work ethics research paper

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point of view of the self-determination theory

Contributed equally to this work with: Damian Grabowski, Agata Chudzicka-Czupała, Katarzyna Stapor

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Psychology, Department of Social and Organizational Behavior, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Katowice, Poland

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Faculty of Automatic Control, Electronics and Computer Science, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland

Damian Grabowski,
Agata Chudzicka-Czupała,
Katarzyna Stapor

Published: July 1, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145
Reader Comments

Most studies on motivation to work concentrate on its environmental and situational antecedents. Individual values are not the point of interest of empirical analyses. The aim of the research described in the paper was to seek possible relationships between work ethic and motivation to work. A hypothesis was put forward that work ethic, in the classical Weberian approach, is connected with motivation to work, from the point of view of Ryan’s and Deci’s self-determination theory. The study on a sample of 405 Polish employees was conducted with use of the Polish version of Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile MWEP-PL and Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale , in the Polish adaptation WEIMS-PL. The Canonical Correlation Analysis was used to assess the simultaneous interrelationships between two sets of the variables measured. The results show that selected dimensions of work ethic, such as centrality of work, valuing hard work, perceiving work as an obligation, anti-leisure sentiment and delay of gratification are positively related to autonomous dimensions of motivation: intrinsic motivation, integration and identification, and non-autonomous introjection. Attributing a high value to hard work, including the conviction that it leads to success, aversion to wasting time and self-reliance correlate positively with taking up work for extrinsic rewards and with the desire to acquire a positive opinion about oneself as well as gain approval and recognition from others. Work ethic is connected on the one hand with autonomous motivation, including in particular intrinsic motivation, and on the other hand with extrinsic motivation, with the striving for success, which is the result of work. After empirical verification the findings could become a base for training programs and shape the way of influencing people’s motivation, morale, attitude towards work and job satisfaction. They can result in the way employees are managed and selected for different tasks.

Citation: Grabowski D, Chudzicka-Czupała A, Stapor K (2021) Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point of view of the self-determination theory. PLoS ONE 16(7): e0253145. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145

Editor: Godfred O. Boateng, University of Texas at Arlington, UNITED STATES

Received: October 31, 2020; Accepted: May 31, 2021; Published: July 1, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Grabowski et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Authors AC, DG, and KS received funding for Open access from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland under the 2019-2022 program „Regional Initiative of Excellence", project number 012 / RID / 2018/19. Authors AC and DG received funding from the SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland, project No. 1571-BST/WZK/2018/A/06 entitled “Development of standards for the assessment of social and ethical aspects of employees’ way of functioning”, https://www.swps.pl/ . The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Most empirical studies on work motivation and occupational behavior focus on the importance of environmental and situational characteristics such as working conditions and pay, organizational structure, job characteristics, task characteristics, working time flexibility, role of the manager and being subject to the latter’s control, as well as organizational climate [ 1 – 4 ]. Research also relates motivation to stressful environmental factors [ 1 ]. Some researchers point out that the external context in which an individual performs a task influences the intrinsic motivation to perform it, which may contribute to creative achievements [ 5 ]. Research was also conducted on motivational potential of meaningful work [ 6 ]. Some studies show how work-related and individual factors are related to psychological work ability and job mobility motivation in specific age, e.g. in later adulthood [ 7 ]. The relationships between motivation to work on the one hand and satisfaction with its performance and occupational burnout on the other hand was subject of studies as well [ 8 ].

Our review shows that research is still lacking that would connect individual predisposition or values subscribed to with motivation to work. The few empirical analyses carried out in this area prove the existence of relationships between affective organizational attachment, interest in work, acceptance of risk connected with its performance, perceived own competences and motivation to work [ 9 ], as well as between locus of control and motivation [ 10 ], and between agreeableness, conscientiousness, commitment to work, including attributing a high value to work, and motivation to learn, supposed to improve the quality of work [ 11 ].

Although the number of studies linking beliefs and values to motivation is not large, many scholars clearly pointed to the existence of interrelationships. Rokeach [ 12 , 13 ] has already presented values and beliefs as an inseparable element of motivation. Similarly, Lewin [ 14 ] considered values to be an important “guides” of behavior, because they trigger the goals to which one aspires. The self-concordance model of motivation [ 15 ] suggests that people are more inclined to pursue goals consistent with their autonomous values. The authors of this model, which measures intrinsic motivation, are guided by the assumption that people are intrinsically motivated by goals that result from the values they hold in high regard.

Studying motivation to work in the context of work-related values and work-related beliefs is rare [ 11 ]. There is a particular lack of research on the relationships between work ethic, understood as a multidimensional attitude towards work, which is a value in itself, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation described by the self-determination theory. Few analyses point to the existence of certain relationships between the components of work ethic and intrinsic motivation, although work ethic in this case was studied in an Islamic version. However, study by Hayati and Caniago [ 16 ] on the Islamic work ethic and its relation to intrinsic motivation treated work ethic and intrinsic motivation as single dimension. Many studies highlight the importance of work ethic in business and in the capitalist economy [ 17 – 19 ]. This study aimed to check for potential relationships between the motivation to work and the dimensions of work ethic, reflecting human beliefs concerning work, the attitude towards being rewarded for work, leisure time, or the ability to rely on oneself in various activities, was designed to fill the gap in research into the area. We believe it is important for both cognitive and practical reasons to find an answer to the question as to whether any relationships between the variables mentioned above exist. Finding out about the strength and direction of these relationships may help to make a more effective impact on employees, to increase their motivation enabling them to act effectively and to achieve self-satisfaction and job satisfaction. It may also make it possible to prepare professionals better for training interventions. Knowledge about the relationships between the different components of both variables makes it possible to obtain better insight into the meaning of an individual’s autonomous values, attitudes, beliefs and needs, as well as into the nature and sources of their motivation. The findings presented in this study are exploratory in nature and their effects may require the construction of a more extensive model of dependencies. In fact, we do not know if and how work ethic, understood as a syndrome of different attitudes and beliefs about work, is connected with motivation to work.

Work ethic as a system of attitudes and beliefs

Work ethic means attributing value to hard work and industriousness, stigmatizing idleness, fulfilling the obligations, and the belief that work should be done in the best possible way [ 20 ]. To fulfill the obligations means here a moral duty, while industriousness is considered a virtue, i.e. a desirable moral quality [ 21 ]. This term describes the cult of work, manifested in the respectful treatment of, or even reverence for work [ 22 ]. Work ethic involves perceiving and treating work as a duty or obligation and as a moral value. It consists of norms, prohibitions and orders, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors, both desirable and undesirable, connected with work valuation [ 20 , 23 ].

In the psychological sense, work ethic is a syndrome of attitudes and beliefs, with strongly outlined emotional-judgmental components. Miller [ 24 ] described seven dimensions of the syndrome, on the basis of analyses by Furnham [ 21 ]:

Belief in the sense of hard work, the conviction that it leads to success and that it is a recipe for problems and difficulties in life;
Centrality of work, the conviction that it is the basic activity in life–“but the most important thing was that even beyond that labor came to be considered in itself the end of life”;
Distaste for wasting time, tendency to treat time as a valuable resource–“waste of time is thus the first and in principle the deadliest of sins”;
Distaste for leisure, i.e. the conviction that free time activities are less valuable: “not leisure and enjoyment, but only activity serves to increase the glory of God”;
Delay of gratification, recognizing the value of rewards one has to wait for “the idea of expectant waiting for the Spirit to descend”), with importance attached also to work without rewards–the assumption that work in itself is a reward;
Independence, self-reliance at work, individualism;
Morality and ethics, i.e. placing emphasis on honesty in relationships with others, the assumption that honest conduct should be the content of the work [ 20 ] (p. 96–105).

These components can be put in order and structured. The core of a high work ethic is the conviction that work is a central value in life, so it should be done in a perfect and honest manner. Doing work well means devoting a considerable amount of effort and sufficient time to it. Therefore, the components of work ethic are deemed to include the requirement to save time, reduce leisure time, as well as the precept not to consume rewards, as they change people’s attitude towards other values. Also, worth mentioning are new research results on studies regarding the relationship of ethical culture and leadership with employees’ innovation [ 25 , 26 ].

Work ethic and motivation to work. Self-determination theory

In the concept of work ethic, one can see descriptions of energy-related components, such as the requirement to increase effort and the high value given to it, i.e. emphasis on the importance of hard work. A job well done is also an efficient and effective action. The conceptualization and operationalization of work ethic performed by Mann [ 27 ] emphasize the importance of striving to improve oneself, looking after the quality of work and persistently pursuing of goals, i.e. factors which may be associated with motivation. Work ethic, by underscoring the importance and strengthening the training of independence, also triggers the motivation to achieve, conducive to economic development [ 21 ], and therefore these variables can be interrelated. Few studies also indicate the relationship between the work ethic syndrome and intrinsic motivation [ 16 ].

Cassidy and Lynn [ 28 ], in their conceptualization of achievement motivation, treat work ethic, defined as the performance of work for the sake of work itself, the desire to work hard and to derive satisfaction from such activity, as a component of motivation. Ethic understood in this way is placed here alongside other components of motivation, such as the desire to have and earn money, the need for dominance/power, the pursuit of perfection, the desire to achieve high standards, the tendency to compete and to perform better than others, as well as the desire to achieve a high status and prestige. Among the dimensions of motivation, the authors mentioned above also list the tendency to achieve mastery, which they understand as focusing on new challenges and situations that require one to master new skills.

Story and colleagues [ 29 ] suggested that work ethic, striving for perfection and mastery should be treated as components of the intrinsic motivation to achieve, while striving to have and to earn, the need for dominance, striving to compete and the desire to gain prestige should be treated as the extrinsic motivation to achieve. It should be noted, however, that in some samples an intrinsically motivating work ethic correlates with extrinsically motivating material needs, identified with earning money, the need for dominance and the need for prestige [ 28 ].

The division into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has existed for a long time in the field of labor psychology, but only the emergence of a macro theory in the form of the self-determination theory [ 30 ] brought a new quality to research into work motivation. The self-determination theory, apart from the central division into autonomous and controlled motivation, postulates a multidimensional conceptualization of motivation. Ryan and Deci [ 30 ], assuming that each individual develops in relation to the actions he or she takes, and following many years of research, propose a macro theory which places emphasis mainly on the organic mechanisms of involving the internal resources of a human individual in his or her development, and more precisely in the development of personality and in self-regulation of behavior. According to these authors, the key process supporting the optimal functioning of people is their natural striving to improve and develop, manifested in the satisfaction of universal basic needs like social relationships and intimacy, competence and autonomy. They underline the role of behaviour in accordance with one’s own interests and values.

Autonomy understood in this way should not be confused with independence, although they may be interrelated. As a consequence, an individual satisfying such needs may feel pleasure and contentment. Research has shown that these needs are natural, but also that their properties are subject to situational influences that trigger intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, depending on the integrated orientation of the respective individual’s life goals [ 31 – 33 ].

The traditional conceptualization of intrinsic motivation assumes that this motivation refers to a situation in which behavior is triggered by different activities of the individual, interesting in themselves, causing spontaneous satisfaction and joy. At the same time, extrinsic motivation is clearly separated, as motivation triggering activities which are not interesting or satisfying in themselves for the individual, but which as a consequence lead to the valued effects. In this approach, extrinsic motivation is instrumental. In the context of work, however, extrinsic motivation has a dominant position and a wider range of types, contributing to the satisfaction of different needs, but according to Ryan and Deci [ 34 ], it is intrinsic, immanent motivation that represents the natural tendency an individual has to seek new challenges, learn and improve, based on enthusiasm, interests and passions. Intrinsic motivation understood in this way is a manifestation of a completely autonomous, self-determined, immanent motivation connected with the individual experiencing positive emotions [ 30 , 35 , 36 ]. The opposite of intrinsic motivation is extrinsic motivation in the form of external regulation, although in the self-determination theory there is also amotivation.

Amotivation is a state characteristic of non-autonomous behaviors, consisting in lack of regulation and reluctance to act. In the subject literature, it is compared to Seligman’s learned helplessness [ 37 ]. In the case of amotivation and external regulation, human behavior is completely independent of the individual, and it is controlled by external factors. Proper extrinsic motivation is a continuum of states regulated both extrinsically and intrinsically. It may vary in its intensity–from external regulation, through introjection and identification, to integration. Introjection is accompanied by involvement of the Ego, and behavior is partially controlled by the individual here, while in the case of identification and integration and of proper intrinsic motivation, the individual manifests fully autonomously regulated behavior. The differences in these three levels of motivation consist in the varying degree of internalization of values and goals underlying the behavior. Introjection is regulation consisting in taking action to gain self-approval and approval of those around the individual, for example by doing work to enhance one’s self-esteem, increase one’s prestige, and avoid shame. In the case of identification, the individual identifies with a set of values and meanings, accepting them as his or her own, while in the case of integration, the specific value or meaning becomes part of the system of definitions of the Self, creating the basis for autonomous regulation of behavior [ 38 , 39 ]. Therefore, identification and integration are still part of the system of extrinsic motivation, but one which is already regulated autonomously, and fully autonomous in the case of identification. The difference between autonomous regulation and integration, in the case of intrinsic motivation, boils down to activation of emotions, and in the case of integration–to cognitive activity [ 40 ].

Autonomous regulation, referring to intrinsic motivation, integration and identification, is associated with qualities such as resourcefulness and courage. Controlled regulation, i.e. introjection and external regulation mechanisms, provides the basis for industriousness, regularity, perseverance, strong will and prudence. Striving to improve oneself and implementing standards leading to an ideal image of the self represents the autonomous regulation perspective, while striving to achieve what should be achieved according to others is a manifestation of controlled regulation [ 33 ].

Work ethic involves both resourcefulness and industriousness, as well as prudence [ 21 ] and the realization of a perfect image of oneself [ 27 ]. Hence, it may be assumed that work ethic as a syndrome of beliefs which value work is associated both with autonomous motivation and with controlled, non-autonomous regulation. Traditionally, in line with the definition of work ethic, work means coercion and obligation. However, the definition of work ethic also implies the importance of individual independence, the need to rely on oneself and to strive to achieve [ 21 ]. Recent conceptualizations of work ethic also include the pursuit of excellence and mastery, which guarantee high-quality work [ 27 ].

The findings of the studies by Cassidy and Lynn [ 28 ] quoted above showed that intrinsically motivating work ethic correlates with extrinsically motivating needs, such as earning money and striving for dominance and prestige. These findings are also consistent with the research conducted by Wollack [ 41 ], in which it turned out that work ethic referred to the attitude towards pay, i.e. attributing a high value to earning money at work. The research also proved the existence of links between work ethic and social status, defining one’s position among the others and both self-perception of this status and the perception of that status by the social environment, friends, relatives and co-workers, which is associated with prestige. The work ethic conceptualization built by Wollack [ 41 ] also includes the pursuit of promotion. Status, prestige and pursuit of promotion are connected with introjection, and earning money is connected with external regulation.

Finally, some recent developments in SDT theory should be cited. In [ 42 ] the Authors studied public employee’s motivation for a public service career and developed a SDT-based measurement instrument that captures different motivations for it. A meta-analytic review [ 43 ] of almost 100 studies examining the antecedents and consequences of basic need satisfaction at work provides interesting and new contributions and challenges to the SDT literature. Through the lens of SDT in [ 44 ] the Authors tested the mediating effect of autonomy, how internal sources of innovations (i.e. emanating from an agency’s senior leadership/employee workgroups) affect employees’ job satisfaction.

Thus, if both work ethics and intrinsic motivation are associated with job satisfaction and innovation [ 21 , 25 , 44 ], it can be assumed that the work ethic and motivation also show significant relationships. The important question is which components of ethics are most strongly associated with intrinsic motivation and which are weaker.

Research questions and hypotheses.

We asked the research questions about the possible relationships between work ethic dimensions and the motivation to work, i.e. between autonomous and controlled regulation, and about the nature of them. Research questions were also put forward concerning the existence and strength of the relationship between work ethic dimensions and the individual methods of regulation, i.e. autonomous and non-autonomous regulation, as well as about whether and how work ethic dimensions correlate with amotivation.

On the basis of the considerations presented above, we hypothesize that:

H1. Positive relationships exist between the dimensions of work ethic (work as moral value and obligation, hard work, centrality of work, wasted time, anti-leisure sentiment, delay of gratification, self-reliance and morality/ethics) and autonomously regulated motivation (intrinsic motivation, integration, identification) as well as non-autonomous introjection.

H2. Positive relationships exist between the dimensions of work ethic that involve attributing value to success and to the ways of achieving it (work as moral value and obligation, wasted time and self-reliance) and non-autonomously regulated motivation (introjection and external regulation).

Materials and methods

Study sample and procedure.

A quota sampling [ 1 ] being a non-probabilistic version of stratified sampling was used to obtain a sample of participants for our study. A population was first segmented into 4 sub-groups according to the size of employment (micro-enterprises, small, medium and large businesses) based on the structure obtained from the Central Statistical Office in Poland. Samples of participants were then selected from each subgroup based on the specified proportion [ 45 ].

The sample consisted of 405 individuals working in various organizations in southern Poland. The sample included 227 women (56%) and 178 men (44%). The study covered a group of people aged 19 to 71. The average age of the respondents was over 35.23 ( SD = 12.05, Range = 19–71) years. The sample included people with different educational backgrounds. The largest number of respondents had secondary education (194 individuals, 48% of the sample), higher education (160 individuals, 39% of the sample) and vocational education (51 individuals, 13% of the sample). The study covered 90 individuals working in micro-enterprises (employing up to 9 people) (22% of the sample), 107 employees of small businesses, employing up to 49 people (26% of the sample), 84 employees of medium-sized businesses employing up to 249 people (21% of the sample), and 124 employees of large businesses (employing over 250 people) (31% of the sample).

The study subjects included individuals pursuing different professions (administrative support (105 individuals, 26% of the sample), accounting/financial (95 individuals, 23% of the sample), technology (105 individuals, 26% of the sample), health/safety (100 individuals, 25% of the sample)) and employed in various industries (manufacturing (150 individuals, 37% of the sample), services (130 individuals, 32% of the sample), retail (125 individuals, 31% of the sample)). The majority of the study subjects (283 individuals, 70% of the sample) worked under an employment contract, full-time, 57 individuals (14% of the sample) were self-employed, and 65 individuals (16% of the sample) worked under civil law contracts. The majority were employees of businesses with nationwide reach (302 individuals, 75% of the sample), while the remaining group of 103 individuals (25% of the sample) worked in companies with international reach. The average length of service being 12.94 ( SD = 11.64, Range = 0.5–45) years.

Efforts were made to examine people of different ages, both women and men, employees working for a given company for at least six months in various industries.

The research was conducted in 2018, from June to December. The respondents did not receive any remuneration for their participation in the survey and filled out a set of questionnaires using the paper and pencil form.

The research was conducted in compliance with the ethical standards in line with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. The Departmental Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Psychology at SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Katowice, Poland) (Ref. number: WKEB63/05/2020/Human participants, project title: Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point of view of the self-determination theory) approved the research proposal and the consent procedure. The respondents agreed to participate voluntarily, they were informed about its purpose, assured about its complete anonymity, and obtained information about the possibility of withdrawing from it at any time.

To measure work ethic we used the Polish version of Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile (MWEP), an abridged version of the MWEP questionnaire created by Miller [ 24 ], adapted by Grabowski and Chudzicka-Czupała [ 23 , 46 ], and abridged by Grabowski [ 47 ]. The questionnaire is composed of 35 items and 7 scales (or 7 subscales) (with 5 items in each scale), which correspond with 7 dimensions of work ethic: belief in the sense of hard work (Hard work), Centrality of work, distaste for wasting time (Wasted time), distaste for leisure (Anti-leisure sentiment), Delay of gratification, Self-reliance and morality and ethics (Morality/Ethics). Five statements were added to the list of 35 items mentioned above, related to the conviction that work is a value and a moral obligation (Work as moral obligation—WMO scale).

Participants indicated their attitudes toward statements using a 1 (“I strongly disagree”) to 5 (“I strongly agree”) scale. Statistical analyses also used an index constituting the sum of all the seven subscales, i.e. MWEP-total, without the WMO scale.

To study motivation to work, the Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) was used, built by Canadian psychologists [ 48 ], in the Polish adaptation by Chrupała-Pniak and Grabowski [ 49 ]. Both the original tool and the Polish adaptation demonstrate satisfactory psychometric properties. The scale represents an operationalization of the individual regulations of motivation, taken into account in the self-determination theory, i.e. intrinsic motivation, integration, identification, introjection, external regulation and amotivation. The original tool consists of 18 items, with 3 scale items corresponding to each of the six regulations (six scales or subscales of WEIMS). A 24-item method was used in the study, with one statement added to each scale (subscale).

The respondents’ task was to take a position on the items using a seven-point scale from 1 to 7 (with 1 meaning “This statement doesn’t describe me at all”, 3 –“This statement describes me in rather moderately”, 7 –“This statement describes me absolutely accurately”).

The Work Self-Determination Index (WSDI) was also used in the calculations. This index is calculated using the following formula: -3*amotivation + -2* external regulation + -1*introjection + 1*identification + 2*integration + 3*intrinsic motivation; and it simply means the degree of self-determination of behavior at work [ 48 , 49 ].

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and the reliability coefficients i.e. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega of Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile (MWEP), Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) subscales and global indices (MWEP, the sum of 7 dimensions, Work Self-Determination Index WSDI).

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145.t001

The amotivation scale obtained a lower Cronbach’s α value in these studies, just like in previous studies, by the way, both on Polish and on Canadian samples [ 48 ], and its revision should be considered in the future.

The validity of the modified WEIMS version, which includes 24 items, was also checked by means of confirmatory factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the WEIMS scale achieved satisfactory measures of fit of the six-factor model to the data (comprising four positions in each scale): χ2 (df) = 789.49 (237), RMSEA = 0.076, CFI = 0.96, sRMR = 0.071, NFI = 0.95 [ 49 , 50 ].

Data analysis.

Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients and correlations were calculated with JASP (v0.12.2), a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted using JASP (v0.12.2) and the Lisrel (v9.2) software, and Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) was conducted using STATISTICA (v12.0).

Canonical correlation analysis.

We used the multivariate statistical method, Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) [ 51 , 52 ] to verify the two hypothesis and to investigate the magnitude and sign of the relationships between two sets of variables, one comprising the dimensions of work ethic construct and referred to as independent variables, and the second composed of factors from work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, considered here as dependent variables.

The main goal of CCA is an assessment of the simultaneous interrelationships between two sets of variables. CCA focuses on the correlation between two new synthetic variables, called canonical variates , one is a linear combination of variables from the first set and the other is a linear combination of the variables of the second set. CCA constructs a canonical function that maximizes the canonical correlation coefficient which measures the strength of the overall relationship (correlational) between the two canonical variates. CCA develops multiple canonical functions, each is independent from the other canonical functions so that they represent different relationships found among the sets of dependent and independent variables. Each canonical variate is interpreted with canonical loadings , the correlation of the individual variables and their respective variates. Redundancy index is an amount of variance in a canonical variate (dependent or independent) explained by the other/opposite canonical variate in the canonical function. These may be summed to reveal an overall redundancy index .

Preliminary analyses

Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients between individual dimensions of work ethic and motivation together with global indices (MWEP, the sum of 7 dimensions, Work Self-Determination Index WSDI).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145.t002

It follows from the Table 2 , as expected, that dimensions of work ethic are positively correlated, weak (about 0.1), moderate (0.2 or 0.3) and average (0.4) with motivation that is regulated autonomously (identification, integration and intrinsic motivation) as well as the non-autonomous introjection. The strongest correlations of the mentioned regulations exist with the Centrality of work, the moderate—with the Work as moral obligation, Hard work and Anti-leisure. Amotivation is correlated with the dimensions of work ethic very weakly, rather negatively and not significant, except from Morality/ethics.

Results of Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA)

Table 3 presents the results of the CCA. The results of tests of significance prove that only the first two canonical functions ((U1, V1), (U2, V2)) were statistically significant with p -values < 0.001 of the testing procedure of the canonical correlations (as implemented in STATISTICA package). The independent canonical variates U1, U2 are linear combinations of variables from the first set of variables defining work ethic construct, while the canonical variates V1, V2 are linear combinations of variables from the second set of variables defining work motivation (see Table 3 ).

Results of CCA for two canonical functions: canonical correlations, loadings, shared variance and redundancy analysis of independent and dependent canonical variates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145.t003

To assess the contributions of the variables defining work ethic and motivation canonical variates in the canonical correlation, we used canonical loadings (assuming here that a loading greater than 0.4 proves that correlation between a corresponding variable and a variate is significant).

The first canonical correlation between the independent variate U1, being a linear combination of work ethic variables and V1, the dependent variate—a linear combination of work motivation variables is quite strong and equals to 0.585.

In the dependent variate V1, the highest and positive canonical loadings had intrinsic motivation (0.931), integration (0.858), introjection (0.782) and identification (0.620). According to the self-determination theory, the intrinsic motivation, integration and identification constitute the components of an autonomous motivation. This fact supports naming the canonical variate V1 as the “ high autonomous motivation ”. Moreover, it should be seen a strong positive correlation of variate V1 with introjection (0.782), which means that autonomous motivation is associated with striving after self and other approbations, thereby being a sense of duty. It caused to name the variate V1 of the first canonical function, the “ high autonomous motivation and duty ”. It should be noted that an amotivation variable had low negative correlation with the variate V1 and an external regulation is not correlated with it. The corresponding to V1, dependent variate U1 we call “ centrality of work in life ” because its highest canonical loading is that of Centrality of work (0.920). The remaining variables from the first set of work ethic construct, except for Hard work (0.585), show almost half the correlations, although still high: Anti-leisure (0.448), Work as moral obligation (0.412), Delay of gratification (0.405).

The canonical variate U1 in the first canonical function, explains 25.3% of the variance in the set of work ethic variables, and the associated variate V1–43.6% of the variance in the set of work motivation variables (see Table 2 for the shared variances).The independent canonical variate U1 for work ethic in the first canonical correlation “ centrality of work in life ”->“ high autonomous motivation and duty ” explains almost 15% (14.9%) of the variance in the dependent set of variables from work motivation (see Table 3 for redundancy index in dependent set).

In summary, the results of this study allow for the conclusion that people with high autonomous motivation and conviction that work is a duty, treat the work as a central value in their life more often, while the remaining activities could be less important.

In the second canonical function, the correlation between the independent variate U2, being a linear combination of work ethic variables and the dependent variate V2—a linear combination of work motivation variables is somewhat weaker and equals to 0.362.

We call the canonical variate U2 “ hard work ” as the canonical loading of the variable hard work is the highest (0.619). Simultaneously, we observe quite strong canonical loadings from the following variables defining work ethic: self-reliance and wasted time (0.532 and 0.531, respectively). This is equivalent to a conviction that hard, intensive work, self-reliance and saving time lead to a success, or ensure a prosperity in life. The highest canonical loading in the second, dependent variate V2 had external regulation (0.807), which is equivalent to a regulation controlled by awards and penalties. Simultaneously, the lowest canonical loadings in the variate V2 come from intrinsic motivation (0.122) which is an evidence of an autonomous regulation. This fact allows to name the canonical variate V2 as “ external control ”. At the same time, there is quite strong correlation with the variable introjection (0.451), which means that hard work motivated by a wish to gain approval from others is connected with obtaining through a work such awards like money.

The canonical variate U2 in the second canonical function, explains 15.6% of the variance in the set of work ethic variables, and the associated variate U1–18.3% of the variance in the set of work motivation variables (see Table 2 for the shared variances). The independent canonical variate U2 for work ethic in the second canonical correlation “ hard work ” -> “ external control ” explains only 2.4% of the variance in the dependent set of variables from work motivation (see Table 3 for redundancy index in dependent set).

The overall redundancy of dependent set of variables is equal to 18.2%. This means that 18.2% of variance in work motivation variables can be explained by the whole set of independent work ethic variables (i.e. predictors).

Discussion and conclusions

The main aim of this exploratory research was to determine whether any relationships could be found between work ethic dimensions and motivation to work described by the self-determination theory, i.e. relationships with autonomous and controlled regulation. These regulations characterize human activity during the performance of work.

The research findings show that there are positive relationships between work ethic on the one hand and autonomous motivation and striving for recognition (including recognition from other people and self-satisfaction) on the other hand. There is a significant positive correlation between the dimension of centrality of work on the one hand and autonomous motivation and duty on the other hand. In other words, individuals who insist on the centrality of work, who value it highly, also in the moral sense, and who are convinced of the value of hard work, are at the same time highly motivated to do work they find exciting, as a component of their identity. At the same time, these individuals are also convinced that work should be done well and accurately. On the one hand, they find work exciting, interesting and challenging, on the other hand they believe that one should strive towards mastery when performing it, and treat this as a duty.

Individuals displaying autonomous motivation at work may treat good performance of the latter as a duty. This is one of the possible interpretations of the relationship between autonomous motivation and non-autonomous introjection. It can also be noted that high scores on the introjection scale do not have to indicate only actions resulting from the desire to gain recognition. It may also be a result of the fact that individuals motivated to perform work autonomously satisfy their general need to have positive relationships with other people [ 29 ]. Striving to be recognized and respected by others is a way of satisfying this need, and at the same time achieving this proves that the duty has been performed well. In other words, high scores on the introjection scale can mean that the individual motivated to a large extent intrinsically wants to win interest and approval from the environment because of the good performance of tasks.

Research has also shown that high value given to hard work, the conviction that it leads to success, combined with the belief that one needs to rely on oneself and avoid being dependent on others, is at the same time associated with the will to work for material rewards and with the pursuit of approval. These are extrinsic factors that are important for the performance of work. Although surprising, this result is consistent with the classical Protestant work ethic approach, in which we find both encouragement to do work out of duty, because work is an obligation, and affirmation of the pursuit of success, positive valuation of extrinsic indicators of success, such as the desire to earn money [ 21 ]. This result is also consistent with the research by Cassidy and Lynn [ 26 ] and the earlier studies by Wollack [ 41 ]. On the basis of the results obtained, hypotheses 1 and 2 can be accepted. The results also show that amotivation correlates negatively and weakly with the dimensions of work ethic.

To recapitulate, individuals with high autonomous motivation, a high need for recognition, and high intensity of introjection treat work much more often as a central value in their lives, while other activities are less important for them. Performance of interesting work which they like most probably makes it easy for them to value it highly, which co-occurs with their intrinsic need to take up and do work and their desire to maintain a good opinion of themselves as an employee and at the same time gain a positive opinion of their environment. Autonomous motivation co-occurs with introjection. An individual with autonomous motivation, having a high intrinsic motivation, treats good performance of work as his or her duty. Secondly, interesting work can be a source of high status and prestige, which is associated with activity being driven by the motivation to gain approval. This is also in line with earlier research results [ 22 , 28 ].

High scores on the introjection scale may generally indicate the fact that individuals autonomously motivated to work satisfy the need for positive relationships with others and for gaining recognition from others. According to the self-determination theory, controlled regulation, including introjection and external regulation, means striving to satisfy the need for positive relationships with others and for competence. Autonomous regulation, apart from satisfying these two needs, also makes it possible to satisfy the need for autonomy [ 31 ]. Intrinsic motivation combines all these motives, including those assigned to the other types of motivation, i.e. striving for integration, identification, introjection and external regulation. Only amotivation, or impersonal regulation, points to a lack of desire to satisfy these three needs. Amotivation also demonstrates a relationship with extrinsic control, i.e. controlled regulation. The results of the study described here show that activity based on extrinsic rewards may lead to amotivation. In the results of canonical analysis, this is proven by the weak positive correlation between amotivation and external regulation, and more precisely with the extrinsic control factor [ 35 , 36 , 53 ].

The study has a few limitations. First is the Polish context of our research. Work is less valued in Poland than, for example, in the United States [ 46 ], but more than in other countries [ 21 , 22 ]. It can therefore be assumed that Poles may have a lower work ethic than the inhabitants of post-Protestant countries. That is why our findings may not be generalized to other cultural settings, particularly outside of the Eastern Europe.Only the cross-cultural study would make it possible to compare Polish employees’ responses with the attitudes of representatives from other countries. Another limitation is that the study was based on self-assessment questionnaires. Their use resulted from the lack of other tools for measuring the studied variables as well as from the nature and definition of these variables, based on subjective judgment. However, these were accurate and reliable tools. Only the operationalization of specific regulation styles may be considered questionable due to the high correlations of introjection with identification, integration and intrinsic motivation [ 43 ]. It should be recalled, however, that within the self-determination theory itself, intrinsic (autonomous) motivation is based on mechanisms reserved for controlled regulation. Autonomous motivation leads to the satisfaction of three basic needs, while controlled motivation leads to the satisfaction of two needs [ 31 ].

Although the respondents were assured of anonymity, the responses might also be falsified due to the effect of the study subjects responding in accordance with what they imagine to be the socially desirable content, which in turn may have affected the final results of the study. However, an attempt was made to counteract this phenomenon by providing appropriate instructions and by assuring the respondents about the complete confidentiality of the data.

The research methodology could be improved and broadened by adding qualitative methods such as interviews and analyses based on interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). This would provide a deeper insight into the respondents’ feelings and into their experiences, and could definitely expand knowledge about the relationships between work ethic and motivation. Further research should also focus on the importance of other variables. It is worth checking the level of selected variables that may be relevant here, such as e.g. temperamental and personality determinants, other psychological characteristics, or characteristics related to morality. It may also be significant to take into account simultaneously the characteristics of the working environment and the organizational climate. Another significant development might involve controlling for the level of the respondents’ satisfaction with their professional work. It would be worth comparing in the future the dependencies existing within the group of managers, entrepreneurs and non-managers, as one may expect that the relationships between work ethic, attitude towards work and motivation might be more distinct in individuals with considerable autonomy, and that senior-level managers or entrepreneurs with considerable freedom of action are less likely to be forced to act under coercion.

In future research, it would be worthwhile controlling also for employee behavior that may be related to work ethic and result from motivation, or be connected to amotivation, such as civic organizational behavior, counterproductive behavior, and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Additionally, it could be interesting to consider the importance of work ethic and motivation to perform work in ethical or strategic decision-making within the company, e.g. in the way of implementing the CSR strategy, with simultaneous control for dispositional and environmental variables.

Research implications suggest that the findings may be important for the practice. We imagine workshops on work ethic and motivation, participation in which would let the individuals obtain better insight into the meaning of their own values, needs, and attitudes connected with work and into sources of their own motivation. It would be advisable to train individuals by focusing on the strengthening of their motivation, basing on their specific beliefs about work.

On the basis of the research findings, it can be assumed that a high work ethic characterizes more often individuals who display high intrinsic motivation, are motivated to perform interesting work, and strive to achieve high standards in it. The results may also point to the satisfaction of the need to have a positive opinion about oneself, as well as to the need for recognition and prestige, by individuals autonomously motivated to work. Attributing high value to hard work, the belief that it leads to success, and self-reliance are also related to the willingness to work for external, material rewards, and may result from the pursuit of positive relationships with others.

Research into the relationships between work ethic and motivation to work is in the exploratory phase, so both theoretical models and potential causal models require further empirical research. We firmly believe that despite these limitations and the lack of final theoretical conclusions, the research presented here contributes to a more complete understanding of human attitude towards work and points to important sources of motivation to work, as well as constitutes an important step towards building a more complete model of the interrelationships between the two variables.

Supporting information

S1 table. descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of work ethic dimensions (mwep) and components of motivation to work (weims)..

M = Mean value, SD = Standard deviation, MWEP–Multidimensional work ethic profile, α = Cronbach’s α , ω = McDonald’s ω —reliability coefficients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145.s001

S2 Table. Correlations between dimensions of work ethic and components of motivation to work.

MWEP–Multidimensional work ethic profile, *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145.s002

S3 Table. Work ethic and motivation.

Results of CCA for two canonical functions: canonical correlations, loadings, shared variance and redundancy analysis of independent and dependent canonical variates. *** p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145.s003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253145.s004

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation and efforts of different organizations who assisted in data gathering. We would like to express our gratitude to all of the participants of the study and to all the persons managing the institutions where the research took place for their help.

View Article
Google Scholar
3. Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Work redesign. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley; 1980.
PubMed/NCBI
9. Ch Bjorklund. Work Motivation—Studies of its Determinants and Outcomes. Stockholm: School of Economics. EFI, The Economic Research Institute; 2001.
12. Rokeach M. Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass Inc; 1972.
13. Rokeach M. The nature of human values. New York NY: The Free Press; 1973. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1973.9915585 pmid:28135165
14. Lewin K. Constructs in field theory [1944]. In: Cartwright D, editor. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. London: Tavistock; 1952. pp. 30–42.
20. Weber M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London and New York: Routledge; 2005.
21. Furnham A. The Protestant work ethic: The psychology of work-related beliefs and behaviors. London: Routledge; 1990.
22. Grabowski D. Etyka pracy. Przekonania wartościujące pracę a zaangażowanie pracowników. [Work Ethic. Work Evaluating Convictions and the Commitment of Workers]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego; 2015.
37. Vallerand RJ, Ratelle CF. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In: Deci EL, Ryan RM, editors. Handbook of Self-Determination Theory New York: The University of Rochester Press; 2004. pp. 128–137.
45. VandenBos GR. (Ed.). APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association, 2007.
52. Johnson R, Wichern D. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2007: 539–574.

The Effect of Work Ethics of Employees on Their Work Performance

Research in Management and Humanities DWIJMH VOL 1 NO 1 (2022), 58-82

25 Pages Posted: 20 Dec 2022

Damianus Abun

Divine word college of laoag, fredolin p. julian, jose vallente a. ballesteros.

Date Written: December 6, 2022

Employees with strong work ethics present themselves as professionals in every sense of the word. The study determined the effect of the work ethics of employees on their work performance. The literature review was undertaken to deepen the concept and establish the theories of the study. Descriptive assessment and correlational research design were applied. It used research questionnaires to gather the data from the respondents consisting of the employees of the Divine Word College of Laoag. The study found that the work ethics of employees along three components (the attitude toward the work itself, moral attitude toward the work, and intrinsic motivation) are considered high. Their work performance along with task and contextual performance is high, while counterproductive behavior is low. In terms of the correlation between work ethics and individual work performance, the results manifested a significant correlation between work ethics and individual work performance. But taking the dimensions of work ethics separately, only the attitude toward the work itself and intrinsic motivation affect the individual work performance along with task and contextual performance. Moreover, a moral attitude toward the work affects counterproductive behavior.

Keywords: Work ethics, task performance, contextual performance, counterproductive behaviour.

JEL Classification: LM

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Damianus Abun (Contact Author)

Divine word college of laoag ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, social sciences education ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

Advanced Search
Journal List

Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point of view of the self-determination theory

Damian grabowski.

1 Faculty of Psychology, Department of Social and Organizational Behavior, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Katowice, Poland

Agata Chudzicka-Czupała

Katarzyna stapor.

2 Faculty of Automatic Control, Electronics and Computer Science, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Introduction

Work ethic as a system of attitudes and beliefs

Belief in the sense of hard work, the conviction that it leads to success and that it is a recipe for problems and difficulties in life;
Centrality of work, the conviction that it is the basic activity in life–“but the most important thing was that even beyond that labor came to be considered in itself the end of life”;
Distaste for wasting time, tendency to treat time as a valuable resource–“waste of time is thus the first and in principle the deadliest of sins”;
Distaste for leisure, i.e. the conviction that free time activities are less valuable: “not leisure and enjoyment, but only activity serves to increase the glory of God”;
Delay of gratification, recognizing the value of rewards one has to wait for “the idea of expectant waiting for the Spirit to descend”), with importance attached also to work without rewards–the assumption that work in itself is a reward;
Independence, self-reliance at work, individualism;
Morality and ethics, i.e. placing emphasis on honesty in relationships with others, the assumption that honest conduct should be the content of the work [ 20 ] (p. 96–105).

Work ethic and motivation to work. Self-determination theory

Research questions and hypotheses

On the basis of the considerations presented above, we hypothesize that:

Materials and methods

Study sample and procedure.

Efforts were made to examine people of different ages, both women and men, employees working for a given company for at least six months in various industries.



17.86	3.81	5	25	0.73	0.74
17.27	4.15	5	25	0.77	0.78
18.11	3.93	5	25	0.70	0.71
18.17	3.56	5	25	0.64	0.65
13.76	3.93	5	25	0.73	0.75
17.12	3.94	5	25	0.70	0.73
19.27	3.82	5	25	0.79	0.80
20.90	3.57	5	25	0.69	0.71
124.60	15.38	35	175	0.66	0.67

11.26	4.25	4	28	0.55	0.61
19.68	5.65	4	28	0.87	0.87
18.24	5.03	4	28	0.73	0.75
15.45	6.17	4	28	0.86	0.86
16.98	6.46	4	28	0.89	0.89
18.96	5.64	4	28	0.85	0.86
14.93	32.62	-65	114	0.70	0.70

M = Mean value, SD = Standard deviation, MWEP–Multidimensional work ethic profile, α = Cronbach’s α , ω = McDonald’s ω —reliability coefficients.

Data analysis

Canonical correlation analysis

Preliminary analyses

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
—
0.40	—
0.40	0.44	—
0.34	0.43	0.41	—
0.16	0.24	0.34	0.15	—
0.22	0.40	0.25	0.31	0.08	—
0.10	0.11	0.27	0.25	-0.09	-0.06	—
0.15	0.02	0.28	0.19	-0.04	0.07	0.45	—
0.44	0.68	0.75	0.68	0.43	0.52	0.47	0.47	—
0.05	0.06	-0.06	-0.02	-0.01	-0.05	-0.03	-0.16	-0.06	—
0.11	0.19	-0.01	0.16	-0.04	0.08	0.17	0.04	0.15	-0.10	—
0.30	0.36	0.43	0.25	0.20	0.22	0.12	0.16	0.44	0.03	0.21	—
0.20	0.28	0.37	0.24	0.12	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.36	0.04	0.25	0.67	—
0.20	0.31	0.48	0.17	0.23	0.16	0.04	0.15	0.39	0.04	0.04	0.65	0.76	—
0.23	0.34	0.50	0.23	0.23	0.24	0.09	0.25	0.47	-0.11	0.09	0.70	0.61	0.70	—
0.13	0.20	0.48	0.15	0.22	0.18	0.02	0.24	0.37	-0.40	-0.23	0.51	0.60	0.77	0.82

MWEP–Multidimensional work ethic profile.

*** p < .001

** p < .01

* p < .05.

Results of Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA)

Results of CCA for two canonical functions: canonical correlations, loadings, shared variance and redundancy analysis of independent and dependent canonical variates.


	U1	U2
	0.412	0.482
	0.585	0.619
	0.920	0.028
	0.362	0.531
	0.448	-0.102
	0.405	0.239
	0.098	0.532
	0.395	0.005
	0.253	0.156
	0.087	0.021
	0.585	0.362
	0.182

	V1	V2
	-0.136	0.287
	0.000	0.807
	0.782	0.451
	0.620	0.382
	0.858	-0.003
	0.931	0.122
	0.436	0.183
	0.149	0.024

*** p < .001.

Discussion and conclusions

Supporting information

MWEP–Multidimensional work ethic profile, *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05.

Results of CCA for two canonical functions: canonical correlations, loadings, shared variance and redundancy analysis of independent and dependent canonical variates. *** p < .001.

Acknowledgments

Funding Statement

Authors AC, DG, and KS received funding for Open access from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland under the 2019-2022 program „Regional Initiative of Excellence", project number 012 / RID / 2018/19. Authors AC and DG received funding from the SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland, project No. 1571-BST/WZK/2018/A/06 entitled “Development of standards for the assessment of social and ethical aspects of employees’ way of functioning”, https://www.swps.pl/ . The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on May 9, 2024.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

protect the rights of research participants
enhance research validity
maintain scientific or academic integrity

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.


Voluntary participation	Your participants are free to opt in or out of the study at any point in time.
Informed consent	Participants know the purpose, benefits, risks, and funding behind the study before they agree or decline to join.
Anonymity	You don’t know the identities of the participants. Personally identifiable data is not collected.
Confidentiality	You know who the participants are but you keep that information hidden from everyone else. You anonymize personally identifiable data so that it can’t be linked to other data by anyone else.
Potential for harm	Physical, social, psychological and all other types of harm are kept to an absolute minimum.
Results communication	You ensure your work is free of or research misconduct, and you accurately represent your results.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

what the study is about
the risks and benefits of taking part
how long the study will take
your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Normal distribution
Measures of central tendency
Chi square tests
Confidence interval
Quartiles & Quantiles
Cluster sampling
Stratified sampling
Thematic analysis
Cohort study
Peer review
Ethnography

Research bias

Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Conformity bias
Hawthorne effect
Availability heuristic
Attrition bias
Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, May 09). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 13, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Open access
Published: 07 August 2024

Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement

Jaime Garcia-Iglesias 1 ,
Iona Beange 2 ,
Donald Davidson 2 ,
Suzanne Goopy 3 ,
Huayi Huang 3 ,
Fiona Murray 4 ,
Carol Porteous 5 ,
Elizabeth Stevenson 6 ,
Sinead Rhodes 7 ,
Faye Watson 8 &
Sue Fletcher-Watson 7

Research Involvement and Engagement volume 10 , Article number: 83 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

932 Accesses

23 Altmetric

Metrics details

Public engagement with research (PEwR) has become increasingly integral to research practices. This paper explores the process and outcomes of a collaborative effort to address the ethical implications of PEwR activities and develop tools to navigate them within the context of a University Medical School. The activities this paper reflects on aimed to establish boundaries between research data collection and PEwR activities, support colleagues in identifying the ethical considerations relevant to their planned activities, and build confidence and capacity among staff to conduct PEwR projects. The development process involved the creation of a taxonomy outlining key terms used in PEwR work, a self-assessment tool to evaluate the need for formal ethical review, and a code of conduct for ethical PEwR. These tools were refined through iterative discussions and feedback from stakeholders, resulting in practical guidance for researchers navigating the ethical complexities of PEwR. Additionally, reflective prompts were developed to guide researchers in planning and conducting engagement activities, addressing a crucial aspect often overlooked in formal ethical review processes. The paper reflects on the broader regulatory landscape and the limitations of existing approval and governance processes, and prompts critical reflection on the compatibility of formal approval processes with the ethos of PEwR. Overall, the paper offers insights and practical guidance for researchers and institutions grappling with ethical considerations in PEwR, contributing to the ongoing conversation surrounding responsible research practices.

Plain English summary

This paper talks about making research fairer for everyone involved. Sometimes, researchers ask members of the public for advice, guidance or insight, or for help to design or do research, this is sometimes known as ‘public engagement with research’. But figuring out how to do this in a fair and respectful way can be tricky. In this paper, we discuss how we tried to make some helpful tools. These tools help researchers decide if they need to get formal permission, known as ethical approval, for their work when they are engaging with members of the public or communities. They also give tips on how to do the work in a good and fair way. We produced three main tools. One helps people understand the important words used in this kind of work (known as a taxonomy). Another tool helps researchers decide if they need to ask for special permission (a self-assessment tool). And the last tool gives guidelines on how to do the work in a respectful way (a code of conduct). These tools are meant to help researchers do their work better and treat everyone involved fairly. The paper also talks about how more work is needed in the area, but these tools are a good start to making research fairer and more respectful for everyone.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In recent decades, “public involvement in research” has experienced significant development, becoming an essential element of the research landscape. In fact, it has been argued, public involvement may make research better and more relevant [ 7 , p. 1]. Patients’ roles, traditionally study participants, have transformed to become “active partners and co-designers” [ 17 , p. 1]. This evolution has led to the appearance of a multitude of definitions and terms to refer to these activities. In the UK, the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, defines public engagement as the “many ways organisations seek to involve the public in their work” [ 9 ]. In this paper, we also refer to “public involvement,” which is defined as “research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them” (UK Standards for Public Involvement). Further to this, the Health Research Authority (also in the UK), defines public engagement with research as “all the ways in which the research community works together with people including patients, carers, advocates, service users and members of the community” [ 6 ]; [ 9 ]. These terms encompass a wide variety of theorizations, levels of engagement, and terminology, such as ‘patient-oriented research’, ‘participatory’ research or services or ‘patient engagement’ [ 17 , p. 2]. For this paper, we use the term ‘public engagement with research’ or PEwR in this way.

Institutions have been set up to support PEwR activities. In the UK these include the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research (supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research), INVOLVE, and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE). Most recently, in 2023, the UK’s largest funders and healthcare bodies signed a joint statement “to improve the extent and quality of public involvement across the sector so that it is consistently excellent” [ 6 ]. In turn, this has often translated to public engagement becoming a requisite for securing research funding or institutional ethical permissions [ 3 , p. 2], as well as reporting and publishing research [ 15 ]. Despite this welcomed infrastructure to support PEwR, there remain gaps in knowledge and standards in the delivery of PEwR. One such gap concerns the extent to which PEwR should be subject to formal ethical review in the same way as data collection for research.

In 2016, the UK Health Research Authority and INVOLVE published a joint statement suggesting that “involving the public in the design and development of research does not generally raise any ethical concerns” [ 7 , p. 2]. We presume that this statement is using the phrase ‘ethical concerns’ to narrowly refer to the kinds of concerns addressed by a formal research ethics review process, such as safeguarding, withdrawal from research, etc. Footnote 1 . To such an extent, we agree that public involvement with research is not inherently ‘riskier’ than other research activities.

Furthermore, a blanket need for formal ethical review risks demoting or disempowering non-academic contributors from the roles of consultants, co-researchers, or advisors to a more passive status as participants. Attending a meeting as an expert, discussing new project ideas, setting priorities, designing studies and, or interpreting findings does not require that we sign a consent form. Indeed, to do so clearly removes the locus of power away from the person signing and into the hands of the person who wrote the consent form. This particular risk is exacerbated when institutional, formal ethical review processes operate in complex, convoluted and obscure ways that often baffle researchers let alone members of the public.

However, we also recognize that PEwR is not without potential to do harm – something which formal research ethics review aims to anticipate and minimise. For example, a public lecture or a workshop could cause distress to audience members or participants if they learn for the first time that aspects of their lifestyle or personal history put them at higher risk of dementia. When patients are invited to join advisory panels, they may feel pressure to reveal personal details about their medical history to reinforce their expertise or legitimise their presence – especially in a room where most other people have potentially intimidating professional qualifications. Some patient groups may be exploited, if research involvement roles are positioned as an opportunity, or even a duty, and not properly reimbursed. When patients are more deeply involved in research roles, such as collecting or analysing data, they might experience distress, particularly if interacting with participants triggers their own painful or emotional memories [ 14 , p. 98]. Thus, at all levels of PEwR from science communication to embedded co-production, there is a danger of harm to patients or members of the public, and a duty of care on the part of the research team and broader institution who invited them in.

These concerns are not accessory to PEwR activities but rather exist at their heart. Following a review on the impacts of public engagement, Brett et al. conclude that “developing a wide view which considers the impact of PPI [public and patient involvement] on the people involved in the process can be critical to our understanding of why some studies that involve patients and the public thrive, while others fail” [ 1 , p. 388]. Despite the importance of these considerations, there is a stark absence of consistent guidance as to whether different forms of PEwR require formal ethical review. Nor is there, to our knowledge, any sustained attempt to provide a framework for ethical conduct of PEwR in the absence of formal review (see Pandya-Wood et al. [ 11 ]; Greenhalgh et al. [ 5 ]). This is, in part, due to there being a wide heterogeneity of practices, communities, and levels of engagement [ 8 , p. 6] that resists generalizable principles or frameworks.

The lack of frameworks about whether or how PEwR requires formal ethical review can, ironically, be a key barrier to PEwR happening. In our work as members of a university ethics review committee, we have found this lack of guidance to hamper appropriate ethical PEwR in several ways. Researchers may avoid developing PEwR initiatives altogether for fear of having to spend time or resources in securing formal ethical review (especially when this process is lengthy or resource-intensive). Likewise, they may avoid PEwR for fear that its conduction would be unethical. On the other hand, others could assume that the lack of a requirement for formal ethical review means there are no ethical issues or risks involved in PEwR.

Similarly, experts in PEwR who are not experienced with formal research ethics review may face barriers as their PEwR process becomes more elaborate, in-depth, or complex. For example, although a priority-setting exercise with members of an online community of people with depression was assessed as not requiring ethics review, the funding panel requested that formal ethics review be undergone for a follow-up exercised aimed at collecting data answering one of the priority questions identified in the previous priority-setting. It is crucial that innovations in PEwR and findings from this work are shared and yet academic teams may be unable to publish their work in certain journals which require evidence of having undergone formal ethical review. Finally, ethics committees such as ours often must rely on anecdotal knowledge to make judgements about what does or does not require formal ethical review, given the absence of standardized frameworks.

About this paper

In this paper, we report and reflect on the development of specific tools and processes for assessing the ethical needs of PEwR initiatives, as members of an ethics review committee for a large University medical school. These tools aim to delineate boundaries between research data collection and PEwR activities of various kinds, provide a self-assessment framework for ethical practice in PEwR and, overall, give people greater confidence when conducting PEwR work. We describe and critically reflect on the development of the following resources:

a taxonomy to define key terms relating to PEwR with associated resource recommendations.

a self-assessment tool to support people understanding where their planned activities fall in relation to research or PEwR.

a code of conduct for ethical conduct of PEwR (appended to the self-assessment tool).

We will, first, describe our work as part of an institutional ethics committee, the identification of a need for specific guidance, and our key assumptions; we will then describe the process of developing these tools and processes; provide an overview of the tools themselves; and reflect on early feedback received and future work needed.

Developing specific tools for PEWR in ethics

Identifying needs, goals and outputs.

The Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee (EMREC) provides ethical opinions to members of staff and postgraduate researchers within the University of Edinburgh Medical School in relation to planned research to be conducted on humans i.e. their data, or tissues. These research activities come from a wide range of disciplines, including public health, epidemiology, social science or psychology. EMREC does not review research that involves recruitment of NHS patients, use of NHS data, or other health service resources: such projects are evaluated by an NHS research ethics committee. EMREC is led by two co-directors and formed of over 38 members, which include experienced academics and academic-clinicians from a variety of disciplines. There are also 2–4 lay members who are not researchers.

EMREC receives regular enquiries about whether a specific piece of PEwR work (such as holding a workshop with people living with endometriosis to identify research priorities or interviewing HIV activists about their work during COVID-19) requires formal ethics review. In addition, often teams contact EMREC following completion of a PEwR activity that they want to publish because the journal in which they wish to publish has requested evidence of the work having undergone formal ethics approval. These enquiries are happening in the context of an institutional investment in staffing, leading to a significant degree of distributed expertise across the Medical School about diverse forms of PEwR.

Responding to this, in the summer of 2022, a Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement working group was formed by EMREC with the aim of developing new tools and processes to navigate the ethical implications of PEWR within the University of Edinburgh Medical School. The group’s original understandings were that:

PEwR is both important and skilled work that presents a unique set of ethical implications,

PEwR is a fragmented landscape where many people have relevant but different expertise and where a wide range of terminology is in use, and.

there is no existing widely-agreed framework for ethical PEwR.

This working group was designed to be temporary, lasting approximately six months. It was composed of eleven members with different degrees of seniority and disciplinary backgrounds - both members of EMREC and those from other parts of the Medical School, and other parts of the University of Edinburgh. Among these, there were both academics and PEwR experts in professional services (i.e. primarily non-academic) roles. The working group met four times (August, September and November 2022; and January 2023).

The group identified three key goals and, in relation to these, key outputs needed. The goals were: (1) help establish boundaries between research data collection (requiring an ethical opinion from EMREC) and PEwR activities of various kinds (requiring ethical reflection/practice but not a formal EMREC ethical opinion), (2) support colleagues to identify where their planned activities fell in the research-PEwR continuum and consequently the relevant ethical framework, and (3) identify ways of building confidence and capacity among staff to conduct PEwR projects. In relation to these goals, the working group initially agreed on producing the following key outputs:

A taxonomy outlining and defining key terms used in the PEwR work, with examples. While not universal or definitive, the taxonomy should help colleagues identify and label their activities and help determine the ethical considerations that would apply to conduct the work with integrity. It would also facilitate conversations between staff with varying levels and types of experience, and ensure that decisions around ethical conduct would be based on more than choice of terminology.

A self-assessment tool to provide a more systematic way to evaluate whether a given academic activity, involving a non-academic partner (organisation or individual) requires formal evaluation by a research ethics committee.

A list of resources collected both from within and beyond our institution that are relevant to the issue of ethics and PEwR and can serve as ‘further reading’ and training.

While we aimed to develop this work with a view to it being useful within the remit of the University of Edinburgh Medical School, we also understood that there was significant potential for these outputs to be of interest and relevance more widely. In this way, we aimed to position them as a pragmatic addition to existing guidance and resources, such as the NIHR Reflective Questions [ 2 ].

Our process

Across the first three meetings, the group worked together on the simultaneous development of the three outputs (taxonomy, self-assessment tool, and resources). The initial taxonomy was informed by the guidance produced by the Public Involvement Resource Hub at Imperial College London [ 10 ]. The taxonomy was developed as a table that included key terms (such as ‘public engagement’, ‘co-production’, or ‘market research’), with their definitions, examples, and synonyms. From early on, it was decided that different key terms would not be defined by the methods used, as there could be significant overlap among these – e.g. something called a focus group might be a part of a consultation, market research or research data collection.

A draft table (with just six categories) was presented in the first meeting and group members were asked to work on the table between meetings, including providing additional examples, amending language, or any other suggestions. This was done on a shared document using ‘comments’ so that contradictory views could be identified and agreements reached. The table was also shared with colleagues from outside the University of Edinburgh Medical School to capture the range of terminologies used across disciplines, recognising the interdisciplinary nature of much research.

Through this process, additional key terms were identified, such as “science communication” and “action research,” definitions were developed more fully, and synonyms were sometimes contextualized (by indicating, for example, shades of difference or usages specific to an area). Upon further work, three additional sections were added to the taxonomy tool: first, an introduction was developed that explained what terminology our specific institution used and noted that the boundaries between different terms were often “fuzzy and flexible.” In addition, the group agreed that it would be useful to provide a narrative example of how different forms of public engagement with research might co-exist and flow from one to another. To this end, a fictional example was developed where a team of clinical researchers interested in diabetes are described engaging in scoping work, research, co-production, science communication and action research at different times of their research programme. Finally, a section was also added that prompted researchers to reflect on the processes of negotiating how partners can be described in research (for example, whether to use terms such as ‘patient’ or ‘lay member’).

For the self-assessment tool, a first iteration was a table with two columns (one for research or work requiring formal ethical review and one for PEwR or work not requiring formal ethical review). The aim was for group members to fill the table with examples of activities that would fall under each category, with a view to identifying generalizable characteristics. However, this task proved complicated given the wide diversity of possible activities, multitude of contexts, and sheer number of exceptions. To address this, group members were asked to complete a case-based exercise. They were presented with the following situation: “I tell you I’m planning a focus group with some autistic folk” and asked how they would determine whether the activity would be a form of data collection for a research project (requiring formal ethical review) or another form of PEwR. Group members were asked, with a view to developing the self-assessment tool, to identify which questions they would ask to assess the activity. The replies of working group members were synthesized by one of the authors (SFW) and presented at the following meeting.

Through discussion as a group, we determined that the questions identified as useful in identifying if an activity required formal ethical review fell, roughly, under four main areas. Under each area, some indicators of activities were provided which were “less likely to need ethics review” and some “more likely to need ethics review”. The four umbrella questions were:

What is the purpose and the planned outcome of the activity? (see Table 1 for an excerpt of the initial draft answer to this question)

What is the status of the people involved in the activity? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “participants will be equal partners with academic team” or “participants will be advisors” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “participants will undertake tasks determined by academics” or “participants will contribute data or sign consent forms”).

What kind of information is being collected? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “asking about expert opinion on a topic” or “sessions will be minuted and notes taken” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “sessions will be recorded and transcribed” or “asking about participants’ personal experiences”).

What are the risks inherent in this activity? (indicators of less likely to need ethics review were “participants will be involved in decision-making” or “participants will be credited for their role in a manner of their choosing” and indicators more likely to require ethics approval were “participants’ involvement will and must be anonymized fully” or “participants have a choice between following protocol or withdrawing from the study”).

Upon further work, the group decided to modify this initial iteration in several ways leading to the final version. First, a brief introduction explaining the purpose of the tool was written. This included information about the aims of the tool, and a very brief overview of the process of formal research ethics review. It also emphasised the importance of discussion of the tool within the team, with PEwR experts and sometimes with EMREC members, depending on how clear-cut the outcome was. Second, we included brief information about what are ‘research’ and ‘public engagement with research’ with a view to supporting people who may not be familiar with how these concepts are used by ethics review committees (for example, lay co-applicants or co-researchers). Third, we included key guidance about how to use the tool, including ‘next steps’ if the activity was determined to be research or engagement. Importantly, this emphasised that none of the questions posed and indicators given were definitive of something needing or not needing formal research ethics review, but instead they should be used collectively to signpost a team towards, or away from, formal review.

Finally, while the four umbrella questions remained the same as in the previous iteration, the indicators under each were further refined. In discussing the previous version, the group agreed that, while some indicators could relate to an activity falling into either category (research or engagement) depending on other factors, there were others that were much more likely to fall under one category than the other. In other words, while no single indicator was deterministic of needing or not needing formal review, some indicators were more influential than others on the final self-assessment outcome. Thus, we divided the indicators associated with each umbrella question into two sub-groups. The more influential indicators were labelled as either “probably doesn’t need ethical review” or “almost certainly needs ethical review”. Less influential indicators were labelled as either “less likely to need ethical review” or “more likely to need ethical review.” This is shown in Table 2 .

This new format retains the awareness of the sometimes-blurry lines between research and PEwR for many activities, but also seeks to provide stronger direction through indicative activities that are more clear-cut, with a particular view to supporting early-career researchers and people new to ethics reviews and/or engagement processes.

A key concern of the group was what would happen next if a planned activity, using the self-assessment tool, was deemed as PEwR. The formal review process for research would not be available for a planned activity identified as PEwR i.e. completing a series of documents and a number of protocols to deal with issues such as data protection, safeguarding, etc. This would leave a vacuum in terms of guidance for ethical conduction of PEwR. The group was concerned that some people using the self-assessment tool might arrive at the conclusion that their planned activity was entirely without ethical risks, given that it was not required to undergo formal review. Others might be conscious of the risks but feel adrift as to how to proceed. This was a particular concern with early-career researchers and indeed established academics turning to PEwR for the first time: we wanted to facilitate their involvement with PEwR but we were also aware that many may lack experience and resources. To address this, the group decided to develop an additional output comprising a series of reflective prompts to guide researchers in planning and conducting engagement activities.

The prompts were organized under four headings. First, “Data Minimisation and Security” included information about required compliance with data protection legislation, suggestions about collecting and processing information, and ideas around ensuring confidentiality. Second, “Safeguarding Collaborators and Emotional Labour” prompted researchers to think about the risk of partners becoming distressed and suggested what things should be planned for in this regard. Third, “Professional Conduct and Intellectual Property” included advice on how to clearly manage partners’ expectations around their contributions, impact, and intellectual property. Finally, fourth, under “Power Imbalances”, the guidance discusses how researchers may work to address the inherent imbalances that exist in relationships with partners. It prompts the researcher to think about choice of location, information sharing, and authorship among others. While the Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee remains available for consultation on all these matters, as well as dedicated and professional PEwR staff, the group developed these guidelines with a view both to emphasizing the fact that an activity not requiring formal ethical review did not mean that the activity was absent of risk or did not require careful ethical planning; and to support those who may be unfamiliar with how to develop engagement activities. It was decided that this guideline should follow the self-assessment tool for clarity.

Finally, in the process of developing these outputs (the planned taxonomy and assessment tool, and the additional reflective prompts appended to the assessment tool), the group collected a large number of resources, including academic papers (e.g. Staniszewska et al. [ 16 ]; Schroeder et al. [ 13 ]; Redman et al. [ 12 ]; Fletcher-Watson et al. [ 4 ]), guidance produced by other institutions, and key online sites with information about national frameworks or policy. Among these, key resources were selected and appended to the taxonomy document. The final version of these documents can be found as appendices (Supplementary Material 1 : Assessment tool and reflective prompts; Supplementary Material 2 : Taxonomy and resources).

Further considerations and early results

The guidance and tools presented here are designed to clarify a boundary between research and engagement that is poorly defined and could cause harm if not well understood. In sharing them, we aim to facilitate researchers’ engagement with PEwR by providing familiarity with the terminology and approaches, examples, and suggesting key considerations. Most importantly, they support researchers to determine whether their planned activity should undergo a formal ethical review process or not – and if not, guides them towards ethical conduct in the absence of formal review. Reflecting on the process much of what we have explained essentially reflects a distinction between PEwR and research data collection that can be encapsulated within the idea of ‘locus of control’: namely that during PEwR the locus of control, as far as possible, sits with the engaged communities or members.

It should be noted, however, that researchers and these guidance and tools exist within a larger landscape, with added regulatory processes. Thus, researchers may need (regardless of whether their planned activity is research or engagement) to navigate additional compliance such as data protection or information security protocols and / or to consider reputational risk associated with certain topics. We are aware that the overlap of complex and sometimes obscure regulatory demands complicates the task of conducting both research and PEwR, as it requires researchers to juggle multiple procedures, documents, and approvals. This publication does not resolve all the questions that exist, but it does attempt to take a bold step towards confronting grey areas and providing systematic processes to navigate them.

The outputs described above were made available on the University of Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee intranet site under the heading “Public Engagement with Research.” While we do not collect statistics on the number of times the resources have been used, the committee has received positive feedback from people who have engaged with the documents. For example, one researcher commented that, in the process of developing an engagement activity, they had been “grappling with precisely these questions (of whether this qualifies as research, and whether it requires ethical review)” and that the documents were “quite timely and helpful. It allows me to think about these considerations in a systematic manner and it’s handy for me to send on to others as a framework for discussion should we have differing opinions.” It was this mention to the possibility of these documents being used as a framework for discussion that prompted us to write this paper as a way of sharing them beyond the University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (where they are already used for training early-career researchers and in the MSc in Science Communication and Public Engagement). While we think they can be useful, we also encourage potential users to adapt them to their specific contexts, with different institutions potentially establishing differing procedures or requirements. To that end, we have shared in this paper the process of writing these documents so that other people and teams may also think through them productively and creatively.

Final reflections

In developing these documents, we sought to answer a need among members of our immediate community, seeking to better assess whether an activity required formal ethical review and wanting guidance to ethically conduct PEwR work. However, we also came to realize the limitations of existing approval and governance processes. In our case, a key reason why these documents were developed is because existing formal ethical review processes would not be adequate to capture the particularities and complexities of PEwR in our large, diverse Medical School.

Looking back at the tools we developed and the feedback received, we are also satisfied with the pragmatic approach we took. There is a vast amount of resources and literature available about how to conduct PEwR, as well as a multitude of accounts and reflections both of an anecdotal and epistemological nature. Building on this conceptual work and associated principles, we sought to develop pragmatic, clear, applicable tools, without overwhelming users with a multitude of available resources and complex theory. This is, we feel, particularly applicable to contexts like ours: a large, very diverse medical school which encompasses biomedical to social science disciplines where researchers and funders have vastly differing expectations and knowledge of PEwR.

This process also led us to reflect on the practical functions of formal ethical review. Formal ethics approval provides applicants with structured resources to think and plan about their work, feedback and guidance about their plans, and—most commonly—a code and letter than can be used to easily report to journals that your research has met a specific ethical threshold. With these documents we have sought to provide some similar, pragmatic guidance to support and empower people, through a self-assessment process. This begs the question, what, if any, formal approval processes should be developed for PEwR? Are such formal processes in any way adequate to the ethos of PEwR? Would formal independent review necessarily conflict with the values of PEwR, namely the empowerment of community members as decision-makers and experts? Thus, these documents and this paper contribute to an ongoing conversation as PEwR continues to develop in frequency and sophistication in health and social care research.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

The difference between research and public engagement is a complex one. Formal ethics approval, which is often seen as a regulatory or compliance mechanism, may not always be a good marker of this boundary, as it may ignore complex issues such as the distribution of power, the ethos of the activities, or their aims. Furthermore, different institutions use different criteria to determine what activities require ethics approval or are considered research. In this paper we reflect on the process of developing tools which we intended as pragmatic interventions that would support researchers, especially those without previous experience of PEwR to label their planned activities and understand their implications. Thus, we employ—even if not at all times comfortably—the framework that equates research with activities requiring ethics approval and PEwR with activities not requiring ethics approval.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Davies R, Andrews H, Farr M, Davies P, Brangan E, and D Bagnall. Reflective questions to support co-produced research (version 1.2). University of Bristol and University of West of England. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ARC West and People in Health West of England; 2020.

De Simoni A, Jackson T, Inglis Humphrey W, Preston J, Mah H, Wood HE, Kinley E, Gonzalez L, Rienda, Porteous C. Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00424-7 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fletcher-Watson S, Brook K, Hallett S, Murray F, Catherine J, Crompton. Inclusive practices for Neurodevelopmental Research. Curr Dev Disorders Rep. 2021;8:88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-021-00227-z .

Article Google Scholar

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888 .

Health Research Authority. 2023. Putting people first - embedding public involvement in health and social care research. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/public-involvement/putting-people-first-embedding-public-involvement-health-and-social-care-research/ .

Health Research Authority / INVOLVE. 2016. Public involvement in research and research ethics committee review. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HRA-INVOLVE-updated-statement-2016.pdf .

Institute for Community Studies, and UK Research and Innovation. An equitable future for research and innovation. The Young Foundation; 2022.

National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. n.d. Introducing Public Engagement. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/introducing-public-engagement .

NIHR Imperial BRC Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC). A rough guide to public involvement (version 1.4). London: Imperial College London; 2021.

Google Scholar

Pandya-Wood R, Barron DS, Elliott J. A framework for public involvement at the design stage of NHS health and social care research: time to develop ethically conscious standards. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0058-y .

Redman S, Greenhalgh T, Adedokun L, Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Committee Co-production of Knowledge Collection Steering. Co-production of knowledge: the future. BMJ. 2021;372:n434. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n434 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Schroeder D, Chatfield K, Singh M, Chennells R. Peter Herissone-Kelly, and SpringerLink. 2019. Equitable Research Partnerships: A Global Code of Conduct to Counter Ethics Dumping . 1st 2019. ed, Springer Briefs in Research and Innovation Governance . Cham: Springer.

Staley K, Virginia M. User involvement leads to more ethically sound research. Clin Ethics. 2016;1(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1258/147775006777254489 .

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman DG, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453 .

Staniszewska S, Hickey G, Coutts P, Thurman B, Coldham T. Co-production: a kind revolution. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00340-2 .

Tscherning SC, Bekker HL, Vedelo TW, Finderup J, Rodkjaer LO. How to engage patient partners in health service research: a scoping review protocol. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00268-z .

UK Standards for Public Involvement. UK Standards for Public Involvement. https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/home .

Download references

Acknowledgements

For the purposes of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

This research was supported, in part, by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/X003604/1].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Jaime Garcia-Iglesias

Centre for Inflammation Research, Institute for Regeneration and Repair, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Iona Beange & Donald Davidson

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Suzanne Goopy & Huayi Huang

School of Health in Social Science, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Fiona Murray

Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Carol Porteous

Biomedical Teaching Organisation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Elizabeth Stevenson

Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Sinead Rhodes & Sue Fletcher-Watson

College for Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Faye Watson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JGI: conceptualisation and writing (original draft); IB, DJD, SG, HH, FM, CP, ES, SR, FW: conceptualisation, writing (editing and reviewing); SFW: conceptualisation and writing (original draft).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime Garcia-Iglesias .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Garcia-Iglesias, J., Beange, I., Davidson, D. et al. Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement. Res Involv Engagem 10 , 83 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00617-8

Download citation

Received : 03 May 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 07 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00617-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Public engagement
Ethical approval
Ethical review
Responsibility
Managing risks
Patient-oriented research
Patient-centred research
And patient engagement

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

We're Hiring!
Help Center
Most Cited Papers
Most Downloaded Papers
Newest Papers
Last »
Spirit of Capitalism Follow Following
Ideology Critique Follow Following
Software Studies Follow Following
Class Follow Following
Social Theory Follow Following
Bourdieu Follow Following
Protestant & Islamic Work Ethic Follow Following
Path Analysis Follow Following
Regional development Follow Following
Human Relations Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

Academia.edu Journals
We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in:
Health Sciences
Earth Sciences
Cognitive Science
Mathematics
Computer Science
Academia ©2024

Title Page Setup

A title page is required for all APA Style papers. There are both student and professional versions of the title page. Students should use the student version of the title page unless their instructor or institution has requested they use the professional version. APA provides a student title page guide (PDF, 199KB) to assist students in creating their title pages.

Student title page

The student title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation, course number and name for which the paper is being submitted, instructor name, assignment due date, and page number, as shown in this example.

Title page setup is covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 2.3 and the Concise Guide Section 1.6

Related handouts

Student Title Page Guide (PDF, 263KB)
Student Paper Setup Guide (PDF, 3MB)

Student papers do not include a running head unless requested by the instructor or institution.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the student title page.


Paper title	Place the title three to four lines down from the top of the title page. Center it and type it in bold font. Capitalize of the title. Place the main title and any subtitle on separate double-spaced lines if desired. There is no maximum length for titles; however, keep titles focused and include key terms.
Author names	Place one double-spaced blank line between the paper title and the author names. Center author names on their own line. If there are two authors, use the word “and” between authors; if there are three or more authors, place a comma between author names and use the word “and” before the final author name.	Cecily J. Sinclair and Adam Gonzaga
Author affiliation	For a student paper, the affiliation is the institution where the student attends school. Include both the name of any department and the name of the college, university, or other institution, separated by a comma. Center the affiliation on the next double-spaced line after the author name(s).	Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Course number and name	Provide the course number as shown on instructional materials, followed by a colon and the course name. Center the course number and name on the next double-spaced line after the author affiliation.	PSY 201: Introduction to Psychology
Instructor name	Provide the name of the instructor for the course using the format shown on instructional materials. Center the instructor name on the next double-spaced line after the course number and name.	Dr. Rowan J. Estes
Assignment due date	Provide the due date for the assignment. Center the due date on the next double-spaced line after the instructor name. Use the date format commonly used in your country.	October 18, 2020 18 October 2020
	Use the page number 1 on the title page. Use the automatic page-numbering function of your word processing program to insert page numbers in the top right corner of the page header.	1

Professional title page

The professional title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation(s), author note, running head, and page number, as shown in the following example.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the professional title page.


Paper title	Place the title three to four lines down from the top of the title page. Center it and type it in bold font. Capitalize of the title. Place the main title and any subtitle on separate double-spaced lines if desired. There is no maximum length for titles; however, keep titles focused and include key terms.
Author names	Place one double-spaced blank line between the paper title and the author names. Center author names on their own line. If there are two authors, use the word “and” between authors; if there are three or more authors, place a comma between author names and use the word “and” before the final author name.	Francesca Humboldt
Author names	When different authors have different affiliations, use superscript numerals after author names to connect the names to the appropriate affiliation(s). If all authors have the same affiliation, superscript numerals are not used (see Section 2.3 of the for more on how to set up bylines and affiliations).	Tracy Reuter , Arielle Borovsky , and Casey Lew-Williams
Author affiliation	For a professional paper, the affiliation is the institution at which the research was conducted. Include both the name of any department and the name of the college, university, or other institution, separated by a comma. Center the affiliation on the next double-spaced line after the author names; when there are multiple affiliations, center each affiliation on its own line.	Department of Nursing, Morrigan University
Author affiliation	When different authors have different affiliations, use superscript numerals before affiliations to connect the affiliations to the appropriate author(s). Do not use superscript numerals if all authors share the same affiliations (see Section 2.3 of the for more).	Department of Psychology, Princeton University Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University
Author note	Place the author note in the bottom half of the title page. Center and bold the label “Author Note.” Align the paragraphs of the author note to the left. For further information on the contents of the author note, see Section 2.7 of the .	n/a
	The running head appears in all-capital letters in the page header of all pages, including the title page. Align the running head to the left margin. Do not use the label “Running head:” before the running head.	Prediction errors support children’s word learning
	Use the page number 1 on the title page. Use the automatic page-numbering function of your word processing program to insert page numbers in the top right corner of the page header.	1

IMAGES

FREE 46+ Research Paper Examples & Templates in PDF, MS Word
FREE 10+ Research Ethics Samples & Templates in MS Word
66 Example Of Ethical Research Paper
(PDF) Ethics in Qualitative Research: Issues and Challenges
ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER
Research Ethics Doc 11

COMMENTS

(PDF) The Effect of Work Ethics of Employees on their Work Performance
The study f ound that the work ethics of employees along three components. (the attitude towa rd the work itself, moral attitude toward the work, and intrinsic motivation) are. considered high ...
(PDF) The Work Ethic
The aim of this paper is to argue that psychological research on the work ethic, or work centrality, uses too narrow a focus for understanding shifts in behaviour and attitudes over time. The ...
Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point
Most studies on motivation to work concentrate on its environmental and situational antecedents. Individual values are not the point of interest of empirical analyses. The aim of the research described in the paper was to seek possible relationships between work ethic and motivation to work. A hypothesis was put forward that work ethic, in the classical Weberian approach, is connected with ...
(PDF) Work Ethics and Employees' Job Performance
work ethics. The extent to which employee encourages in tegrity, sense of responsibility, quality, self. discipline and sense of teamwork in work discha rge determine either strong work ethics or ...
Work Ethics and Ethical Attitudes among Healthcare Professionals: The
Various research papers have examined and practically evaluated the value of work ethic [20,21,22,23]. The association between work ethic, on the one hand, and attitudes and behaviors, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of the work ethic construct. ... Other research studies are suggested in this scope to tailor and validate a work ...
Full article: HR system and work ethics: A systematic review
This paper aims to provide an overview of the HR system and work ethics by synthesizing a variety of conceptualizations from articles published between 2012 and 2022. ... In conclusion, our systematic review on HR systems and work ethics aimed to examine the research themes, methods, and contexts of this field while proposing a future research ...
Ethics and the Future of Meaningful Work: Introduction to the Special
Each article in this issue takes a unique approach to addressing these topics, with some emphasizing ethics while others focus on the future aspects of meaningful work. Taken together, the papers indicate future research directions with regard to: (a) the meaning of meaningful work, (b) the future of meaningful work, and (c) how we can study ...
Challenging the dominant work ethic: Work, naps, and productivity of
A critique of such a work ethic can be seen in various traditions of refusal of work. The refusal of work and authority is the beginning of liberatory politics, the valorisation of human activities which have escaped from labour's domination (Berardi, 2009; Hardt and Negri, 2000).Frayne (2015) sees the critique of the work ethic and refusal of work as a path to social innovation as a vision ...
Judging severity of unethical workplace behavior: Attractiveness and
Unethical behaviors can cause severe damage to organizations, the economy, and society as a whole (Jacobs et al., 2014).Organizational unethical behavior is defined as actions taken by a member of the firm in violation of accepted norms (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Rest, 1986).Ethics has attracted much attention in the organizational literature, with previous studies mostly concerned with ...
The Effect of Work Ethics of Employees on Their Work Performance
The study determined the effect of the work ethics of employees on their work performance. The literature review was undertaken to deepen the concept and establish the theories of the study. Descriptive assessment and correlational research design were applied.
A Quantitative Study of the Relationship of Work Ethic, Worker
or work ethic and job satisfaction in the Native Hawaiian population. The literature on work ethic included researchers who used Mirels and Garrett's (1971) Protestant Work Ethic scale to determine the work behaviors of various classes and cultures of individuals (Cokley et al., 2007; Frey et al., 2009). There is no research on the work ethic of
Workplace Ethics Research Papers
View Workplace Ethics Research Papers on Academia.edu for free. ... It will begin by exploring a Hindu spirituality of work based on Bhagavadgita. The paper will analyze salient ideas and relevant passages in the text that tackle the religio-spiritual significance of our daily engagement in the world through paid work from a Hindu perspective ...
(PDF) The Impact of Work Ethics on Performance Using Job Satisfaction
The findings, based on the response rate of 76% (304 of the 400) of the questionnaires successfully collected and ready for analysis, are that not all dimensions of multidimensional work ethic ...
Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point
The aim of the research described in the paper was to seek possible relationships between work ethic and motivation to work. A hypothesis was put forward that work ethic, in the classical Weberian approach, is connected with motivation to work, from the point of view of Ryan's and Deci's self-determination theory.
Work ethics and employees job performance
According to Hubert et al. (2007), Ethics is the collection of values and norms, functioning as standards or yardstick for assessing the integrity of individual conduct. It defines what make behaviour to be right or wrong (Fajana, 2006). Ethical behaviour defines within a context or setting what is acceptable or not.
The Ethics of Research, Writing, and Publication
According to Resnik (2011), many people think of ethics as a set of rules distinguishing right from wrong, but actually the term "ethics" refers to norms of conduct or of action and in disciplines of study. Research ethics or norms promote the "knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error" (p. 1) and protect against "fabricating ...
The Effect of Work Ethics of Employees on their Work Performance
This paper discussed how work ethic affects workers job performance by evaluating how either strong work ethics (SWE) or weak work ethics (WWE) can contribute to encouraging or discouraging workers job performance. ... From the research results, work ethics have a positive and significant effect on employee performance. Meanwhile, the work ...
Inculcating Professional Ethics among Employees in the Workplace: A
research papers, and websites were used in this study, ... Work ethics, attitudes and values can be influenced by the organization, through interventions like training, motivation and coaching ...
Ethical Considerations in Research
Revised on May 9, 2024. Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people. The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments ...
Ethics at Workplace
Good ethics have a beneficial effect on organizational well being. It helps in productivity improvement, risk reduction, better relations with customers and clients and an increasing flow of communication. This paper explores some of the ethical dilemmas encountered in the workplace and the ethical behaviour and values that relate to HR.
Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for
Public engagement with research (PEwR) has become increasingly integral to research practices. This paper explores the process and outcomes of a collaborative effort to address the ethical implications of PEwR activities and develop tools to navigate them within the context of a University Medical School. The activities this paper reflects on aimed to establish boundaries between research data ...
The ethico-politics of design toolkits: responsible AI tools ...
This paper interrogates the belief in toolkitting as a method for translating AI ethics theory into practice and assesses the toolkit paradigm's effect on the understanding of ethics in AI research and AI-related policy. Drawing on a meta-review of existing 'toolkit-scoping' work, I demonstrate that most toolkits embody a reductionist conception of ethics and that, because of this, their ...
Quality Work Ethics and Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis
V ol. 20, No. 168/ February 2019. Quality Work Ethics and Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis. Shrikant Krupasindhu P ANIGRAHI 1, Hatem Mahmoud AL-NASHASH2. 1 Corresponding author, Faculty of ...
Work Ethic Research Papers
Data Ethics builds on the foundation provided by Computer and Information Ethics but, at the same time, it refines the approach endorsed so far in this research field, by shifting the Level of Abstraction of ethical enquiries, from being information-centric to being data-centric.
Title page setup
For a professional paper, the affiliation is the institution at which the research was conducted. Include both the name of any department and the name of the college, university, or other institution, separated by a comma. Center the affiliation on the next double-spaced line after the author names; when there are multiple affiliations, center ...
Understanding the Meaning and Significance of Work Ethics
The main objective of this research paper is to acquire an efficient understanding in terms of meaning and significance of work ethics. It is comprehensively understood that when the individuals ...

Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point of view of the self-determination theory

Introduction

Work ethic as a system of attitudes and beliefs

Work ethic and motivation to work. Self-determination theory

Research questions and hypotheses.

Materials and methods

Data analysis.

Canonical correlation analysis.

Preliminary analyses

Results of Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA)

Discussion and conclusions

Supporting information

S2 Table. Correlations between dimensions of work ethic and components of motivation to work.

S3 Table. Work ethic and motivation.

Acknowledgments

The Effect of Work Ethics of Employees on Their Work Performance

Damianus Abun

Damianus Abun (Contact Author)

Relationships between work ethic and motivation to work from the point of view of the self-determination theory

Agata Chudzicka-Czupała

Associated Data

Introduction

Work ethic as a system of attitudes and beliefs

Work ethic and motivation to work. Self-determination theory

Research questions and hypotheses

Materials and methods

Data analysis

Canonical correlation analysis

Preliminary analyses

Results of Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA)

Discussion and conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Funding Statement

Data Availability

Have a language expert improve your writing

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Table of contents

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Research misconduct

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement

Plain English summary

Introduction

About this paper

Developing specific tools for PEWR in ethics

Our process

Further considerations and early results

Final reflections

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Additional information

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Material 1

About this article

Share this article

Research Involvement and Engagement

Title Page Setup

Student title page

Related handouts

Professional title page

IMAGES

COMMENTS