The Question of Ethical Review for Psychological Research in Indonesia: Need and Importance [Menyoal Uji Etik dalam Penelitian Psikologi di Indonesia: Seberapa Perlu dan Pentingkah?]

  • Karel Karsten Himawan Universitas Pelita Harapan
Abstract Views: 159 PDF - Full Text Downloads: 72
Keywords: ethics, etik, research ethics, etika penelitian, psychological research, penelitian psikologi

Abstract

Ethical evaluation is an integral part of the research process. While at the international level, ethical assessment is required for the majority of psychological studies involving direct data collection on human subjects, such assessment is largely optional in the Indonesian context. Ethical aspects, which are essential in research, are often trivialized and thus ignored. In this article, the author specifically focuses on the importance of ethical evaluation in psychological research proposals, by citing the controversial Little Albert experiment, describing the benefits of ethical evaluation for the participants, researchers, and the dignity of the profession. Lastly, the article formulates holistic recommendations for the benefit of developing psychological research in Indonesia.

Evaluasi etik merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari proses penelitian. Walaupun di tingkat internasional mayoritas penelitian psikologi yang melibatkan pengambilan data secara langsung terhadap subjek manusia diharuskan melalui proses uji etik, di Indonesia hal tersebut masih cenderung merupakan pilihan. Aspek etik dalam sebuah penelitian, yang sebenarnya merupakan hal esensial, seringkali disepelekan dan karenanya diabaikan. Dalam tulisan ini, secara spesifik penulis berfokus pada pentingnya evaluasi etik dari sebuah rencana (proposal) penelitian psikologi, dengan menyinggung eksperimen kontroversial Little Albert, mendeskripsikan manfaat evaluasi aspek etis penelitian bagi partisipan, peneliti, dan marwah profesi. Terakhir, tulisan ini memformulasikan rekomendasi yang menyeluruh sehingga bermanfaat bagi perkembangan penelitian psikologi di Indonesia.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ambrose, N. G., & Yairi, E. (2002). The Tudor Study: Data and ethics. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (AJSLP), 11(2), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2002/018)

Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64(7), 605-614. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017234

Chang, T. E., Brill, C. D., Traeger, L., Bedoya, C. A., Inamori, A., Hagan, P. N., Flaherty, K., Hails, K., Yeung, A., Trinh, N. -H. (2015). Association of race, ethnicity and language with participation in mental health research among adult patients in primary care. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 17(6), 1660-1669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-014-0130-8

Davies, S. E. H. (2020). The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: Review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee. Research Ethics, 16(1-2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898408

de Guchteneire, P. (2014). Code of conduct social science research UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SHS/pdf/Soc_Sci_Code.pdf

European Commission. (2018). Ethics in social science and humanities. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/6._h2020_ethics-soc-science-humanities_en.pdf

Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2020). The case for Douglas Merritte: Should we bury what is alive and well? History of Psychology, 23(2), 132-148. https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000142

George, S., Duran, N., & Norris, K. (2014). A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Public Health (AJPH), 104(2), e16-e31. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706

Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34(2), 151-160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.2.151

Himawan, K. K., Dewi, W. P., Sitorus, K. S., & Mutiara, E. (2016). Kode etik psikologi dan aplikasinya di Indonesia [Ethical code of psychology and the application in Indonesia]. Salemba Humanika. https://penerbitsalemba.com/buku/10-0100-kode-etik-psikologi-dan-aplikasinya-di-indonesia

Himpunan Psikologi Indonesia (HIMPSI). (2010). Kode etik psikologi Indonesia [Ethical code of Indonesian psychology]. Author. https://himpsi.or.id/organisasi/kode-etik-psikologi-indonesia

Kementerian Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia [The Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia]. (n.d.). Nilai integritas akademik [Values of academic integrity]. Anjungan Integritas Akademik Indonesia (ANJANI). http://anjani.ristekbrin.go.id/nilai-integritas-akademik/

Konsorsium Psikologi Ilmiah Nusantara [Scientific Psychology Consortium of the Archipelago]. (n.d.). Permohonan uji etik penelitian dan pengabdian psikologi [Request for ethical testing of research and service in psychology]. Konsorsium Psikologi Ilmiah Nusantara. https://k-pin.org/etik/

Labott, S. M., Johnson, T. P., Fendrich, M., & Feeny, N. C. (2013). Emotional risks to respondents in survey research: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(4), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.4.53

Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2021). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics, 126(3), 1897-1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4

National Advisory Board on Research Ethics. (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposal for ethical review. Tutkimuseettinen Neuvottelukunta (TENK). https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (n.d.). Guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Universities Australia. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007 (Updated 2008). National Health and Medical Research Council. www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72

Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). (2018). Table 1: Social-behavioral research standards: Description. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/social-behavioral-research-standards/table1-description/index.html

Peraturan Kepala Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia Nomor 08/E/2013 Tentang Pedoman Klirens Etik Penelitian dan Publikasi Ilmiah [Regulation of the Head of the Science Agency of the Republic of Indonesia Number 08/E/2013 Regarding Guidelines of Scientific Research and Publication Ethical Clearance]. (2013). Jaringan Dokumentasi dan Informasi Hukum - Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (JDIH-LIPI). https://jdih.lipi.go.id/peraturan/08-E-2013.pdf

Powell, R. A., Digdon, N., Harris, B., & Smithson, C. (2014). Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as “Psychology’s lost boy”. American Psychologist, 69(6), 600-611. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036854

Rachmawaty, R. (2017). Ethical issues in action-oriented research in Indonesia. Nursing Ethics, 24(6), 686-693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733016646156

Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.39.3.472

Schrag, Z. M. (2011). The case against ethics review in the social sciences. Research Ethics, 7(4), 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/174701611100700402

Sikweyiya, Y., & Jewkes, R. (2012). Perceptions and experiences of research participants on gender-based violence community based survey: Implications for ethical guidelines. PLoS ONE, 7(4), e35495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035495

Situmorang, A., Basyar, M. H., Thoha, M., Patji, A. R., & Erman, E. (2016). Buku saku klirens etik penelitian bidang ilmu pengetahuan sosial dan kemanusiaan [Pocket book of ethical clearance on researches in social and humanity science]. Kedeputian Bidang Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial dan Kemanusiaan - Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (Kedeputian IPSK-LIPI). http://ipsk.lipi.go.id/index.php/galeri/download/category/8-buku-saku-dan-form-klirens-etik-ipsk-lipi#

Smith, D. (2003). The first code. Monitor on Psychology, 34(1), 63. https://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/firstcode

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (n.d.). Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/

Tudor, M. (1939). An experimental study of the effect of evaluative labeling of speech fluency [Master’s thesis, University of Iowa]. Iowa Research Online - The University of Iowa’s Institutional Repository. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.9z9lxfgn

Vanclay, F., Baines, J. T., & Taylor, C. N. (2013). Principles for ethical research involving humans: Ethical professional practice in impact assessment: Part I. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(4), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.850307

Verfaellie, M., & McGwin, J. (2011). The case of Diederik Stapel: Allegations of scientific fraud by prominent Dutch social psychologist are investigated by multiple universities. Psychological Science Agenda - American Psychological Association (APA). https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/12/diederik-stapel

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069608

Published
2021-07-25
How to Cite
Himawan, K. K. (2021). The Question of Ethical Review for Psychological Research in Indonesia: Need and Importance [Menyoal Uji Etik dalam Penelitian Psikologi di Indonesia: Seberapa Perlu dan Pentingkah?]. ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal, 36(2), 326-340. https://doi.org/10.24123/aipj.v36i2.4059