DNA research is providing new challenges to the myths, legends and past approaches to genealogy

The ‘Journal of the Fitzpatrick Clan Society’ (2021) … Dr Mike Fitzpatrick challenges some myths and legends of the origins of the Brennan families

Patrick Comerford

It is always interesting, in academic terms, to see how other historians and genealogists carry out their research and check their sources. And – setting aside personal vanity – it is always rewarding, in an academic terms, to see how my own research is referenced by other researchers in their papers.

In recent days, my attention has been drawn to ‘The Similar-Sounding Surnames of Haplogroup R-BY140757,’ a paper last year by Dr Mike Fitzpatrick of the University of Auckland, and published in the Journal of the Fitzpatrick Clan Society 2 (2021), pp 1-41.

Y-DNA analysis is a remarkable method that can inform patrilineal genealogies, both ancient, and modern. Applied here to facilitate a critical review of Branan pedigrees, an analysis of haplogroup R-BY140757 results in a deep questioning of the dominant narratives of the O’Braonáin Uí Dhuach (O’Brenan of Idough). What results is a disruption of those narratives that is total.

The O’Braonáin Uí Dhuach were long said by historians of Ossory to share descent from Cearbhall, King of Ossory (843-888 AD). However, the ultimate genealogical authority of Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh led to the argument that these families are not of Ossory descent, but are an Uí Failghi tribe.

As he set out on his research, Mike Fitzpatrick realised than Y-DNA connections between Branans, or those with similar-sounding surnames such as Brennan, and other connected families, are a false trail for those who claim descent from Cearbhall.

Once Mac Fhirbhisigh is embraced, he found, and the erroneous pedigrees of the O’Braonáin Uí Dhuach are set aside, the origins of men with the name Branan, and similar-sounding surnames, of haplogroup R-BY140757, can be correctly determined.

With an analysis of Y-DNA haplotype research, Dr Fitzpatrick has concluded the origins of these families are not with the O’Braonáin of Uí Dhuach, or any Irish clan. ‘Rather, haplotype R-BY140757 appears to have originated from a family who settled near Braham, in Suffolk, after the Norman conquest of England.’

He identifies the key figure in the appearance of R-BY140757 pedigrees in Ireland as Sir Robert de Braham, who was Sheriff of Kilkenny ca 1250.

Genealogists constantly face a battle of the brains with families who continue to prefer to perpetuate myths about family origins, repeated and retold over the generations and down through time, instead of accepting research that uses the accepted tools of modern historical research that demands primary sources and refuses to accept past genealogical constructs that satisfied the vanities of family members in the past.

All genealogists working on the stories of families know the pitfalls of accepting the family trees and pedigrees confirmed in the past by the Ulster Office of Arms or repeated uncritically by John O’Hart and even in volumes such as Burke’s Peerage and Burke’s Landed Gentry.

Although I have constantly produced evidence for the origins of the Comerford family in Co Kilkenny and south-east Ireland, the old tales keep being peddled on many websites that rely on a ‘copy-and-past’ approach rather than genuine historical research as they sell their cheap name books and tardy mass-produced coats of arms and so-called heraldic scrolls.

In my research, I have had to cast a critical eye on the research and work of even more recent historians, including Canon William Carrigan, despite his often-painstaking work in compiling his four-volume History of the Diocese of Ossory, published in 1905.

Mike Fitzpatrick’s research came to my attention recently because he refers to an earlier paper in 2005 in which I drew attention to the way Carrigan avoided a critical approach to the lives of clergy in his diocese, including Edmund Comerford, Bishop of Ferns and Dean of Ossory, and his son, William Comerford, Dean of Ossory, who is described in many places as the bishop’s newphew rather than son.

Drawing on my paper, published as ‘The last pre-reformation Bishop of Ferns and his ‘nephew’, the Dean of Ossory,’ in the Journal of the Wexford Historical Society, 20 (2005), pp 156-172, Fitzpatrick concedes that Carrigan is ‘excellent in many respects,’ but agrees that he ‘was possibly also subject to conflicts of interest; he was a sidestepper of unbecoming acts by clergy.’

He also says Carrigan ‘avoided an exposition of the clerical lineages of Mac Giolla Phádraig Osraí,’ the FitzPatricks of Ossory, ‘which must have been known to him,’ although he concedes that ‘the suite of Papal records available to Carrigan was not as complete as it is today.’

Dr Fitzpatrick’s methodology and approach are important advances in genealogical research. In a paper this year, co-authored with Dan Fitzpatrick and Ian Fitzpatrick, he develops his scientific approaches to challenging traditional but myth-laden and fact-denying constructions of family trees and pedigrees.

Their latest paper, ‘Mac Giolla Phádraig Dál gCais: an ancient clan rediscovered,’ is published in the Journal of the Fitzpatrick Clan Society 2022 (3), pp 1-45.

They say that Y-DNA analysis of Fitzpatricks has turned traditional historical narratives of how the surname was taken on its head. ‘The attachment of the surname Fitzpatrick to the Barons of Upper Ossory, who were supposedly the descendants of Mac Giolla Phádraig Osraí and, in turn, of an ancient [Leinster] lineage, is no longer sustainable.’

They go on to say that ‘DNA insights and critical assessment of historical records have demonstrated that those who claim to descend from the barons [of Upper Ossory] have a Y-haplotype consistent with them emerging from a line of clerics out of a Norman-Irish origin ca 1200 AD.’

They say that questions now arise ‘regarding the origins of other large Fitzpatrick groups who, based on Y-DNA, can be shown to descend from ancient Irish.’ And they ask, ‘Could any of these lines descend from the Mac Giolla Phádraig Osraí of old, those of Annalistic fame?’

They question the origins of the Mac Giolla Phádraig or Fitzpatrick family that claimed an ancient lineage with origins in Ossory. They say their questions radically disrupt traditional narratives, point how ‘sound historical, genealogical, and name occurrence evidence supports the view’ that there is no need to adhere to a singular patrimony for the Mac Giolla Phádraig Osraí or Fitzpatricks of Ossory.

Instead, they show in their latest paper, the FitzPatricks of Ossory ‘are Dál gCais on a genetic basis since, via their paternal haplotype, they share common ancestry with Brian Bóruma, High King of Ireland.’

The descendants of those Mac Giolla Phádraig Dál gCais feature through ancient records for Co Clare and are still found in the county, yet, they suggest many derive from lines that were dispersed from their ancient Clare homelands in the 17th century.

From Co Clare to the Aran Islands, and Co Galway, and – one way or another – on to Mayo and Roscommon, ‘they are a great and ancient Mac Giolla Phádraig Clan,’ they say, ‘who at times held much wealth, power, and influence. And some were smugglers!’

Their work is a challenge to the way Irish genealogists have worked in the past, and is a pioneering approach to genealogical research in Ireland.

There are some interesting inter-marriages between the Comerford family of Ballybur and the FitzPatricks of Ossory. For example, Richard Comerford (1564-1637), of Ballybur Castle was the father of Ellinor Comerford, who married her second cousin, the Hon Dermot FitzPatrick, son of Thady FitzPatrick, 4th Baron Upper Ossory. Anne Langton, who married James Comerford of the Butterlsip, Kilkenny, was a half-sister of Mary Fitzpatrick, who also lived at the Butterslip.

But for some of the details of Ellinor Comerford and Dermot Fitzpatrick I have relied in the past on Carrigan, and the pedigrees of the FitzPatricks of Gowran and Upper Ossory in Burke’s Extinct Peerage and the Complete Peerage. I may have to revisit some of those sources in time.

The ‘Journal of the Fitzpatrick Clan Society’ (2022) … Dr Mike Fitzpatrick challenges some myths and legends of the origins of the FitzPatrick families of Upper Ossory

Why academics should resist these tempting invitations from predatory journals

Predatory Publishing … an image from the website ‘The Scholarly Kitchen’

Patrick Comerford

I was cleaning out my Spam folder in my email account the other day when I came across an interesting invitation. At first I was surprised. Had I simply emptied my Spam folder without going through each message individually, I might have missed an invitation to contribute articles to the International Journal of Philosophy and to join the journal’s editorial board and reviewer team.

The invitation certainly managed to massage my ego … well, at least for a moment or two. I rescued the email from the Spam folder, and started to read it with a little more attention.

The message claimed the International Journal of Philosophy (IJP) ‘is a double-anonymous peer reviewed international scientific journal. Our journal is created with the goal of facilitating academic communications in fields related to philosophy.’

It seems the invitation had come my way because people at the journal had ‘noticed that your published work titled ‘For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church’ has caught great attention.’ They told me they feel honoured ‘if you could contribute articles to our journal and join the Editorial Board/Reviewer Team.’

Was I being asked to join the ‘Editorial Board’ or the ‘Editorial Committee’ of the International Journal of Philosophy? Why did they feel so honoured, after all my paper has been published only recently in the in the current edition of Studies in Christian Ethics.

Studies in Christian Ethics is the leading English-language journal in theological ethics in Europe. It offers first-rate work by British theologians and ethicists, but also showcases the best in North American and Continental scholarship in the field.

However, my paper in this journal makes no reference to my academic qualifications, experience or background, and simply identifies me as of ‘Saint Mary’s Cathedral, Limerick.’ There are no references to my degrees, previous books and papers, to the places where I have worked as an academic, or the reasons why the editors and reviewers of Studies in Christian Ethics thought I was the appropriate person to write this paper.

I read the invitation more carefully.

I was addressed ‘Dear Comerford, P,’ and the author of the letter signed off ‘Assistant, Editorial Office of International Journal of Philosophy’. I had no titles or qualifications, not even a full first name; the writer of the letter had no name at all, and did no reveal his or her qualifications. Yet, I was being told, ‘In light of your academic background and experience, we invite you to contribute other unpublished manuscripts of relevant fields to the journal.’

Indeed, I do not even know where they are based or where they are writing from.

I was also ‘advised to encourage students and colleagues around you to use this journal, help manuscript submissions from potential authors, and cite the published papers in the journal.’

My ego is easily massaged, but was I as honoured as my correspondent was, this anonymous letter writer who assures me, ‘on behalf of the Editorial Board of the journal,’ that ‘it is honored for us to invite you to join our team as one of the editorial board members/reviewers.’

I was told I could ‘refer to this link to know more about us’: http://www.intjphil.org/jyip3/fzqva.

Well, it seems anyone can join their team as a member of their editorial board or committee, and anyone and everyone is invited to submit ‘academic articles,’ share their ‘latest scientific research’.

I was assured they are ‘looking forward to cooperating with me’ and told me I could submit my papers to: http://www.intjphil.org/sfmgx0v/fzqva

The communication was very flattering in tone, but I thought the fact that my specialisms are in theology, liturgy and church history and not in philosophy sent out warning signs, and the spelling mistakes and grammatical in one short email raised a number of red flags.

With a little research over the weekend I soon found the publishers of this ‘journal’ are listed on ‘Beall’s List of potential predatory journals and publishers,’ a list of ‘potential predatory scholarly open access publishers’ created by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado until 2017. His list is available HERE.

A lengthy review of the controversy started Beall started appears in The Journal of Academic Librarianship. But leading scholars and publishers from ten countries have also agreed to a definition of predatory publishing that can protect scholarship.

Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an exploitative academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy, and without providing editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide, whether open access or not.

The phenomenon of ‘open access predatory publishers’ was first noticed by Jeffrey Beall, when he described ‘publishers that are ready to publish any article for payment.’

Predatory publishers trick scholars into publishing with them, although some authors may be aware that the journal is poor quality or even fraudulent. New scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of being misled by predatory publishers. According to one study, 60% of articles published in predatory journals receive no citations over the five-year period following publication.

Beall’s List sets out criteria for categorising publications as predatory. Since then, other efforts to identify predatory publishing have emerged, such as the paywalled Cabell’s blacklist, as well as other lists.

Predatory publishers have been described as the ‘black sheep among open access publishers and journals’ and compared to vanity presses. They pretend to provide services such as quality peer review that they do not implement. They have been reported to hold submissions hostage, refusing to allow them to be withdrawn and in this was preventing submission to other, reputable journals.

John Bohannon, a writer for the journal Science, tested the open access system in 2013 by submitting to a number of these journals a deeply flawed paper on the purported effect of a lichen constituent. He published the results in a paper called, ‘Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?’ About 60% of those journals and several universities accepted the faked medical paper.

Four researchers created a fictitious sub-par scientist named Anna O Szust – oszust is Polish for ‘fraudster’ – in 2015 , and applied on her behalf for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals. Her qualifications were dismal for the role of an editor: she had never published a single article and had no editorial experience; the books and book chapters listed on her CV were made-up, as were the publishing houses that published the books.

One-third of the journals ‘Dr Szust’ applied to were sampled from Beall’s list of predatory journals. Forty of these predatory journals accepted Szust as an editor without any background vetting and often within days or even hours.

The number of predatory journals has grown exponentially since 2010. Predatory journals have rapidly increased their publication volumes from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals. Early on, publishers with more than 100 journals dominated the market, but since 2012 publishers in the 10-99 journal size category have captured the largest market share. A report in 2019 found 5% of Italian researchers have published in predatory journals, with a third of those journals engaging in fraudulent editorial practices.

A study in 2020 study found hundreds of scientists say they have reviewed papers for ‘predatory journals.’ Authors pay an average fee of $178 each for papers to be published rapidly without review, typically within two to three months of submission.

Predatory journals are a global threat, and they are driven by self-interest, usually financial, at the expense of scholarship. They accept articles for publication — along with authors’ fees — without performing promised quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or ethical approval. Predatory publishers collect millions of dollars in publication fees, often paid out by funders of the research.

Of course, it can be difficult to distinguish a predatory journal from a journal that is under-resourced. Both can be low quality, but under-resourced journals do not have an intention to deceive.

In the past I have been happy, indeed honoured, to contribute to under-resourced journals and journals that often miss strict academic criteria such as independent peer review, including the journals of local history society and the Church of Ireland journal Search.

But predatory publishing is an ever-multiplying problem. To the researcher eager to make an impact with their work, these ‘journals’ can seem like very tempting offers. But publishing with these publishers often entails signing away copyright that means authors lose the right to publish elsewhere.

The threat posed by predatory publishing is not going to disappear as long as universities use how many publications an academic publishes as criteria for graduation or career advancement.

Academic institutions need to ensure that researchers avoid submitting manuscripts to these journals or listing these publications on their CVs. But the ‘publish-or-perish’ culture in academic life fosters the environment that encourages predatory publications.

An ‘Open Research’ paper at the University of Cambridge on the dangers of predatory publishing suggests the following websites offer help to make an informed decision on where to publish:

Think, Check, Submit

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

Open Access Scholarly Publishers’ Association (OASPA)

In the meantime, I am not joining the ‘Editorial Board’ or the ‘Editorial Committee’ of the International Journal of Philosophy.

A new book brings back memories of many cups of coffee

Patrick Comerford

The Interfaith Working Group of the Church of Ireland has organised a consultation on interfaith matters in the Church of Ireland Theological Institute, Dublin, next Friday [2 March 2018].

The consultation is being introduced by Bishop Kenneth Kearon of Limerick and Killaloe, who chairs the Interfaith Working Group, and the speakers include Bishop Toby Howarth of Bradford and the Revd Suzanne Cousins of Moville, Co Donegal.

Bishop Toby Howarth has worked extensively on interfaith relations in the Church of England.

Before his appointment as Bishop of Bradford, he was Inter-Faith Adviser to the Bishop of Birmingham, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Inter-Religious Affairs and National Adviser for Inter-Religious Affairs for the Church of England.

In the morning session, he is speaking on the report Generous Love: the truth of the Gospel and the call to dialogue, produced by the Anglican Communion Network for Interfaith Concerns, and on how the Church of England approaches interfaith issues.

I have been invited to chair the afternoon session when the Revd Suzanne Cousins will present her dissertation, Generous Love in Multi-Faith Ireland, which is being published at a book launch in CITI later next month [14 March 2018].

Her book is the published version of her MTh dissertation for TCD, which I had the joy of supervising at CITI. While she was working on this dissertation in 2015-2016, Suzanne also received the Oulton Prize for Patristics, which enabled her to join me at the summer school in Sidney Sussex College organised by the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies. The topic of the summer school that year was ‘Christian Faith, Identity and Otherness: Possibilities and Limitations of Dialogue in Ecumenical and Interfaith Discourse’ [31 August to 2 September 2015].

She quotes me in a number of places in her book, and she is generous when she says in her acknowledgements (p 5): ‘I am especially grateful to my academic supervisor, the Revd Canon Patrick Comerford, for generously sharing with me his time, wisdom and expertise, and for his example of living engagement.’

This dissertation was a journey for both of us. It took Suzanne to many places I too enjoy, from Istanbul to Cambridge. Reading it this week brings back many memories of the process of supervision, many cups of coffee in Dublin, and even discussions in cafés in Cambridge and in Sidney Sussex College.

Memories of a summer school in Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge (Photograph; Patrick Comerford)

The Church of Ireland Gazette today [23 February 2018]carries this news report on Suzanne’s new book on the back page:

Forthcoming Braemor Studies book
looks at Christian-Muslim engagement
in the Church of Ireland

Generous Love in Multi-faith Ireland: Towards mature citizenship and a positive pedagogy for the Church of Ireland in local Christian-Muslim mission and engagement is the title of a new book to be launched in March by the Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Revd Michael Jackson.

Written by the Revd Suzanne Cousins, the book is the eighth in the Church of Ireland Theological Institute’s ‘Braemor Studies’ series and is published by Church of Ireland Publishing (CIP).

It straddles the fields of Missiology and History of Religions, and is influenced by [Jurgen] Moltmann’s Theology of Hope, [Miroslav] Volf’s Theology of Embrace, and by the biblical hermeneutics and theological ethics of [Paul] Ricoeur (inhabiting the text, equivalence, superabundance and economy of gift).

The author reflects on the creative approach of the fourth-century-saint, Ephrem the Syrian, to interpreting Scripture and teaching orthodoxy. The question of the oneness and plurality of God as a theological concern for some Christians is explored, and whether the referents ‘God’ and ‘Allah’ are to the same God though differently understood is discussed, along with the contribution of Volf and others to this debate.

In addition, the theology and eirenic praxis of Christians who engaged with Muslims in the early Islamic world, including Francis of Assisi, are examined, while the desire of present-day Christians to be faithful in their allegiance to Jesus Christ – to his uniqueness, divinity, and status and identity as Lord – while engaging locally in Christian-Muslim encounter, is also explored.

Finally, the book identifies theological and pastoral challenges and concerns for clergy assisting their parishioners in everyday Christian-Muslim relationships.

In keeping with the inter-faith theme of the book, was extended to Shaykh Dr Umar Al-Qadri, the Head-Imam of Al-Mustafa Islamic Education & Cultural Centre Ireland, has accepted an invitation to attend the launch which will take place on Wednesday 14th March at 6.00pm at the Church of Ireland Theological Institute, Dublin.

Copies of the book will be available for sale at the launch and thereafter through the Church of Ireland’s online bookstore and through the Book Well in Belfast for €6/£5.

A book that brings back memories of many cups of coffee and discussions in cafés in Cambridge (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

‘Jewels in the crown’ at today’s commencements in Trinity College Dublin

With the Revd Danielle McCullagh and the Revd Jonathan McFarland in the Front Square in Trinity College Dublin after this afternoon’s commencement

Patrick Comerford

I was in Trinity College Dublin this afternoon for what I think may be my last role as an adjunct assistant professor, taking part in the Michaelmas term commencements at which 12 of my former students received their masters’ degrees.

Three of my former colleagues on the faculty of the Church of Ireland Theological Institute were with me in the Public Theatre in TCD as the degree of MTh was conferred on 12 former students.

The programme for today’s Michaelmas Commencements in Trinity College Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2017)

There was particular joy in being present as the Revd Danielle McCullagh and the Revd Jonathan McFarland were conferred with their degrees, as I had supervised their research, and these were the final dissertations I had supervised.

Danielle’s topic was: ‘Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil: the Church of Ireland’s response to alcohol addiction and its role in recovery.’ Johnny’s dissertation asked: ‘What happens to faith for those who suffer depression in the context of the Church of Ireland?’

Both dissertations were labours of love for student and supervisor alike, with many late nights and early mornings at work, and long coffee breaks both in my study and in the dining room at CITI.

Johnny and I also shared many lengthy discussions about two Anglican deans, John Donne of Saint Paul’s Cathedral, London, and Gonville ffrench-Beytagh of Saint Mary’s Cathedral, Johannesburg, who became two of his historic case studies.

The other students who received their MTh degrees this afternoon were the Revd Lucy Burden, the Revd Nigel Cairns, the Revd Elizabeth Fitzgerald, the Revd Mark Gallagher, the Revd Rebecca Guildea, the Revd Geoff Hamilton, the Revd Rhys Jones, the Revd Stuart Moles, the Revd Chris St John and the Revd Ross Styles.

The restored organ in the Public Theatre in Trinity College Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2017)

As we moved out in the academic procession, the restored organ was playing once again in the Public Theatre. The organ, housed in an historic 1684 case, is an important part of Trinity's and Ireland’s national heritage and was restored over the past year after suffering a sad state of decline for many years. In addition, the theatre has been painted and decorated and the portraits, including one of Queen Elizabeth I, have been cleaned.

The organ was virtually unplayable when the university plans to have it refurbished. Last year’s final summer commencement ceremony was the last time that organ was used until the commencements this week.

Apart from the organ case and façade pipes, some of which had to be taken down for safety reasons, the organ itself was of no historical value, as it was largely rebuilt mid-20th century.

The organ case, however, is one of the very few surviving organ cases made in the 17th century by Lancelot Pease. It has been retained, with a full refurbishment and redecoration. The original case was built by Lancelot Pease, who also built organs in Christ Church Cathedral and Saint Audeon’s Church in Dublin and Canterbury Cathedral.

A new two-manual organ, with an authentic 17th century stop-list, has been built by the specialist historic organ builders Goetz & Gwynn, and it is planned that it was installed in the refurbished case in the past few weeks.

Professor David Grayson, who chairs the Organ Committee, has described the new organ as ‘the jewel in the crown of the university’s musical portfolio, as well as a fine asset to the city and to the country’

Drawing on this image, I suppose I could say my students have become ‘the jewels in the crown of the Church of Ireland’s ministry portfolio, as well as fine assents to the church and to the country.’

With staff and students of CITI on the steps of the Chapel in Trinity College Dublin this afternoon (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2017)

Ethical research policy and formal proposal procedures

The Hippocratic Oath: a standard for ethics in professional behaviour

Patrick Comerford,

Church of Ireland Theological Institute,

16 April 2016,

1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Brown Room

Introduction:

When most of us think of ethics, we think of rules that help us to distinguish between right and wrong.

Can you give me some examples?

1, The Ten Commandments tell us how to treat others: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet your neighbours goods …

2, The Golden Rule tells us to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

3, Medical practitioners are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which says: “First of all, do no harm.”

Quite often, these rules are the most common way of defining ethics. They offer norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

Most people acquire a sense of right and wrong as children, so that we grow up thinking many moral standards are simple common sense. But we know, of course, that common sense is not very common.

Most people recognise some common ethical norms but interpret, apply, and balance them in different ways in light of their own values and life experiences.

For example, two people could agree that murder is wrong but disagree about the morality of abortion because we have different understandings of what it is to be a human being.

Because so many of our ethical standards are rule based, we often confused ethics and legality.

It is a common plea from politicians who are caught in corruption scandals: “I did nothing illegal.” Not “I did nothing wrong,” but “I did nothing that broke the law.”

They think less about shame and embarrassment and more about fines, sentences and jail terms.

Ethical norms tend to be much more difficult to define and to implement than laws.

Examples may include:

An action may be legal but unethical or illegal but ethical.

Can you give me some examples?

In the 20th century, many social reformers called on people to disobey laws that were immoral or unjust laws.

1, Mahatma Gandhi in the demand for Indian independence.

2, Martin Luther King and others who struggled against legalised segregation and racism in the United States.

3, Desmond Tutu and other campaigners against apartheid in South Africa.

4, The women at Greenham Common.

Professional ethics:

Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have standards of behaviour that suit their particular aims and goals. These standards also help members of the discipline to co-ordinate their actions or activities and to establish public trust in the discipline.

For instance, ethical standards govern conduct in medicine, law, architecture, business and the clergy.

What ethical standards apply to priests and clergy?

Discussion:

Examples may include:

1, The ‘seal of confession’

2, Domestic and child abuse at home.

3, Pastoral care or intervention.

4, Sexual boundaries.

5, Political views.

6, Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, talk of suicide.

7, Disclosure to the media … “whistle-blowing” versus breach of confidentiality.

8, Mission and evangelism during the course of research.

Ethics and research

Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scholarly research or other scholarly or creative activities.

There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms during the course of your research.

1, Norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimise error.

2, Since research often involves co-operation and co-ordination between different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote values essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright, data sharing policies and confidentiality rules, are designed to protect intellectual property interests and to encourage collaboration. Most researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed prematurely.

3, Many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers are accountable.

4, Ethical norms in research help to build public support for research. People are more likely to co-operate with a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of research.

5, Many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social values. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm the subjects, students, and the public.

Ethical questions to discuss:

One of the questions you are likely to be asked by your external examiner is about the ethical questions raised by and during your research. Apart from the ethical questions raised by your dissertation topic, you may also consider these issues:

1, Confidentiality: identifying someone you have interviewed

2, Confidentiality: using material collected during pastoral visits.

3, Protect confidential communications, such as papers you read, personal and personnel records you have access to, professional secrets.

4, What about anecdotal information?

5, Honesty: How do you deal with opinions you do not agree with?

6, Honesty: how do you handle material or findings that go against your expectations.

7, Fabricating data, including hiding data collected.
.
8, Data protection: how to record interviews, how to label it, where to store it.

9, Keeping records: dating, storing, access.

10, Deception.

11, Plagiarism: respect Intellectual Property; honour patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property; do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission; give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarise.

12, How do you demonstrate accountability: to the Church, your placement parish, your sponsoring bishop, your fellow students, staff at CITI?

13, How do I avoid discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, social class or background, or other factors not related to competence and integrity?

Working methods:

1, Respect people: minimise harms and risks and maximise benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable people; strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly.

2, Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required.

3, Avoid or be aware of bias or self-deception.

4, Disclose personal or financial interests that may affect your research.

5, Avoid careless errors and negligence.

6, Carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers.

7, Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

8, Be open: share data, results, ideas, tools, resources.

9, Be open: to criticism and new ideas.

10, Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through a commitment to lifelong education and learning.

11, Ethics and the law: know and obey the relevant laws.

Some advice:

1, Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status.

2, Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data.

3, Do not deceive colleagues, staff, or the public.

4, Keep your promises and agreements.

5, Act with sincerity.

6, Strive for consistency of thought and action.

Some guiding principles:

1, Voluntary participation.

2, Informed consent.

3, Avoiding risk of harm.

4, Respect confidentiality and privacy.

5, Be aware, including legal limits.

Further reading:

A Shamoo and D Resnik, Responsible Conduct of Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2015).

The Hippocratic Oath on a wall in the Hermitage Medical Clinic, Lucan, Co Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2016)

Appendix 1: The Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

(Revd Canon Professor) Patrick Comerford is Lecturer in Anglicanism, Liturgy and Church History, the Church of Ireland Theological Institute. These notes were prepared for a seminar on writing and research skills with Year IV part-time MTh students on 16 April 2016.

Ethical research policy and formal proposal procedures

The Hippocratic Oath: a standard for ethics in professional behaviour

Patrick Comerford,

Church of Ireland Theological Institute,

17 February 2016,

3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Introduction:

When most of us think of ethics, we think of rules that help us to distinguish between right and wrong.

Can you give me some examples?

1, The Ten Commandments tell us how to treat others: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet your neighbours goods …

2, The Golden Rule tells us to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

3, Medical practitioners are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which says: “First of all, do no harm.”

Quite often, these rules are the most common way of defining ethics. They offer norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

Most people acquire a sense of right and wrong as children, so that we grow up thinking many moral standards are simple common sense. But we know, of course, that common sense is not very common.

Most people recognise some common ethical norms but interpret, apply, and balance them in different ways in light of their own values and life experiences.

For example, two people could agree that murder is wrong but disagree about the morality of abortion because we have different understandings of what it is to be a human being.

Because so many of our ethical standards are rule based, we often confused ethics and legality.

It is a common plea from politicians who are caught in corruption scandals: “I did nothing illegal.” Not “I did nothing wrong,” but “I did nothing that broke the law.”

They think less about shame and embarrassment and more about fines, sentences and jail terms.

Ethical norms tend to be much more difficult to define and to implement than laws.

Examples may include:

An action may be legal but unethical or illegal but ethical.

Can you give me some examples?

In the 20th century, many social reformers called on people to disobey laws that were immoral or unjust laws.

1, Mahatma Gandhi in the demand for Indian independence.

2, Martin Luther King and others who struggled against legalised segregation and racism in the United States.

3, Desmond Tutu and other campaigners against apartheid in South Africa.

4, The women at Greenham Common.

Professional ethics:

Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have standards of behaviour that suit their particular aims and goals. These standards also help members of the discipline to co-ordinate their actions or activities and to establish public trust in the discipline.

For instance, ethical standards govern conduct in medicine, law, architecture, business and the clergy.

What ethical standards apply to priests and clergy?

Discussion:

Examples may include:

1, The ‘seal of confession’

2, Domestic and child abuse at home.

3, Pastoral care or intervention.

4, Sexual boundaries.

5, Political views.

6, Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, talk of suicide.

7, Disclosure to the media … “whistle-blowing” versus breach of confidentiality.

8, Mission and evangelism during the course of research.

Ethics and research

Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scholarly research or other scholarly or creative activities.

There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms during the course of your research.

1, Norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimise error.

2, Since research often involves co-operation and co-ordination between different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote values essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright, data sharing policies and confidentiality rules, are designed to protect intellectual property interests and to encourage collaboration. Most researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed prematurely.

3, Many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers are accountable.

4, Ethical norms in research help to build public support for research. People are more likely to co-operate with a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of research.

5, Many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social values. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm the subjects, students, and the public.

Ethical questions to discuss:

One of the questions you are likely to be asked by your external examiner is about the ethical questions raised by and during your research. Apart from the ethical questions raised by your dissertation topic, you may also consider these issues:

1, Confidentiality: identifying someone you have interviewed

2, Confidentiality: using material collected during pastoral visits.

3, Protect confidential communications, such as papers you read, personal and personnel records you have access to, professional secrets.

4, What about anecdotal information?

5, Honesty: How do you deal with opinions you do not agree with?

6, Honesty: how do you handle material or findings that go against your expectations.

7, Fabricating data, including hiding data collected.
.
8, Data protection: how to record interviews, how to label it, where to store it.

9, Keeping records: dating, storing, access.

10, Deception.

11, Plagiarism: respect Intellectual Property; honour patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property; do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission; give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarise.

12, How do you demonstrate accountability: to the Church, your placement parish, your sponsoring bishop, your fellow students, staff at CITI?

13, How do I avoid discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, social class or background, or other factors not related to competence and integrity?

Working methods:

1, Respect people: minimise harms and risks and maximise benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable people; strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly.

2, Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required.

3, Avoid or be aware of bias or self-deception.

4, Disclose personal or financial interests that may affect your research.

5, Avoid careless errors and negligence.

6, Carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers.

7, Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

8, Be open: share data, results, ideas, tools, resources.

9, Be open: to criticism and new ideas.

10, Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through a commitment to lifelong education and learning.

11, Ethics and the law: know and obey the relevant laws.

Some advice:

1, Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status.

2, Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data.

3, Do not deceive colleagues, staff, or the public.

4, Keep your promises and agreements.

5, Act with sincerity.

6, Strive for consistency of thought and action.

Some guiding principles:

1, Voluntary participation.

2, Informed consent.

3, Avoiding risk of harm.

4, Respect confidentiality and privacy.

5, Be aware, including legal limits.

Further reading:

A Shamoo and D Resnik, Responsible Conduct of Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2015).

Appendix 1: The Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

(Revd Canon Professor) Patrick Comerford is Lecturer in Anglicanism, Liturgy and Church History, the Church of Ireland Theological Institute. These notes were prepared for a seminar with MTh students in Year Ii on writing and research skills on 17 February 2016.