Chapter 11 Ethical Issues

1. Chapter 11Ethical Issues Winston Jackson and Norine Verberg Methods: Doing Social Research, 4e

2. Ethical Issues in Social Research • Conflicting pressures: researcher torn between using the “ideal” design (technical merit of research) and a less effective design that respects the rights of participants • Is the research design ethically acceptable? • Two studies – become landmark in the discussion of research ethics • Laud Humphreys: Tearoom Trade • Stanley Milgram: Behavioral Study of Obedience © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

3. Humphreys: Tearoom Trade • Laud Humphrey’s classic study, Tearoom Trade (1970), was a study of “sexual deviance” • Two parts to the research • Covert observational study of impersonal sex among men in public restrooms • Adopted “watch queen” role to allow observation • “Health survey” • Involved the men who participated in the tearoom in a legitimate study to gather personal information • The men did not know that they were part of a research project focused on sexual deviance © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

4. Humphreys (cont’d) • While observing sexual encounters, Humpheys documented the men’s licence plate number • Used licence numbers to get names and addresses of participants • Police contact: claimed to be “market research” • Participant list kept in safety deposit box • Included the men in a health survey of men (being conducted by other researchers) • Interviewed them at their home; to conceal identity, he wore different clothes, used a different car © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

5. Humphreys (cont’d) • Survey had questions on family background, personal health and social histories, SES, religious affiliation, socio-political attitudes, friendship networks, marital relations and sex • No questions about homosexuality • Final sample was 50 deviant/ 50 matched • Findings • Participants came from all walks of life, most married, primarily heterosexual: a search for fast, exciting, impersonal sex © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

6. Four Procedures Raise Ethical Issues • The researcher acted as a lookout, alerting participants engaged in an illegal activity of any impending danger • Unknown to the subjects, the researcher noted the licence numbers of their cars • Licence numbers were traced to reveal the name and address of each car owner • Traced participants were interviewed as part of a larger public health survey (true purpose of their participation not revealed) © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

7. The Fallout: Debate on Research Ethics • Gouldner: tried to block Humphreys from getting Ph.D. on ethical grounds • Horowitz & Rainwater: • Humphreys was entitled to do the observations • the tactic was necessary for the project • how was the subjects’ right to privacy violated? • Donald P. Warwick: 3 objections • Took advantage of powerless group • Portrays researchers as “sly tricksters” • Use of deception unacceptable © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

8. Four Ethical Problems A. Aiding in crime • Since the Missouri law forbade homosexual activity Humphreys was assisting in a crime by acting as a lookout (i.e., the “watch queen”) B. Withholding information • When arrested for loitering he refused to give police his name • When in the guise of doing market research he traced licence numbers © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

9. Four Ethical Problems (cont’d) C. Informed Consent • Did not seek informed consent • Likely they would have refused participation D. Endangering Participants • Took some care here: the names in safety deposit box in another state, refusing to tell police what he was doing. • What if names had been released? • Would the publication lead to a “crack down”? © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

10. Laud Humpheys’ Postscript • Social scientists cannot ignore “a harassed population of deviants” • Provides his views in Box 11.2; feels his methods did not harm participants, nor breach their rights • Because of his study, the sociology department lost federal funding, many senior faculty left • Sociology program later eliminated • Laud Humphreys (1930-1988) received his Ph.D. Career SUNY (Albany, NY) © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

11. Stanley Milgram: Obedience • Brief outline of study • Subjects believed they were administering shocks to other “subjects” (in fact a confederate who faked pain and begged for mercy!) • Subjects told to continue with the shocks. (Each time an error was made a shock of increasing amount was administered) • 2/3 of subjects administered shocks labelled as “dangerous” © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

12. Milgram (cont’d) • Milgram sought to understand whether people will obey unethical orders. • The Nuremberg war trials often had people saying they were just following orders © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

13. Assessing Ethical Acceptability: Criteria • Two approaches • The consequentialist view • The deontological view • Consequentialist View • What are consequences of study for subjects, for the academic discipline, and for society? • Cost/benefit analysis: anticipate possible negative effects of the research (entrapping individuals to do things they otherwise would not; unwanted self-knowledge, diminution of self-esteem) and weigh against possible benefits © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

14. Criteria (cont’d) • Deontological View • Use absolute moral strictures (never use deception; never pressure respondents, always mask identity of respondents) to assess ethical merit of a proposed study • Milgram’s research could never be done, nor could Humphreys’ under this view © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

15. Monitoring Ethical Research Practices • Awareness of unethical research practices has led to the development of ethical guidelines • In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) provides guidelines for Canadian researchers • All universities, hospitals are required to have a Research Ethics Board (REB) • Purpose: to scrutinize the ethical merit of research projects carried out by researchers © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

16. Monitoring (cont’d) • Researchers are required to write an application to receive “ethical approval” from the research ethics committee in their own university, and also key institutions (hospitals) • Onus on the researchers to demonstrate how they will protect the right of participants • Undergraduate students need approval from a departmental ethics review committee • Graduate students use same approval process as faculty © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

17. TCPS: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Guiding Ethical Principles (see Box 11.4) • Respect for human dignity • Respect for free and informed consent • Respect for vulnerable persons • Respect for privacy and confidentiality • Respect for justice and inclusiveness • Balancing harm and benefits • Minimizing harm • Maximizing benefit © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

18. Your Proposals Must... • Include a clear statement of research design • Show any causal models • Indicate measurement of dependent variable • Indicate who is to be studied, and how many • Outline data processing techniques • Give date for completion • Include bibliography © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

19. Your Proposals Must Also… • Show how the study will be explained to potential participants. For example: • How will purpose be explained? • How will you describe the procedures and what you want to participant to do? • How will noncoercive, informed consent be explained and obtained? • How will right to refuse be communicated? • How will you ensure participants’ responses will be kept confidential? © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

20. Rules for Resolving Ethical Issues • Rule 1. Protect the confidentiality of respondents • Rule 2. Do not place pressure on respondents • Rule 3. Make the subject’s participation painless • Rule 4. Identify sponsors • Rule 5. Disclose the basis on which respondents have been selected © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

21. Rules (cont’d) • Rule 6. Place no hidden identification codes on questionnaires • Rule 7. Honour promises to provide respondents with research report • Rule 8. Informed consent is a key concern • Rule 9. Debrief subjects • Rule 10. Researchers should distinguish between science and advocacy • Rule 11. Do not hunt through data looking for pleasing findings © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

22. Rules (cont’d) • Rule 12. Be aware of potential sources of bias • Rule 13. Represent research literature fairly • Rule 14. Do the best research you can • Rule 15. Acknowledge all your sources • Rule 16. Seek advice on ethical issues © 2007 Pearson Education Canada