Conference on College Composition and Communication, November 2003, Revised March 2015, Revised March 2025
Preamble
CCCC is committed to supporting research that helps writers, teachers, students, and the general public more fully understand writing, rhetoric, and communication in all forms and contexts. As a professional organization, we also wish to support the ethical conduct of research. Ethical considerations are relevant to all research methods in writing and rhetorical studies. Ethical conduct in research is not just about compliance with policies, regulations, and laws but also about our active and ongoing involvement and responsibility throughout the research process.
The following guidelines apply to research efforts by scholars, teachers, administrators, students, and others that are directed toward the publication of a book or journal article, presentation at a conference, preparation of a thesis or dissertation, display on a website, public-facing work, or other general dissemination of the results of research and scholarship. These guidelines apply to formally planned investigations, and they likewise apply to emergent studies that discuss writers and writing that researchers encounter in other ways, such as when teaching classes, holding student conferences, directing academic programs, conducting research in nonacademic settings, or going about their professional, civic, and personal lives. It is important to remember that ethical research practices do not end with following policy but should be at the foundation of how a researcher orients their work to the responsible stewardship of humans and their data generally.
Historically, composition research began with investigations conducted in college writing classrooms. Early research did not always seek to obtain informed consent from participants or permission to publish student writing. Today, we hold more rigorous standards as a professional organization and as journal editors, instructors, researchers, and readers. Institutions where we work also insist now on researcher training and neutral, third-party review of research involving human participants.
These guidelines are meant to provide newer CCCC members and long-standing CCCC members with information pertinent to the ethical conduct of research in writing and rhetoric studies. Please note that these guidelines are only a starting point for such consideration. They should be supplemented by texts listed in the selected bibliography and other materials relevant to the research. While research involving living human beings may require extra considerations and approvals, ethical considerations pertain to the conduct and representation of all research in our field. Various research methods investigate questions about writing and rhetoric, some drawn from the humanities and others from social sciences. No matter what methods we employ, writing and rhetoric researchers should take care to recognize and acknowledge the limits of their subjectivities, confirm and verify to the extent possible their conclusions by consulting multiple sources, and represent the words, ideas, and experiences of others with accuracy, fairness, dignity, and respect.
Research that involves living human beings often must be reviewed by an Institutional Review Board1 (IRB) to ensure researchers receive proper training in the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects, comply with existing federal and institutional regulations of this research, and not leave the determination of ethical conduct solely in the researcher’s hands. This document is designed to supplement IRB guidance on the ethical conduct of research by expanding research to include methods that may not involve human participants and to provide discipline-specific guidance, especially where local IRBs determine that composition research does not qualify for their purposes as “research” or where a researcher is working in a context without an IRB formal review.
CCCC represents numerous subfields, such as computers and writing, technical and professional communication, writing centers, applied linguistics, and second language writing, many of which have also issued their own ethical statements and have published commentary about conducting research that should be consulted if you are working in that field of specialization. Furthermore, the nature of writing and its influence on other disciplines often situates us as transdisciplinary research centers, bringing together multiple research traditions and writing practices. As CCCC members, we are committed to protecting the rights, privacy, dignity, and welfare of persons involved in our studies, whether as participants or coresearchers. We recognize that this commitment balances formal and legal guidelines deductively implemented via Institutional Review Boards and broader ethical frameworks inductively gathered from the values and norms of our field as expressed through our historical, current, and future guideline statements. This document is intended to assist researchers in fulfilling both levels of this commitment.
Suggestions and Recommendations
Ultimately, research is a conversation that builds between scholars and practitioners in a field, representing their values, knowledge, and goals. To this end, we offer some pragmatic suggestions that researchers working in composition and communication might consider as they frame their projects.
- Public Perception of Higher Education: A significant gap has emerged between how the public perceives the value of higher education (now largely negative) and what academics and researchers at colleges and universities know to be true about the great value of higher education (Fabricant and Brier; McMahon; Newfield). We invite researchers to keep this gap in mind and to design projects that will help demonstrate to a wide public audience the many personal, social, and civic benefits of a college education and advanced literacy training (“Is a College Degree Worth It in 2024?”). There is a significant need for replicable, aggregable, and data-supported research (Gonzales and Kells; Hassel and Phillips 37–78; Jackson et al.; King et al.; Meltzer 1–5).
- Local and Transnational Partnerships: Whenever possible, we urge researchers to actively seek to collaborate with local and transnational literacy colleagues, including high school English teachers and faculty, and staff at access institutions, including two-year colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), tribal colleges, Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Asian American and Pacific Islander–Serving Institutions, and international institutions. Community-building research practices like this will allow local literacy teachers to meet and work together and help offset the often significant material differences in institutional resources and formal training in research practices that staff at access institutions often do not have. Collaboration across institutional and national boundaries will help the discipline develop a more accurate understanding of writing studies that do not rely almost exclusively on research “centered on students at selective universities” (Hassel and Phillips 3). We call on our colleagues at R1 universities to provide the leadership for this paradigm shift in our research practices (because they have the institutional resources and professional training to do so) and, possibly, to look at other international institutions that may offer new approaches neglected in the US context. Following Hassel and Phillips, we believe there is a “moral mandate” to engage in this kind of community building and diversification of our research practices.
- Leadership in Transdisciplinary Research: Many of our most pressing issues that require research are problems that span multiple fields. As composition and communication specialists, we are uniquely positioned to facilitate research that brings together many different types of expertise, expanding traditional research beyond the academy and reducing the barriers that institutional silos present to making progress toward our goals. Given our expertise in using evidence, writing across disciplinary perspectives, and centering power in conversations about research, we have an opportunity to play an important role in redefining the future of research in a way that makes room for different and varied voices. Transdisciplinary research is presented in both scholarly and public spaces. We cordially invite all researchers in our field to seek new ways to cross institutional and disciplinary boundaries and to make our work more inclusive and collaborative across disciplines and institutions.
- Digital and AI-Focused Research: As researchers and professionals, our voices are essential to the conversation about AI and best practices related to ethical research and writing related to emerging technologies. We invite our discipline to critically engage, explore, and question digital resources, AI tools, and other emerging technologies that impact writing pedagogy and research. We encourage projects that pay special attention to these applications, including an awareness of power dynamics, impact on curriculum and pedagogy, job markets, ethical limitations, etc.
Positionality and Power
As producers and consumers of writing and rhetoric research, we must consider the power relations between those we study, those we represent, and those we wish to address. This issue is one reason why research involving human participants should take care to ensure participants understand their rights (e.g., their participation is voluntary, can be withdrawn at any time without penalty, will not affect their grade in a course if it plays a role in the study, and will not cause them foreseeable harm). However, this is also an important consideration in research using archival methods or data publicly available on the internet (where permission may not have been required, for example, or unpublished materials found in an archive, if brought to further light through our research, may have unintended effects on living relatives or acquaintances of the writer we study; or that further broadcasting and amplifying a publicly available post on a social media or archive site may cause unintended harm to the poster or others). It is important to consider whether sharing participants’ stories, even anonymized ones, could be traced back through context in ways that could potentially inflict harm. The researcher’s job is to protect participants first and foremost, even if that means not using a particularly compelling artifact.
Power dynamics should be considered in authorship and participation. In some circumstances, it may be ideal to involve those we study in our analysis and writing. Where those we study may not have a forum to respond or offer a counterstory to our interpretations, such involvement may be especially beneficial and serve as a check on researcher biases and the oversights these biases inevitably produce. In some such instances, researchers may collaborate with those they study, involving and listing participants as coauthors. Graduate students who contribute to research and corresponding publications should receive authorship credit. However, there are also circumstances where researchers must work to preserve and even defend their voices and the interpretations of their findings. It may be the case that researchers offer alternative views that powerful individuals, groups, or majorities find threatening. It may also be the case that researchers themselves are more vulnerable and less powerful than those they study and, therefore, need protection from forces seeking to silence their findings or interpretations.
Researchers and readers should ask, whose voices are being silenced by this research? Whose voices are amplified? Are voices that have been traditionally marginalized made a priority, and is there a focus on listening to and amplifying these voices? Are they represented fairly and sufficiently? As with most ethical considerations, there is no one way to answer these questions for all research projects.
Working with Your IRB
As researchers, we learn about and comply with all policies, regulations, and laws that apply to our studies. Many institutions have an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or alternative review process to which we submit our plans for advance review and approval. We then conduct our studies using approved research plans. We also confirm with the IRB or alternative review committee if a proposed study should be exempt from review. If we work at or are students at an institution without an IRB or alternative review process, then we contact colleagues at other institutions to learn about and follow procedures that IRBs require. If working on projects that span multiple institutions, researchers must consider whether it is appropriate to have one IRB of record or other configurations that meet the needs of the research team and represented institutions (for more information about the SMART IRB integration system, visit https://smartirb.org/).
We also strongly encourage following the guidelines established by US federal policies, regulations, and laws on the ethical conduct of research. Researchers who conduct studies with institutions that do not have their own IRB should abide by the research guidelines of the partnering institution’s IRB. Researchers who conduct studies internationally or transnationally should also refer to the policies, regulations, and laws governing the locales where the research occurs. Although following these formal policies is a central concern when conducting research, it is important to note that IRB guidelines vary institutionally and may change depending on the context and articulation of the guidelines as per the institution of record. The US Office of Human Research Protections lists international standards that may be consulted.
We recommend following the IRB guidelines of the researcher’s institution and the required training for human subjects research. We recommend the following resources for those who would like to learn more about IRB processes and protocols:
IRB Process and Mentorship
Like any genre, IRB protocols are rhetorical, representing a negotiation in constructing meaning between multiple parties. Because every protocol looks different but acts as a legally binding document, approaching IRB paperwork for the first time, or even at a new institution, can be intimidating, confusing, or overwhelming. Relying on fellow researchers, institutional representatives with experience negotiating IRB at your institution, and others in the field to share advice and encouragement will increase the chances that the research makes it through IRB. This process generally begins with becoming CITI certified, laying out a detailed plan for your research and interaction with participants (including documents related to recruitment and consent, etc.), submitting your materials, and (as with all writing) receiving feedback and multiple rounds of revisions. While every process is different, adjusting your work to meet the needs of your review board is common and not a reflection of the quality or importance of the research.
Research is how disciplinary knowledge is created, and we thank you for doing this vitally important work for our profession and students. We encourage researchers to think boldly and creatively about their research projects. We also encourage you not to be disheartened by the IRB approval process and, instead, to persevere and do what you must to get approval. In the long run, the IRB will help make your projects stronger. Scheduling a meeting with your IRB representative or seeking advice from those at your institution who have been through IRB can help with the process.
The CCCC Research Committee recommends that researchers seek to mentor or serve as mentors through informal or formal programs to facilitate conversation, stay up to date with best practices, and share experiences to build a robust network of scholars in the field.
Consulting and Staying Informed
US federal policy allows an exception for studies that researchers conduct solely to improve their practice or discuss within their institution, often referred to as assessment or evaluation. Researchers should follow local review processes to confirm that a study falls under this exception. Moreover, even in studies granted an exemption, CCCC members must carefully protect their participants’ and coresearchers’ rights, privacy, dignity, and well-being.
Although we must comply with the final decision of our IRBs or alternative review processes, we recognize that review committee members may need to be educated about the particular methods and methodologies of writing research. As researchers, we have a responsibility to negotiate with committees about IRB requirements and restrictions that unnecessarily hamper research without benefiting participants. Moreover, our discipline must continue to engage in ongoing conversations with regulatory agents and agencies to advise them in developing policies, regulations, and laws that consider the methods and methodologies of writing research.
Research guidelines and frameworks are living documents that adjust to the times and trends in professional standards. For that reason, it is important to maintain awareness of this ongoing process of reflection and revision and adjust for changes in compliance. As researchers, we strive to refine our competence and to keep apprised of ongoing ethical discussions for several reasons:
- Understandings of and definitions of ethical research practices are constantly negotiated among members of a discipline or subfieldand, therefore, are subject to periodic change;
- New experiences among researchers and participants may raise new ethical issues; and
- Formal policies, regulations, and laws continually evolve. (Please see the “Selected Bibliography” section for evidence of this process in action.)
It is our responsibility to ensure that we and our coresearchers and assistants are appropriately trained and prepared to conduct the studies we undertake. Training and preparation may include class enrollment, review of relevant published research and methodological discussions, and consultation or collaboration with other experienced researchers.
As researchers who often supervise and collaborate with novice researchers, we understand the importance of maintaining frequent and open discussions of research procedures. This engagement is crucial to continue as the studies are conducted and disseminated. As noted above, ethical conduct in research is not just about compliance with policies, regulations, and laws but also about our active and ongoing involvement and responsibility throughout the research process.
Recruiting
Some studies may include populations who may be considered vulnerable and protected, including but not limited to minors, K–12 students, prisoners, pregnant people, military veterans, disenfranchised groups, persons with disabilities, Indigenous populations, undocumented (im)migrants, and adults with legal guardians. In these cases, as researchers, we consult carefully with the IRB/reviewing agencies, colleagues, and (when allowed) prospective participants to develop a protocol that protects their rights, privacy, well-being, and dignity.
Particular attention must be given when conducting studies with individuals perceived to have less institutional power or whose well-being depends on the researcher’s opinions, decisions, or actions. In these cases, we take special care to protect prospective participants from the adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.
To avoid situations in which students feel that their decision to participate in a study might affect their instructor’s treatment of them, we recruit participants from other classes or other sources when possible. If the research topic or other special circumstances require that the study involve our students, then we use measures to avoid coercion or perceived coercion, such as confirming students’ voluntary participation after grades are submitted or asking colleagues to conduct the actual data collection.
Obtaining Informed Consent
When asking people to volunteer to participate in (or in the case of coresearchers or novice researchers, collaborate in the design and execution of) a study, we, or a third party in the case of classroom research, provide participants a copy of a consent document and explain the study in a way that enables the participants to understand the following:
- The purpose of the research and its possible benefits.
- Why the participant was recruited.
- What the participant will be asked to do and how long it will take.
- What we plan to do with the information or data obtained from participants.
- Any potential discomforts, harms, or risks one might incur as a result of participating and how we plan on minimizing any potential discomforts, harms, or risks.
- Any potential benefits (including compensation, if any) participants may experience from the study.
- Whether or not we intend to include data in research reports that would render participants identifiable. (We always honor participants’ requests that disseminated reports contain no personally identifiable information, including data that would make them identifiable to persons familiar with the research site. We acknowledge that sometimes a conflict may emerge when some participants want to remain anonymous and others want to be recognized. We resolve the issue before presenting, publishing, or reporting on the study.)
- How confidential data will be stored and who will have access to confidential data and materials, particularly in the case of research teams/coresearchers. If data and materials are to be included in an archive, we receive explicit consent. (See “Conducting Studies Involving Archival Work.”)
In addition, we emphasize the following points:
- Participation is completely voluntary.
- Participants can decline to answer any questions instead of withdrawing from the study.
- Participation is an ongoing and constantly negotiated process between the participants and the researcher or research team.
- If anonymity for participants is not possible, then we are explicit about this constraint.
- Participants may withdraw at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.
For studies involving vulnerable populations with parents or legal guardians, we obtain written permission from the parents or legal guardians in addition to the prospective participant’s assent or seek permission from IRBs for a waiver of consent. We also gain permission from collaborating institutions, such as public schools, prisons, or private workplaces, if required. We are careful to determine that whatever terms of access we agree to are consistent with the stipulations of applicable IRB regulations and the provisions of these guidelines.
We always give those invited to participate in a study opportunities to ask questions. When asked questions by participants during or after a study, we reply in a timely manner. In classes in which undergraduate and graduate students collaborate on research projects, we guide their work toward best practices and acknowledge their collaboration in any presentation, publication, or report. These guidelines concerning informed consent are intended to complement (not replace) any additional requirements of applicable policies, regulations, and laws.
Obtaining Informed Consent
When asking people to volunteer to participate in (or in the case of co-researchers or novice researchers, collaborate in the design and execution of) a study, we provide participants a copy of the consent document and explain the study in a way that enables the participants to understand the following points:
- The purpose of the research and its possible benefits.
- Why the participant was recruited.
- What the participant will be asked to do and how long it will take.
- What we plan to do with the information or data obtained from participants.
- Any potential discomforts, harms, or risks one might incur as a result of participating and how we plan on minimizing any potential discomforts, harms, or risks.
- Any potential benefits (separate from compensation, if any) participants may experience from the study.
- Whether or not we intend to include data in research reports that would render participants identifiable. (We always honor participants’ requests that disseminated reports contain no personally identifiable information, including data that would make them identifiable to persons familiar with the research site. We acknowledge that sometimes a conflict may emerge when some participants want to remain anonymous and others want to be recognized, and we resolve the issue before presenting, publishing, or reporting on the study.)
- How confidential data will be stored and who will have access to confidential data and materials, particularly in the case of research teams/co-researchers. If data and materials are to be included in an archive, we receive explicit consent (see “Conducting Studies Involving Archival Work”).
In addition, we emphasize the following points:
- Participation is completely voluntary.
- Participants can decline to answer any questions instead of withdrawing from the study.
- Participation is an ongoing and constantly negotiated process between the participants and the researcher or research team.
- If anonymity for participants is not possible, then we are explicit about this constraint.
- Participants may withdraw at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.
For studies involving vulnerable populations who have parents or legal guardians, we obtain written permission from the parents or legal guardians in addition to the assent of the prospective participant or we seek permission from IRBs for a waiver of consent. If required, we also gain the permission of sponsoring institutions, such as public schools or private workplaces. We are careful to determine that whatever terms of access we agree to are consistent with the stipulations of applicable IRB regulations and the provisions of these guidelines.
We always provide those invited to participate in a study an opportunity to ask questions. When asked questions by participants during or after a study, we reply in a timely manner.
In the case of classes in which undergraduate and graduate students are collaborators in research projects, we guide their work toward best practices and acknowledge their collaboration in any presentation, publication, or report.
These guidelines concerning informed consent are intended to complement (not replace) any additional requirements of applicable policies, regulations, and laws.
Types of Studies
Conducting Studies Involving the Classroom
When conducting studies involving the classroom, we give primary consideration to the goals of the course and fair treatment of all students. Toward that end, we take the following measures, whether the students are members of our classes or are from classes taught by colleagues:
- We design our studies to be free of coercion.
- We assure participants that volunteering, declining to volunteer, or deciding to withdraw after volunteering will not affect a student’s grade.
- We assure participants that pursuing our research goals will not hinder achievement of the course’s educational goals.
- We ensure that all students receive the same course attention, instruction, support, and encouragement. For example, studies may be conducted so that instructors do not know who participated or not until the class is over.
- We ensure that reports on the research do not include information about students who did not volunteer.
- If there is a possibility that one or more of the volunteering students have changed their minds since the study began, we obtain confirming consent at the end of the course.
- In the case of classes in which undergraduate and graduate students are collaborators in research projects, we guide our work toward best practices and acknowledge their collaboration in any publication.
- In courses where data is collected, instructors must ensure that anonymity is respected or must engage a third party to avoid any coercion or negative impact on the students.
Conducting Studies Outside the Classroom
When conducting studies in sites outside the classroom, we give primary consideration to the contexts of our research and the fair treatment of all participants. Toward that end, we take the following measures:
- We design our studies so that participation is completely voluntary.
- We assure participants that volunteering, declining to volunteer, or deciding to withdraw after volunteering will not affect participants or a participant’s standing at the research site.
- We ensure that pursuing our research goals will not hinder the achievement or operation at our research site.
- We coordinate and discuss our research plan with site leaders/administrators before proceeding with research.
- We ensure that reports on the research do not include information about participants who did not volunteer.
- In the case of research projects in which participants, undergraduate, and/or graduate students are collaborators, we guide our work toward best practices and acknowledge their collaboration in any publication.
- When conducting research with protected/vulnerable populations, we follow federal guidelines to ensure our research is ethical and legal.
Conducting Studies Involving Digital Media
When conducting studies involving digital media and AI technologies2, various important variables must be considered. These include the researchers’ and participants’ expectations regarding the public or private nature of the artifacts, published versus unpublished documents, informed consent, the data’s sensitivity, the participant’s vulnerability, the data’s identifiability, and other variables. We recognize that these variables are often contingent and may shift in response to revised trajectories in disciplinary research practices; newly introduced, innovative technologies; and the multifaceted histories that specific digital communities have experienced. Using AI to analyze or report research findings should include careful consideration, particularly where participant privacy concerns are in play. For example, researchers should proceed with extra caution concerning protected data and participant responses, which are not always appropriate to upload to generative AI programs, as that information can be saved and used in other contexts. Because AI and privacy issues are evolving, staying updated on policy regarding how to best protect participant data is essential. In all cases, we should explicitly justify our research choices and our positioning as researchers when we plan, conduct, and publish our studies.
We do not assume, for example, that all digital communications are available for research studies simply because they can be accessed. Nor do we assume that we must always receive express permission from authors before citing their digital materials. A balance must be struck between these extremes, a balance that is informed by institutional regulation, consultation with published research and other researchers, discussion with members of the online communities themselves, and sensitivity to and understanding of the expectations that authors (including student authors) may have had in posting their materials.
We also know that promising participants anonymity may be impossible when conducting certain digital studies. Communication technologies may not be secure enough for discussing sensitive topics. Likewise, search engines have become increasingly powerful in locating text strings. Materials protected behind a firewall or password today may become readily available tomorrow as passwords are compromised, the mode of access changes, a database is archived, or other technological modifications occur that are beyond the researcher’s control. To address these potentially fluid conditions, we may need to integrate practices that take into account these possibilities, such as finding alternate means of communicating with participants, turning off the collection of IP addresses in online survey services, asking participants’ permission to use real names or screen names, allowing participants to review interview data before employing them, and so on.
Researchers interested in digital media are encouraged to consult the more extensive ethical guidelines published in these subfields, including those by the Association of Internet Researchers. They are also encouraged to consult the many discussions in the bibliography we have provided.
Conducting Studies Involving Archival Work
As researchers, we often consult library resources, museums, and other archives. These materials are not governed by IRB review. However, we know that some archival materials may have been assembled without ethical consideration for all cultural stakeholders and that the understanding of ethical standards may shift over time. As researchers, we are alert to these concerns and debates. When we use these archival materials, we strive to represent them and their multilayered, multivoiced contexts accurately and fairly. Researchers working with archival materials should be mindful of the potential effects of unearthing and disseminating materials on descendants and others and, as in all research decisions, attempt not to harm.
The following guidelines speak to studies involving living participants and the intent to generate, construct, and curate an archive. Such a study typically requires approval from an IRB committee. For example, as researchers, we may collect and analyze a large sample of student or professional documents and then make the documents available for use by other researchers. When we plan to build a new archive as a component of a study, we need to negotiate several considerations:
- As researchers, we are sensitive to our participants’ cultural stakes in a long-term materials archive. We explicitly ask permission to include participant materials in an archive. In some cases, stakeholders may actively collaborate to build the archive. Negotiations over what materials to include and exclude should be explicit, and they may need to consider the archival materials’ impact on the descendants of those whose work is included.
- Libraries and other institutional repositories may not be able to accept materials from studies involving human participants unless their versions of permission forms are collected in addition to informed consent letters. (These additional permissions often address intellectual property and access issues.) As researchers, we consult early in the process with the intended host to determine what conditions may apply and what procedures to follow.
- We must balance accessibility to the archive with the participants’ and the future researchers’ rights to privacy. When we create archives, we organize the artifacts and the information about their provenance to make the organization clear and consistent. If we create or adopt data-mining tools for digital archives, we facilitate access to the artifacts without violating the researchers’ privacy. When we compile culturally sensitive records, we are careful to follow procedures to maintain participants’ anonymity when permission to use real names is not granted (for example, by removing identifying information and/or by embargoing materials until an agreed-upon date).
- We acknowledge the impact that different cataloging, data-mining, coding, and other software may have in shaping our access to and interpretation of archival information. When building an archive and reporting on materials in an archive, we explicitly name and justify the relevant software used.
- We strive to ensure the proper long-term storage and preservation of artifacts, whether physical or digital.
- We respect copyright laws.
Conducting Studies Involving Assessment Data
Studies involving assessment data may include outcome data, portfolio evidence, survey data, directed self-placement scores, interviews, and so on. According to US federal policy, if such studies are conducted for internal assessment (e.g., placement testing, improving a program), they are typically considered exceptions to IRB approval. As researchers, we should confirm the exception (request an exemption) and discuss local requirements (e.g., data anonymity) with our IRB/review committee.
If we plan to present, publish, or report on assessment data beyond the local institution, we should submit a protocol for advance review and approval by the IRB/review committee.
Research Best Practices
Using Unpublished Writing Collected Outside of an IRB-Approved Study
When studying unpublished writing samples that have been collected outside of a study approved by an IRB or other process, we (and, when applicable, our undergraduate/graduate researchers, collaborators, and colleagues) determine whether our planned use of these samples is consistent with the policies governing research at our institutions and, if different, the institution at which the samples were collected.
When using unpublished writing samples for reasons outside of research purposes (e.g., textbook samples, writing samples collected for writing consultant or teacher training), IRB should be consulted to determine whether our use of these samples is consistent with the policies governing student privacy at our institutions, and, if different, the institution at which samples were collected. In all cases, we should attempt to gain the writers’ permission.
We continue to apply the same ethical guidelines to these materials we employ when analyzing and reporting on data collected under the auspices of an IRB-approved study. We are also mindful that copyright regulations may apply to these materials.
Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Reporting Statements
In our publications, presentations, and other research reports, we quote, paraphrase, or otherwise report unpublished written statements only with the author’s permission. That permission may be indicated by written consent, through click-through approval on a form in digital/online research, and/or through another procedure approved by an IRB or alternative review process. We likewise seek permission to quote, paraphrase, or otherwise report a spoken statement that a participant has made with the expectation that it will remain private. US federal policy allows an exception for spoken statements made while participants are speaking in or attending a public forum (the definition of which may be contingent upon institutional regulation, previously published research, and the expectations of the participants involved).
When quoting, paraphrasing, or reporting unpublished writing and reporting (with permission) oral statements made in private, we respect the writer’s or speaker’s wishes about whether or not to include the writer’s or speaker’s name or identifying information. When the writer or speaker is a member of a vulnerable/protected population with a parent or legal guardian, we must obtain permission from a parent or legal guardian in addition to the assent of the prospective participant. When we use an informed consent process approved by an IRB or similar committee, we have obtained the necessary permission.
We do our best to represent language/meaning accurately, understanding that meaning making is often negotiated, shifting, multivoiced, and changeable over time. We report written and spoken statements in ways consistent with the collected data and avoid deliberately misrepresenting participants’ words. We provide contextual information, enabling others to understand the statements the way the writer or speaker intended. When in doubt, we check the accuracy of the reports and interpretations with the writer or speaker. We are especially sensitive to the need to check interpretations when the writer or speaker is from a cultural, ethnic, or other group different from our own.
When discussing the statements we quote, paraphrase, or otherwise report, we do so in ways that avoid harm.
Using Video, Audio, Photographs, and Other Identifiable Representations of Participants
Because video, audio, photographs, and other representations (e.g., cartoons) of participants in the studies that we conduct allow individuals to be identified, we include them in conference presentations, publications, or other public displays only with written consent (or other approved procedure for receiving consent) from all persons whose voices and/or images were recorded or shown. When the person recorded is a member of a vulnerable/protected population with a parent or legal guardian, we obtain permission from the parent or legal guardian in addition to the assent of the prospective participant. When we use an informed consent process approved by an IRB or similar committee, we have obtained the necessary permission.
One exception allowed by US federal policy is when the recording was made while participants were speaking in or attending a public forum (the definition of which may be contingent upon institutional regulation, previously published research, and the expectations of the participants involved).
Working with Coresearchers and Coauthors
Research studies often rely upon the assistance of many people, not only the participants but also those who organize and perform data collection and those who assist with coding and analysis. We invite researchers to be generous in acknowledging these contributions, whether by name or general category (e.g., manuscript reviewers).
In some cases, participants and/or other contributors to a study should be considered coresearchers and/or coauthors. Determining who should be a coresearcher and/or coauthor depends on disciplinary convention, institutional regulation, and local expectations. Ideally, participants who become coresearchers and/or coauthors benefit, learn, and gain insight/knowledge through the collaborative process. We strive for reciprocal relations. Participants who become coauthors should be made aware that a designated “author” on a publication has legal privileges (e.g., copyright) and ethical obligations for acceptable conduct, representation, and/or dissemination.
Coresearcher status and/or coauthorship may be determined at the beginning of the study or emerge during the study. In either case, expectations about who can use what data and under what circumstances should be negotiated and made explicit. Many institutions have a representative, committee, or office (such as the IRB office or Ombuds Office) that can assist in negotiating these expectations to avoid conflicts.
Working with Editors/Publishers
- When accepting manuscripts for publication or other public display, editors and publishers should help maintain ethical standards without unduly burdening the researcher. For example, editors/publishers should double-check for instances where identifying information has been incorporated accidentally into a manuscript or for representations of participants that may be misunderstood. Policies regarding generative AI and its use in research vary depending on the publisher. Any guidance offered should be followed by the researchers producing manuscripts. Communication regarding AI, including policies on data mining and protection or sharing of authored materials, should be made clear to parties on both sides of the publication process.
Publishers also recognize the difference between informed consent letters (approved by an IRB or other reviewing committee) and copyright release permissions. If participants have been promised anonymity, requesting copies of the signed informed consent letters is inappropriate. Follow local and national guidelines to indicate possible financial conflicts of interest.
Selected Bibliography
CCCC has compiled a selected bibliography of sources on the ethical conduct of research involving human participants.
Notes
1An institutional review board is a committee established under the federal regulation to protect research participants (45 CFR 46). Each IRB is legally responsible for ensuring that all research involving human participants conducted under the aegis of its institution complies with this regulation. For more information, visit the website of the federal Office for Human Research Protections: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/.
2This section has been informed by work by Heidi McKee & James E. Porter. “The Ethics of Digital Writing Research: A Rhetorical Approach.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 59, no. 4, 2008, 711–749, and by the Association of Internet Researchers’ 2002 and 2012 reports on ethical decision-making and Internet research, located at http://aoir.org/ethics/.
Researchers may also be interested in the Statement of Principles and Best Practices by the Oral History Association, located at http://www.oralhistory.org/about/principles-and-practices/.
Acknowledgments
This statement was generously revised by the CCCC Research Committee. The members of this committee include:
Rebecca Day Babcock
Samira Grayson
Rochelle Gregory
Kathryn Lambrecht
Ligia A. Mihut (Co-Chair)
Christina Saidy
Patrick Sullivan (Co-Chair)
Laura Wilder
This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.
CCCC 2016 is just a few weeks away! It’s time to start thinking about what to bring to make this a fantastic Convention experience.
Kent Williamson, 1957-2015
