the former is responsible for processing social information.

Furthermore, agreeableness supports altruism while relational aggression is a type of destructive and hostile behaviour that has anti-social tendencies [ 84 ]. Therefore, this can further explain the evidence we found that agreeableness trait is associated with a negative influence on relational aggression. The trait of agreeableness has also been referred to as adaptability or reliability. There are differences in the interpretation of the dimension of agreeableness. The trait of agreeableness is considered reliable whereas Asian people generally support a collectivist culture, emphasizing social harmony and avoiding conflict [ 84 ]. Agreeableness represents the obligation to act as a group member and to make sacrifices. This cultural difference can lead to the irrelevance of agreeableness traits against relational aggression among young female adults in Malaysia. Besides that, those with higher levels of neuroticism are thought to be more likely to be aggressive. This individual is considered to have fewer stable emotions. Therefore, people who exhibit many neurotic personality traits are more prone to emotional instability and more prone to conflict with others. Conversely, agreeableness and aggressiveness are consistently negatively correlated [ 84 ].

Loneliness shows positively significant prediction towards relational aggression in romantic relationships. This is consistent with the study done by Prinstein et al., [ 55 ] which revealed that both relationally aggressive children and youth are more likely to be depressed, lonely, anxious, and socially isolated. However, according to the study done by Povedano et al., [ 85 ] found that the relationship between loneliness and relational aggression is significant and positive for boys, but not for girls. The involvement in violent behaviour would not act as a buffer for victimized girls experiencing strong feelings of loneliness, whereas it would be for boys. Lonely people usually have a negative perception of others’ intentions and behaviours in their interpersonal relationships. Along with these findings, lonely people tend to assume that their interpersonal failures stem from unchangeable and undesirable traits in their own personality, and they have a negative interpretation of other people’s intentions and interactions. Individuals who have developed a negative perception of themselves because of loneliness, feeling undesirable and unaccepted by others may resort to relational aggression, a powerful tool in which one uses force in interpersonal relationships to control other people [ 27 ].

The results of this study found a positive and significant prediction between avoidant and anxious attachment styles with relational aggression in romantic relationships. It has been established that the quality of communication between parents and children plays a crucial role in the development of a secure attachment. Our findings are in line with previous research that suggests that adolescents who have a positive relationship with their parents and communicate well with them are less likely to engage in aggressive behaviours and engage in risky activities [ 86 ]. Moreover, early attachments shape not only an individual’s sense of self and view of the world, but also their social skills, overall well-being, and future relationships. This is supported by the findings of Dervishi et al., [ 87 ] who found that adolescents with anxious attachments had higher levels of physical and verbal aggression. Studies have also shown that communication between parents and teens is strongly linked to the emergence of aggressive behaviours, with better communication resulting in a higher sense of security and an active exchange with others throughout life [ 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Essentially, individuals who are highly insecure may have difficulties controlling their anger and are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour.

Previous research has demonstrated that individuals with insecure attachment patterns, particularly the anxious type, are at risk of experiencing negative consequences [ 91 , 92 , 93 ]. This can be attributed to a negative self-concept and high levels of rejection anxiety, leading to an over-reaction of excessive anger, and hurt in conflict situations. Research suggests that individuals with anxious attachment style have a history of persistent rejection from their partners and perceive themselves as unworthy of affection [ 94 ]. This can result in a perception of partners as untrustworthy and even threatening. It has been found that young adults with anxious attachment style are more prone to experiencing anger, compared to those with a secure or preoccupied attachment style who tend to have more positive expectations of their partners. In other words, those who have a strong sense of insecurity are likely to struggle with controlling their anger, while those with these insecurities are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour.

Hierarchical regression analysis was carried out and it was found that social support as a moderator showed no significant effect between big five personality, avoidant and anxious attachment style with relational aggression in a romantic relationship except for loneliness subscale. The behaviour’s of loved ones that are in tune with the needs of the individual who is dealing with a stressful situation are referred to as social support [ 95 ]. The availability of support in the environment, the emotional response to stressful events, and the assessment of the consequences of these events can all be positively influenced by support from loved ones. Support from loved ones help to decrease the impact of stress by solving the victim’s problems, diminishing the perceived importance of the incident, facilitating the adoption of rational thoughts, and preventing or reducing inappropriate behaviour responses. According to previous research, social support may act as a moderator and buffer the effects of aggression and family functioning [ 96 ]. Due to the positive correlation between social support and a person’s family adjustment, social support helps to balance the negative effects of relational aggression on families [ 97 ].

This study’s finding is also consistent with the finding by Fortin et al. [ 98 ], where the moderating effect of social support is not present in female victims of physical violence. Thompson et al. [ 99 ] found that less women who have experienced relational aggression perceive the availability of social support, the more severe the violence they have experienced. The victim may also begin to blame herself more and ask for less support from her loved ones as the violence intensifies due to the bidirectional pattern of violence. Additionally, it seems that continuing in a relationship while having experienced physical abuse may have an impact on how satisfied they are with the assistance they have received [ 100 ]. These victims may also require additional forms of support, such as emotional, educational, and material support, even though they are generally happy with the assistance they have received.

Therefore, fewer confidants may have led to less robust social support. As a result, having fewer confidants may have led to social support that was insufficient and did not entirely satisfy the needs of the physical abuse victims. Besides that, social support is thought to be the most important factor that could significantly reduce loneliness [ 100 ], and it may be able to predict the trajectory of loneliness [ 101 ]. Indeed, numerous studies on the roles played by various forms of social support have found that perceived social support is more useful for predicting people’s mental health and may have a bigger impact on mental health than other forms of social support [ 102 , 103 , 104 ].

Both relational aggression and social support are empirically related to levels of loneliness, empirical literature is lacking on the interactive effects of relational aggression and social support on levels of loneliness [ 53 , 105 , 106 ]. Little is devoted in the existing literature to investigating the relationship triad. Ladd and Burgess [ 52 ] suggested that social support moderates the association between aggression and adjustment because it balances the dysfunction created by aggression. Family and peer support can act as a buffer in minimizing the negative effects of relational aggression in romantic relationships [ 107 ]. Adolescents who receive social support perform better in academic tasks and social interactions than individuals who do not have family and peer support [ 108 ]. Consistent with this research, social support, in general, and family support may act as moderating factors for the relationship between levels of loneliness and relational aggression.

Next in this study, it was found that there is no relationship between the role of social support as a moderator in the relationship between attachment style and relational aggression in romantic relationships among young female adults in Malaysia. This is contrary to the results of previous studies that suggest social support act as a moderator and minimizes or increases the effect of relational aggression on parental attachment style because social support is positively related to one’s family adjustment [ 99 ] and it has been hypothesized that social support moderates the relationship between relational aggression and parenting style. However, the findings of this current study highlight that social support as a moderator, relational aggression and parenting style are one of the factors that are very influential which affects the functioning of young people based on past studies [ 104 ]. The current findings show how social support moderates as an enhancer and buffer in attachment styles and relational aggression.

Results from previous studies differ from the current study due to several factors. Based on attachment style theory by Bowlby (1969), attachment style consists of secure attachment style, anxious attachment style, and avoidance attachment style but in this study only anxious attachment style, and avoidance attachment style alone were used to assess the attachment style of young adults. Avoidant attachment style involves fear of dependence and intimacy interpersonal, excessive need for independence and reluctance to self-disclosure. Anxious attachment styles involve fear of interpersonal rejection or neglect and distress when one’s partner is absent or unresponsive. People with an anxious attachment style always feel insecure about their romantic relationships and fear of abandonment by partner. Those with an avoidant attachment style have a common need to feel loved but not prepared emotionally to be in romantic relationships. Things like this can cause someone to use relational aggression in their romantic relationships such as manipulating partners, threatening partner to end the relationship. In addition, even if that individual has high social support but it does not affect if one is oriented in an avoidant attachment style and anxious attachment style.

Besides that, the findings of this study are consistent with a recent study by Egan and Bull [ 107 ] who found that there is no effect of social support as a moderator in the relationship between personality traits and relational aggression in romantic relationships. This is different from the perception based on personality theory developed by Goldberg [ 109 ] stating that social support is significantly associated with personality characteristics, especially extraversion, agreeableness, or emotional stability [ 107 ]. In general, from childhood to late adulthood, the relationships maintained by individuals with other people are related to individual differences in personality characteristics [ 110 ]. Personality traits that define interaction style can predict social interaction, available social support, and its perception. However, a supportive social context may also predict personality traits by providing individuals with opportunities to develop social skills, maintain social relationships, and foster prosocial behaviour. If personal experiences, roles, and social relationships can influence a person’s personality traits, social support is not only a proxy for the quality of social relationships but also a resource that can help to face the social challenges faced in middle adulthood and can predict personality traits by adapting to social roles expectations and developing social skills. Therefore, the relationship between the big five personalities and perceived social support is not only unidirectional but also reciprocal.

Limitations

As for limitations, all data used in this study were self-reported. The sensitive nature of some questions may have caused some participants to succumb to the social desirability bias and report. For instance, lower rates of relational aggression than their actual behaviour. Despite this, participants provided anonymous answers, making it less likely that they were prompted to provide biased answers. Furthermore, due to recall issues and inaccurate reporting it’s possible that both estimates of psychosocial factors and relational aggression contain measurement error. Another limitation for this study is the cross-sectional nature of these data, which precludes inferences about causal relationships is another drawback of this study.

Additionally, caution should be used when extrapolating the findings to all female samples since the participants in this study were a homogeneous sample of young female adults. Due to the study’s cross-sectional design, it is also impossible to draw conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationship between social support as a moderator in between psychosocial factors and relational aggression. To address the temporal ordering of people’s levels of social support from family and friends and their participation in relational aggression, longitudinal studies are required. Besides that, young female adults were not questioned regarding the opinions or involvement of friends in relational aggression. According to earlier studies, teenagers who have friends who engage in dating violence run a higher risk of doing so themselves [ 111 ]. Moreover, data was collected at one time point, so cause-and-effect conclusions could not be made. Besides that, the difference between the psychosocial factor’s groups couldn’t be identified clearly in relation to relational aggression in romantic relationship as only multiple regression has been conducted. A post hoc test can help in identifying the differences between specific groups and give a more meaningful finding.

Future studies

Future studies are needed on the impact of multiple placements, including their effects on unstable living situations, sibling attachment, adoption, frequent school changes, and difficulties. For instance, if an individual grew up in a family that shamed or condemned emotional expression or in a home with an abusive parent, this may associate anger with fear, danger, or damaged relationships, which will cause to develop more negative perception of their relationship with their parents and siblings. This study only focuses on female samples. Even though there are differences between the genders, both genders naturally experience anger. Men are thought to be more prone to rage despite evidence that women are more emotionally expressive. In addition, more research on gender disparities is necessary.

The current study suggests that preventive measures need to be taken to stop the symptoms of anger from getting worse. Uncontrollable anger can cause several problems, such as erratic behaviour, assault, abuse, addictions, and legal troubles. In these circumstances, anger impairs decision-making, harms relationships, and has other negative effects. Besides that, to manage anger and deal with triggers without repressing and storing it, as well as to deal without causing emotional harm, it’s crucial to recognize the warning signs of anger. Anger management techniques include breathing exercises under supervision, cognitive behavioural therapy, imagery, problem-solving, and the development of interpersonal and communication skills. Besides that, the findings of this study indicate that aimed at reducing and/or preventing relational aggression among young female adults should consider agreeableness traits ( 112 – 113 ). Young female adults who were less agreeable were likely to experience relational aggression. The findings highlight the need for additional research to pinpoint specific characteristics of the lower level of agreeableness female population that put them at risk for relational aggression in a romantic relationship.

The current study was novel in its examination of social support as a moderator of the association between psychosocial factor and relational aggression in romantic relationships. Future studies will need to test these associations further. Based on the findings from this study, there’s no evidence to support the prediction that social support would moderate this association, but future research with a better measure of social support or using different moderator variable may provide different results. Future research should investigate variables that are not included in this study that are possible predictors of relational aggression in romantic relationships. A post hoc test can be conducted further in identifying the differences between specific groups and give a more meaningful finding.

Relational forms of aggression tend to rise during adolescence (115), in part because more complex cognitive abilities are developed during this period that are necessary for successfully manipulating the relationships of others. We discovered a significant correlation between aggression and social support, which is crucial during adolescence. This research suggests that for some people, attachment style and relational aggression are highly overlapping, and possibly reciprocal. However, for some people, personality traits appear to be differentially linked to relational aggression. These results point to the need for additional research examining the moderating effects of significant correlates as well as a more nuanced strategy for relational forms of aggression during early adulthood’s prevention and intervention. Therefore, efforts to prevent young female adults from engaging in relational aggression should concentrate on all females and not just those who have been identified as perpetrators or victims. All females will be better equipped to spot relational aggression signs and help their friends if they are informed about the warning signs of relational aggression. Early adulthood could be taught about the warning signs of relational aggression through community-wide campaigns and in high school. This study will help to create awareness on the existence of relational aggression, public will be able to tackle this issue at an earlier stage rather than later and individuals will be able to identify the difference between a toxic and a non-toxic relationship.

In conclusion, many participants in this study reported having violent-free romantic relationships even though there are individuals who reported being the perpetrators of relational aggression. The current study was a first step in determining how psychosocial factors and relational aggression in romantic relationships are related to one another. Findings indicate that social support is also an important factor in understanding females’ relational aggression in romantic relationship. At the same time, results demonstrated that social support from friends and/or family has no significant effect with personality traits and attachment styles with relational aggression. This finding raises questions as to what may provide support to young female adults in relational aggression in romantic relationships. The current study’s greatest strength is the dialogue it has sparked about the importance of social support in romantic relationships between young female adults who is experiencing loneliness. This raised awareness could serve as a starting point for further study as well as the creation of programs and regulations that cater to the requirements of this population. It is necessary to create and carry out programs that encourage healthy dating interactions and inform young adults about dating violence which focuses on relational aggression. The findings also provide evidence for the significance of parental modelling in the development of romantic relationships in young adults. The findings are supported by social learning theory (Bandura, 1971), the concepts of which might be employed in investigating other areas of psychosocial factors on young adults’ relationships in the future.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Big Five Inventory

Experiences in Close Relationships– II

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

Measure of Relational Aggression and Victimization

UCLA Loneliness Scale

Shulman S, Connolly J. The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood. Emerg Adulthood. 2013;1:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330 .

Article   Google Scholar  

DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. (2012). Aggression. Chapter in I. Weiner, editor, Handbook of Psychology, 2nd Edition, Volume 5, 449–466. H. Tennen & J. Suls, editors, Personality and Social Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Munusamy S, Jeyagobi S, Mohamed IN, Murthy JK, Chong ST, Abdullah H, Mohamamad Rahim Kamaluddin. Underlying familial factors for aggressive Behaviour in romantic relationships: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(8):4485. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084485 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Voyer P, Verreault R, Azizah GM, et al. Prevalence of physical and verbal aggressive behaviours and associated factors among older adults in long-term care facilities. BMC Geriatr. 2005;5:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-5-13 .

Wen Huey C, Abdul Aziz AA, Mohd Hoesni S, Abd Razak MA, Kamaluddin MR. Effects of psychosocial factors towards emotional abuse among University Students who have been in romantic relationships. EDUCATUM J Soc Sci. 2021;7:107–20. https://doi.org/10.37134/ejoss.vol7.2.10.2021 .

Shaari AH, Kamaluddin MR, Paizi WF, Mohd M. Online-dating romance scam in Malaysia: an analysis of online conversations between scammers and victims. Gema Online J Lang Stud. 2019;19:97–115. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-06 .

Jeyagobi S, Munusamy S, Kamaluddin MR, Ahmad Badayai AR, Kumar J. Factors influencing negative cyber-bystander behaviour: a systematic literature review. Front Public Health. 2022;10:965017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.965017 .

Crick NR. Relational aggression: the role of intent attributions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Dev Psychopathol. 1995;7:313–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006520 .

Linder JR, Crick NC, Collins WA. Relational aggression and victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Association with perceptions of parent, peer and romantic relationship quality. Soc Dev. 2002;11(5):69–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00187 .

Connolly J, Friedlander L, Pepler D, Craig W, Laporte L. The ecology of adolescent dating aggression: attitudes, relationships, media use, and socio-demographic risk factors. J Aggress Maltreatment Trauma. 2010;19:469–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495028 .

Herrera VM, Wiersma JD, Cleveland HH. The influence of individual and partner characteristics on the perpetration of intimate partner violence in young adult relationships. J Youth Adolesc. 2008;37:284–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9249-4 .

O’Leary KD, Slep AM. A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2003;32:314–27. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Murray-Close D, Ostrov JM, Nelson DA, Crick NR, Coccaro EF. Proactive, reactive, and romantic relational aggression in adulthood: measurement, predictive validity, gender differences, and association with intermittent explosive disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 2010;44:393–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.09.005 .

Goldstein SE. Relational aggression in young adults’ friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships. 2011;18:645–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01329.x .

Boladale M, Yetunde O, Adesanmi A, Olutayo A, Olanrewaju I. Personality profiles and psychopathology among students exposed to dating violence at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. J Interpers Violence. 2015;30(1):168–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514532718 .

Dowgwillo EA, Ménard KS, Krueger RF, Pincus AL. DSM-5 pathological personality traits and intimate partner violence among male and female college students. Violence Vict. 2016;31(3):416–37. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00109 .

Carvalho J, Nobre OJ. Five-factor model of personality and sexual aggression. Int J Offender Therapy Comp. 2013;Criminology20(10):1–18.

Google Scholar  

Jones SE, Miller JD, Lynam DR. Personality, antisocial behaviour, and aggression: a meta-analytic review. J Criminal Justice. 2011;39(4):329–37.

Lau KSL. (2013). Big five personality traits, pathological personality traits, and psychological dysregulation: Predicting aggression and antisocial behaviours in detained adolescents (Master’s thesis unpublished). University of New Orlean, Louisiana.

Lee V, Egan V. Predictors of aggression in southeast Asian female prisoners. Pers Indiv Differ. 2013;54(1):113–7.

Miller JD, Zeichner A, Wilson LF. Personality correlates of aggression: evidence from measures of the five-factor model, UPPS model of impulsivity, and BIS/BAS. J Interpers Violence. 2012;27:2903–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512438279 .

Ulloa EC, Hammett JF, O’Neal DN, Lydston EE, Leon Aramburo LF. The big five. Personality trets and intimate Partner violence: findings from a large. Nationally Representative Sample Violence Victims. 2016;31(6):1100–15. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00055 .

Hovens JGFM, Giltay EJ, van Hemert AM, Penninx BWJH. Childhood maltreatment and the course of depressive and anxiety disorders: the contribution of personality characteristics. Depress Anxiety. 2016;33(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22429 .

Motevaliyan SM, Yaacob N, Juhari S, Mansor R, M., Baratvand M. Personality traits and severity of wife abuse among Iranian women. Asian Social Sci. 2014;10(7):234–41. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n7p234 .

Holt M, Espelage D. Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and Bully-victims. J Youth Adolesc. 2007;36:984–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3 .

Sun L, Fu Z, Zheng Y. Shyness and loneliness in Chinese young adults: roles of aggression and gender. J Aggress Maltreatment Trauma. 2021;30(1):43–53.

Pavri S. Loneliness: the cause or consequence of peer victimization in children and youth. Open Psychol J. 2015;8(1):78–84.

Amapola Povedano M-J, Cava. María Carmen Monreal. Rosa Varela, Gonzalo Musitu. (2015). Victimization, loneliness, overt and relational violence at the school from a gender perspective. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2015;15:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.09.001 .

Kurtyılmaz Y. (2011). Relationships among relational aggression and self-esteem, social connectedness and social anxiety levels of university students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Anadolu, Eskis¸ehir, Turkey.

Acquah EO, Topalli PZ, Wilson ML, Junttila N, Niemi PM. Adolescent loneliness and social anxiety as predictors of bullying victimisation. Int J Adolescence Youth. 2016;21(3):320–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2015.1083449 .

Brown S, Fite PJ, Stone K, Bortolato M. Accounting for the associations between child maltreatment and internalizing problems: the role of alexithymia. Child Abuse Negl. 2016;52:20–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.12.008 .

Bowlby J. Attachment and loss: attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1969.

Jude Cassidy JD, Jones, Shaver PR. (2013). Contributions of Attachment Theory and Research: A Framework for Future Research, Translation, and Policy. Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 Nov 1. Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2013; 25(4 0 2): 1415–1434. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000692 .

Johnstone L, Boyle M. The power threat meaning Framework: overview. Leicester: British Psychological Society; 2018.

Brodski SK, Hutz CS. The repercussions of emotional abuse and parenting styles on Self-Esteem, Subjective Well-Being: a retrospective study with University students in Brazil. J Aggress Maltreatment Trauma. 2012;21(3):256–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2012.666335 .

Muñiz-Rivas M, Vera M, Povedano A. Parental style, dating violence and gender. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(15):2722. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152722 .

Sara E, Goldstein. Daniel Chesir-Teran & Adrienne McFaul (2008). Profiles and correlates of relational aggression in young adults’ romantic relationships. March 2007. J Youth Adolesc 37(3):251–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9255-6 .

Follingstad DR, Bradley RG, Helff CM, Laughlin JE. A model for predicting dating violence: anxious attachment, angry temperament and need for relationship control. Violence Vict. 2002;17:35–48. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.17.1.35.33639 .

Megan Oka, Cameron C, Brown, Richard B, Miller. Attachment and relational aggression: power as a Mediating Variable. Am J Family Therapy. 2016;44(1):24–35.

Henderson AJZ, Bartholomew K, Trinke SJ, Kwong MJ. When loving means hurting: an exploration of attachment and intimate abuse in a community sample. J Family Violence. 2005;20:219–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-5985-y .

Ellis WE, Crooks VC, Wolfe DA. Relational aggression in peer and dating relationships: links to psychological and behavioural adjustment. Soc Dev. 2009;18:253–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00468.x .

Costello J, Pickens LM, Fenton J. Social Support: a matter of connections. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago; 2001.

Son H, Cho HJ, Cho S, Ryu J, Kim ST. Moderating effect of Social Support between Loneliness and Depression: differences between the Young-Old and the Old-Old. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:2322. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042322 .

Lence M, Kneginja TV, Vladimir R M., and, Günter N. 2017. Perceived social support as a moderator between negative life events and depression in adolescence: implications for prediction and targeted prevention. EPMA J. 2017; 8(3): 237–245. Published online 2017 Jun 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13167-017-0095-5 .

Swickert R. Personality and social support. In: Corr P, Matthews G, editors. Cambridge handbook of personality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2009. pp. 524–40.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Tong E, Bishop G, Diong S, Enkelmann H, Why Y, Ang J, Khader M. Social support and personality among male police officers in Singapore. Pers Indiv Differ. 2004;36:109–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00072-2 .

Branje S, van Lieshout C, van Aken M. Relations between agreeableness and perceived support in family relationships: why nice people are not always supportive. Int J Behav Dev. 2005;29:120–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000441 .

Allemand M, Schaffhuser K, Martin M. Long-term correlated change between personality traits and perceived social support in middle adulthood. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2015;41:420–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215569492 .

Swickert R, Hittner JB, Foster A. Big five traits interact to predict perceived social support. Pers Indiv Differ. 2010;48:736–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.018 .

Russell D. The causal dimension scale: a measure of how individuals perceive causes. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1982;42(6):1137–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1137 .

Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Measurement of attachment-related constructs in adulthood. Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press; 2007.

Ladd GW, Burgess KB. Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment. J Child Dev. 2001;72(5):1579–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00366 .

Rubinlicht MA. (2011). Peer support for coping as a moderator of the relation between victimization by relational aggression and adjustment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State University, Ohio, United States.

Neelam Bibi, Malik JA. 2016. Effect of Social Support on the Relationship between Relational Aggression and Family-Maladjustment: Adolescents’ Perspective Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 2016, Vol. 31, No. 1, 63–76.

Prinstein MJ, Boergers J, Vernberg EM. Overt and relational aggression in athletes: Social-psychological adjustmentof aggressors and victims. J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;30:479–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP300405 .

Smith PH, Jacquelyn W, White, Lindsay J, Holland. A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and College-Age women. Am J Public Health 2003 July. 2003;93(7):1104–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.7.1104 .

Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, Little TD. Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Dev. 2008;79(5):1185–229.

Keenan K, Coyne C, Lahey BB. Should relational aggression be included in DSM-V? J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(1):86–93.

Hammack PL, Richards MH, Luo Z, Edlynn ES, Roy K. Social support factors as moderators of community violence exposure among inner-city African American young adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2004;33:450–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_3 .

Tackett JL, Kushner SC, Herzhoff K, Smack AJ, Reardon KW. Viewing relational aggression through multiple lenses: temperament, personality, and personality pathology. Dev Psychopathol. 2014;26(3):863–77.

Voulgaridou I, Kokkinos CM. Relational aggression in adolescents: a review of theoretical and empirical research. Aggress Violent Beh. 2015;23:87–97.

Yoon JS, Barton E, Taiariol J. Relational aggression in middle school educational implications of developmental research. J Early Adolesc. 2004;24(3):303–18.

Haslina Muhamad J, Roodenburg, Dennis W, Moore. (2018). The adaptation of the Big Five Inventory in measuring Malaysian youths’ personality traits. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, Volume 5, Issue 7 (July 2018), Pages: 8–14. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.07.002 .

Russell DW. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(1):20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2 .

Nordin NM, Mansor Abu Talib. (2009). Loneliness And Psychological Well-Being Among University Students In Malaysia. Jurnal Psikologi Malay.sia 23 (2009): 27–37. doi: spaj.ukm.my/ppppm/jpm/article/viewFile/70/53 .

Anis Nurshafiqah & Nor Mazlina Ghazali. Reliability analysis of an instrument: a preliminary study of experience in close relationship scale (ECR) among Counsellor trainees in a University March 2020. J Cogn Sci Hum Dev. 2020;6(1):81–7. https://doi.org/10.33736/jcshd.1651.2020 .

Linder JR, Crick NR, Collins WA. Relational aggression and victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Soc Dev. 2002;11(1):69–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00187 .

Kamaluddin MR, Tharumalay RD, Sulaiman WSW, Mariamdaran SD, Norruzeyati Che Mohd Nasir. (2020). Penerokaan ciri-ciri psikometrik alat ujian agresif dalam bahasa tamil: terjemahan, kesahan dan kebolehpercayaan (exploring psychometric properties of aggression questionnaire in tamil language: translation, validity and reliability). Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia. Vol.34 No.3 (2020). doi: https://spaj.ukm.my/ppppm/jpm/article/view/603 .

Gregory D, Zimet NW, Dahlem, Sara G, Zimet, Gordon K. Farley. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (1988). Journal of Personality Assessment Volume 52, 1988 - Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2 .

Ng CG, Amer Siddiq AN, Aida SA, Zainal NZ, Koh OH. (2010). Validation of the Malay version of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS-M) among a group of medical students in Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya. Asian J Psychiatry 2010;3(1):3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2009.12.001 .

Connelly LM. Pilot studies. Medsurg Nurs. 2008;17(6):411–2.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Norman R, Draper HS. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons INC.

Burton L, Henninger D, Hafetz J, Cofer J. Aggression, gender-typical childhood play, and a prenatal hormonal index. Social Behav Personality. 2009;37:105–16. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.1.105 .

Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2000;78:350–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350 .

Jennifer L, Tackett BB, Lahey C, van Hulle I, Waldman RF, Krueger, Paul J, Rathouz. (2013). Common genetic influences on negative emotionality and a general psychopathology factor in childhood and adolescence. J Abnorm Psychology. 2013;122(4):1142-53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034151 .

Katie A, Gleason, Lauri A, Jensen-Campbell DS. Richardson (2004). Agreeableness as a predictor of aggression in adolescence. Journal of Aggressive Behaviour. Volume30, Issue1, February 2004, Pages 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20002 .

Joshua D, Miller A, Zeichner, Lauren F, Wilson. (2012). Personality Correlates of Aggression: Evidence From Measures of the Five-Factor Model, UPPS Model of Impulsivity, and BIS/BAS. Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume 27, Issue 14, September 2012, Pages 2903–2919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512438279 .

Koolen S, Poorthuis A, van Aken MAG. Cognitive distortions and self-regulatory personality traits associated with proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence. Cogn Therapy Res. 2012;36(6):776–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-011-9407-6 .

Alana Seibert L, Miller JD, Pryor LR, Reidy DE, Amos Zeichner. Personality and laboratory-based aggression: comparing the predictive power of the five-factor model, BIS/BAS, and impulsivity across context. February 2010. J Res Pers. 2010;44(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.003 .

Dinić BM, Wertag A. Effects of Dark Triad and HEXACO traits on reactive/proactive aggression: exploring the gender differences. Pers Indiv Differ. 2018;123:44–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.003 .

Aidt T, Rauh C. The big five personality traits and partisanship in England. Elect Stud. 2018;54:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.04.017 .

Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human aggression. Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53:27–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 .

Quan F, Yang R, Xia LX. The longitudinal relationships among agreeableness, anger rumination, and aggression. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01030-6 .

Barrick MR, Mount MK. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol. 2010;44:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x .

Povedano A, Estévez E, Martínez B, Monreal MC. A psychosocial profile of adolescent aggressors and victims at school: analysis of gender differences. J Soc Psychol. 2012;27(2012):169–82. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347412800337906 .

Lu Liu N, Wang, Tian L. (2019). The Parent-Adolescent Relationship and Risk-Taking Behaviors Among Chinese Adolescents: The Moderating Role of Self-Control. Front Psychol. 2019; 10: 542. Published online 2019 Mar 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00542 .

Dervishi E, Ibrahimi S. Agressivity in adolescence and its connection to attachment. Int J Sch Cogn Psychol. 2018;5(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2469-9837.1000203 .

Sampedro R, Calvete E, Gámez-Guadix M, Orue I. Child-to-Parent Aggression in adolescents: Prevalence and reasons; Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Developmental Psychology, International Proceedings Division; Lausanne, Switzerland. 3–7 September 2013; pp. 201–204.

Maalouf E, Salameh P, Haddad C, et al. Attachment styles and their association with aggression, hostility, and anger in Lebanese adolescents: a national study. BMC Psychol. 2022;10:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00813-9 .

Muris P, Meesters C, Morren M, Moorman L. Anger and hostility in adolescents: relationships with self-reported attachment style and perceived parental rearing styles. J Psychosom Res. 2004;57(3):257–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00616-0 .

Feeney JA. Implications of attachment style for patterns of health and illness. Child Care Health Dev. 2000;26(4):277–88. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2000.00146.x .

Marganska A, Gallagher M, Miranda R. Adult attachment, emotion dysregulation, and symptoms of depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2013;83(1):131–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajop.12001 .

Van Buren A, Cooley EL. Attachment styles, view of self and negative affect. North Am J Psychol. 2002;4(3):417–30.

Simpson JA, Rholes WS. Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;13:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.006 .

Burnette JL, Davis DE, Green JD, Worthington EL Jr, Bradfield E. Insecure attachment and depressive symptoms: the mediating role of rumination, empathy, and forgiveness. Personality Individ Differ. 2009;46(3):276–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2008.10.016 .

Wills TA, Fegan MF. (2001). Social networks andsocial support. In A. Baum, T. A. Revenson, & J. E. Singer(Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (pp. 209–234).

Elhawi RL, Itzhaky H. Social support, mastery, self-esteem, and individual adjustment among at risk youth. Child Youth Care Forum. 2005;4:230–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-005-5906-5 .

Isabel Fortin Stéphane, Guay V, Lavoie J-M, Madeleine Beaudry. Boisvert & (2012). Intimate Partner Violence and Psychological Distress among Young Couples: Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Social Support. J Fam Viol (2012) 27:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9402-4 .

Thompson MP, Kaslow NJ, Short LM, Wyckoff S. The mediating roles of perceived social support and resources inthe self-efficacy-suicide attempts relation among African americanabused women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70(4):942–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.4.942 .

Theran SA, Sullivan CM, Bogat GA, Stewart CS. Abusive partners and ex-partners: understanding the effects ofrelationship to the abuser on women’s well-being. Violence against Women. 2006;12(10):950–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206292871 .

Xin S, Xin Z. Birth cohort changes in Chinese college students’ loneliness and social support: one up, as another down. Int J Behav Dev. 2016;40(5):398–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415597 .

Solomon Z, Bensimon M, Greene T, Horesh D, Ein-Dor T. Loneliness trajectories: the role of posttraumatic symptoms and social support. J Loss Trauma. 2015;20(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2013.815055 .

Brissette I, Scheier MF, Carver CS. The role of optimism in social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2002;82(1):102. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.102 .

Levendosky AA, Huth-Bocks A, Semel MA. Adolescent peer relationships and mental health functioning in families with domestic violence. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2002;31(2):206–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3102_06 .

Neelam Bibi, Jamil A, Malik. (2016). Effect of Social Support on the Relationship between Relational Aggression and Family-Maladjustment: Adolescents’ Perspective. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 2016, Vol. 31, No. 1, 63–76.

Swickert Rhonda J, Hittner B, James FA. Big five traits interact to Predict Perceived Social Support. Pers Indiv Differ. 2010;48(6):736–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.018 .

Vincent E, Sophie Bull. Social support does not moderate the relationship between personality and risk-taking/antisocial behaviour. September 2020Personality Individual Differences. 2020;163(1):110053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110053 .

Avshalom Caspi 1, Roberts BW, Rebecca L, Shiner. (2005). Personality development: stability and change. Annu Rev Psychology. 2005;56:453– 84. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913 .

Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am Psychol. 1993;48(1):26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26 .

Foshee VA, Reyes HL, Ennett ST, Suchindran C, Mathias JP, Karriker-Jaffe KJ, Bauman KE, Benefield TS. (2011). Risk and protective factors distinguishing profiles of adolescent peer and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Adolescence Health. 2011;48(4):344– 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.030 .

Falb KL, Diaz-Olavarrieta C, Campos PA, Valades J, Cardenas R, Carino G, Gupta J. Evaluating a health care provider delivered intervention to reduce intimate partner violence and mitigate associated health risks: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial in Mexico City. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-772 .

Debra Pepler D, Jiang W, Craig JC. (2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 2008;79(2):325– 38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01128.x .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate all the researchers whose articles were used in the present research.

The study was not funded.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, School of Medicine, International Medical University, Bandar Bukit Jalil, 57000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Shalini Munusamy

Centre for Research in Psychology and Human Well Being, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, National University of Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin, Chong Sheau Tsuey & Hilwa Abdullah & Mohd Nor

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

This study was developed by SM and MRK. Literature search, data organization and analysis, in addition to the writing of the first draft was carried out by SM, under the supervision of MRK, CST, and HA. Lastly, the collective effort and agreement of all authors were involved in the process of proofreading, editing, as well as the approval of the final submitted manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin or Shalini Munusamy .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of The National University of Malaysia (No: 2022 − 549). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kamaluddin, M.R., Munusamy, S., Sheau Tsuey, C. et al. Relational aggression in romantic relationship: empirical evidence among young female adults in Malaysia. BMC Psychol 12 , 305 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01670-4

Download citation

Received : 26 May 2023

Accepted : 17 March 2024

Published : 28 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01670-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Relational aggression
• Romantic relationship
• Social support
• Personality trait
• Attachment style

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Research Design: Theoretical Basis, Empirical Approach

• First Online: 01 June 2024

Cite this chapter

• Rosanna Planer 2  

Chapter 5, “Research Design: Theoretical Basis, Empirical Approach,” gives an overview of the specifics of the research design by introducing the three studies conducted within this dissertation project: It starts with a systematic literature review (Study I), continues with a quantitative analysis of multimedia stories (Study II), and concludes with expert interviews (Study III). 

I think that lesson needs to be understood because it's definitely a niche type of thing. And I think that there isn't a lot of the history of all this that's recorded. So I think that that'll be a helpful piece of research. (Jon Keegan, Visual Correspondent at The Wall Street Journal, about analyzing multimedia storytelling)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The systematic review method will be outlined in detail within Chapter  6 .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Rosanna Planer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosanna Planer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Planer, R. (2024). Research Design: Theoretical Basis, Empirical Approach. In: Two Decades of Multimedia Storytelling in Digital Journalism. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44485-3_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44485-3_5

Published : 01 June 2024

Publisher Name : Springer VS, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-44484-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-44485-3

eBook Packages : Social Science and Law (German Language)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research