1. Introduction
Ethical conduct forms the backbone of credible and responsible educational research. Among the most influential scholars in research methodology, John W. Creswell has provided a comprehensive framework for understanding and applying ethical principles throughout the research process. Across his works — including Research Design (Creswell & Creswell, 2023), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Creswell, 2018), and Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (Creswell & Poth, 2018) — Creswell consistently emphasizes that ethics must guide all stages of research, from conceptualization and data collection to analysis, interpretation, and dissemination. His contributions reflect a pragmatic and reflective approach to ethics that aligns both with institutional expectations and with the moral obligation researchers have toward participants, especially minors in educational settings.
2. Ethics as Integral to the Research Design Process
For Creswell, ethical reflection is not an afterthought, but a core element of research design. Ethical principles are embedded within decisions about research purpose, methods, sampling, and dissemination (Creswell, 2018). He argues that ethical practice should be “woven into every phase of inquiry” rather than being restricted to institutional review protocols. This integration ensures that research validity is linked to moral integrity — a study cannot be methodologically sound if it is ethically compromised.
Creswell identifies three primary domains of ethical concern:
-
The researcher’s relationship with participants;
-
The integrity of data collection and interpretation; and
-
The responsible communication of findings (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Each of these domains requires ongoing ethical sensitivity, where researchers engage reflexively with the potential impact of their choices on participants, institutions, and wider society.
3. Respect for Participants and Informed Consent
A cornerstone of Creswell’s ethical framework is respect for human dignity, particularly in research involving vulnerable populations such as children or marginalized learners. He stresses the importance of informed consent, which entails not merely obtaining a signature, but ensuring that participants “fully understand the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits” of the study (Creswell, 2018, p. 92).
In educational research with minors, Creswell advises obtaining both parental consent and child assent, ensuring that children voluntarily participate and comprehend, in age-appropriate language, what the research entails (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). This aligns with international ethical standards such as the Belmont Report (1979) and BERA (2018) guidelines, which emphasize voluntary participation, comprehension, and the right to withdraw.
Creswell (2018) also warns against coercion, noting that school settings may inherently pressure students to comply with teachers or authority figures. Hence, he calls for extra care in explaining that participation is optional and confidential, and that declining will not result in academic or social disadvantage.
4. Avoiding Harm and Ensuring Beneficence
Echoing the Belmont Report’s principle of beneficence, Creswell insists that researchers must anticipate and minimize potential harm while maximizing potential benefits (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Harm in educational research may be psychological, social, or reputational, particularly when sensitive topics such as bullying, failure, or identity are studied (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Researchers are thus encouraged to design studies that safeguard participant well-being through careful question formulation, anonymous data handling, and debriefing. Creswell also advocates for “ongoing consent,” where participants are regularly reminded of their rights as the study progresses, ensuring that ethical responsibility extends beyond the initial consent process.
By linking beneficence to methodological rigour, Creswell makes clear that ethical vigilance enhances rather than constrains scientific quality — since ethical lapses often distort data and erode trust.
5. Confidentiality and Data Integrity
Creswell gives particular attention to confidentiality and data integrity, recognizing that participants’ trust hinges on the responsible management of personal information. He emphasizes that researchers must anonymize identifying details, use pseudonyms, and secure data in password-protected or encrypted storage systems (Creswell, 2018).
In qualitative research, where rich contextual detail may inadvertently reveal identities, Creswell (2018) recommends deliberate masking of contextual cues and avoiding verbatim quotations that could identify participants. He also underscores the researcher’s moral obligation to accurately represent participants’ voices and avoid “selective reporting” that could distort meaning or misrepresent participants’ perspectives.
Moreover, Creswell introduces the concept of data stewardship — the ethical responsibility to manage, store, and dispose of data in ways that uphold participant dignity and comply with institutional and legal frameworks, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018).
6. Reflexivity and Researcher Positionality
Creswell’s approach to ethics extends beyond procedural compliance to include personal reflexivity — the continuous examination of how the researcher’s background, beliefs, and power influence the research process (Creswell & Poth, 2018). He argues that ethical research demands self-awareness: acknowledging biases, reflecting on how interpretations are shaped by the researcher’s worldview, and remaining open to participants’ perspectives.
This aligns with the interpretivist principle of “ethical subjectivity,” in which researchers see themselves not as detached observers but as moral agents embedded in social contexts (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Ethical reflexivity thus becomes a form of intellectual honesty — a safeguard against misuse of power or misrepresentation of participants’ realities.
7. Ethical Reporting and Dissemination of Findings
According to Creswell, ethical responsibility extends into how research is reported and shared. Misuse or misrepresentation of findings can cause harm as profound as unethical data collection. Hence, he advocates for transparency in reporting — clearly outlining research limitations, avoiding sensationalism, and ensuring findings are presented respectfully and constructively (Creswell, 2018).
When publishing or presenting data about schools, communities, or individuals, researchers must avoid language that stigmatizes participants or communities. Creswell (2018) further warns against “overgeneralization” — drawing sweeping conclusions from limited samples — as this can perpetuate bias and undermine educational equity.
Ethical dissemination also includes returning results to participants and institutions in accessible formats, a practice Creswell regards as both ethically and pedagogically valuable.
8. Institutional Ethics and the Researcher’s Moral Agency
Creswell recognizes the role of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and ethics committees in safeguarding research integrity, yet he cautions that ethical responsibility cannot be outsourced to institutions alone (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). While formal approval ensures compliance, true ethical practice relies on the researcher’s moral agency — their capacity for empathy, integrity, and accountability.
In Creswell’s view, ethics in education is an ongoing dialogue between rules and values, requiring both procedural adherence and moral imagination. This dynamic understanding ensures that researchers remain responsive to the unique contexts and lived realities of participants, particularly children and marginalized groups.
9. Conclusion
Creswell’s ethical framework provides an enduring guide for educational researchers. His insistence that ethics permeate every stage of research underscores that integrity and validity are inseparable. By foregrounding informed consent, beneficence, confidentiality, reflexivity, and responsible dissemination, Creswell equips researchers to balance scientific curiosity with social responsibility.
In educational research — especially involving minors — Creswell’s ethics reminds scholars that their ultimate duty is not merely to generate knowledge but to protect, respect, and empower participants. Ethical research, in his view, is a moral and pedagogical act that affirms the dignity of every learner.
References
-
Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
-
British Educational Research Association (BERA). (2018). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th ed.). London: BERA.
-
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
-
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (2018). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
-
National Research Council. (2003). Protecting Participants and Facilitating Social and Behavioral Sciences Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
