Chapter 3: Research Ethics PDF

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH ETHICS C H A P T E R OU T L I N E Ethics and the Research Process Ethics and Online Research Why Be Ethical?...

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH ETHICS C H A P T E R OU T L I N E Ethics and the Research Process Ethics and Online Research Why Be Ethical? Summary General Ethical Theories Key Terms Ethical Principles Using the Internet Specific Ethical Problems Questions and Problems for Further Federal Regulations Concerning Research Investigation Ethical Problems of Student-Faculty References and Suggested Readings Research 64 Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  Chapter 3 Research Ethics 65 ETHICS AND THE RESEARCH public playground, where they are PROCESS told to play with the children who are already there. The researcher records Most mass media research involves observa- each instance of violent behavior tions of human beings—asking them questions exhibited by the young subjects. or examining what they have done. However, in this probing process the researcher must ensure Subjects in an experiment are told to that the rights of the participants are not vio- submit a sample of their news writing lated and that the data are analyzed and to an executive of a large newspaper reported correctly. This concern for rights and are led to believe that whoever sub- requires a consideration of ethics: distinguishing mits the best work will be offered a right from wrong and proper from improper. job at the paper. In fact, the “executive” Unfortunately, there are no universal defini- is a confederate in the experiment and tions for these terms. Instead, several guidelines, severely criticizes everyone’s work. The broad generalizations, and suggestions have subjects then rate their own self-esteem. been endorsed or at least tacitly accepted by They are never told about the deception. most in the research profession. These guide- A researcher conducting an experiment lines do not provide an answer to every ethical knowingly assigns subjects likely to question that may arise, but they can help make support the investigator’s hypothesis researchers more sensitive to the issues. to the experimental group, while Before discussing these specific guide- those less likely to support the predic- lines, let’s pose some hypothetical research tion are assigned to the control group. situations involving ethics. Keep in mind these examples of ethically A researcher at a large university dis- flawed study designs while you read the fol- tributes questionnaires to the students lowing guidelines to ethics in mass media in an introductory mass media course research. and tells them that if they do not com- plete the forms, they will lose points WHY BE ETHICAL? toward their grade in the course. Ethical behavior is the right thing to do. The A researcher is conducting a mail survey best reason to behave ethically is the personal about downloading pornography from knowledge that you have acted in a morally the Internet. The questionnaire states appropriate manner. In addition, there are that the responses will be anonymous. other cogent reasons that argue for ethical However, unknown to the respondents, behavior. Unethical behavior may have an each return envelope is marked with a adverse effect on research participants. Just code that enables the researcher to iden- one experience with an ethically questionable tify the sender. research project may completely alienate a A researcher creates a false identity on respondent. A person who was improperly Facebook and uses it to gather informa- deceived into thinking that he or she was tion about the communication beha- being evaluated for a job at a newspaper viors of dozens of college students when it was all just an experiment might without the students’ knowledge. not be so willing to participate in another A researcher shows one group of chil- study. Since mass media research depends dren a violent television show and on the continued goodwill and cooperation another group a nonviolent program. of respondents, it is important to shield them Afterward, the children are sent to a from unethical research practices. Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  66 Part One The Research Process Moreover, unethical research practices question is something that he or she would like reflect poorly on the profession and may result to see universally implemented. In other in an increase in negative public opinion. Many words, a person should act in a way that he readers have probably heard about the infa- or she wants all others to act. Note that in mous Tuskegee syphilis study in which impo- many ways, Kant’s thinking parallels what verished African American men suffering from we might call the Golden Rule: Do unto others syphilis were studied without their consent and as you would have them do unto you. left untreated so that researchers could study A mass media researcher, for example, the progress of the disease (see Jones, 1981, might develop a categorical imperative about for a complete description). The distrust and deception. Deception is something that a suspicion engendered by this experiment in researcher does not want to see universally the African American community have yet to practiced by all; nor does the researcher subside and have been cited as a factor in the wish to be deceived. Therefore, deception is rise of some conspiracy theories about the something that should not be used in research, spread of AIDS (Thomas & Quinn, 1981). It no matter what the benefits and no matter is fortunate that the mass media research com- what the circumstances. munity has not had an ethical lapse of this mag- The teleological, or balancing, theory is nitude, but the Tuskegee experiment illustrates best exemplified by what philosopher John the harmful fallout that can result from an Stuart Mill called utilitarianism. In this the- unethical research project. ory, the good that may come from an action Unethical research usually does not result is weighed against or balanced against the from some sinister motivation. Instead, it possible harm. The individual then acts in a generally comes from pressure on researchers way that maximizes good and minimizes to cut corners in an attempt to publish an harm. In other words, the ultimate test for article or gain prestige or impress other col- determining the rightness of some behavior leagues. Nonetheless, it is behavior that is depends on the outcomes that result from potentially serious and little tolerated within this behavior. The end may justify the the community of mass media scholars. means. As will be noted, most institutional review boards at colleges and universities endorse this principle when they examine GENERAL ETHICAL THEORIES research proposals for ethical compliance. The problem of determining what is right and A mass media researcher who follows the proper has been examined for hundreds of utilitarian approach must balance the good years. At least three general types of theories that will come from a research project against have evolved to suggest answers: (1) rule- its possible negative effects. In this situation, a based or deontological theories, (2) balancing researcher might decide that it is appropriate or teleological theories, and (3) relativistic the- to use deception in an experiment if the posi- ories. The best-known deontological theory is tive benefits of the knowledge obtained out- the one associated with the philosopher weigh the possible harmful effects of Immanuel Kant, who posited moral laws deceiving the subjects. One difficulty with that constituted categorical imperatives— this approach is that it is sometimes difficult, principles that define appropriate action in if not impossible, to anticipate all of the harm all situations. Following these categorical that might ensue from a given research design. imperatives represents a moral duty for all Note that a researcher might use a different humans. To define a categorical imperative, course of action depending upon which ethical a person should ask whether the behavior in theory is used as a guide. Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  Chapter 3 Research Ethics 67 A CLOSER LOOK Why Be Ethical? It’s the right thing to do. The relativism approach argues that there with nonmaleficence. Beneficence stipulates a is no absolute right or wrong way to behave. positive obligation to remove existing harms Instead, ethical decisions are determined by and to confer benefits on others. These two the culture within which a researcher is work- principles operate together, and often the ing. Indeed, behavior that is judged wrong in researcher must weigh the harmful risks of one culture may be judged ethical in another. research against its possible benefits (for One way ethical norms of a culture are estab- example, increased knowledge or a refined lished is through the creation of codes of theory). Note how the utilitarian theory behavior or good conduct that describe what relates to these principles. most researchers in the field believe are desir- A fourth ethical principle, the principle of able or undesirable behaviors. A researcher justice, is related to both deontological and confronted with a particular ethical problem teleological theories of ethics. At its general can refer to these codes for guidance. level, this principle holds that people who are These three theories help form the basis equal in relevant respects should be treated for the ethical principles discussed next. equally. In the research context, this principle should be applied when new programs or ETHICAL PRINCIPLES policies are being evaluated. The positive results of such research should be shared General ethical principles are difficult to con- with all. For example, it would be unethical struct in the research area. However, there to deny the benefit of a new teaching proce- are at least four relevant principles. First dure to children because they were originally is the principle of autonomy, or self- chosen to be in the control group rather than determination, which has its roots in the cat- in the group that received the experimental egorical imperative. Denying autonomy is procedure. Benefits should be shared with all not something that a researcher wishes to who are qualified. see universally practiced. Basic to this con- Frey, Botan, and Kreps (2000) offer the cept is the demand that the researcher following summary of moral principles com- respects the rights, values, and decisions of monly advocated by researchers: other people. The reasons for a person’s actions should be respected and the actions 1. Provide the people being studied not interfered with. This principle is exempli- with free choice. fied by the use of informed consent in the 2. Protect their right to privacy. research procedure. 3. Benefit them rather than harming A second ethical principle important to them. social science research is nonmaleficence. 4. Treat them with respect. In short, it is wrong to intentionally inflict harm on another. A third ethical principle— It is clear that mass media researchers must beneficence—is usually considered in tandem follow some set of rules to meet their ethical Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  68 Part One The Research Process obligations to their subjects and respondents. Do not actively lie to the participant Cook (1976), discussing the laboratory about the nature of the research. approach, offers one such code of behavior Do not lead the participant to commit that represents norms in the field: acts that diminish his or her self- Do not involve people in research with- respect. out their knowledge or consent. Do not violate the right to self- Do not coerce people to participate. determination. Do not withhold from the participant Do not expose the participant to phys- the true nature of the research. ical or mental stress. A CLOSER LOOK Research Misconduct and Retractions Ethical lapses by researchers can lead to seri- disclose that the investigation didn’t use a dou- ous research misconduct. The most egregious ble blind design (in which the researcher does ethical lapses are fabricating data, omitting not know who got the placebo and who got the data that runs counter to a researcher’s predic- experimental drug). Thousands of individuals tion, or inaccurately describing the research were put at risk by the faulty research. procedures. The Office of Research Integrity, a The scientific journals that published these part of the U.S. Department of Health and and other studies that may have falsified data Human Services, regularly reports on research ultimately issued retractions, but the retraction misconduct in the medical and biological process is a lengthy one, usually taking be- sciences. According to its most recent summary, tween 2 and 3 years. Even after a retraction, the agency found 13 cases of research miscon- it’s difficult to undo the harm done by the origi- duct in 2008, with 10 cases involving falsifica- nal publication. For example, in 2010, The tion of data. Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, The results of these ethical failures can be officially retracted a 1998 study that linked serious, particularly in the life sciences. Admin- the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine istrators at the Mayo Clinic concluded that a (MMR) with autism, noting that, among other researcher had made up data that suggested ethical problems, the author of the study had that a person’s own immune system could be a financial interest in discrediting the MMR used to fight cancer. In addition to raising inoculation. Nonetheless, even after the study false hopes among cancer patients, the tainted was discredited, many parents still believe that research led other investigators down a blind the MMR vaccine causes autism and do not alley and wasted both time and money. In vaccinate their children. another case, a researcher claimed to have dis- The results of ethical failures by mass media covered an improved drug treatment for high researchers may not be as serious as those in blood pressure. Many doctors prescribed the the medical field, and there have been no new treatment for their patients. Further exami- recent cases of media journals retracting arti- nation revealed doubts about the data collec- cles, but media researchers should be mindful tion and that the researcher had failed to of the consequences of poor ethical choices. Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  Chapter 3 Research Ethics 69 Do not invade the privacy of the will not affect grades, many students may not participant. believe this. In such a situation, it is better to Do not withhold benefits from partici- keep the questionnaires anonymous and for pants in control groups. the person in authority to be absent from the room while the survey is administered. Do not fail to treat research partici- Voluntary participation is not a pressing pants fairly and to show them consid- ethical issue in mail and telephone surveys eration and respect. because respondents are free to hang up the To this list we add: phone or to throw away the questionnaire. Nonetheless, a researcher should not attempt Always treat every respondent or sub- to induce subjects to participate by misrepre- ject with unconditional human regard. senting the organization sponsoring the (That is, accept and respect a person research or by exaggerating its purpose or for what he or she is, and do not criti- importance. For example, telephone inter- cize the person for what he or she is viewers should not be instructed to identify not.) themselves as representatives of the “Depart- Do academic and private sector research- ment of Information” to mislead people into ers hold different values or view these core thinking the survey is government sponsored. ethical principles differently? Chew (2000) Likewise, mail questionnaires should not be surveyed both groups and found that both constructed to mimic census forms, tax valued confidentiality equally, while aca- returns, Social Security questionnaires, or demic researchers placed a higher value on other official government forms. integrity and beneficence. Private-sector Closely related to voluntary participation researchers were more sensitive to conflict- is the notion of informed consent. For people of-interest issues. to volunteer for a research project, they need to know enough about the project to make an intelligent choice. Researchers have the SPECIFIC ETHICAL PROBLEMS responsibility to inform potential subjects The following subsections discuss some of or respondents of all features of the project the common areas in which mass media that can reasonably be expected to influence researchers might encounter ethical participation. For example, respondents dilemmas. should understand that an interview may take as long as 45 minutes, that a second Voluntary Participation and interview is required, or that after completing Informed Consent a mail questionnaire they may be singled out An individual is entitled to decline to partici- for a telephone interview. pate in any research project or to terminate In an experiment, informed consent participation at any time. Participation in an means that potential subjects must be warned experiment, survey, or focus group is always of any possible discomfort or unpleasantness voluntary, and any form of coercion is unac- that might be involved. Subjects should be ceptable. Researchers who are in a position told if they are to receive or administer elec- of authority over subjects (as when a teacher/ tric shocks, be subjected to unpleasant audio researcher hands questionnaires to university or visual stimuli, or undergo any procedure students) should be especially sensitive to that might cause concern. Any unusual mea- implied coercion: Even though the researcher surement techniques that may be used must might tell the class that failure to participate be described. Researchers have an obligation Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  70 Part One The Research Process to answer candidly and truthfully, as far as In 2002, the American Psychological possible, all the participants’ questions about Association’s (APA) Council of Representa- the research. tives adopted a new ethics code that Experiments that involve deception (as addresses a wide range of ethical issues of described in the next subsection) cause spe- relevance to that discipline. Since mass cial problems about obtaining informed media researchers face many of the same eth- consent. If deception is absolutely necessary ical issues faced by psychologists, it seems to conduct an experiment, is the experi- useful to quote from that document several menter obligated to inform subjects that provisions concerning informed consent. they may be deceived during the upcoming Researchers should disclose: experiment? Will such a disclosure affect participation in the experiment? Will it 1. The purpose of the research, also affect the experimental results? Should expected duration, and procedures the researcher compromise the research by 2. The subjects’ right to decline to par- telling all potential subjects that deception ticipate and to withdraw from the will be involved for some participants but research once participation has begun not for others? 3. The foreseeable consequences of Another problem is deciding how much declining or withdrawing information about a project a researcher 4. Reasonably foreseeable factors that must disclose in seeking informed consent. may be expected to influence sub- Is it enough to explain that the experiment jects’ willingness to participate, such involves rating commercials, or is it neces- as potential risks, discomfort, or sary to add that the experiment is designed adverse effects to test whether subjects with high IQs prefer different commercials from those with low 5. Any prospective research benefits IQs? Obviously, in some situations the 6. Limits of confidentiality researcher cannot reveal everything about 7. Incentives for participation the project for fear of contaminating the 8. Whom to contact for questions results, or in the case of proprietary informa- about the research and research par- tion. For example, if the goal of the research ticipants’ rights is to examine the influence of peer pressure on commercial evaluations, alerting the sub- Examine the APA’s Code of Conduct at jects to this facet of the investigation might www.apa.org/ethics/code. change their behavior in the experiment. Research findings provide some indica- Problems might occur in research that tion of what research participants should be examines the impact of mass media in non- told to ensure informed consent. Epstein, literate communities—for example, the Suedefeld, and Silverstein (1973) found that research subjects might not comprehend subjects wanted a general description of the what they were told regarding the proposed experiment and what was expected of them; investigation. Even in literate societies, many they wanted to know whether danger was people fail to understand the implications for involved, how long the experiment would confidentiality of the storage of survey data last, and the experiment’s purpose. As for on disks. Moreover, an investigator might informed consent and survey participation, not have realized in advance that some sub- Sobal (1984) found wide variation among jects would find part of an experiment or researchers about what to tell respondents survey emotionally disturbing. in the survey introduction. Almost all Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  Chapter 3 Research Ethics 71 introductions identified the research organi- research review committees, as discussed later zation and the interviewer by name and in this section. However, in several generally described the research topic. Less frequently recognized situations, signed forms are mentioned in introductions were the sponsor regarded as impractical. These include tele- of the research and guarantees of confidenti- phone surveys, mail surveys, personal inter- ality or anonymity. Few survey introductions views, and cases in which the signed form mentioned the length of the survey or that itself might represent an occasion for breach participation was voluntary. Greenberg and of confidentiality. For example, a respondent Garramone (1989) reported the results of a who has been promised anonymity as an survey of 201 mass media researchers that inducement to participate in a face-to-face disclosed that 96% usually provided guaran- interview might be suspicious if asked to sign teed confidentiality of results, 92% usually a consent form after the interview. In these named the sponsoring organization, 66% circumstances, the fact that the respondent usually told respondents that participation agreed to participate is taken as implied con- was voluntary, and 61% usually disclosed sent. The special problems of gaining consent the length of the questionnaire. for online research are discussed shortly. Finally, a researcher must consider the As a general rule, the greater the risks of form of the consent to be obtained. Writ- potential harm to subjects, the greater the ten consent is a requirement in certain need to obtain a consent statement. government-sponsored research programs Figure 3.1 is an example of a typical consent and may also be required by many university form. Figure 3.1 Example of a Typical Consent Form The purpose of this research is to explore possible relationships between watching daytime TV talk shows and perceptions of social reality. You will be asked questions about your general TV viewing, your viewing of daytime talk shows, and your attitudes about interpersonal relationships. This questionnaire will take about 20 minutes to complete. Please answer every question as accurately as possible. Participation is voluntary. Your grades will not be affected if you choose not to partici- pate. Your participation will be anonymous. No discomfort, stress, or risks are anticipated. I agree to participate in the research entitled “Talk Show Viewing and Social Reality” conducted by , in the Department of Mass Communication at the University of , (telephone number ). I under- stand that this participation is entirely voluntary. I can withdraw my consent at any time without penalty and have the results of this participation, to the extent that they can be identified as mine, returned to me, removed from the research record, or destroyed. Signature of Researcher (date) Signature of Participant (date) Research at the University of that involves human participants is overseen by the Institutional Review Board. Questions or problems regarding your rights as a participant should be addressed to , (telephone number , email address ). Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  72 Part One The Research Process Concealment and Deception perceive what was done to them as deception Concealment and deception are encountered but viewed it as a necessary element in the most frequently in experimental research. research procedure. Christensen illustrates Concealment is withholding certain informa- the relativistic approach when he suggests tion from the subjects; deception is deliber- that any decision regarding the use of decep- ately providing false information. Both tion should take into account the context and practices raise ethical problems. The difficulty aim of the deception. Research suggests that in obtaining consent has already been men- subjects are most disturbed when deception tioned. A second problem derives from the violates their privacy or increases their risk of general feeling that it is wrong for experimen- harm. Obviously, deception is not a tech- ters to lie to or otherwise deceive subjects. nique that should be used indiscriminately. Many critics argue that deception trans- Kelman (1967) suggests that before the inves- forms a subject from a human being into a tigator settles on deception as an experimental manipulated object and is therefore demean- tactic, three questions should be examined: ing to the participant. Moreover, once sub- 1. How significant is the proposed study? jects have been deceived, they are likely to expect to be deceived again in other research 2. Are alternative procedures available projects. At least two research studies seem to that would provide the same suggest that this concern is valid. Stricker and information? Messick (1967) reported finding a high inci- 3. How severe is the deception? (It is one dence of suspicion among high school−age thing to tell subjects that the experi- subjects after they had been deceived. More mentally constructed message they recently, Jamison, Karlan, and Schechter are reading was taken from the New (2008) found that subjects who were deceived York Times; it is another to falsely in one experiment were less likely to partici- report that the test a subject has just pate in a second experiment. In addition, completed was designed to measure when compared to subjects who were not latent suicidal tendencies.) deceived, those individuals who were deceived Another set of criteria is offered by Elms displayed different behaviors in the subse- (1982), who suggests five necessary and suf- quent experiment. ficient conditions under which deception can On the other hand, some researchers be considered ethically justified in social sci- argue that certain studies could not be con- ence research: ducted at all without the use of deception. They use the utilitarian approach to argue 1. When there is no other feasible way that the harm done to those who are to obtain the desired information deceived is outweighed by the benefits of 2. When the likely benefits substan- the research to scientific knowledge. Indeed, tially outweigh the likely harm Christensen (1988) suggests that it may be 3. When subjects are given the option to immoral to fail to investigate important withdraw at any time without penalty areas that cannot be investigated without the use of deception. He also argues that 4. When any physical or psychological much of the sentiment against deception in harm to subjects is temporary research exists because deception has been 5. When subjects are debriefed about analyzed only from the viewpoint of abstract all substantial deception and the moral philosophy. The subjects who were research procedures are made avail- “deceived” in many experiments did not able for public review Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  Chapter 3 Research Ethics 73 Pascual, Leone, Singh, and Scoboria (2010) considering whether deception may developed a checklist to help new researchers be justified? (Y/N) decide whether deception is justified in their (2) Is there any way this study could be research. Some sample items from their list: done either without or with a lesser (1) Have all reasonably possible costs degree of deception? and benefits been accounted for in A CLOSER LOOK Research Ethics and Facebook The social networking site Facebook is But is the information on Facebook public or extremely popular among college students. As of private? One side of this argument maintains 2012, about 900 million people were members that Facebook members have no expectations of the site, and it regularly shows up among the of privacy when it comes to posting information top 10 most-visited destinations on the Internet. on their pages. Indeed, it appears that the Facebook has also become a gold mine of infor- prime motivation of Facebook members is to mation for researchers. Social scientists at several share the information. If users choose not to universities are using Facebook data to examine use the privacy safeguards provided by the such topics as self-esteem, popularity, and per- site, what they post is fair game. sonal attraction. Not surprisingly, Facebook has On the other hand, is the assumption of no generated a few new ethical issues as well. privacy expectations accurate? A survey of To illustrate, researchers at Harvard Univer- Facebook members found that most expected sity studied social relationships by secretly moni- that their profiles would be viewed mainly by toring the Facebook profiles of an entire class of a small circle of friends—not the world in gen- students at a U.S. college. The 1,700 students eral. Sharing information in this limited context involved in the project did not know they were is not the same as posting something for all to being studied, nor had they given their permis- see. Further, even if Facebook members sion to the Harvard research team. The research- intended that the information be made public, ers promised that they will take steps to insure the it does not necessarily mean that they con- privacy of all the participants. Does such a study sented to the information’s being aggregated, violate accepted ethical standards? coded, analyzed, and distributed. Once the Federal human subjects’ guidelines were data were published, even if presented only in mainly written for an era before Facebook the aggregate form, it might be possible for existed and are open to interpretation. As a someone to identify the subjects involved in result, many universities have established their the research. (Indeed, once data from the Har- own, sometimes conflicting, policies. For exam- vard University study were released, other ple, the institutional review board at Indiana researchers quickly identified both the college University will not approve research using where the research was conducted and the data from social networking sites without the class that was examined.) site’s approval or the consent of those being Once again, the Internet is forcing studied. Other universities seem to rely on the researchers to re-examine their traditional traditional principle that no consent is needed if assumptions about the ethical dimensions of a researcher is observing public behavior. their research. Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  74 Part One The Research Process (3) Is the deception associated with that effective nondeceptive alterna- more than minimal risk? tive procedures are not feasible. (4) Are there possible risks that may b. Psychologists do not deceive prospec- have been overlooked in the tive participants about research that description of this study? (Y/N) is reasonably expected to cause phys- ical pain or severe emotional distress. The authors report that a survey of 45 researchers indicated that the checklist was c. Psychologists explain any deception perceived as easy to use and helpful in expe- that is an integral feature of the design diting their University’s ethical review and conduct of an experiment to par- process. ticipants as early as is feasible, pre- The above suggestions offer researchers ferably at the conclusion of their good advice for the planning stages of participation, but no later than at investigations. the conclusion of the data collection, When an experiment is concluded, and permit participants to withdraw especially one involving concealment or their data. deception, it is the responsibility of the inves- The American Sociological Association’s tigator to debrief subjects. Debriefing means guidelines for research contain similar that after the experiment is over the investiga- language: tor thoroughly describes the purpose of the research, explains the use of deception (if it Sociologists do not use deceptive techni- occurred), and encourages the subject to ask ques unless (1) they have obtained the questions about the research. Debriefing approval of institutional review boards should be thorough enough to remove any and (2) they have determined that the lasting effects that might have been created use of deceptive techniques will not be by the experimental manipulation or by any harmful to research participants; that other aspect of the experiment. Subjects’ deception is justified by the study’s pro- questions should be answered and the poten- spective scientific, educational, or tial value of the experiment stressed. How applied value; and that equally effective common is debriefing among mass media alternative procedures that do not use researchers? In the survey cited in Greenberg deception are not feasible. and Garramone (1989), 71% of the research- Sociologists never deceive research par- ers reported they usually debrief subjects, ticipants about significant aspects of 19% debrief sometimes, and 10% rarely or the research that might affect their will- never debrief subjects. Although it is an ethi- ingness to participate, such as physical cal requirement of most experiments, the risks, discomfort, or unpleasant emo- practice of debriefing has yet to be embraced tional experiences. by all investigators. When deception is an integral feature The APA’s 2002 code contains the fol- of the design and conduct of research, lowing provisions concerning deception: sociologists attempt to correct any mis- a. Psychologists do not conduct a study conception that research participants involving deception unless they have may have no later than at the conclu- determined that the use of deceptive sion of the research. techniques is justified by the study’s No data are available on how often significant prospective scientific, deception is used in mass media research. educational, or applied value and However, some information is available Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  Chapter 3 Research Ethics 75 from other fields. In a study of 23 years of person, household, or telephone number. In articles published in a leading psychology such instances, the researcher should promise journal, Sieber (1995) found that 66% of confidentiality; that is, respondents should be all studies published in 1969 used deception, assured that even though they can be identi- compared to 47% in 1992. A recent survey fied as individuals, their names would never of the literature (Hertwig & Ortman, 2008) be publicly associated with the information found that around half of all the studies in they provide. A researcher should never use social psychology used some form of anonymous in a way that is or seems to be deception. synonymous with confidential. Additionally, respondents should be told Protection of Privacy who will have access to the information they The problem of protecting the privacy of par- provide. The researcher’s responsibility for ticipants arises more often in field observation assuring confidentiality does not end once and survey research than in laboratory stud- the data have been analyzed and the study ies. In field studies, observers may study peo- concluded. Questionnaires that identify peo- ple in public places without their knowledge ple by name should not be stored in public (for example, individuals watching TV at an places, nor should other researchers be given airport lounge). The more public the place, permission to examine confidential data the less a person has an expectation of privacy unless all identifying marks have been obliter- and the fewer ethical problems are encoun- ated. The APA’s statement does not contain tered. However, some public situations do much guidance on issues of privacy and con- present ethical concerns. For example, is it fidentiality. It does say that researchers should ethical for a researcher to pretend to browse inform subjects if they are planning to share in a video rental store when in fact the or use data that are personally identifiable. researcher is observing who rents porno- The American Sociological Association’s graphic videos? What about eavesdropping guidelines are more detailed. In part they on people’s dinner conversations to determine include the following provisions: how often news topics are discussed? To min- Sociologists take reasonable precau- imize ethical problems, a researcher should tions to protect the confidentiality violate privacy only to the minimum degree rights of research participants, stu- needed to gather the data. dents, employees, clients, or others. When they take a survey, respondents have a right to know whether their privacy Confidential information provided by will be maintained and who will have access research participants, students, to the information they provide. There are employees, clients, or others is treated two ways to guarantee privacy: by assuring as such by sociologists even if there is anonymity and by assuring confidentiality. A no legal protection or privilege to do promise of anonymity is a guarantee that a so. Sociologists have an obligation to given respondent cannot possibly be linked protect confidential information and to any particular response. In many research not allow information gained in confi- projects, anonymity is an advantage because dence to be used in ways that would it encourages respondents to be honest and unfairly compromise research partici- candid in their answers. Strictly speaking, pants, students, employees, clients, or personal and telephone interviews cannot others. be anonymous because the researcher can Sociologists may confront unantici- link a given questionnaire to a specific pated circumstances when they become Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  76 Part One The Research Process aware of information that is clearly studying preliterate societies was required by health- or life-threatening to research the IRB to have respondents read and sign a participants, students, employees, cli- consent form before being interviewed. ents, or others. In these cases, sociolo- Another IRB tried to block an English profes- gists balance the importance of sor’s essay that used students’ personal guarantees of confidentiality with other accounts of encountering violence because principles in this Code of Ethics, stan- the students might be stressed if they read the dards of conduct, and applicable law. essay. (See American Association of Univer- Confidentiality is not required with sity Professors, 2006, Research on Human respect to observations in public Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institu- places, activities conducted in public, tional Review Board, available at www.aaup. or other settings where no rules of pri- org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/ humansubs.htm, for vacy are provided by law or custom. other examples.) Qualitative researchers were Similarly, confidentiality is not particularly bothered by having to seek IRB required in the case of information approval. They argued that since qualitative available from public records. research does not have generalizability as a goal, they should not be covered by the Com- mon Rule. (See Chapter 5 for more informa- tion on qualitative research.) FEDERAL REGULATIONS At most universities, IRBs have become CONCERNING RESEARCH part of the permanent bureaucracy. They In 1971, the Department of Health, Educa- hold regular meetings and have developed tion and Welfare (HEW) drafted rules for standardized forms that must accompany obtaining informed consent from research proposals for research that involves human participants including full documentation of subjects or respondents. For a description informed consent procedures. These rules of how a typical IRB operates, consult were eventually codified as the Federal Pol- www.nova.edu/irb/. icy for the Protection of Human Subjects, In 1981, the Department of Health and often referred to as the “Common Rule,” Human Services (HHS, successor to HEW) and were published as Title 45, part 46, in softened its regulations concerning social sci- the Code of Federal Regulations. The Com- ence research. The department’s Policy for the mon Rule defines research as a “systematic Protection of Human Research Subjects investigation, including research develop- exempts studies that use existing public data; ment, testing and evaluation, designed to research in educational settings about new develop or contribute to generalizable instructional techniques; research involving knowledge.” the use of anonymous education tests; and sur- In addition, the government set up a sys- vey, interview, and observational research in tem of institutional review boards (IRBs) to public places, provided that the subjects are safeguard the rights of human subjects. In not identified and sensitive information is 2010, there were more than 800 IRBs at not collected. Signed consent forms are medical schools, colleges, universities, hospi- deemed unnecessary if the research presents tals, and other institutions. only a minimal risk of harm to subjects and IRBs are a continuing source of irritation involves no procedures for which written con- for many social science researchers, and some sent is required outside the research context. seemingly strange IRB decisions have been This means that signed consent forms are no well publicized. For example, one researcher longer necessary in the interview situation Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.  Chapter 3 Research Ethics 77 because a person does not usually seek written enactment. In its notice of proposed rulemak- consent before asking a question. ing, the HHS noted that current regulations The Office for Human Research Protec- concerning human subjects were drafted tions has created a series of intricate decision years ago and have not kept pace with charts to help researchers decide whether many developments, including changes in their research needs IRB approval. The 11 social and behavioral science research. charts answer questions related to the fol- Although many of the proposed revisions lowing issues: deal with medical and biological science, one proposed change suggests that studies Whether an activity is research that using “educational tests, surveys, interviews must be reviewed by an IRB and similar procedures” when conducted Whether the review may be performed among competent adults would be excused by expedited procedures from IRB review. In addition, HHS asked Whether informed consent or its docu- for comments from researchers to help iden- mentation may be waived tify other areas of social and behavioral sci-