Discussion 5.1

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wgls20

Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services

ISSN: 1053-8720 (Print) 1540-4056 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgls20

Applying Ethical Standards to Research and Evaluations Involving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

James I. Martin MSW, PhD & William Meezan MSW, DSW

To cite this article: James I. Martin MSW, PhD & William Meezan MSW, DSW (2003) Applying Ethical Standards to Research and Evaluations Involving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 15:1-2, 181-201, DOI: 10.1300/ J041v15n01_12

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v15n01_12

Published online: 22 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1038

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Applying Ethical Standards to Research and Evaluations

Involving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

James I. Martin William Meezan

SUMMARY. This manuscript examines the application of ethical stan- dards to research on LGBT populations and the evaluation of programs and practices that impact them. It uses social work’s Code of Ethics (Na- tional Association of Social Workers, 1996) and psychology’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychologi- cal Association, 1992) to examine specific ethical issues as they pertain to research involving LGBT populations. It notes that when conducting studies with these populations, researchers may need to take additional

James I. Martin, MSW, PhD, is Associate Professor, Shirley M. Ehrenkranz School of Social Work, New York University, New York, NY. William Meezan, MSW, DSW, is Marion Elizabeth Blue Professor of Children and Families, University of Michigan, School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI.

Address correspondence to: Dr. James I. Martin, Shirley M. Ehrenkranz School of Social Work, New York University, 1 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10003 (E-mail: james.martin@nyu.edu).

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Applying Ethical Standards to Research and Evaluations Involving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations.” Martin, James I., and William Meezan. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services (Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 15, No. 1/2, 2003, pp. 181-201; and: Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisex- ual, and Transgender Populations (ed: William Meezan, and James I. Martin) Harrington Park Press, an im- print of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2003, pp. 181-201. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com].

 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 181

measures to protect participants from harm and to ensure the relevance and usefulness of their findings. In addition, heterosexist and genderist biases are examined as ethical issues, as is the tension between scientific objectivity and values in research involving LGBT populations. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights re- served.]

KEYWORDS. Ethics, research, professional codes of ethics, research bias, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender

Cournoyer and Klein (2000) defined professional ethics as principles of conduct, based on a specific set of values, that guide appropriate professional behavior. Because personal and professional values inform nearly every choice made when engaging in both research and practice, the main profes- sional organizations for social workers and psychologists have codified their core values into specific standards of ethical conduct. They are the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) Code of Ethics (1996) and the Amer- ican Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (1992). Although the standards of these two organiza- tions are not exactly the same, they have many similarities.

Members of NASW and APA are expected to abide by their respective Codes when engaging in research and practice. Adherence to these Codes, and the standards that derive from them, are expected to protect the public from po- tential harm when receiving services and participating in research and evalua- tion studies.

Hardly any of the numerous elaborations, explanations, and applications of ethical standards in social work and psychological research (e.g., Kendler, 1993; McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986; Padgett, 1998; Reamer, 1998; Royse, Thyer, Padgett, & Logan, 2001) identify the unique ethical dilemmas that may arise in the conduct of research with lesbian, gay, or bisexual populations or explain the application of ethical standards in these situations (see Herek, Kimmel, Amaro, & Melton, 1991; Martin & Knox, 2000; Woodman, Tully, & Barranti, 1995). None examine the application of ethical standards to research involving transgender populations.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations are marginalized in American society, and their members are at risk for experiencing violence, dis- crimination, and exploitation in a variety of contexts (Herek, Gillis, Cogan, &

182 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

Glunt, 1997; Hunter, Shannon, Knox, & Martin, 1998) and the subsequent nega- tive effects of these experiences (Clements-Nolle, Marx, Guzman, & Katz, 2001; Diaz, Ayala, Bein, Henne, & Marin, 2001; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1995; Meyer, 1995; Savin Williams, 1994). Because research involving LGBT populations always occurs within this con- text, there may be greater potential for exploitation and harm to participants and the communities they represent in these studies than in studies of less vul- nerable and marginalized populations. These dangers are likely to be magni- fied in studies of “deviant behaviors” or social problems (e.g., alcoholism and drug abuse, intimate partner violence, HIV behavioral risk patterns) in LGBT populations. Therefore, the lack of attention in the literature to the ethical di- lemmas encountered in research involving LGBT populations, or the elabora- tion of guidelines for protecting members of these populations in the course of research, is extremely troubling.

There is an ample history of medical and social science research involv- ing LGBT populations that have violated contemporary ethical standards. Murphy’s (1992) review of the strategies used to attempt to change the sex- ual orientation of men and women includes accounts of numerous studies that caused physical harm to their participants. For example, Nazi physicians studied the effectiveness of castration and subsequent hormone injections in extinguishing homoeroticism among male prisoners (Plant, 1986). Bremer (1959) reported on castration among 244 men, and concluded that although it succeeded in reducing sex drive it was not effective in changing homoerotic orientation. Owensby (1941) studied the use of pharmacologic shock in “cor- recting” the homosexuality of 15 men and women. Several studies (e.g., Callahan & Leitenberg, 1973; McConaghy, 1976; Tanner, 1974) have exam- ined the effectiveness of behavior therapy in changing sexual orientation, in- cluding covert sensitization paired with contingent electric shock and apomorphine therapy, which may cause vomiting or erection depending on dosage and method of use.

There is no evidence that physical harm was caused to participants in the Bieber et al. (1962) study of the effectiveness of several years of psychoana- lytic treatment on changing men’s sexual orientation. However, the treatment being evaluated might have harmed participants psychologically by encourag- ing them to maintain futile efforts toward changing their sexual orientation, and by reinforcing guilt and shame regarding their sexual feelings. For exam- ple, after many years of psychoanalytic treatment, Duberman (1991) discussed with his psychiatrist the difficulty he had in accepting the perspective of gay liberation. He stated “I suspect it’s the extent of my brainwashing–too many years hearing about my ‘pathology,’ and believing it” (p. 193).

In addition, by claiming success in changing men’s sexual orientation based on questionable methodology, Bieber et al. (1962) undoubtedly contributed to

James I. Martin and William Meezan 183

discriminatory societal attitudes and public policies. In particular, this study, which claimed that 27 of 106 participants changed their sexual orientation to exclusively heterosexual, used a questionnaire that the participant’s psychoan- alyst completed; there was no self-report of either sexual behavior or fantasy included in the measurement package.

Perhaps the best known example of research that risked harming members of an LGBT population is Humphreys’ (1970) Tearoom Trade. This study’s design involved an elaborate deception in which men’s same-gender sexual behaviors in a public restroom were observed and recorded. Subsequently, the auto license plates of these men were used to obtain their home addresses. They were then asked to participate in an interview in that setting, using false pretenses to help ensure their cooperation.

Because Humphreys did not obtain informed consent from participants, and especially because of the extensive deception used in all phases of the re- search, the men’s participation in this research must be considered to have been involuntary. In addition, the study participants’ privacy was obviously invaded. However, the researcher did not breach the participants’ confidential- ity, and there is no evidence that any of them experienced actual harm. In fact, the study was noteworthy for bringing same-gender sexual behavior among men out of the closet in a scientifically neutral, non-condemnatory manner.

In other studies of LGBT populations, the extensive measures taken to protect confidentiality reflected the magnitude of the danger participants were thought to face. For example, Hooker (1957) interviewed gay partici- pants in her home, rather than in her university office, fearing that no one would take part in her study without such protection–study participants were well aware that their lives could be seriously damaged if their confidentiality was breached. Hooker (1993) recalled that one of them “called me long dis- tance at frequent intervals to ask whether his tapes had been erased” (p. 451).

Some studies have caused harm to LGBT communities, rather than to their individual participants, because of the way in which their results were used. For example, Herek (1998) noted that although researchers have generally ig- nored the studies conducted by Cameron and his colleagues (e.g., Cameron & Cameron, 1996; Cameron, Proctor, Cobum, & Forde, 1985), these studies “have had a more substantial impact in the public arena, where they have been used to promote stigma and to foster unfounded stereotypes of lesbians and gay men as predatory, dangerous, and diseased” (p. 247). According to Herek, Cameron’s studies were used to promote and defend Colorado’s Amendment 2, an initiative that would have prevented any level of that state’s government from prohibiting discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual residents. In striking down this law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it violated the Equal

184 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (FindLaw Resources, n.d.).

This article will use the standards for evaluation and research (sec. 5.02) of the NASW Code of Ethics as a framework for examining ethical conduct with LGBT populations. Only those standards that are particularly applicable to LGBT populations will be examined. The article will also make reference to selected standards in the APA Code of Conduct, and it will include ethical is- sues that are not directly addressed by either ethical code.

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR RESEARCH

Standard 5.02(a). Social workers should monitor and evaluate policies, the implementation of programs, and practice interventions.

Standard 5.02(b). Social workers should promote and facilitate evalua- tion and research to contribute to the development of knowledge.

Since the 1970s, monitoring and evaluating practice interventions and pro- grams have become increasingly important aspects of social work practice. With the exception of some AIDS service organizations, LGBT community organiza- tions tend to be grassroots enterprises that rarely receive funding from govern- ment agencies. When social workers are involved with such organizations, either as board members or employees, they should spearhead or encourage pro- gram monitoring and evaluation efforts. In addition, the lack of outcome infor- mation for social work interventions, as noted by Reamer (1998), is particularly serious for interventions with LGBT clients. Evaluations of programs and inter- ventions, especially if they are published, can help to ensure that LGBT com- munity organizations are accountable to their members and clients, and that providers’ services are appropriate, effective, and efficient.

Standard 5.02(c). Social workers should critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work and fully use evaluation and research evidence in their professional practice.

According to several authors, many social workers lack information or have biases about LGBT populations (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997; Martin & Knox, 2000; Morrow, 1996). Accreditation standards of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) that require curriculum on lesbian and gay persons and their unique issues are an attempt to rectify this problem (CSWE, 1994). In ad- dition, there has been a major increase in the amount of published research on lesbian and gay populations, due in large part to social work faculty who are

James I. Martin and William Meezan 185

openly lesbian or gay and to the nondiscrimination policies of the educational institutions that employ them. But social work research on bisexual and transgender populations continues to lag far behind (Martin & Hunter, 2001).

Unfortunately, professional social workers may not keep up with advances in professional knowledge (Barker, 1990). This situation is particularly dis- turbing for LGBT persons in need, given the lack of information about LGBT populations that many social work students report receiving in their graduate programs (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997). In other words, social workers may not learn much about these populations while getting their social work degrees, and they might not learn much more after they graduate.

Standard 5.02(d). Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should carefully consider possible consequences and should follow guidelines developed for the protection of evaluation and research par- ticipants. Appropriate institutional review boards should be consulted.

Research can result in both positive and negative consequences to its partic- ipants and the populations they represent. Similarly, evaluations can result in both benefits and costs to any of the program’s stakeholders. Researchers must think very seriously about these potential consequences, especially when par- ticipants or stakeholders are members of vulnerable LGBT populations. In other words, social work research must be socially responsible (Padgett, 1988).

One important consideration in this regard is the way in which others might use research or evaluation findings. For example, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently ordered an audit of HIV prevention grants and the programs to which they have been awarded. This review was ap- parently prompted by an HHS report criticizing the San Francisco Stop AIDS Project, which serves a large gay population, for the use of “obscenity” and for encouraging sexual activities (Erickson, 2001). One possible use of this audit would be to withhold or withdraw funds from HIV prevention programs for gay and bisexual men. Evaluations of such programs are not inherently heterosexist, but when they are conducted within a hostile political context there is ample reason for concern. Padgett (1998) suggested that researchers take care to “frame the presentation of the [study’s] results and discuss their implications” (p. 43) in ways that minimize the possibility that others could misuse them to harm the participants, the groups they represent, or those who serve them.

When psychologist Evelyn Hooker planned her study testing the assump- tion of psychopathology among gay men (Hooker 1957), she could not have known that it would eventually lead to the declassification of homosexuality

186 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

by the American Psychiatric Association. Surely she considered the possibility of some benefit to the larger population of gay men if her sample was found to have no more psychopathology than nongay men (as it did). But if the sample were found to have more psychopathology, it might have closed off the possi- bility of other research on “normal male homosexuals” (Hooker, 1993, p. 451), especially considering the extremely hostile political and social environment in which the study was conducted.

Since 1974, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), charged with ensuring the protection of research subjects from harm, have been mandated for all organi- zations that receive federal funds and conduct behavioral or biomedical re- search. The federal regulations that mandate and govern IRBs are detailed in 45 CFR 46 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997). Needs as- sessments, program monitoring and evaluations, and single system studies of client outcomes are not included in the definition of “research,” according to the federal regulations.

Thus, agencies engaging in these activities, but not research leading to generalizable knowledge, are not required to have IRBs (Cournoyer & Klein, 2000). Few LGBT community agencies conduct “research” as defined by fed- eral regulations, and thus they rarely have their own IRBs. In the event that such agencies receive federal funds for “research,” they must either create their own IRB or find an existing one that is willing to review their proposal and monitor the project. Thus, one benefit of agencies partnering with faculty members for research projects is the use of a university IRB.

However, best ethical practices suggest that agencies should submit propos- als for evaluation studies to either an internal or external review committee. Taking such measures will help to ensure that these studies follow appropriate treatment protocols and abide by all appropriate ethical standards.

Fundamentally, IRBs base their decisions regarding proposed research ac- cording to a risk/benefit ratio in which the potential harms or costs to partici- pants are weighed against the potential benefits to them or to society in general (Royse, 1999). In cases in which the risks appear to outweigh the potential benefits, IRBs will typically require a redesign of the study so that the potential risks are reduced or avoided (Sieber & Stanley, 1988). For example, they might require a debriefing to alleviate emotional distress engendered by partic- ipation in the study (Monette, Sullivan, & DeJong, 1998). Or they might re- quire that the consent form used in the study include a fuller description of the potential risks of participation.

There are no specific federal regulations for research involving LGBT pop- ulations. In fact, IRBs might be more likely to reject research proposals deal- ing with socially sensitive topics (Sieber & Stanley, 1988) such as sexual orientation or gender expression. According to Ceci, Peters, and Plotkin

James I. Martin and William Meezan 187

(1985), such rejections reflect the sociopolitical ideologies of IRB committee members. Researchers proposing studies involving LGBT populations must unfortunately be wary of IRB reviews conducted in institutions that do not for- bid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender expression.

Standard 5.02(e). Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should obtain voluntary and written informed consent from participants, when appropriate, without any implied or actual deprivation or penalty for refusal to participate; without undue inducement to participate; and with due regard for participants’ well-being, privacy, and dignity. In- formed consent should include information about the nature, extent, and duration of the participation requested and disclosure of the risks and benefits of participation in the research.

Standard 5.02(h). Social workers should inform participants of their right to withdraw from evaluation and research at any time without pen- alty.

One of the main concerns of IRBs is whether studies have appropriate and sufficient procedures to ensure participants’ voluntary informed consent. The Humphreys (1970) study of men’s sexual behavior in public restrooms is often identified as an example of research that violated the principle of voluntary in- formed consent. As described above, while the confidentiality of the study’s participants was never violated, their dignity and self-determination certainly were, and permission to intrude on their privacy was never obtained through informed consent procedures.

While, in general, research should be conducted only with people who have consented to participate, this principle can be ethically circumscribed in ways that may afford the research participant even greater protection. Martin and Knox (2000) recommended that gay and lesbian (bisexual and transgender should be added) research participants should remain anonymous, and noted that written consent does not afford them this added protection. They sug- gested that, when possible, anonymous surveys using self-administered ques- tionnaires or phone interviews, in which consent is implied rather than written, should be used. In this way, people who wish to be excluded from the study would not fill out and return the questionnaire or complete the interview. How- ever, use of this procedure needs to be accompanied by assurances that partici- pants are not coerced or highly vulnerable to exploitation (Royse et al., 2001). Thus, given the vulnerability of LGBT populations, the use of implied consent should be carefully scrutinized to make sure participants are not exploited or subject to coercion.

188 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

In addition to these points, the APA Code also states that informed con- sent procedures should “use language that is reasonably understandable to research participants” (Sec. 6.11(a)). Researchers should not assume that GLBT participants are all well-educated, middle-class, English-speaking in- dividuals. Forms should be in participants’ native language, and they should be written at a reading level that is not too high. According to the National In- stitutes of Health Office of Human Subjects Research (2000), consent forms should generally be written below a high school graduate’s level of compre- hension. As such, they should not contain words with more than three sylla- bles, scientific terms, or lengthy sentences. In addition, consent procedures should avoid language that is likely to offend or be misinterpreted by prospec- tive participants. For example, using the term “homosexual” instead of “gay and lesbian,” or referring to both gay men and lesbians as “gay,” could be of- fensive to some participants.

The APA Code also warns psychologists not to use inducements for partici- pation in studies that are excessive or inappropriate. Such inducements could have a coercive effect on prospective participants (Sec. 6.14(b)), which would undermine informed consent procedures. Researchers must be particularly careful about excessive monetary inducements when prospective LGBT par- ticipants, especially youth, are financially unstable or impoverished.

As indicated by 5.02(h), the consent form must inform participants of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Related to this point, the form should explain that refusal to participate in a study, or a deci- sion to withdraw from it, will not result in differential treatment by any agency associated with the study.

Under these procedures, participants could decide that their discomfort with, or other negative reactions to, the study outweighs any benefits they had expected to receive when they first agreed to participate. For example, LGBT participants could become uncomfortable with what they perceive to be the bi- ased or heterosexist language, or assumptions used on a questionnaire or in an interview. Or they might find that a questionnaire takes much longer or is more difficult to complete than they had expected. An explicit statement regarding participants’ right to withdraw minimizes the possibility that they will feel co- erced to remain in the study against their wishes.

Standard 5.02(f). When evaluation or research participants are incapa- ble of giving informed consent, social workers should provide an appro- priate explanation to the participants, obtain the participants’ assent to the extent they are able, and obtain written consent from an appropriate proxy.

James I. Martin and William Meezan 189

Because people younger than 18 cannot legally give consent in the U.S., studies of LGBT youth must involve additional measures to assure that their participation is voluntary. Participants under the age of consent must give writ- ten “assent.” But this does not substitute for the written consent of their parents or guardians, which researchers must also obtain whenever possible. How- ever, obtaining consent from parents or guardians can be dangerous when the underaged participants are LGBT. As noted by Elze (this volume), 45 CFR 46.408(c) allows minors to participate in research without parental or guardian consent if obtaining it would compromise their safety or welfare. This is most likely to be the case among youths living in abusive households or those who have not disclosed their sexual orientation to parents or guardians. In such cases, researchers can use independent advocates to assure participants’ rights (e.g., D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993). Alternatively, IRBs can declare spon- soring agencies to be acting in loco parentis by allowing youths to participate in a study (e.g., Rosario, Hunter, & Gwadz, 1997).

Standard 5.02(g). Social workers should never design or conduct evalu- ation or research that does not use consent procedures, such as certain forms of naturalistic observation and archival research, unless rigorous and responsible review of the research has found it to be justified be- cause of its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and un- less equally effective alternative procedures that do not involve waiver of consent are not feasible.

Social work ethics do not prohibit the use of naturalistic or participant ob- servation. But because these methods involve nondisclosure and perhaps de- ception, they conflict with the ethical principles of self-determination and privacy. Researchers planning to use these methods must justify them on the grounds of the expected value of the study and its findings, the lack of alterna- tive methods (Cournoyer & Klein, 2000), and the assurance that no harm will be caused to the unsuspecting participants. As suggested by Padgett (1998), re- searchers should obtain permission from the appropriate gatekeepers before engaging in research in agency settings, particularly when using these meth- ods. Doing so is especially important when the research sites are LGBT agen- cies, since many of their stakeholders are likely to be suspicious of being exploited by researchers or harmed by research findings. Failing to do so would probably doom the project and make it more difficult for other research to occur in that setting. The APA Code is more explicit about this point, stating that prior to conducting a study psychologists should provide host institutions and organizations with complete information in order to obtain their approval (Sec. 6.09).

190 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

Standard 5.02(i). Social workers should take appropriate steps to ensure that participants in evaluation and research have access to appropriate supportive services.

Standard 5.02(j). Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should protect participants from unwarranted physical or mental dis- tress, harm, danger, or deprivation.

Researchers should not design studies in which participants are knowingly harmed, particularly when such harm or distress is not scientifically justified. In such cases, the risk/benefit ratio of the research, mentioned above, cannot be justified.

Although participants in social work research are unlikely to experience physical harm, psychological harm can occur. As Padgett (1998) noted, inter- views that touch upon painful life events may generate considerable emotion and even distress. And studies using self-administered questionnaires do not ensure the absence of harm or distress. For example, studies asking partici- pants to recall incidents of intimate partner violence among lesbian or gay cou- ples, or of hate violence among transgender individuals, could re-traumatize participants by focusing their attention on reactions to events that they have not yet resolved.

In the event that participants do experience psychological distress, re- searchers are ethically obligated to provide them with, or refer them to, sup- portive services. When participants are members of LGBT populations, researchers must be particularly careful that such services are culturally competent. Even in the largest cities, culturally competent services for transgender participants might not be readily identified. Finding appropriate resources even for lesbian, gay, and bisexual participants could be difficult outside of major cities. But without the presence of such services, a study that poses even minor risk for causing psychological harm or distress to its LGBT participants should not go forward.

Standard 5.02(l). Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should ensure the anonymity or confidentiality of participants and of the data obtained from them. Social workers should inform participants of any limits of confidentiality, the measures that will be taken to ensure confidentiality, and when any records containing research data will be destroyed.

Standard 5.02(m). Social workers who report evaluation and research results should protect participants’ confidentiality by omitting identify- ing information unless proper consent has been obtained authorizing disclosure.

James I. Martin and William Meezan 191

Because of the heightened importance of confidentiality in studies of LGBT populations, researchers conducting studies in which participation is not anon- ymous must take all possible steps to ensure that the identities of participants are never revealed. Such breaches of confidentiality could occur if proper pre- cautions are not taken or if a court issues a subpoena for the research data.

Researchers should take several measures to protect participants’ identities and the confidentiality of the data collected from them. They should replace participant names with identification numbers on questionnaires as soon as possible. They should prevent unauthorized access to data files by using pass- word protections. Diskettes, completed questionnaires, tapes, and client or re- searcher logs should be secured in a locked file cabinet to which only the researcher has the key (Reamer, 1998).

With the exception of consent forms, all materials that would make identifi- cation of participants possible should be destroyed prior to publishing data based on the study. Consent forms should be maintained securely and in such a way that they cannot be linked to individual participants through the presence of a corresponding identification number. After removing any information that could identify participants, researchers should keep data for five years in case any questions arise regarding the analysis or the conduct of the study.

When conducting longitudinal studies, researchers must maintain the “trans- lation” of identification codes to participants’ identities in a separate locked file cabinet. An alternative strategy requires participants to make up their own unique identification code, which they will remember throughout the course of the study. This strategy eliminates the need for a “translation” file altogether.

To prevent the possibility that sensitive data could be subpoenaed, re- searchers should obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality from the U.S. Public Health Service before they begin collecting data. When a Certificate of Confi- dentiality is granted, the researcher cannot be compelled to identify partici- pants by any judicial or legislative body. Certificates may be issued for research on sensitive topics, particularly those having to do with mental health and HIV/AIDS. Studies do not have to be federally funded in order to qualify (Levine, 1991).

Standard 5.02(n). Social workers should report evaluation and research results accurately. They should not fabricate or falsify results and should take steps to correct any errors later found in published data using stan- dard publication methods.

There may be a heightened danger of intentionally or unintentionally mis- representing, fabricating, or falsifying findings when the researcher is strongly

192 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

motivated to find certain results. According to Martin and Knox (2000), “re- searchers with strong political or personal views supporting or opposing [LGBT people] should refrain from engaging in research on [them] unless they are willing to accept that the results might not support their views” (p. 52). In addition, researchers conducting evaluations of programs within an LGBT community of which they are also a member might experience internal or ex- ternal pressure not to report negative findings.

Another section of the NASW Code states that social workers should “hon- estly acknowledge the work of and the contributions made by others” (Sec. 4.08(a)), and take “responsibility and credit . . . only for work they have actu- ally performed and to which they have contributed” (Sec. 4.08(b)). In addition, the APA Code states that psychologists must never misrepresent data as being original if it has been published previously (Sec. 6.24). Social workers must meet this additional ethical standard when publishing in APA journals.

Standard 5.02(o). Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest and dual relationships with participants, should inform participants when a real or potential conflict of interest arises, and should take steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes participants’ interests primary.

According to Woodman, Tully, and Barranti (1995), lesbian researchers conducting studies in the communities in which they live may encounter ethi- cal dilemmas involving dual relationships. For example, a researcher might be the “therapist, professor, friend, co-worker, or teammate” (p. 62) of one or more study participants. This ethical challenge might also occur in transgender or bisexual communities, which can be quite small even in major cities, or in close-knit communities of gay men. Woodman et al. (1995) suggested expand- ing the sampling frame to include participants outside the researcher’s com- munity as a way of lessening this ethical challenge. However, this strategy would not remove the possible problem of having dual relationships with at least some of the study’s participants.

The current version of the NASW Code of Ethics, which was published after this strategy was proposed, is quite clear that social workers should avoid all dual relationships in research. It is extremely difficult to guarantee either the par- ticipants’ privacy or the confidentiality of the information provided when there is a dual relationship with the researcher. In addition, participants could easily feel coerced to involve themselves in the study, and the information they provide might very well be contaminated by an acquiescent response bias.

The safest solution to these issues would be to scrupulously avoid recruiting participants with whom there is any possibility of a dual relationship. These in- clude persons with whom the researcher has a social or familial relationship, or

James I. Martin and William Meezan 193

patrons of a bar the researcher frequents. In the same vein, evaluators em- ployed within an agency should be careful not to recruit their own clients as study participants.

Standard 5.02(p). Social workers should educate themselves, their stu- dents, and their colleagues about responsible research practices.

Although this standard does not state explicitly that “responsible research practices” should include cultural competence regarding the populations under study, the APA Code directs psychologists to “consult those with expertise concerning any special population under investigation or most likely to be af- fected” (Sec. 6.07(d)) when planning and conducting a study. This is a good guideline for both LGBT and non-LGBT researchers when studying LGBT populations. Because these populations are so diverse, even researchers with extensive personal or professional knowledge are unlikely to be expert about every LGBT subgroup. For example, one might have expertise concerning gay men but not lesbians, lesbians but not women of transgender experience, or African American but not Mexican American bisexual men. In many cases ex- perts could be members of the community one wishes to study, as they were for McClennen (this volume). Beyond relying on such experts for education about the population of interest, some authors (e.g., Bowman, 1983; Green & Mercer, 2001; Renzetti, 1995) recommend involving them on a more ongoing basis throughout all phases of the research process: planning, implementation, data collection, and the interpretation of findings, and in the dissemination process.

OTHER ETHICAL ISSUES

In addition to these specific standards for ethical research and evaluation, there are two additional ethical issues that researchers conducting studies on LGBT populations must consider. They concern biases at all stages of the re- search process and the tension between objectivity and values in scientific re- search.

Heterosexist and Genderist Biases in Research

Although the NASW Code does not specifically address the problem of bi- ases in research, it contains several statements that do so indirectly. In particu- lar, Sec. 6.04(c) states that “social workers should promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural and social diversity within the United States and

194 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

globally,” and Sec. 6.04(d) states that “social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class. . . .” The APA Code states explicitly that “psycholo- gists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases . . . and they do not knowingly participate in or condone unfair discriminatory practices.”

The APA’s Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns (1991) asserted that professional writing “should be free of heterosexual bias” (p. 974), and it pro- vided several strategies for meeting this expectation. One was that stigmatiz- ing or pathologizing language should be avoided, including language that communicates assumptions of psychopathology or moral turpitude. Another was that any groups to which comparisons with lesbians or gay men are made should be parallel (e.g., lesbians should be compared to heterosexual women, when appropriate, not to “the general public” or “normal women”). The Publi- cation Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001) contains more extensive guidelines for reducing the use of biased language in research.

Biases represent shared assumptions among members of particular groups of people (McHugh et al., 1986) which can affect research at any stage of the process (Martin & Knox, 2000), often unintentionally. For example, many people assume that gender is binary. This assumption, labeled here as “genderist,” might lead to research that negatively impacts transgender popu- lations. Perhaps most obviously, demographic questions that ask whether par- ticipants are male or female (with no alternative category) communicate this bias, especially when the study makes comparisons between male and female participants. Similarly, studies communicate heterosexist biases when they fail to ask about participants’ sexual orientation or assume that people’s mari- tal status is equivalent to their relationship status.

Biases can also enter the research process in less obvious ways: in the the- ories underpinning the study; the framing of the research questions; the sam- pling strategy; the construction or selection of measurement instruments; and the analysis of data (Herek et al., 1991; Martin & Knox, 2000). Ex- tending the examples provided by Herek et al. (1991), research questions have heterosexist or genderist biases if they ignore the existence of LGBT people, devalue or stigmatize them, or assume that negative characteristics observed in them are caused by their sexual orientation or gender identity/ex- pression.

To reduce the possibility of heterosexist and genderist biases in studies, re- searchers should take care not to use samples that lack representativeness or diversity, or data collection instruments that assume heterosexuality or binary gender. In addition, they should never report results without sufficiently ac- knowledging their limitations, or without anticipating and confronting ways in which the popular media or public might distort or misinterpret them.

James I. Martin and William Meezan 195

CHOOSING THE RESEARCH QUESTION

According to Yegidis and Weinbach (2002), research problems for which there is little potential for positive utilization of the findings or recommenda- tions should be a low priority in social work. In addition, the NASW Code states that helping people in need, addressing social problems, and challeng- ing social injustice are primary ethical principles in social work. These prin- ciples should guide social work research as well as practice. Therefore, social workers who conduct research that may hurt people in need, or support existing social injustices, are acting contrary to the profession’s ethical prin- ciples. However, Rubin and Babbie (2001) warned that such strong ethical im- peratives may be counterproductive, biasing research and distorting truth.

The tension between research as a method for advocating for moral princi- ples and research as a value-free quest for truth is longstanding (see Kendler, 1993), and it periodically erupts when research challenges existing norms or exacerbates conflicts between opposing groups of people. Because issues of sexual orientation and gender expression often serve as social and political flashpoints, research on LGBT populations can easily fan the flames of this di- vide.

One recent example from psychological research concerns the debate sur- rounding Rind, Tromavitch, and Bauserman’s (1998) meta-analysis of studies of the effects of child sexual abuse on college-age young adults and Rind’s (2001) later examination of the effects of gay and bisexual adolescents’ sexual experiences with men. In the earlier paper, Rind and his associates concluded that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause lasting harm, particularly among boys. Furthermore, they recommended that the term “abuse” should be used for sexual encounters between adolescents or even younger children only if the “young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encoun- ter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it” (p. 35).

This paper set off a professional and political firestorm that involved cri- tiques on both methodological and moral grounds (e.g., Dallam et al., 2001; Ondersma, 2001), attacks in the media, a resolution in the U.S. House of Rep- resentatives condemning the article, and a resolution by the American Psycho- logical Association explaining that it remained strongly against child sexual abuse. Rind (2000) charged that critics of the study conflated morality with science.

Rind published the second paper (Rind, 2001) in the midst of this conflict. It showed that, contrary to young women, who more consistently experience sex with an older person as traumatic, gay male adolescents and young adults fre- quently recalled early sexual experiences with older men as consensual and positive; many reported that they had actually initiated them. Rind suggested

196 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

that the pathologizing and criminalizing of all sexual interactions between adult men and adolescent boys might be far more harmful to young gay and bi- sexual men than the sexual experiences themselves.

This paper is likely to anger many groups of people, including mainstream GLBT organizations, which have long since distanced themselves from advo- cates of “man-boy” sexual contact, child welfare organizations that are com- mitted to protecting children from abuse, police, and many legislators. Some people might even assert that this study should not have been conducted be- cause the subject is simply taboo, or because it might provide “ammunition” for opponents of LGBT rights. However, others might argue that assumptions about the negative impact of sexual experiences between boys and adult men are heterosexist in that they presume that all children are heterosexual, and that the process of sexual development among gay and bisexual boys–if it is differ- ent from that of heterosexual boys–must be bad. Therefore, using scientific re- search to examine these assumptions would be consistent with social work’s and psychology’s ethical principles.

CONCLUSION

Researchers must be careful to adhere to the ethical principles of their pro- fession when conducting research on LGBT populations, especially because such studies always occur within a complex, changing, and often hostile sociopolitical environment. A primary purpose of these principles is to pro- tect research participants from exploitation and harm. Because of their marginalized and devalued position in society, LGBT populations are particu- larly vulnerable to these harms. This article explained specific ways in which standards having to do with research in NASW’s Code of Ethics (NASW, 1996), and to a lesser extent APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 1992), may be applied in research on LGBT popula- tions. In many cases, such research requires additional measures in order to en- sure the safety of participants and the relevance and usefulness of the study’s findings.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct [Online]. Retrieved March 14, 2002, from http://www.apa.org/ ethics/code.html#6.21.

American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psy- chological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

James I. Martin and William Meezan 197

American Psychological Association Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns (1991). Avoiding heterosexual bias in language. American Psychologist, 46, 973-974.

Barker, R.L. (1990). Continuing education: A neglected component of competent practice. Journal of Independent Social Work, 4(3), 1-5.

Berkman, C.S., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in social work- ers. Social Work, 42, 319-332.

Bieber, I., Dain, H.J., Dince, P.R., Drellich, M.G., Grand, H.G., Gundlach, R.H., Kremer, M.W., Rifkin, A.H., Wilbur, C.B., & Bieber, T.B. (1962). Homosexuality: A psychoanalytic study. New York: Basic Books.

Bowman, P.J. (1983). Significant involvement and functional relevance: Challenges to survey research. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 19(4), 21-26.

Bremer, J. (1959). Asexualization: A follow-up study of 244 cases. New York: Macmillan.

Callahan, E.J., & Leitenberg, H. (1973). Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Con- tingent shock and covert sensitization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 60-73.

Cameron, P., & Cameron, K. (1996). Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to pupils? Journal of Psychology, 130, 603-613.

Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Cobum, W., & Forde, N. (1985). Sexual orientation and sex- ually transmitted diseases. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.

Ceci, S.J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40, 994-1002.

Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R., Guzman, R., & Katz, M. (2001). HIV prevalence, risk behaviors, health care use, and mental health status of transgender persons: Impli- cations for public health intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 915-921.

Council on Social Work Education (1994). Curriculum Policy Statement for master’s degree programs in social work education [Online]. Retrieved March 14, 2002, from http://www.cswe.org/mswcps.htm.

Cournoyer, D.E., & Klein, W.C. (2000). Research methods for social work. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dallam, S.J., Gleaves, D.H., Cepeda-Benito, A., Silberg, J.L., Kraemer, H.C., & Spiegel, D. (2001). The effects of child sexual abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromavitch, and Bauserman (1998). Psychological Bulletin, 127, 715-733.

D’Augelli, A.R., & Hershberger, S.L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in com- munity settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American Jour- nal of Community Psychology, 21, 421-448.

Diaz, R.M., Ayala, G., Bein, E., Henne, J., & Marin, B.V. (2001). The impact of homo- phobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men: Findings from 3 US cities. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 927-932.

Duberman, M. (1991). Cures. New York: Dutton. Erickson, E. (2001). Audit calls into question funding for sexually explicit AIDS pre-

vention programs for gays. New York Blade News, November 30, p. 7. FindLaw Resources (n.d.). Romer v. Evans [Online]. Retrieved March 13, 2002 from

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10179. Green, L.W., & Mercer, S.L. (2001). Can public health researchers and agencies recon-

cile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities? American Jour- nal of Public Health, 91, 1926-1929.

198 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

Herek, G.M. (1998). Bad science in the service of stigma: A critique of the Cameron group’s survey studies. In G.M. Herek (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues: Vol. 4. Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbian, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 223-255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., & Cogan, J.C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945-951.

Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., Cogan, J.C., & Glunt, E.K. (1997). Hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195-215.

Herek, G.M., Kimmel, D.C., Amaro, H., & Melton, G.B. (1991). Avoiding heterosexist bias in psychological research. American Psychologist, 46, 957-963.

Hershberger, S.L., & D’Augelli, A.R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the men- tal health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental Psy- chology, 31, 65-74.

Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projec- tive Techniques, 21, 18-31.

Hooker, E. (1993). Reflections of a 40-year exploration. American Psychologist, 48, 450-453.

Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Chicago: Aldine. Hunter, S., Shannon, C., Knox, J., & Martin, J.I. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual

youths and adults: Knowledge for human services practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kendler, H.H. (1993). Psychology and the ethics of social policy. American Psycholo- gist, 48, 1046-1053.

Levine, C. (1991). AIDS and the ethics of human subjects research. In F.G. Reamer (Ed.), AIDS & ethics (pp. 77-104). New York: Columbia University Press.

Martin, J.I., & Hunter, S. (2001). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in so- cial work: A comprehensive bibliography with annotations. Alexandria, VA: Coun- cil on Social Work Education.

Martin, J.I., & Knox, J. (2000). Methodological and ethical issues in research on lesbi- ans and gay men. Social Work Research, 24, 51-59.

McConaghy, N. (1976). Is a homosexual orientation irreversible? British Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 556-563.

McHugh, M.C., Koeske, R.D., & Frieze, I.H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research. American Psychologist, 41, 879-890.

Meyer, I.H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38-56.

Monette, D.R., Sullivan, T.J., & DeJong, C.R. (1998). Applied social research: Tool for the human services (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Morrow, D.F. (1996). Heterosexism: Hidden dimension in social work education. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 5(4), 1-16.

Murphy, T.F. (1992). Redirecting sexual orientation: Techniques and justifications. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 501-523.

James I. Martin and William Meezan 199

National Association of Social Workers (1996). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. National Institutes of Health Office of Human Subjects Research (2000). Guidelines

for writing informed consent documents [Online]. Retrieved March 15, 2002, from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/info/finfo_6.php3.

Ondersma, S.J., Chaffin, M., Berliner, L., Cordon, I., Goodman, G.S., & Barnett, D. (2001). Sex with children is abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromavitch, and Bauserman (1998). Psychological Bulletin, 127, 707-714.

Owensby, N.M. (1941). The correction of homosexuality. Urologic and Cutaneous Review, 45, 494-496.

Padgett, D.K. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges and re- wards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Plant, R. (1986). The pink triangle. New York: Henry Holt. Reamer, F.G. (1998). Ethical standards in social work: A critical review of the NASW

Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Renzetti, C.M. (1995). Studying partner abuse in lesbian relationships: A case for the

Feminist Participatory Research Model. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 3(1), 29-42.

Rind, B. (2000). Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation of the attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrity of science. Sexuality and Cul- ture, 4(2), 1-62.

Rind, B. (2001). Gay and bisexual adolescent boys’ sexual experiences with men: An empirical examination of psychological correlates in a nonclinical sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 345-368. Retrieved March 8, 2002, from http://proquest. umi.com.

Rind, B., Tromavitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of as- sumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulle- tin, 124, 22-53. Retrieved March 8, 2002, from http://www.psycinfo.com/ftdocs/ bul/1998/july/bul124122.html.

Rosario, M., Hunter, J., & Gwadz, M. (1997). Exploration of substance use among les- bian, gay, and bisexual youths: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 454-476.

Royse, D. (1999). Research methods in social work (3rd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Royse, D., Thyer, B.A., Padgett, D.K., & Logan, T.K. (2001). Program evaluation: An

introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research methods for social work (4th ed.). Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth. Savin Williams, R.C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of les-

bian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Associations with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clini- cal Psychology, 62, 261-269.

Sieber, J.E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sen- sitive research. American Psychologist, 43, 49-55.

Tanner, B.A. (1974). A comparison of automated aversive conditioning and a waiting list control in the modification of homosexual behavior in males. Behavior Ther- apy, 5(1), 29-32.

200 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997). Federal Policy for the Protec- tion of Human Subjects [Online]. Retrieved March 14, 2002, from http://ohrp. osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.102.

Woodman, N.J., Tully, C.T., & Barranti, C.C. (1995). Research in lesbian communi- ties: Ethical dilemmas. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 3(1), 57-66.

Yegidis, B.L., & Weinbach, R.W. (2002). Research methods for social workers (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

James I. Martin and William Meezan 201