Psychology, Philosophy, Publication, and Ethical Research Guidelines in all Fields of Study: Preparation for Writing an Original, Quality Thesis

August 3, 2013 / Posted in  Education, Ethics, Intellectual Property rights, Opus Dei, Researcn

Introduction

In cases where I am called on to review a thesis or dissertation, I hesitate, frequently decline, and (with rare exceptions) I feel fear, then ultimately despair at the puerile paucity of knowledge that is contained in poorly invested, investigated, and roughly researched papers that aspire to the title and name of thesis—yet have nothing in common with a real thesis.¹  The theses that I have read over the past fifty years have been at best blatant, bland, barren, crass “cut-and-past”, or more precisely, bypassing deliberate plagiarism to outright theft of intellectual property rights.²  This has become so common, that I walk away with an apologia at best, or just express my “regrets” that I am not capable of weighing in on the theses as most writers assume that “by paying my money I deserve a superior grade, your signature, and the degree.”  “Sorry,” I begin my response, “I am not a pedantic primitive prostitute,” and, as politely as possible, decline the invitation without using an abrupt negative response composed of a monosyllablic declination.

While I commonly hear from the “offended” student that I can be replaced or forcibly retired (I am definitely past the minimal retirement age, and for many universities past the maximum age for forced retirement), I am fortunate to have a solid, intelligent Academic Dean who rejects any similar thought and says that I may teach as long as I wish and feel capable of rendering solid responses to queried³ questions, encourage critical and independent thinking, and work tirelessly with all students who request assistance—and best of all, permitted me to initiate the matriculation and development of Honors courses.  Intellectuals of the superior caliber of Luis Amado Barrera Arrestégui are a rare and noble find, and any university would be proud to have Barrera Arrestégui on its Board of Directors and in any altitudinous academic position to guide teachers and students.

While I fully endorse, support, and encourage others to hold rigid their academic pursuits in applause of the now cherished clichéd “publish-or-perish” phrase that energetically elevates the mind above mere classroom regurgitation and reiteration of the work of someone else that may or may not have passed peer-review, it is lamentably and frequently an abused guideline when people (both academics and non-academics) seek out the fortuned favors of a foundation or an invidious investor as a part of the program to solicit, pay for, and seek privileges from any investigation of any topic selected for research and publication and devolves into the modern cry for “who gets credit for authorship”–just to retain their jobs or to rise up the stepsin the academic hierarchy.  Some schools, industries, political entities, and others actually demand that their name is coupled with the list of authors, and come before the quaint and frequently misused exempli gratia (e.g.): a term that actually implies the deliberate intention to exclude others as not being worthy of recognition⁴—a fault usually used by poorly trained librarians: putauerimus nos uidere rem quondam extra nos positam.

Antecedent calls for research

Thales of Miletus

Research and research guidelines are nothing new, and have been known and used since 1000 BCE, although few modern researchers read ancient Greek or other early languages and thus prove a poverty of intellectual understanding on the issue of research and research guidelines.   Succeeding generations engaged in as much plagiarism and intellectual theft as do contemporary researchers—but with less finesse. For example, the famous eclipse of 28 May 585 BCE became the backbone for the fantasy of the war of Joshua ⁵ when the kings of Lydia (Alyattes) and Media (Cyaxares) fought a battle on that day, leading Thales of Miletus to seek reliable information if such a battle occurred (and predicting that it did occur: meaning it was possible since it took place during a partial moon) and propelling him to do geometrical research⁶ that enabled him to measure the pyramids,⁷ possibly because he was also engaged in trade ⁸.  Thales wisely ignored the gods and all divine intervention and looked for deeper causes, as any good researcher would do, giving no credit to a plethora of deities but to a single cause: the interaction of planets. Thales died in 547 BCE, having authored Nautical astronomy (ναυτικά αστρονομία), On the Solstice (Στο ηλιοστάσιο) ⁹, and On the Equinox (Από την ισημερία) all in poetry,¹⁰ the genre of the time in which Thales lived; some scholars argue that all three accounts may be from a single poem.¹¹ All ancient mathematicians, philosophers and scholars in agreement that Thales stated that the Earth (soil) floats on water like an ark (giving the antecedent to the myth of the Great Flood and Noah.¹² Thales, through research, discovered the seasons,¹³ determined the diameters of the sun and the moon,¹⁴ and Herodotus gives authorship to a “deliberative body” for a government for Ionia to Thales, as well, especially with Thales of Miletus being the first to reject that the earth is flat and declared it to be spherical¹⁵, countering Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democritus who argued for a flat earth¹⁶.  The human “soul” (or mind) is the source for all thinking, personal growth¹⁷, and desire to know more. Thales emphatically rejected the “old gods” (superstition) while current mistranslations of Plato, Laws, introduce new gods that are nothing more than the conduct of inquiry, breathing, and laboring to know more through research¹⁸

Plato

The impact of Thales of Miletus led to an increased rigor for real research, void of any subservience or subordination to any deity or collection of deities or to their priests and priestess who were seen as but mortals with no infallibility or any particular wisdom. What was known was that each person had the ability to think if the individual selected to think critically and weigh each option regardless of community rules, attitudes, desires, or self-centered beliefs. This led Plato’s to list seven names of the greatest thinkers and researchers known at that time. stating: ‘A man’s ability to utter such remarks (notable, short and compressed) is to be ascribed to his perfect education. Such men were Thales of Miletus, Pittacus of Mitylene, Bias of Priene, Solon of our city (Athens), Cleobulus of Lindus, Myson of Chen, and, last of the traditional seven, Chilon of Sparta. . . . and you can recognize that character in their wisdom by the short memorable sayings that fell from each of them’ ¹⁹.

Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul (Bronze statue by Léon-Alexandre Delhomme 1868)

Democritus (Δημόκριτος, Dēmokritos, “chosen of the people”) of Abdera, a fifth century BCE researcher. Democritus was the first to give substance to the theory of atoms to explain why things were possible, and rejected and concept of divine intervention.

Democritus of Abdera (c. 400 BCE)

Democritus recognized the consequence of his theory inasmuch as it allowed mortals to use their senses and not be enslaved by superstition in the form of religion. In this regard, Democritus opposed the philosophy of Parmenides of Elea who rejected change as possible (known as “being to not being”).  A pupil of Leucippus, Democritus, although disliked by Plato who wanted to burn all his books, is considered by many as the father of modern science, and attempted to explain the world without reasoning to purpose, prime mover, or final cause, antedating Stephen Hawking’s comment that there is no need for a creator as the universe was self-born by combustion (the Big Bang). For Democritus of Abdera, there was a logical and understandable answer for everything without divine intervention or intercession.  Logic prevailed over mythology and superstition, oracles or orations by self-styled intercessors who enjoyed the fat of meat sacrificed on altars created for their personal pleasures and predatory practices.

Hippocrates of Cos

Hippocrates (Ἱπποκράτης) of Cos, known as the greatest physician of all times, refused to accept popular definitions of illness or that they were the punishment of gods.  Instead, Hippocrates (460 – 377 BCE; he died at Larissa, Thessaly), demanded a thorough investigation of any patient with any perceived or assumed illness, and to research all possibilities of cure, discarding those that relied on sorcery or oracles or religious supplications for adjustment or help from special deities, such as Hermes who was called “a beautiful naked boy but with no background or learning in medicine.”  Hippocrates declared that several diseases were the result of wrong living (insufficient sleep, dependency on alcohol or hallucinogenics such as those used by famed Oracles) or poor diet.  To this end, Hippocrates founded the first medical school in the western European world.²⁰ On Hippocrates scorn for religion, the sage scolded in his work On Forecasting Diseases: “I believe that it is an excellent thing for a physician to practice forecasting ²¹. “He will carry out the treatment best if he knows beforehand from the present symptoms what will take place later,” and told his medical students:

Hippocratic Oath

“First of all the doctor should look at the patient’s face. If he looks his usual self this is a good sign. If not, however, the following are bad signs – sharp nose, hollow eyes, cold ears, dry skin on the forehead, strange face color such as green, black, red or lead colored. If the face is like this at the beginning of the illness, the doctor must ask the patient if he has lost sleep, or had diarrhea, or not eaten.”  Hippocrates firmly believed that all diseases had a natural cause (or causes) and only fools went to priests or prayer for cures: “Men believe only that it is a divine disease because of their ignorance and amazement.”²²  To this end the first true doctor in western civilization crafted not only medical devices that were used throughout Europe until the Modern and Industrial Ages, but are the ancestor to many contemporary instruments and practices from resetting elbows to aid with hemorrhoids inflamed with a persistent increase in venous pressure.  Hippocrates was even better known for his requirement that all surgeons and medical practioners take a special oath to assist everyone who came to the doctor in quest of healing: the Hippocratic Oath that is still administered today.

Aristotle of Stagira

Among the ancients, the most famous thinker was the erudite student of Plato: the Macedonian scientist Aristotle of Stagira (384-322 BCE). Among the subjects he studied was biology, and became famous for his scientific writings.  Like those who came before him, Aristotle rejected common consensus as immature and demanded a detailed investigation into all things, leading him to author Prior Analytics (describing the rules of logic and regulations of research), Physics (on the reality around him), Animal History (that refined the science of study of animals), Rhetorics (on how to speak to be understood and inspire investigation and research), Poetics (that refurbished the intrinsic of writing), Metaphysics (on speculation), Nicomachean Ethics (requiring that all research follow and refurbish ethics and ethical consideration), and (Politics).

Euclid the mathematician

Euclid (c. 300 BCE) is given credit as a great mathematician, but should be known for summarizing and systematizing all mathematical knowledge of his age. His own contribution to mathematics was his argument that there are infinite numbers of prime numbers and that mathematics would unlock the universe to further studies, as proven by Stephen Hawking who was Lucian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University. His greatest work was his study of optics and rejection of past arguments that vision was a gift of the gods.  He expanded on the benefits of music and theorized on its advance. His studies were incorporated into printed works that were kept at the famed Museum (Musaeum: Μουσεῖον a Greek Temple, or “House of Muses” that was a philosophical school for study and research²³) of Alexandria (a scientific institute created by Pharaoh Ptolemy I Soter) until early Christians burned it and the renowned Library of Alexandria (bibliothekai (βιβλιοθñκαι) and was known as “the place for the cure of the soul)²⁴ in a fanatical expression of religious zealotry under Pope Theophilus whose followers burned alive its great mathematician and librarian: Hypatia (ancient Greek: Υπατία; her murder marked the end of Classical antiquity):²⁵, who corrected most works with accurate scholarship,²⁶ including Theon’s commentary on Almagest, as well as Almagest itself,²⁷ becoming one of the most poignant symbols of “knowledge and culture destroyed” by religion in 391 CE.²⁸

Aristarchus of Samos correctly defining order of planets in orbit around the sun

Antedating Nicholas Copernicus, Aristarchus (Ἀρίσταρχος, Aristarkhos, 310 BCE – ca. 230 BCE) of Samos was an astronomer and mathematician argued about the immense size of the universe and rejected the theory that Ptolemy later detailed that man and the water planet Earth were the center of the universe.  Aristarchus research and teaching displaced the special role of man that emerging religious in the Middle East required to buttress their claims of supremacy and enable priests to live off the labor of others. 

Aristarchus’s 3rd-century BCE calculations on the relative sizes of (from left) the Sun, Earth and Moon, from a 10th-century CE Greek copy

Aristarchus predated and surpassed, in many ways, Copernicus.  Influenced by Philolaus of Croton, but he identified the “central fire” with the Sun, and put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun, being freed from any theocratic regime or ontology–leaving those behind as the fairy tales of illiterate who sought to control the masses for the benefit of a few.

In this regard Aristarchus of Samos is later joined by Seleucus (Σέλευκος) of Seleukia (c. 190 BCE fl. 150s BCE, is best known as a proponent of heliocentricism using argument and reasoning from actual research,²⁹ and his theory of the origin of tides,³⁰ that Seleucus of Seleukia concurred with and promoted.³¹

Heraclitus of Ephesus

Heraclitus of Ephesus practiced, what many saw as strange, a pedagogy that required his students to think critically.  He used a variety of arguments, including the idea that the universe was logos: it was rationally organized and thus understandable. A second thesis was that oppositions are but aspects of one reality, and all was real. He demanded serious study, debate, and critical thinking, expelling students who stole the idea of others or from previous teachers, claiming that intellectual property remained with the author and had to be attributed to the author by anyone citing it, regardless of the time the initial argument was made.³²

Plotinus and the Monistic theory

Plagiarism became more popular under Plotinus (Πλωτῖνος; c. 204/5–270)and that led to the idea that there was nothing real except for the unknown One God/Primary Source or Highest Intellect. Research was forsaken in favor of memorization and regurgitation, and thinking demeaned to the point that independent thought was considered blasphemy against the One God/Primary Source who was the highest left of intellect. According to Plotinus, man would free his soul through the process of ascesis (ασκήσουν), technically, the exercise of self-discipline that included self-denial and asceticism stemming from Pythagoras’ philosophy that called for abstaining from all forms of temptations including alcohol, drugs, sex, and encouraged meditation on suffering, chastity and abstinence, starving one-self, or flagellating one’s flesh.³³  This gave rise to modern flagellation practices, especially with Opus Dei founder José Maria Escrivá who in excessive enthusiasm regularly beat his flesh so that his bathroom was covered with his blood,³⁴ as did John Paul II,³⁵ etc., and unite with god, thereby discounting everything and everyone before the union. There is no biblical justification for flagellation, as it was used as a punishment for crimes with the Jesus of the New Testament flagellated by Roman soldiers but no where do the ancient scrolls claim that this Jesus welcomed or respected physical self-abuse. Self-flagellation is a form of masochism, and needs psychiatric care.³⁶  One aspect of learning that was critical to Plotinus was that his students use words correctly, conscientiously, and carefully. The strategy of sectarians taking Greek terms from philosophical contexts and re-applying them to religious contexts was popular in Christianity, the Cult of Isis and other ancient religious contexts.  The efforts of many Christian apologists to turn Plotinus into a Christian were rebuffed with scorn.  Plotinus and the Neoplatonists viewed Gnosticism viewed as a form of intellectual heresy or sectarianism (relating to a sect, as second and third century chrestianos and christianos were seen) to the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy of the Mediterranean and Middle East.  Plotinus’ greatest objection to Gnosticism, found in his Enneads, was what he interpreted their preaching to claim: that the world was evil (and even a prison) and things of the flesh were false (read chapter 3 on the eternity and eternality of the universe).  For Plotinus “heaven” was a realm of thoughts and ideas (not a place for souls after death) and not a real world of illusionary appearance.

APA Guidelines

While there are many who guide these tattered theses chaffy and amour propre seeking with multiple littérateurists try to reason with the authors to talk with the investigators, researchers, and writers to see if they are able to come to some agreement as to who should be singled out for authorship, this leads to animosity and hostility, the American Psychological Association (APA) has published an ethics code, specifying that “faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate”.  The APA guide is worthy, but the APA’s stellar intentions frequently leads to tensions and rejection by coworkers who feel singled out as “not being worthy” or recognition and generates thoughts and actions leading to various forms of sabotage to the work in question. As the APA acknowledges³⁷ the APA Ethics Code “applies only to psychologists whose activities are part of their scientific, educational or professional roles as psychologists” and does not apply to other sciences, subjects, the arts or related topics, especially in the field of foreign language investigation and research, translation, interpretation, the social sciences, and so forth.  The problem comes when any center of high education and stringent learning adopts the APA style to ensure uniformity that institution actual hampers true scientific, stringent, exacting, scrupulous and determined conduct of inquiry and denigrates results.  This leads even to a more tenacious and implacable resolve that can actually impair if not alter or degrade learning and create a form of self-loathing or internal insecurity in the mental state of the meticulous, punctilious, scrupulous and adamantine learner leading to slipshod slovenliness. Thinking outside of the metaphorical box of extant research on any topic, as Tami P. Sullivan has clearly shown in her study of the risks of going beyond what is expected, is saturated with dangers, including violence, but this stops no true literati or intellectual, as shown with the stubborn responses of Galileo Galilee to the Roman Inquisition in the seventeenth century.³⁸ With the risks inherent in serious scholarship and researchers under the pressure for publication the challenges become more acute and with each new challenge the collapse of ethics in elevation of standard status quo reiteration and publication. 

As the APA Ethics Office Director Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, noted: “we know from social science research that people often overvalue their contributions to a project.”  Behnke continues that “[m]ere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit … Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately … in footnotes or in an introductory statement.” Contributions that are primarily technical do not justify inclusion in authorship.  Technical contributions do not consist of nor buttress critical thinking and resulting determination of new ideas and presentation, articulation, or publication of those ideas.  Those who insist on accreditation frequently suffer from psychoneurosis, the delusion of persecution, if they are not recognized with peers because of their limited contribution and project hatred on those outside of the intimate group that initiated the research but was chastised as only being transient to the project itself and not a true contributor—as with corporations, schools, departments within schools and those who sit in endowed chairs.³⁹ “The crowd a creature of hate.” The greatest treat are students who feel entitled to recognition, and high grades and even degrees, based on their attendance but non-participation in classes, are disruptive, feel entitled to the rewards they have not worked for, and pose a physical threat to other students, their teachers, and administrators. ⁴⁰  This tends to be elevated, at least for me, by students who feel they are entitled to a degree and having their thesis accepted regardless of the paucity of information, lack of academic quality in its writing, and poor knowledge of the area, while claiming a right to graduation based on paying tuition and sleeping in class. It is not low-self esteem that leads to aggression, but rather an inflated sense of self-esteem coupled with a persecution complex that leads to aggression. ⁴¹ The self-contained group therefore demands a victim and that victim is the peer-review committee that it chastises, or the members of the thesis that undissuadable to include the senior figure’s name among the authors.

There is a caveat, however, that true ethics requires that if in the review process, or even after publication, that if the authors discover errors that change the interpretation of text and research findings, the authors are ethically obligated to promptly correct the errors in a correct, erratum, retraction, or by various other means.  This does not mean that a typographical error that has no true relevance on the publication must encounter the scruples of the editors or peer review committee, as true typographical errors can be accepted, albeit reluctantly, if the text and  interpretation is not altered.  For example, in my article on Translation and its problems in a scholarly scientific journal, I noted to my horror that in footnote 3, there was typographical error on the publication date of the Spanish edition⁴² that came from the 1988 publication of Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes was given as 1888—and Hawking was not even born in that year.

There is, acknowledgeable and necessary to recognize, that there is fraud even with the peer-review process. Many of the peer-reviewers do not have the required expertise to review what is submitted. Standards are lowered for “acclaimed” researchers and writers, and some professional journals have a minimum of two reviewers over any article submitted, while other reviewers accept gratuities for favorable reviews and acceptance, and allow the scholar to respond to negative reviews before reaching an editorial decision, all that is unethical.⁴³  In one study it was found that out of 136 editors and associate editors of psychology journals, 61.6% had published at least one article in their journal after accepting an appointment as editor or associate editor—with 41% of the editors and 20.5% of the associate editors reporting that they “may have” been aided by their positions. ⁴⁴

Ethics Facing the Researcher: The Issue of Ethics and Intellectual Property Rights

The greatest problem that researchers make is not keeping a copy of the data that is used for the publication.⁴⁵  Without proof of what is said, the researcher can be accused of falsifying records, constructing or misconstruing facts and academic deficiency.  Researchers must keep copies of what was used in order to verify their conclusions to anyone who questions, doubts or offers rebuttals.

The APA Ethics Code requires psychologist to release their data to any other psychologist who wants to verify the authenticity, reliability, veracity and exactness of any data published or citation claimed, with the caveat that the shared data can only be used for reanalysis. This is frequently the case for other professional groups, but it is not universal; however, when requested to see data on which assumptions, theories, and final statements are released in publication form, it is ethical for all researchers and writers to make their sources known, at least in footnotes, and documentation of oral information and interview known with careful consideration.

There may be calls from peers, other researchers, and the general public to see details of data (known as data sharing), but this has many problems including the issue of confidentiality. Confidentiality should never be violated.  To avoid any exposure of any participant it is best to give the participant a pseudonym or use initials or numbers to identify the participant.  These should be kept in a secured and protected place.  To ascertain veracity and viability, the researcher should keep separate statistics with the information gained from the participants whose names are encrypted so that peer review can question the actual data but not the individual.  Furthermore, to protect the participant or subject, the researcher is under moral and ethical obligation to not leave any questionnaire or any interview transcript on tables or in public places, but store the information in a locked file or drawer.  When the researcher writes up the details of the research project, the researcher should change the participants’ names and personal details.⁴⁶

Any time that a researcher makes an audio tape or video of the participants’ actions or expressions, the researcher must read into the media used the consent form and has the participant verbally consent without revealing his or her name.  Audio and video tapes must be clearly marked and identified as research material so that one is not used in error thinking that it is a movie or music to be played publicly.  Any identifying information that is not relevant to the interview, such as a person’s name, address, and so forth) must be destroyed immediately unless the participant agrees to, in writing, that the information can be retained for later reference.

Researchers must obtain the consent of those interviewed about data sharing.⁴⁷  If the participant rejects the idea or request for data sharing, the researcher must honor that denial. This includes all forms of data sharing: audio and video tapes, films, and so forth, correspondence and compositions, and so forth—even if the names of those interviewed are technically deleted or hidden. Internet interviews, as with The University of Texas at Austin Regnerus⁴⁸ The entire study was funded by the Consortium and other anti-LGBT groups that provided the “expert witnesses” selected by Robert P. George the founder of National Organization for Marriage⁴⁹ with others from the Witherspoon Foundation that approached Regnerus to falsify statistics that would be transmogrified into declaring the only children in a traditional home of one female mother and one male father would have a normal childhood and life⁵⁰ are never appropriate nor professional as not only can the results not be verified, there is no way to determine the veracity, credibility or reliability of the participants nor even of the researcher who easily could have fabricated the responses, as with Regnerus of The University of Texas at Austin.⁵¹

Critical Issues facing the Researcher

Critical to this issue is the consciousness of the researcher on the multiple roles the researcher plays in the investigative process and assembly of data and facts and their gathering. True researchers avoid any semblance of bias or working for alternative reasons—concentration must be focused on the research and publication—not colleagues or those interviewed or visited with at the time of the conduct of inquiry.⁵² While it is not unethical to work with a significant other or a loved person, it should be avoided to restrain and constrain any semblance of favoritism or possibility of collusion.  This is another reason I oppose team projects as it is too tempting to have someone the researcher is affectionate towards to remain objective and offer serious consideration as to the person’s contribution, value of contribution, and extent of that contribution, such as writing a thesis that enhances, enables or enriches a patron or benefactor, school or department, or even a political cause or case against any group of unit of people, as with the unethical, slanted, biased and paid for by numerous political groups report by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin who was in the pay of the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation.⁵³

Mark Regnerus (UT-Austin Sociology professor)

Not only is the Regnerus report filled with half-truths and untruths, but the survey taken was a web survey that has never been considered legitimate science.⁵⁴ Regnerus has never addressed the criticisms of his peers, yet over 200 scholars in his field have rejected the work as biased and unsound, having issued a caveat on the work⁵⁵, sending a letter to the publisher, Social Science Review (published by Elsevier), pointing out the errors.⁵⁶  Regnerus, himself, attempted to disassociate himself from his studies when he fraudulently claimed that the research was not about same-sex parents, yet in his abstract, The University of Texas at Austin professor wrote: “I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when com-pared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents.”⁵⁷

If researchers use students or clients as participants in research studies, the students and/or participants should not be related to the researcher in any degree or familiarity, or the research takes on the distraction of being unscientific and indefensible.  If the students or participants are not familiar with the researcher, the researcher must make it clear that participation is voluntary, that the participation has an educative value, and the student will learn from the experiment—and be given equitable alternatives to participating in the research without penalty.⁵⁸  The researcher must outline the nature and structure of the research, include a declaration of the structure of any supervisory relationship before supervision begins, and offer a written agreement that both the researcher and the students or clients agrees to and understands their separate responsibilities as well as authorship considerations (if the students and/or clients offer only answers to a survey, they are not entitled to an authorship entry).⁵⁹

In every case where research includes using any person of any age or any gender:  male, female, transgender, and so forth, the participant must be informed of what will be investigated and told of informed-consent rules while the researcher uses true beneficence (from the Latin: beneficentia.⁶⁰  Beneficence is a word that means to most people “charity” but in truth is defined as doing no harm to anyone and maximizing possible benefits while minimizing possible harms: ⁶¹

1. Purpose of the research and the determination if the research requires opinions or facts about the participant’s life or associates and to what extent.  In the USA the participant by law must be at least eighteen years old (this applies to all genders).  The subject must consent to any questioning for the research to be ethically sound. The purpose of the research to be valid must investigate any area or any issue on which little previous work has been carried out, or the work that was completed can be shown to be weak or biased.⁶² The purpose of research can be (1) exploratory: where little previous work was carried out; (2) speculative: where researchers consider current situations and attempt to predict future implications of existing research; (3) descriptive: illuminating relationships, patterns, and links between variables, as with the reasons for study skills or course drop-out rates; (4) explanatory: showing why relationships, patterns, and links occur such as why student retention either exists or does not exist; (5) predictive: developing a model to forecast a likely course events under variable circumstances or intervening variables; (6) evaluative: determining what effect a new law or regulation, for example, might have on an individual community, or political entity at any level; (7) semantic: finding the causal relationship and effect words have on people; (8) and so forth.
2. Expected duration of the research and any remuneration that might be offered.  The duration must be expressed in the number of days, weeks, or years, and have the written consent of the subject for the researcher to proceed.⁶³
3. Procedures of the research: the participant must be fully informed as to the activities the participant will be asked to complete, how much time these procedures will require, and what is expected of the participant. Techniques that are to be used in the research investigation must be detailed so that the participant understands precisely what is to happen, the role of the participant, and any documentation or data that the participant will knowingly or unknowingly give to the researcher.⁶⁴
4. What the research is investigating. The researcher does not have a professional obligation to reveal specific hypothesis, but must give the participant sufficient information that enables the participant to understand the research.
5. Participants’ right to decline to participate. To pressure anyone to participate in any research project is tantamount to torture and the results are invalid by argument of coercion that is both illegal and unethical.⁶⁵
6. Participants’ right to withdraw from the research once it has started. Coercion is illegal, immoral, and unethical, and to restrain anyone by any means to participate in any research project is antithetical to the research objective.⁶⁶
7. Participants’ right to know of anticipated consequences. This must include all possible side-effects, including what is most common; for example, if the research includes eating less over a period of a few months, the participant must be informed that he or she may lose weight, be gaunter, and so forth.⁶⁷
8. Participants’ right to know of potential risks, discomfitures or adverse effects and whether or not the risks, discomfitures or adverse effects will be physical or psychological and what might be their longevity with the subject; participants should never leave the research feeling bad about themselves, or feeling incompetent or inferior as the researcher has the ethical obligation to warn potential participants if the research could lead to distressing thoughts.  At the end of the interview, it is the obligation of the researcher to debrief each participant to assure that there are no negative effects that could lead to self-demeaning thoughts or withdrawal from the group or society, or contemplation of suicide, and so forth.  It is the obligation of the researcher to screen for all risk factors; for example, if the researcher is studying the effect of certain foods or beverages, does the participant have diabetes, high blood pressure, and so forth that could rule out the tasting, sampling or eating foods with excess sugar, salt, and so forth.⁶⁸
9. Any prospective or determined, agreed upon, or anticipated research benefits. The participants must be informed if there are any benefits for participating in the study for either the researcher or for the research and participants.  If it is a part of a class assignment, the participants must know what benefits are possible, such as extra merit points, or if it is to fulfill a class assignment that does not infringe upon the time of the participant unless the participant agrees to additional time to assist the researcher.⁶⁹
10. Incentives for participation with the foremost benefit being a fuller discovery of the self and the subject matter; if remuneration is a part of the incentives to be offered, the amount should be stated initially, and how it is determined: based on time, activity, cooperation, and so forth.⁷⁰
11. Limits of confidentiality and when confidentiality must be broken. Confidentiality rules must be clearly and precisely stated including the researcher’s use of participants’ names and conditions under which the researcher would or could reveal participants identity.⁷¹
12. Who participants can contact with questions.  It is imperative that all participants have the knowledge of whom they can question about the research: not only the researcher but the supervisor or superior to the researcher. While the researcher is in charge of the research, the researcher must have senior members of the faculty or institute who oversee and authorize the research and review the findings.
13. Research strategies.⁷² All strategies from audio recordings, video transcriptions, tests, essay composition, and physical activities must be spelled out clearly, concisely, completely, and correctly for the participants to see, digest, and understand, or ask questions about before engaging in assisting in the research project, and is ethically indispensible.⁷³
14. Illegal activities and behaviors are to be weighed carefully, as researchers have no guarantee of confidentially in any investigation or research into illegal actions, and if the researcher collects data on illegal activities the research may be subpoenaed by law enforcement officials or courts.  If the researcher does not release the collected data, the researcher can be subject to monetary fines or jail time if he or she does not comply with the legal authorities.  If it is critical to the research, the researcher must inform all participants about the danger is if they provide information on illegal activities they participate in or have knowledge, and whether or not the researcher will provide details and evidence if required to by law.  Unfortunately as laws become more rigid and spying on everyone more routine, as with NSA as exposed by American Patriot Edward Snowden, research is increasingly handicapped and with it new insights and ways of correcting problems lessened.⁷⁴
15. Who the researcher is and who is sponsoring the research: The researcher must disclose his or her name and full contact information.  He or she must provide full disclosure about who is sponsoring the research (such as a government, industry, military, group, and so forth); if the researcher believes disclosure of sponsorship will bias the participant’s responses, the sponsors may be identified at the end of the research rather than at the beginning.⁷⁵  As in the case of Mark Regnerus, whose bigotry has neither a place in science nor in academe,⁷⁶ as academic life and teaching is to be objective, verifiable, consistent and in keeping with the principles of academic research and peer-review. The University of Texas at Austin Department of Sociology is as outdated as the Roman Inquisition—and as dangerous since it will not censure one of its own who continues to make errors in research, fact, and publication.
16. What will happen to the data once the researcher completes his or her work: will the data be destroyed or stored for future use.  Data should never be destroyed since there is the possibility of being questioned about it and the reliability of the data and the role of participants, number of people who are to be interviewed, any perceived or expressed bias, and so forth, as with the paucity and fabrication of the study of Mark Regnerus of The University of Texas at Austin.⁷⁷

If researchers use under-age,⁷⁸ poorly educated, or incompetent subjects, the person who is in charge of the participant must be accorded the same rights and made fully aware of both the risks and benefits of the research and proposed study.  In seeking and obtaining consent, the researcher my respect the subject’s right to confidentiality and privacy; respecting the rights of confidentiality and privacy begins with the initial interview, where there must be a variety of options and the subject has the right to decline to answer any or all questions, or stop whenever he or she feels uncomfortable.⁷⁹ To fulfill the ethical requirements in this regard, the researcher must inform participants how the data the research will gather is to be used, what will be done with audio and video recordings, case material, and photos, and secure the consent of the participants.  Topics that must be avoided including questions about family life, religion, or sex without written permission—and for children participants the reformer must get written consent from the parents (as required in the USA under the Education Act of 1994; some states in the USA require that the psychologist doing the study report any sign of abuse or neglect).⁸⁰ 

Researchers in all fields must be conscious of academic propriety,⁸¹ and avoid any frivolous use of time, and be respectful of participants’ time by using the most effective and efficient data collection instrument possible that can be verified, classified, analyzed and meet the most rigid standards for peer-review.  The peer-review process is absolutely essential in any scientific (anthropological, astronomical, biological, sociological, historical, linguistic, sociological, and so forth) contributes to quality control and is an essential step to ascertain the standing and originality of the research, its viability, veracity, usefulness and utility.  A peer-review is the process where objective people with specialization in a field review a paper for proposed publication meets the highest standards in investigation (methodology clearly stated and detailed in the opening chapter), research  that follows all the steps outlined by all professional groups to collect data, translation based on what is universally known and not the popular or vulgar definition of a language commonly known as street idiom, and interpretations based on insight, study, and critical thinking.⁸²