Exercise Science Students as Research Participants in Faculty-Led Research: An Ethical Dilemma

Abstract

The academic field of exercise science has experienced exponential growth in the past four decades, including in the number of degrees awarded, available job opportunities for graduates, amount of research conducted, and external funding for research. Typically, exercise science students are young, healthy adults, with an inherent interest in exercise science, making them “ideal” research participants for faculty-led research studies. However, these characteristics also make exercise science students particularly vulnerable to coercion and undue influence by faculty researchers aiming to use these students as research participants. Here, we will discuss ethical concerns related to recruiting exercise science students as research participants in faculty-led research related to power differentials, recruitment of female participants, and academic credit. We will provide recommendations to protect potential student participants from coercion, unjustifiable pressure, and undue influence that could undermine their voluntary informed consent.

Introduction

The ethical challenges surrounding human-subjects research have long been a focus in the academic community, particularly in addressing power imbalances between researchers and participants. Foundational ethical guidelines for the protection of human subjects was established through the Nuremberg Code (1947), Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). The Belmont Report outlines three fundamental ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Respect for persons emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and informed decision-making, while justice ensures that the benefits and risks of human-subjects research are distributed fairly, preventing the exploitation of vulnerable populations.

To uphold these ethical principles, institutional review boards (IRBs) at universities and other research institutions oversee human-subjects research, requiring participants to provide informed consent prior to engaging in research. The informed consent process ensures that participants receive all relevant information, can fully comprehend it, and voluntarily agree to participate in the research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). However, despite these safeguards, power imbalances between researchers and participants remain a persistent ethical concern across nearly all academic disciplines, often complicating the informed consent process.

Exercise science is the scientific study of human movement and activity and its associated biomechanical, physiological, and psychological responses. It is currently one of the fastest-growing educational fields with a 445% increase in the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded from 2003 to 2017 in the United States (Kent & Hayes, 2021; Nuzzo, 2020). Furthermore, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts the job outlook of employed exercise physiologists to grow by 10% between 2022 and 2032, well above the average growth rate of 3% (2024). Alongside this expansion, research in exercise science has substantially increased in the past four decades. In 2020, a study by Kent and Hayes (2021) identified over 47,000 federally funded NIH grants with “exercise” as a key term. The majority of both federally- and non-federally funded exercise science research occurs in an academic setting, where faculty members serve as principal investigators.

A critical ethical concern within exercise science research is the power imbalance between researchers and participants, particularly in the recruitment process. Traditionally, study participants in exercise science studies are predominantly young, healthy, white males (Anderson et al., 2023; Costello et al., 2014; Cowan et al., 2023; James et al., 2023; Kent & Hayes, 2021; Nuzzo, 2021). This demographic closely aligns with the typical undergraduate student population in exercise science programs consisting of young, healthy adults. Furthermore, individuals with a chosen major of exercise science may inherently have personality characteristics that lead them to an interest in exercise and health (Balsamo et al., 2012) making them the “ideal” research participant for many exercise science studies. As a result, faculty investigators may find it convenient to recruit from this specific group, given their accessibility and inherent personality characteristics driving an interest in exercise. However, relying on this limited participant pool raises ethical concerns related to representation, equity and fairness of recruitment practices. Addressing these issues requires a critical examination of power imbalances and potential for coercion in participant selection. This paper will explore ethical considerations in the recruitment of research participants in exercise science, emphasizing the need for ethically sound practices that mitigate power imbalances and coercive practices.

Power Differentials in Faculty-Led Research

The Belmont Report states that participation in research and the obtainment of consent must be entirely voluntarily, free from coercion, unjustifiable pressure, and undue influence (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). These unjustifiable pressures include pressure to participate in research by a person of authority or commanding influence. Notably, in an academic setting, there is an inherent imbalance of power between a faculty member and a student where the faculty member is assumed the person of authority. Due to this power differential, students may lack the assertiveness needed to communicate their wants, needs, and opinions with faculty members. This is particularly evident if the student is dependent upon the specific faculty member for their education, including grades in courses, mentorship, and the need for recommendation (Leentjens & Levenson, 2013). This dependency may induce vulnerabilities and lead to students being coerced into participating in research, especially if one of the faculty members they are dependent upon for their education has asked them to participate (Leentjens & Levenson, 2013). In a 2008 psychological study on a college campus, one-third of participants reported they would feel coerced to participate in research if their own professor had asked them (Miller & Kreiner, 2008). Similarly, a 2016 study of undergraduate psychology students revealed moderate levels of perceived pressure to participate in faculty-led research (Bartholomay & Sifers, 2016). This was further exacerbated by the age of the students, as younger undergraduate students were more likely to be coerced to participate in research due to an inherent power differential between the faculty member and the student (Bartholomay & Sifers, 2016).

It is important to note that not all student participation is driven by coercion or undue influence. Many students view research participation as an opportunity for professional development, networking, or aligning with their academic interests. Landrum and Chastain (1995) highlight the educational benefits of research participation. Biomechanics faculty members found that undergraduate researchers often contribute meaningfully to lab productivity through activities like data collection, participant recruitment, and conference presentations. These experiences provide valuable learning experiences and skill development, even if they do not pursue research careers. Despite their contributions, undergraduate researchers may be undervalued compared to graduate students when assessed using traditional academic metrics such as publications (Altman-Singles et al., 2023).

To mitigate risk of coercion, it is crucial to establish clear boundaries in student recruitment for research studies. A focus group study of medical students found that coercion to participate is minimized and the student’s felt they were more free to participate in research of their own free will when the faculty member conducting the research was not in an evaluative role over the students (Sarpel et al., 2013). To uphold ethical standards and minimize the risk of coercion due to power imbalances while using students as research participants, it is recommended that faculty avoid recruiting students they directly evaluate. Instead, these students may benefit from contributing to research in other capacities, such as assisting with data collection and participant recruitment, ensuring ethical practices while still providing valuable academic and professional development opportunities.

Females as Research Participants

Female research participants have historically been, and continue to be, significantly underrepresented in exercise science research (Anderson et al., 2023; Costello et al., 2014; Cowan et al., 2023; James et al., 2023; Nuzzo, 2021). Many studies attribute the lack of female participants to investigator bias and gender-based discrimination of females in sport (Anderson et al., 2023; Costello et al., 2014; Cowan et al., 2023; James et al., 2023; Nuzzo, 2021). However, research has shown that when a female researcher serves as the senior author on a research study, females were less likely to be underrepresented as participants in research (James et al., 2023). In contrast, some researchers (Nuzzo, 2021; Nuzzo & Deaner, 2024) argue that volunteer bias and differences in personal interest contribute to the imbalance in participating in exercise science research. Studies suggest that women are more likely to participate in social science research and less likely to volunteer for studies that may involve discomfort, unpleasant, or risky procedures (Nuzzo, 2021; Nuzzo & Deaner, 2024). Since exercise science research is more likely to include research procedures that involve perceived discomfort, using procedures such as tests to exhaustion, maximal power and strength tests, electrical stimulation, blood draws, and changes to diet and sleep schedules, this may further discourage female participation.

Due to the gross under-representation of female participants in exercise science research, both federal agencies and industry have pushed for greater inclusion of women in research studies (Vasisht et al., 2021). However, this gender disparity in research participation contrasts sharply with the demographics of individuals earning degrees in exercise science, where women earn the majority of degrees (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Students typically choose an academic major based on their interests and personality traits, aligning their studies with subjects they are eager to learn about (Balsamo et al., 2012; Galotti, 1999; Germeijs et al., 2012; Gillis & Ryberg, 2021). As a result, female exercise science students may inherently be more willing to participate in exercise science research compared to women in the general population, simply due to their personal interest in the field. However, ethical concerns arise in ensuring all participants fully understand the research procedures, risks, and benefits before giving informed consent (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).

Exercise science studies often include physically demanding or invasive procedures, such as tests to exhaustion, which can lead to muscle soreness or potential musculoskeletal injury, as well as invasive measures such as blood draws. These factors may discourage many potential female participants from volunteering for such studies (Nuzzo, 2021; Nuzzo & Deaner, 2024). In contrast, female exercise science students likely have implicit knowledge of common research procedures due to their education, which may reduce hesitation toward participating in uncomfortable testing procedures. This combination– the push for increased female representation in exercise science research and the perception that female exercise science students are more willing participants - make these students a prime recruitment target by faculty principal investigators. However, when these faculty members also hold an evaluative position over female exercise science students, such targeted recruitment may create a coercive dynamic, pressuring students to participate rather than allowing them to make a fully voluntary decision.

Research Participation for Academic Credit

Another significant factor related to unethical recruitment of research participants is undue influence (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Undue influence is the offer of an excessive or inappropriate reward, typically a financial payment, that is used to obtain a certain outcome. In faculty-led research involving students in exercise science, offering extra credit or course credit for participation in research may be considered undue influence and should be avoided (Padilla-Walker et al., 2016).

Accrediting organizations such as the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) require exercise science students to learn about exercise testing procedures and training interventions. To meet these accreditation requirements, faculty may be tempted to design research studies in which student participation is mandatory for academic credit. While this approach may seem practical, as they would need to learn the testing procedures anyway, it raises serious ethical concerns.

Offering extra credit for participation in faculty-led research is a common practice, with 5% being an average incentive (Leentjens & Levenson, 2013). In some cases, faculty have even required participation in research, providing an “opt-out” alternative such as completing a separate assignment or project (Rocchi et al., 2016). Often, the “opt-out” option is not seen as an equitable alternative to participating in research. Alternative assignments such as writing a research paper are often perceived by students to be more time-consuming and take considerably more effort to complete rather than simply participating in a research study (Bartholomay & Sifers, 2016; Cromer et al., 2013; Khatamian Far, 2018; Leentjens & Levenson, 2013).

Aycock and Currie (2013) argued that the requiring research participation for course credit placed students at a significant disadvantage in their educational career, as refusing participate lowers their course grades may have long-term academic consequences. Similarly, Bartholomay and Sifers (2016) asked undergraduate psychology students “How pressured do you feel in participating in a research study in each of the following situations?”. They found that course credit or bonus points were the two most likely factors that made students feel pressured to participate in research. This pressure undermines the principle of voluntary informed consent, as students may feel compelled to participate to protect their grades rather than making a truly autonomous decision.

On the other hand, others argue that participation in research provides valuable experiential learning, fostering academic and professional growth (Landrum & Chastain, 1995; Lumley & Jasinski, 2013; Oliveira et al., 2014). To balance these perspectives, academic institutions often provide ethical guidelines for faculty researchers. These recommendations include using third-party recruitment and data collection for faculty-led studies, offering assignments that require comparable time and effort, and ensuring students receive full credit even if they choose to withdraw from a study. While research participation can enhance a student’s education, it must remain a voluntary decision, free from coercion or undue influence.

Conclusion

Exercise science is a rapidly growing academic field, both in the number of students earning degrees and in job opportunities after graduation (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024; Kent & Hayes, 2021; Nuzzo, 2020). This expansion has fueled a surge in exercise-science related research, where young, healthy, able-bodied college students are often considered ideal participants (Kent & Hayes, 2021). The age and health status of the typical exercise science undergraduate student, combined with their inherent interest in exercise and health, key factors that likely influenced their decision to major in exercise science (Balsamo et al., 2012), also make them particularly susceptible to coercion and undue influence by faculty researchers.

The power imbalance between faculty researchers and students, particularly younger undergraduate students (Bartholomay & Sifers, 2016), may unintentionally pressure students to volunteer to participate in exercise science research. Female exercise science students may be even more vulnerable, as their interest in exercise aligns with the efforts to address the historical under-representation of women in exercise science research. Additionally, incentives such as course credit or extra credit, commonly offered to encourage participation, may constitute undue influence, as students rate these items as the two most likely factors to feel pressured to participate in research for fear of receiving a bad grade in a course (Bartholomay & Sifers, 2016). Future research should investigate students’ perceptions of coercion versus voluntary participation in faculty-led research, focusing on how these dynamics differ across disciplines such as exercise science and physiotherapy. Studies such as those by Bartholomay and Sifers (2016) and Khatamian Far (2018) highlight ongoing concerns about demonstrate that perceived pressures in research recruitment remain a persistent concern, warranting further investigation into the nuanced experiences of students in these contexts.

While exercise science students may represent a valuable participant pool due to their age, health status, and interest in the subject matter, faculty investigators must take proactive steps to ensure ethical recruitment. Strong safeguards are necessary to protect students from coercion, unjustifiable pressure, and undue influence that could undermine their voluntary informed consent. Institutions can enhance these protections by implementing clear policies that: prohibit faculty from recruiting students they directly evaluate; require third-party recruitment and data collection methods, such as research offices or neutral faculty members; provide truly equivalent alternatives to research participation, ensuring participants do not perceive them as more burdensome; and educate students on their right to decline participation without academic consequence. By adopting these ethical safeguards, institutions can support high-quality exercise science research while ensuring student participants engage in studies voluntarily and without undue influence.