The literature on research ethics is rich with discussions of informed consent, the rights of research participants, and how to work sensitively with vulnerable populations. There is also considerable attention paid to how we work with nonacademic collaborators, such as people who work at community-based organizations. Given the abundance of writing on all of these topics, it is notable how little attention is given to those students with whom we often collaborate.
Just as college students often serve as research samples because they are convenient populations for academic researchers, so too do students routinely serve as research assistants and co-authors. Credit and compensation is typically attributed to student collaborators based on individual negotiations with faculty mentors. In other words, whether the student is listed as a research assistant or a co-author, whether the student is listed as the lead author or a secondary author, or how the student’s contribution is both defined and monetarily compensated (especially with a work such as a book) is based on whatever arrangement the student strikes with the researcher (who is usually the student’s professor).
Students often settle for whatever credit their collaborators choose to give them. A student involved in data collection, data analysis and interpretation, the generation of key ideas, and writing might be credited by one academic as a research assistant and by another as a co-author — very different levels of recognition.
Further, faculty members often credit themselves as the lead author even in instances where student collaborators have provided equal or greater contributions to the final product. It is rare to see student collaborators properly credited and equally compensated as co-authors for published books. What is most distressing is that these arrangements often happen behind closed doors on a case-by-case basis. The level of credit and compensation student collaborators receive is thus based on the individual “generosity” of their superiors.
Let’s compare these norms for assigning credit and compensation with a few of the ethical standards we aspire to in our work with research participants.
Informed consent: This includes explaining the possible costs and benefits of participation, not overburdening participants, and guaranteeing the voluntary nature of participation, including the right to withdraw at any time without negative consequence. In the case of student collaborators, do we have standards requiring us to explain the costs and benefits to them at the outset? Do we have norms for not overburdening collaborators who are not compensated accordingly? Is it reasonable to expect students to feel free to withdraw their participation without negative consequence when working with professors or senior members of their fields? What safeguards are in place to prevent negative consequences?
Working sensitively with vulnerable populations: Within the academic arena, students are the most vulnerable population. They rely on their professors for grades, mentoring, and research opportunities and experiences. Students hoping to pursue academic careers — the very students most likely to engage in publishable research projects — may also be desperate for publishing opportunities. What guidelines prevent their exploitation?
Reflexive practice: In recent years there has been a great deal written about how power shapes the research process, including our role within that process. How are we recognizing this in our work with student collaborators?
Researchers have numerous self-justifications for the imbalance in these relationships. For example, some rationalize that providing research experience for students is enough of a reward. In the case of book publications, many academics argue that they are responsible for acquiring the book contract and therefore should get all or at least the bulk of the credit. However, as someone who has had many books published, I would argue that securing a book contract is a small part of the process and has little to do with who creates the content for the book. Let’s call these justifications out for what they are: excuses.
Credit and compensation should be based on the level of collaboration and how much each collaborator has contributed to the final product; it should not be based on career level. It really is that simple.
My final question is: Why is there so little public discussion regarding this topic, including the establishment of clear ethical guidelines such as those set by professional associations across the disciplines regarding the treatment of research participants?
I suspect, based on my own observations and experiences, that this discussion isn’t occurring because it benefits those in power to make individual arrangements. But perhaps, more hopefully, people just haven’t thought about it. I challenge leaders in the research community to better deal with this issue. Let’s model the kind of ethical practice in our collaborations with students and early-career professionals that we want to teach our students to enact with their research participants.
Patricia Leavy is an author and sociologist.