Why a Code of Ethics for Practice, Research, Publications (including proposals and presentations) at the Religious Education Association (REA)?
The REA is a guild for scholars and practitioners in the field of religious education. Much of the scholarly work of the REA is shared and embedded in the Annual Conference and the Religious Education Journal through the contributions of our membership. To ensure the highest standards for scholarship which reflects the cutting edge research and work of our global membership, we ask any person submitting a proposal or article for review and inclusion in the Annual Conference, or the Journal to abide by the standards stated in this document, and by extension, the standards of our publishing partners. This Code of Ethics for Proposals, Research, and Publications is the twin document to the REA Code of Conduct.
The Religious Education Journal and Horizons in Religious Education
The REA has two avenues for publication. The first is the Religious Education Journal, published through Taylor & Francis. The second is Horizons in Religious Education, published through Wipf and Stock. Both Taylor & Francis and Wipf and Stock have their own codes of conduct that are related to publishing and research integrity, along with accompanying standards. The REA Code of Ethics does not supersede what is already in place through Taylor & Francis or Wipf and Stock, their stakeholder partners, and their rigorous processes for submission and publications. Rather, The REA Code of Ethics supports what publishing partners have already established on their own websites.
Shared Values for Research and Publications of the REA
Author, Presenter, and Researcher Responsibilities.
The section below describes the responsibilities of authors, presenters, and researchers who submit proposals and presentations for the Annual Conference, as well as articles for publication to the Religious Education Journal and Horizons for review and publication.
The REA values anti-colonial and de-colonial approaches to its ongoing work. This occurs in the context of both conferences and publications. What this means is that REA holds as valuable the re-centering and intentional engagement of minoritized epistemologies, including voices, histories, cultures, identities, and perspectives. One of the ways the guild strives to incorporate anti-colonial and de-colonial values is through the use of a JEDI Lens in its governances and activities. For the Code of Ethics, there are three areas that are highlighted, and which express the sum of these shared values. They are: 1) honesty; 2) care; and 3) informational justice.
Honesty – Attending to Plagiarism and Attribution:
Plagiarism. Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty. A proposal for an Annual Meeting, a presentation, or an article submitted to the Journal for consideration must contain no form of plagiarism, falsification, or fabrication of materials. Spoken, recorded, written work, research, images, or any other data that culminates from research and study, and does not belong to the author, must include proper tracible citation. Any inclusion of the author’s previously published work must also include a proper citation. Furthermore, any submission to the REA for selection, presentation, or publication must follow the guidelines set forth by the conference Chairs, and/or the REA Journal, Horizons, and their publishing partners; and it must be original work. For questions about the inclusion of third-party materials and associated permissions, please consult the Taylor and Francis and Wipf and Stock standards.
These are examples of reflection questions which concern REA aligned values on this issue:
- Is this work researched or written by me and/or my co-authors uniquely, and in its entirety?
- Are all necessary attributions included in this body of work?
- Do I require any additional permissions to use any third party materials, such as art, social media posts, screenshots, and images in a publication?
Co-Authorship. Proposals, presentations, or articles that are co-authored should represent the significant contributions of all authors involved. Each author should take credit only for the work they have contributed to the submission. For example, Taylor and Francis defines co-authorship as, “Any person who has made a significant contribution to an article in the Journal. They also share responsibility and accountability for the results of the published research”. Senior scholars and practitioners who are writing and researching with students and early career practitioners and scholars, and who are employing co-authorship, should attribute contributions made by said students and colleagues, both properly and explicitly. There are different levels of explicit and implicit structural power embedded in collaborative research and writing endeavors. The REA asks members who participate in collaborative efforts to acknowledge and examine existing power dynamics. They should pursue their scholarship equitably.
These are examples of reflection questions which concern REA aligned values on this matter:
- Can I name the significant contributions of my research and writing partners? What are they? How are they represented explicitly in these written materials?
- What are the implicit and explicit power dynamics that exist between myself and my partners? Explicitness can include an evident difference in professional rank. Implicitness can be a marker of one’s identity that is not obvious to readers, but which makes an impact on the execution, perception, and evaluation of your collaborative work.
Artificial Intelligence (AI). Artificial intelligence is widely available for use in daily life and is changing constantly. Though artificial intelligence is growing rapidly and changing as an effective tool for writing and editing, there is still much that is being learned and is unknown about the fair use and role of AI as part of research, writing, and scholarship.
At this time, the REA expects the submission of any written proposal, presentation, or article, to originate from the author’s sole efforts, without the use of AI. For example, an author or researcher might use AI, such as Grammarly.com to edit a document for grammar and syntax. However, they should refrain from using AI in the form of ChatGPT to write or co-write a text they intend to publish. As a research and writing tool, AI is not confidential, and it does not protect the data or personal information that emerges from participants and their stories. The submission of any work that is found to be written by AI will be rejected.
There is a significant difference, however, in a person who employs the services of an editor, or who uses a translator (where English is not their first language), when seeking assistance in scholarly writing. In this case, a writer is expected to acknowledge the contribution of these professionals in their submitted proposal or article. The procedures for doing so will be directed by the editor of the REA Journal, and of HORIZONS, as applicable.
These are examples of reflection questions which concern REA aligned values on this issue:
Did I use AI tools to create, evaluate, and/or edit my submission?
- If AI tools were used, which tools were used as part of my submitted work?
- Are the AI tools, such as Grammarly.com, AI helper in Microsoft Word, and Google Doc, used and integrated explicitly at my institution’s library and writing center? In contrast, are these tools third party sites that exist outside of my institutional subscriptions, such as Chat GPT?
Care – Informed Consent, Institutional Review Board (IRB), and Harm Reduction:
Much of the research conducted to seed proposals for presentations and articles at the REA includes research with and among people who are minoritized and impacted by intersectional forms of injustice, either systematically and structurally, or who are minors. Depending on the methodology and approach, research conducted by religious educators can help and/or perpetuate current and historic harm to people and communities experiencing systemic and structural injustices.
Therefore, informed consent before research begins is necessary for reducing harm. All research with human collaborators and their communities, whether presented at the annual conference or published as part of the Journal, must abide with a standard of informed consent that is voluntary for every step, specific to the research engaged, and given without any coercion or bribery. Informed consent can include accountability and vetting through an Institutional Review Board (IRB), or at the researcher’s home institution, when it is deemed necessary to protect minors and other minoritized and global majority populations and participants. For information specific to the Journal, please refer to the Taylor & Francis document, Research Ethics Guidelines for Arts, Humanities, and Social Science Journals. For information on submissions and publications through Horizons, please refer to the Wipf and Stock Author Guide.
Proposals, presentations, and articles submitted to the REA reflect how research with and among minoritized and global majority people, and minors actively engages in harm reduction, and the inclusion of participants’ validation of the presented data. Participant validation of the data that a researcher intends to share with the REA is part of the project’s viability and its methodological practice.
These are examples of reflection questions which concern REA aligned values on this matter:
- In what ways does my research and presentation of data and findings protect the communities and people who participated?
- In what ways have I validated my findings with participants and their communities or accountability?
- As a researcher, how am I accountable to participants and their communities regarding how their contributions are included in this body of work?
- What steps have I taken to reduce harm in my research, data collection, and writing process actively, and how have I shared these processes with my participants in an explicit way?
Informational Justice – Transparency, Accessibility, and Reciprocity:
Informational justice includes, but is not limited to, transparency in communication, accurate and timely dissemination of information, and accessible feedback loops. The REA abides by informational justice. Where proposals, presentations, and article submissions are concerned, this involves ensuring that presentations, research, data, and publications are accurate and transparent in their methodology and approach. Informational justice also includes taking any and all protections that are necessary to safeguard participants’ shared data, including their images, names, and stories.
Transparency requires that all information shared in an Annual Conference, or in the context of the Journal are readily accessible to the membership and to persons beyond the REA. Reciprocity is also a commitment shared within the REA. As researchers and educators working with minoritized communities and people, we acknowledge that epistemological extraction is a persistent threat. Therefore, the priority and standard by which REA operates involves building reciprocity by sharing wisdom and knowledge, and giving back to the communities and people with whom we partner in research.
These are examples of reflection questions which concern REA aligned values on this issue:
- How does my work reflect informational justice through transparency and feedback loops?
- How is my work accessible to different audiences?
- How does my work contribute back to the communities and people who offered their wisdom, knowledge, and time in explicit ways?
Concluding Comments
This Code of Ethics embodies the values of the Religious Education Association which concern Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. It can be considered as the “spirit” of the “law” or practice about which our community is concerned, grounding a community in the aims which undergird its existence, and evolving over time.