Examining Chinese social sciences graduate students' understanding of research ethics: implications for their research ethics education

In many developed countries (e.g., the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom), social sciences researchers must obtain ethical approvals for studies involving human subjects, governed by federal regulations to protect participants' privacy and rights. In China and many developing countries, such reviews are generally not mandatory, though some institutions have begun establishing Research Ethics Committees (RECs). Given China's rapidly developing social sciences research landscape and limited REC coverage, this study examines Chinese social sciences graduate students' understanding of research ethics to inform research ethics education. The study asks four research questions: (a) What is the impact of gender and prior empirical research experience on students' understanding of researchers' ethical responsibilities? (b) What is the impact of gender and prior empirical research experience on students' understanding of human subjects' ethical awareness? (c) Why are ethical reviews important for research involving human subjects? (d) How should research ethics education be promoted for social sciences graduate students?

Research ethics education is standard in developed countries to develop students' responsibilities and ethical awareness. Core domains include informed consent (providing detailed information and ensuring voluntariness; consent by adults or legally authorized representatives), privacy and confidentiality (anonymity, group-level reporting, disclosure of limits to confidentiality), risk and harm minimization (special care for vulnerable populations; assessing seriousness and mitigation of risks), and integrity (honest and accurate data collection/analysis; avoiding plagiarism, duplicate submissions, inappropriate authorship, and unauthorized instrument use). Gender has often been examined in business ethics with mixed findings; some report women respond more ethically, others find no differences, and social desirability may confound results. There is limited research on gender effects in research ethics in other social sciences; Huang et al. (2021) found gender impacted perceptions. In developing countries, emerging work (e.g., China, Lebanon, Qatar, South Africa) has explored research ethics, with prior Chinese mixed-methods results showing basic understanding of responsibilities and awareness. This study advances that work by focusing on Chinese social sciences graduate students across multiple disciplines and institutions.

Ethical review: The study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) at the authors' organization (ERCEA, Jiangsu University), one of few social sciences RECs in Chinese universities. Instruments and data collection: A 29-item five-point Likert research ethics scale (Huang et al., 2021) assessed understanding of researchers' ethical responsibilities (17 items) and human subjects' ethical awareness (12 items). The original scale demonstrated strong reliability (alpha=0.92) and construct validity; in this study psychometrics were re-examined. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 30 selected participants meeting criteria: completion of the scale, from different universities, and representing majors in teacher education, English education, management, and economics. Eight interview questions targeted the importance of ethical reviews and ways to promote research ethics education. Data were collected electronically via WeChat with informed consent, voluntary participation, and confidentiality assurances. Participants: N=463 graduate students from 12 universities in central and eastern China; majors: teacher education, English education, management, economics. Gender: 115 male, 344 female. Research experience: 242 with prior empirical human-subjects research experience (87 male, 155 female); 221 without (32 male, 189 female). Interview subsample: N=30 (7 male, 21 female); 18 with experience, 12 without. Data analysis: Quantitative analyses in SPSS included exploratory factor analysis (EFA; maximum likelihood, promax rotation), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), descriptive statistics, and two 2x2 factorial ANOVAs (gender x experience) with dependent variables: ethical responsibilities and ethical awareness. Qualitative analysis involved two coders independently color-coding interview responses, organizing content by research question, categorizing into themes and subthemes, then reconciling codes and extracting recurring themes. Representative quotes were included to enhance validity. Frequencies and percentages for each theme were calculated.

Psychometrics: EFA supported two factors (researchers' ethical responsibilities; participants' ethical awareness). KMO=0.93; two factors with eigenvalues >1; scree plot supported two-factor solution; 61.96% variance explained. All item loadings >0.30. Reliability was high: overall alpha=0.97; responsibilities subscale alpha=0.97; awareness subscale alpha=0.90. Descriptives: For the responsibilities subscale, 14/17 items had mean >4/5, indicating fairly good understanding but room for improvement. For awareness, 7/12 items had mean >4, while 5 items were <4, suggesting need for enhanced participant ethical awareness. ANOVAs (gender x experience):

• Ethical responsibilities: Significant main effect of prior empirical research experience: experienced mean=74.38 vs inexperienced mean=68.46; p<0.01; effect size=0.035. No significant main effect of gender. Significant gender-by-experience interaction driven by females: experienced females mean=76.07 vs inexperienced females mean=65.53; p<0.01; effect size=0.022. No significant difference for males (experienced mean=72.70 vs inexperienced mean=71.38).
• Ethical awareness: Significant main effect of experience: experienced mean=49.68 vs inexperienced mean=46.55; p<0.01; effect size=0.023. No significant main effect of gender. Significant gender-by-experience interaction for females: experienced females mean=51.20 vs inexperienced females mean=44.47; p<0.01; effect size=0.030. No significant difference for males (experienced mean=48.15 vs inexperienced mean=48.63). Interviews (N=30): Importance of ethics reviews—recurring themes and frequencies: protecting participants' dignity, interests, and rights (80%); avoiding conflicts of interest (60%); ensuring reliability and validity of findings (50%); protecting participants from harm and risks (83.3%); protecting researchers from harm and risks (40%); making researchers abide by research ethics (73.3%). Recommendations to promote research ethics education: making ethics reviews mandatory for human-subjects research (100%); including ethics topics/materials in research methods courses (70%); offering special ethics training workshops (66.7%); university-wide discussions on special ethics cases (60%); guiding students through ethics review processes with supervision and support (50%).

The study shows Chinese social sciences graduate students possess a fairly good, though not comprehensive, understanding of researchers' ethical responsibilities and participants' ethical awareness, indicating a need for further ethics education. Prior empirical research experience significantly enhances both ethical responsibilities understanding and ethical awareness, underscoring the role of hands-on involvement in shaping ethics knowledge and sensitivity. Gender did not show a main effect; however, a significant gender-by-experience interaction emerged for females—female students with experience scored higher than female students without experience—while no such effect was observed among males. These patterns differ from Huang et al. (2021), potentially due to broader sampling across 12 universities and multiple disciplines and the use of interviews providing more in-depth qualitative insights. Interview findings affirm the recognized importance of ethics reviews for safeguarding participants, ensuring methodological rigor, and supporting researchers' adherence to ethical standards. Recommendations from participants align with literature and translate into practical steps for institutions: establishing and mandating REC processes, integrating ethics into curricula, providing workshops and case-based discussions, and offering supervisory guidance through review procedures.

This study expands prior work by validating a two-factor research ethics scale among a larger, multidisciplinary cohort of Chinese social sciences graduate students, demonstrating strong psychometrics and identifying the pivotal role of prior empirical research experience in enhancing ethics understanding and awareness. It documents students' recognition of the importance of ethics reviews and outlines actionable strategies to strengthen research ethics education in Chinese higher education: establishing and mandating REC reviews, embedding ethics into research methods instruction, offering targeted training and case discussions, and providing guided support through review processes. Future research should further investigate the existence and sources of gender differences in research ethics, including potential social desirability biases, and explore how varied experiential learning opportunities influence ethics competencies across disciplines.

The study does not report extensive limitations but acknowledges the need for future research to determine whether gender differences in research ethics genuinely exist and, if so, whether they arise inherently from gender or are attributable to factors such as social desirability response bias. The findings are situated within Chinese social sciences graduate programs, which may limit generalizability beyond this context.