Sociology Ethics Discussion 4

© iStockphoto.com/David P. Lewis

What You’ll Learn in This Chapter

Social research takes place in a social context. Researchers must therefore

take into account many ethical and political considerations alongside

scientifi c ones in designing and executing their research. Often, however,

clear-cut answers to thorny ethical and political issues are hard to come by.

The Ethics and Politics of Social Research

3

65

In this chapter . . .

Introduction

Ethical Issues in Social Research Voluntary Participation

No Harm to the Participants

Anonymity and Coni dentiality

Deception

Analysis and Reporting

Institutional Review Boards

Professional Codes of Ethics

Two Ethical Controversies Trouble in the Tearoom

Observing Human Obedience

The Politics of Social Research Objectivity and Ideology

Politics with a Little “p”

Politics in Perspective

INTRODUCTION

To present a realistic and useful introduction to doing social research, this book must consider four main constraints on research projects: scientii c, administrative, ethical, and political. Most of the book focuses on scientii c and administrative constraints. We’ll see that the logic of science suggests certain research procedures, but we’ll also seen that some scientii cally “perfect” study designs are not administratively feasible, because they would be too expensive or take too long to execute. h roughout the book, therefore, we’ll deal with workable compromises.

Before we get to the scientii c and admini- strative constraints on research, it’s useful to explore the other important considerations in doing research in the real world: ethics and poli- tics, which this chapter covers. Just as certain procedures are too impractical to use, others are either ethically prohibitive or politically dii cult or impossible. Here’s a story to illustrate what I mean.

Several years ago, I was invited to sit in on a planning session to design a study of legal

Whenever research ethics are discussed, the Nazi medical experiments of World War II

often surface as the most hideous breach of ethical standards in history. Civilian and military prisoners in Nazi concentration camps were subjected to freezing; malaria; mustard gas; sulfanilamide; bone, muscle, and nerve transplants; jaundice; sterilization; spotted fever; various poisons; and phosphorus burns, among other tortures. Many died, and others were permanently maimed. All suf ered tremendous physical and psychological pain. Some have argued, however, that the real breach of ethics did not lie in the suf ering or the deaths per se. What could possibly be a worse ethical breach than that?

See the “What do you think? Revisited” box toward the end of the chapter.

What do you think?

education in California. h e joint project was to be conducted by a university research center and the state bar association. h e purpose of the project was to improve legal education by learning which aspects of the law school expe- rience were related to success on the bar exam. Essentially, the plan was to prepare a question- naire that would get detailed information about the law school experiences of individuals. People would be required to answer the questionnaire when they took the bar exam. By analyzing how people with dif erent kinds of law school expe- riences did on the bar exam, we could i nd out what sorts of things worked and what didn’t. h e i ndings of the research could be made avail- able to law schools, and ultimately legal educa- tion could be improved.

?

E a

rl B

a b

b ie

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH66

h e exciting thing about collaborating with the bar association was that all the normally irri- tating logistical hassles would be handled. h ere would be no problem getting permission to ad- minister questionnaires in conjunction with the exam, for example, and the problem of nonre- sponse could be eliminated altogether.

I left the meeting excited about the prospects for the study. When I told a colleague about it, I glowed about the absolute handling of the nonresponse problem. Her immediate comment turned everything around completely. “h at’s unethical. h ere’s no law requiring the questionnaire, and participation in research has to be voluntary.” h e study wasn’t done.

In retelling this story, it’s obvious to me that requiring participation would have been inappro- priate. You may have seen this even before I told you about my colleague’s comment. I still feel a little embarrassed over the matter, but I have a specii c purpose in telling this story about myself.

All of us consider ourselves to be ethical—not perfect perhaps, but as ethical as anyone else and perhaps more so than most. h e problem in social research, as probably in life, is that ethical considerations are not always apparent to us. As a result, we often plunge into things without see- ing ethical issues that may be apparent to others and may even be obvious to us when pointed out. When I reported back to the others in the plan- ning group, for example, no one disagreed with the inappropriateness of requiring participa- tion. Everyone was a bit embarrassed about not having seen it.

Any of us can immediately see that a study that requires small children to be tortured is un- ethical. I know you’d speak out immediately if I suggested that we interview people about their sex lives and then publish what they said in the local newspaper. But, as ethical as you are, you’ll totally miss the ethical issues in some other situations—we all do.

h e i rst half of this chapter deals with the ethics of social research. In part, it presents some of the broadly agreed-on norms describing what’s ethical in research and what’s not. More

important than simply knowing the guidelines, however, is becoming sensitized to the ethical component in research so that you’ll look for it whenever you plan a study. Even when the ethical aspects of a situation are debatable, you should know that there’s something to argue about. It’s worth noting that many professions operate un- der ethical constraints and that these constraints dif er from one profession to another. h us, the ethics of priests, physicians, lawyers, reporters, and television producers dif er. In this chapter, we’ll look only at the ethical principles that gov- ern social research.

Political considerations in research are sub- tle, ambiguous, and arguable. Notice that the law school example involves politics as well as ethics. Although social researchers have an ethi- cal norm that participation in research should be voluntary, this norm clearly grows out of U.S. political norms protecting civil liberties. In some nations, the proposed study would not have been considered unethical at all.

In the second half of this chapter, we’ll look at social research projects that were crushed or nearly crushed by political considerations. As with ethical concerns, there is often no “correct” take on a given situation. People of goodwill dis- agree. I won’t try to give you a party line about what is and what is not politically acceptable. As with ethics, the point is to become sensitive to the political dimension of social research.

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL

RESEARCH

In most dictionaries and in common usage, ethics is typically associated with morality, and both deal with matters of right and wrong. But what is right and what is wrong? What is the source of the distinction? For individuals the sources vary. h ey may include religions, politi- cal ideologies, or the pragmatic observation of what seems to work and what doesn’t.

Webster’s New World Dictionary is typical among dictionaries in dei ning ethical as “con- forming to the standards of conduct of a given

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 67

norm is far easier to accept in theory than to ap- ply in practice, however.

Again, medical research provides a useful par- allel. Many experimental drugs used to be tested on prisoners. In the most rigorously ethical cases, the prisoners were told the nature and the pos- sible dangers of the experiment, they were told that participation was completely voluntary, and they were further instructed that they could ex- pect no special rewards—such as early parole— for participation. Even under these conditions, it was often clear that volunteers were motivated by the belief that they would personally benei t from their cooperation.

When the instructor in an introductory so- ciology class asks students to i ll out a ques- tionnaire that he or she hopes to analyze and publish, students should always be told that

profession or group.” Although this dei nition may frustrate those in search of moral abso- lutes, what we regard as morality and ethics in day-to-day life is a matter of agreement among members of a group. And, not surprisingly, dif er- ent groups agree on dif erent codes of conduct. Part of living successfully in a particular society is knowing what that society considers ethical and unethical. h e same holds true for the social research community.

Anyone involved in social science research, then, needs to be aware of the general agree- ments shared by researchers about what is proper and improper in the conduct of scientii c inquiry. h is section summarizes some of the most important ethical agreements that prevail in social research.

Voluntary Participation

Often, though not always, social research rep- resents an intrusion into people’s lives. h e in- terviewer’s knock on the door or the arrival of a questionnaire in the mail signals the begin- ning of an activity that the respondent has not requested and that may require signii cant time and energy. Participation in a social experiment disrupts the subject’s regular activities.

Social research, moreover, often requires that people reveal personal information about themselves—information that may be unknown to their friends and associates. Further, social research often requires that such information be revealed to strangers. Other professionals, such as physicians and lawyers, also ask for such in- formation. h eir requests may be justii ed, how- ever, by their aims: h ey need the information in order to serve the personal interests of the respondent. Social researchers can seldom make this claim. Like medical scientists, they can only argue that the research ef ort may ultimately help all humanity.

A major tenet of medical research ethics is that experimental participation must be volun- tary. h e same norm applies to social research. No one should be forced to participate. h is

As in other aspects of life, there are limits to what is acceptable in social research.

E a

rl B

a b

b ie

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH68

Perhaps at the top of list is the medical experimentation on prisoners of war by Nazi researchers in World War II. h e subsequent war-crime trials at Nuremberg added the phrase “crimes against humanity” to the language of research and political ethics.

Less well-known were the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service between 1932 and 1972. h e study fol- lowed the fate of nearly 400 impoverished, rural African American men suf ering from syphilis. Even after penicillin had been accepted as an ef ective treatment for syphilis, the subjects were denied treatment—even kept from seeking treatment in the community—because the researchers wanted to observe the full pro- gression of the disease. At times, diagnostic pro cedures such as spinal taps were falsely presented to subjects as cures for syphilis.

When the details of the Tuskegee Syphilis Ex- periments became widely known, the U.S. gov- ernment was moved to take action, including a formal apology by then-President Bill Clinton and a program of i nancial reparations to the families of the subjects.

You can learn more about this sad history

in medical research at www.archives.gov/

southeast/exhibit/index.php

Human research should never injure the people being studied, regardless of whether they volunteer for the study. Perhaps the clear- est instance of this norm in social research prac- tice concerns the revealing of information that would embarrass subjects or endanger their home life, friendships, jobs, and so forth. We’ll discuss this aspect of the norm more fully in a moment.

Because subjects can be harmed psychologi- cally in the course of a social research study, the researcher must look for the subtlest dangers and guard against them. Quite often, research subjects are asked to reveal deviant behavior, attitudes they feel are unpopular, or personal characteristics that may seem demeaning, such

their participation in the survey is completely voluntary. Even so, most students will fear that nonparticipation will somehow af ect their grade. h e instructor should therefore be espe- cially sensitive to such implications and make special provisions to eliminate them. For ex- ample, the instructor could insure anonymity by leaving the room while the questionnaires are being completed. Or, students could be asked to return the questionnaires by mail or to drop them in a box near the door just before the next course meeting.

As essential as it is, this norm of voluntary participation goes directly against several sci- entii c concerns. In the most general terms, the scientii c goal of generalizability is threatened if experimental subjects or survey respondents are all the kinds of people who willingly par- ticipate in such things. Because this orientation probably rel ects other, more general personality traits, the results of the research might not be generalizable to all kinds of people. Most clearly, in the case of a descriptive survey, a researcher cannot generalize the sample survey i ndings to an entire population unless a substantial major- ity of the scientii cally selected sample actually participates—the willing respondents and the somewhat unwilling.

As you’ll see in Chapter 10, i eld research has its own ethical dilemmas in this regard. Very often, the researcher cannot even reveal that a study is being done, for fear that that revelation might signii cantly af ect the social processes be- ing studied. Clearly, the subjects of study in such cases do not receive the opportunity to volun- teer or refuse to participate. In cases where you feel justii ed in violating the norm of voluntary participation, observing the other ethical norms of scientii c research, such as bringing no harm to the people under study, becomes all the more important.

No Harm to the Participants

h e need for norms against harming research subjects has been dramatized in part by hor- rendous violations by medical researchers.

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 69

i rmest of scientii c grounds for doing it. If your research design is essential but is also likely to be unpleasant for subjects, you’ll i nd yourself in an ethical netherworld and may face some personal agonizing. Although it has little value in itself, agonizing may be a healthy sign that you’ve be- come sensitive to the problem.

Increasingly, the ethical norms of voluntary participation and no harm to participants have become formalized in the concept of informed consent. h is norm means that subjects must base their voluntary participation in research projects on a full understanding of the possible risks involved. In a medical experiment, for ex- ample, prospective subjects will be presented with a discussion of the experiment and all the possible risks to themselves. h ey will be re- quired to sign a statement indicating that they are aware of the risks and that they choose to participate anyway. Although the value of such a procedure is obvious when subjects will be in- jected with drugs designed to produce physical ef ects, for example, it’s hardly appropriate when a participant-observer rushes to the scene of urban rioting to study deviant behavior. h e re- searcher in this latter case is not excused from the norm of bringing no harm to those observed, but gaining informed consent is not the means to achieving that end.

Another, often unrecognized source of poten- tial harm to subjects lies in the analysis and re- porting of data. Every now and then, research subjects read the books published about the studies they participated in. Reasonably sophis- ticated subjects can locate themselves in the various indexes and tables. Having done so, they may i nd themselves characterized—though not identii ed by name—as bigoted, unpatriotic, irr eligious, and so forth. At the very least, such characterizations will likely trouble them and threaten their self-images. Yet the whole purpose of the research project may be to explain why some people are prejudiced and others are not.

as low income, the receipt of welfare payments, and the like. Revealing such information usually makes subjects feel at least uncomfortable.

Social research projects may also force par- ticipants to face aspects of themselves that they don’t normally consider. h is can happen even when the information is not revealed directly to the researcher. In retrospect, a certain past be- havior may appear unjust or immoral. h e pro- ject, then, can cause continuing personal agony for the subject. If the study concerns codes of ethical conduct, for example, the subject may begin questioning his or her own morality, and that personal concern may last long after the re- search has been reported. For instance, probing questions can injure a fragile self-esteem.

When the psychologist Philip Zimbardo created his famous 1971 simulation of prison life—also known as the Stanford Prison Experi- ment—to study the dynamics of prisoner–guard interactions. Zimbardo employed Stanford stu- dents as subjects and assigned them to roles as prisoners or guards at random. As you may be aware, the simulation became quickly and in- creasingly real for all the participants, including Zimbardo, who served as prison superintendent. It became evident that many of the student-pris- oners were suf ering psychological damage as a consequence of their mock incarceration, and some of the student-guards were soon exhibit- ing degrees of sadism that would later challenge their own self-images.

As these developments became apparent to Zimbardo, he terminated the experiment. Go- ing beyond that, however, he created a debrief- ing program in which all the participants were counseled so as to avoid any lasting damage from the experience. (See www.prisonexp.org/ for a discussion of the experiment by the researcher.)

Clearly, just about any research you might conduct runs the risk of injuring other people in some way. Further, some study designs make injuries more likely than do other designs. If a particular research procedure seems likely to produce unpleasant ef ects for subjects—asking survey respondents to report deviant behavior, for example—the researcher should have the

informed consent A norm in which subjects base their

voluntary participation in research projects on a full under-

standing of the possible risks involved.

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH70

its applications, however, should improve the researcher’s tact in delicate areas of research.

In recent years, social researchers have gained support for abiding by this norm. Federal and other funding agencies typically require an inde- pendent evaluation of the treatment of human subjects for research proposals, and most univer- sities now have human-subject committees to serve this evaluative function. Although some- times troublesome and inappropriately applied, such requirements not only guard against un- ethical research but can also reveal ethical issues overlooked by even the most scrupulous researchers. See the accompanying box, “h e Ba- sic Elements of Informed Consent,” for guidelines

In one survey of churchwomen (Babbie 1967), ministers in a sample of churches were asked to distribute questionnaires to a specii ed sample of members, collect them, and return them to the research oi ce. One of these ministers read through the questionnaires from his sample be- fore returning them. He then delivered a scathing sermon to his congregation, saying that many of them were atheists and were going to hell. Even though he could not identify the people who gave particular responses, it seems certain that the survey ended up harming many respondents.

Like voluntary participation, avoiding harm to people is easy in theory but often dii cult in prac- tice. Sensitivity to the issue and experience with

h e federal regulations pertaining to what is expected in requests for human subjects to participate in research projects has been published by the Department of Health and Human Services, ef ective June 23, 2005.

A statement that the study involves research, 1. an explanation of the purposes of the research and the expected duration of the subject’s participation, a description of the procedures to be followed, and identii cation of any procedures which are experimental; A description of any reasonably foreseeable 2. risks or discomforts to the subject; A description of any benei ts to the subject 3. or to others which may reasonably be ex- pected from the research; A disclosure of appropriate alternative pro-4. cedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject; A statement describing the extent, if any, to 5. which coni dentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained; For research involving more than minimal 6. risk, an explanation as to whether any com- pensation and an explanation as to whether

any medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained; An explanation of whom to contact for 7. answers to pertinent questions about the research and research subjects’ rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research- related injury to the subject; and A statement that participation is voluntary, 8. refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benei ts to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and the subject may discontinue participation at any time with- out penalty or loss of benei ts to which the subject is otherwise entitled.

A web search will provide you with many samples of informed consent letters that you could use as models in your own research. It’s worth noting that survey research and some other research techniques are exempted from the need to obtain informed consent. You can learn more about this at the website in the source note.

Source: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansub jects/

guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.116.

ISSUES AND INSIGHTS

The Basic Elements of Informed Consent

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 71

Whenever a research project is coni dential rather than anonymous, it is the researcher’s responsibility to make that fact clear to the respondent. Moreover, researchers should never use the term anonymous to mean coni dential.

With few exceptions (such as surveys of public i gures who agree to have their responses published), the information respondents give must be kept at least coni dential. h is is not al- ways an easy norm to follow, because, for exam- ple, the courts have not recognized social research data as the kind of “privileged commu nication” accepted in the case of priests and attorneys.

h is unprotected guarantee of coni dentiality produced a near disaster in 1991. Two years earlier, the Exxon Valdez supertanker had run aground near the port of Valdez in Alaska, spilling ten mil- lion gallons of oil into the bay. h e economic and environmental damage was widely reported.

Less attention was given to the psychologi- cal and sociological damage suf ered by resi- dents of the area. h ere were anecdotal reports of increased alcoholism, family violence, and other secondary consequences of the disrup- tions caused by the oil spill. Eventually, 22 com- munities in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska sued Exxon for the economic, social, and psychological damages suf ered by their residents.

To determine the amount of damage done, the communities commissioned a San Diego research i rm to undertake a household survey asking residents very personal questions about increased problems in their families. h e sample of residents were asked to reveal painful and embarrassing information, under the guaran- tee of absolute coni dentiality. Ultimately, the results of the survey coni rmed that a variety of personal and family problems had increased substantially following the oil spill.

from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Anonymity and Co nfi dentiality

h e clearest concern in guarding subjects’ in- terests and well-being is the protection of their identity, especially in survey research. If reveal- ing their survey responses would injure them in any way, adherence to this norm becomes all the more important. Two techniques—anonymity and coni dentiality—assist researchers in this regard, although people often confuse the two.

Anonymity A research project guarantees anonymity when the researcher—not just the people who read about the research—cannot identify a given response with a given respon- dent. h is implies that a typical interview survey respondent can never be considered anonymous, because an interviewer collects the information from an identii able respondent. An example of anonymity is a mail survey in which nothing can identify the respondent when the questionnaire arrives at the research oi ce.

As we’ll see in Chapter 9, assuring anonymity makes keeping track of who has or hasn’t returned the questionnaires dii cult. Despite this problem, you may be advised to pay the necessary price in some situations. In one study of drug use among university students, I deci- ded that I specii cally did not want to know the iden tity of respondents. I felt that honestly assuring anonymity would increase the likeli- hood and accuracy of responses. Also, I did not want to be in the position of being asked by authorities for the names of drug of enders. In the few instances in which respondents volunteered their names, such information was immediately obliterated on the questionnaires.

Confi dentiality A research project guarantees coni dentiality when the researcher can identify a given person’s responses but essentially promis- es not to do so publicly. In an interview survey, for example, the researchers could make public the income reported by a given respondent, but they assure the respondent that this will not be done.

anonymity Anonymity is guaranteed in a research project

when neither the researchers nor the readers of the fi ndings

can identify a given response with a given respondent.

coni dentiality A research project guarantees confi den-

tiality when the researcher can identify a given person’s

responses but promises not to do so publicly.

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH72

strongly supported by the ASA Code of Ethics, and the association i led a friend of the court brief on his behalf. In 1997 the ASA revised its Code of Ethics and, while still upholding the norm of coni dentiality, warned researchers to inform themselves regarding laws and rules that may limit their ability to promise coni dentiality to research subjects.

You can use several techniques to guard against such dangers and ensure better performance on the guarantee of coni dentiality. To begin, inter- viewers and others with access to respondent identii cations should be trained in their ethi- cal responsibilities. Beyond training, the most fundamental technique is to remove identifying infor mation as soon as it’s no longer necessary. In a survey, for example, all names and addresses should be removed from questionnaires and re- placed by identii cation numbers. An identii ca- tion i le should be created that links numbers to names to permit the later correction of missing or contradictory information, but this i le should not be available except for legitimate purposes.

Similarly, in an interview survey you may need to identify respondents initially so that you can recontact them to verify that the in- terview was conducted and perhaps to get information that was missing in the original interview. As soon as you’ve verii ed an inter- view and assured yourself that you don’t need any further information from the respondent, however, you can safely remove all identifying information from the interview booklet. Often, interview booklets are printed so that the i rst page contains all the identii ers—it can be torn of once the respondent’s identii cation is no longer needed. J. Steven Picou (1996a, 1996b) points out that even removing identii ers from data i les does not always sui ciently protect respondent coni dentiality, a lesson he learned during nearly a year in federal court. A careful examination of all the responses of a particular respondent sometimes allows others to deduce that person’s identity. Imagine, for example, that someone said she was a former employee of a particular company. Knowing the person’s gender, age, ethnicity, and other characteristics

When Exxon learned that survey data would be presented to document the suf ering, they took an unusual step: h ey asked the court to subpoena the survey questionnaires. h e court granted the defendant’s request and ordered the researchers to turn them over—with all identifying informa- tion. It appeared that Exxon’s intention was to call survey respondents to the stand and cross- examine them regarding answers they had given interviewers under the guarantee of coni den- tiality. Moreover, many of the respondents were Native Americans, whose cultural norms made such public revelations all the more painful.

Happily, the Exxon Valdez case was settled before the court decided whether it would force survey respondents to testify in open court. Un- happily, the potential for disaster remains.

h e seriousness of this issue is not limited to established research i rms. Rik Scarce was a graduate student at Washington State Uni- versity when he undertook participant obser- vation among animal-rights activists. In 1990 he published a book based on his research, en- titled Ecowarriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement. In 1993 Scarce was called before a grand jury and asked to identify the activists he had studied. In keeping with the norm of coni dentiality, the young researcher refused to answer the grand jury’s questions and spent 159 days in the Spokane County jail. He reports,

Although I answered many of the prosecutor’s

questions, on 32 occasions I refused to answer,

saying, “Your question calls for information that

I have only by virtue of a coni dential disclosure

given to me in the course of my research activities.

I cannot answer the question without actually

breaching a coni dential communication. Conse-

quently, I decline to answer the question under my

ethical obligations as a member of the American

Sociological Association and pursuant to any

privilege that may extend to journalists, research-

ers, and writers under the First Amendment.”

(Scarce 1999:982)

At the time of his grand jury appearance and his incarceration, Scarce felt his ethical stand was

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 73

subjects of that research. h is authority has been

delegated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Persons authorized by the NIH to protect the

privacy of research subjects may not be compelled

in any Federal, State, or local civil, criminal,

administrative, legislative, or other proceedings

to identify them by name or other identifying

characteristic. (U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services 2002)

In all the aspects of research ethics discussed in this chapter, professional researchers avoid settling for mere rote compliance with estab- lished ethical rules. Rather, they continually ask what would be most appropriate in protecting the interests of those being studied. Here’s the way Penny Edgell Becker addressed the issue of coni dentiality in connection with a qualita- tive research project studying religious life in a community:

Following the lead of several recent studies, I

identify the real name of the community, Oak Park,

rather than reducing the complexity of the com-

munity’s history to a few underlying dimensions

or [creating] an “insider/outsider” dynamic where

some small group of fellow researchers knows

the community’s real name and the rest of the

world is kept in the dark. . . . In all cases individual

identities are disguised, except for Jack Finney, the

Lutheran pastor, who gave permission to be identi-

i ed. “City Baptist” is a pseudonym used at the

request of the church’s leadership. h e leaders of

Good Shepherd Lutheran Church (GSLC) gave per-

mission to use the church’s real name. (1998:452)

Deception

We’ve seen that the handling of subjects’ identi- ties is an important ethical consideration. Handling your own identity as a researcher can also be tricky. Sometimes it’s useful and even necessary to identify yourself as a researcher to those you want to study. You’d have to be an experienced con artist to get people to partici- pate in a laboratory experiment or complete a lengthy questionnaire without letting on that you were conducting research.

could make it possible for the company to iden- tify that person.

Even if you intend to remove all identifying information, suppose you have not yet done so. What do you do when the police or a judge or- ders you to provide the responses given by your research subjects?

Upholding coni dentiality is a real issue for practicing social researchers, even though they sometimes disagree about how to protect sub- jects. Harry O’Neill, the vice chair of the Roper Organization, for example, suggested that the best solution is to avoid altogether the ability to identify respondents with their responses:

So how is this accomplished? Quite simply by not

having any respondent-identii able information

available for the court to request. In my initial

contact with a lawyer-client, I make it unmistak-

ably clear that, once the survey is completed and

validated, all respondent-identii able informa-

tion will be removed and destroyed immediately.

Everything else connected with the survey—

completed questionnaires, data tapes, methodology,

names of interviewers and supervisors—of course

will be made available. (O’Neill 1992:4)

Board Chairman Burns Roper (1992:5) dis- agreed, saying that such procedures might raise questions about the validity of the research methods. Instead, Roper said that he felt he must be prepared to go to jail if necessary. (He noted that Vice Chair O’Neill promised to visit him in that event.)

In 2002 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a program to issue a “Certii cate of Coni dentiality” to protect the coni dentiality of research-subject data against forced disclosure by the police and other author- ities. Not all research projects qualify for such protection, but it can provide an important sup- port for research ethics in many cases.

Under section 301(d) of the Public Health Service

Act (42 U.S.C. 241(d)) the Secretary of Health and

Human Services may authorize persons engaged in

biomedical, behavioral, clinical, or other research

to protect the privacy of individuals who are the

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH74

by Kathleen McKinney

Department of Sociology, Illinois State University

Copyright ©. Reprinted by permission of author.

When studying any form of human behavior, ethical concerns are paramount. h is state- ment may be even truer for studies of human sexuality because of the topic’s highly personal, salient, and perhaps threatening nature. Con- cern has been expressed by the public and by legislators about human sexuality research. h ree commonly discussed ethical criteria have been related speciically to research in the area of human sexuality.

Informed Consent

h is criterion emphasizes the importance of both accurately informing your subject or re- spondent as to the nature of the research and obtaining his or her verbal or written consent to participate. Coercion is not to be used to force participation, and subjects may termi- nate their involvement in the research at any time. h ere are many possible violations of this

standard. Misrepresentation or deception may be used when describing an embarrassing or personal topic of study, because the research- ers fear high rates of refusal or false data. Co- vert research, such as some observational stud- ies, also violate the informed consent standard since subjects are unaware that they are being studied. Informed consent may create special problems with certain populations. For ex- ample, studies of the sexuality of children are limited by the concern that children may be cognitively and emotionally unable to give in- formed consent. Although there can be prob- lems such as those discussed, most research is clearly voluntary, with informed consent from those participating.

Right to Privacy

Given the highly personal nature of sexuality and society’s tremendous concern with social control of sexuality, the right to privacy is a very important ethical concern for research in this area. Individuals may risk losing their jobs, having family dificulties, or being ostracized

produce accurate data that will contribute to an ef ective improvement of living conditions. What do you do?

One solution would be to tell subjects that you’re conducting the study as part of a univer- sity research program—concealing your ai lia - tion with the welfare agency. Doing that improves the scientii c quality of the study, but it raises a serious ethical issue.

Lying about research purposes is common in laboratory experiments. Although it’s dii cult to conceal that you’re conducting research, it’s usu- ally simple—and sometimes appropriate—to con ceal your purpose. Many experiments in so- cial psychology, for example, test the extent to which subjects will abandon the evidence of their own observations in favor of the views expressed

Even when you must conceal your research identity, you need to consider the following. Because deceiving people is unethical, deception within social research needs to be justii ed by compelling scientii c or administrative concerns. Even then, the justii cation will be arguable.

Sometimes researchers admit that they’re doing research but fudge about why they’re doing it or for whom. Suppose a public welfare agency has asked you to conduct a study of living stan- dards among aid recipients. Even if the agency is looking for ways of improving conditions, the recipient-subjects will likely fear a witch-hunt for “cheaters.” h ey might be tempted, therefore, to give answers that make them seem more des- titute than they really are. Unless they provide truthful answers, however, the study will not

ISSUES AND INSIGHTS

Ethical Issues in Research on Human Sexuality

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 75

chapter. h e question is, how do we get around the ethical issue that deception is necessary for an experiment to work?

One appropriate solution researchers have found is to debrief subjects following an exp- eriment. Debriei ng entails interviews to discover any problems generated by the research experience so that those problems can be corrected. Even though subjects can’t be told the true purpose of the study prior to their participation in it, there’s usually no reason they

by others. Figure 2-1 (p. 42) shows the stimulus from the classic Asch experiment—frequently replicated by psychology classes—in which sub- jects are shown three lines of dif ering lengths (A, B, and C) and asked to compare them with a fourth line (X). Subjects are then asked, “Which of the i rst three lines is the same length as the fourth?”

Recall from Chapter 2 that the purpose of the experiment is to see whether a person would give up his or her own judgment in favor of group agreement. I think you can see that conformity is a useful phenomenon to study and under- stand, and it couldn’t be studied experimentally without deceiving the subjects. We’ll examine a similar situation in the discussion of a famous experiment by Stanley Milgram later in this

debriei ng Interviewing subjects to learn about their

experience of participation in the project and to inform

them of any unrevealed purpose. This is especially impor-

tant if there’s a possibility that they have been damaged by

that participation.

by peers if certain facets of their sexual lives are revealed. h is is especially true for individuals involved in sexual behavior categorized as deviant (such as transvestism). Violations of right to privacy occur when researchers identify members of certain groups they have studied, release or share an individual’s data or respons- es, or covertly observe sexual behavior. In most cases, right to privacy is easily maintained by the researchers. In survey research, self- administered questionnaires can be anony- mous and interviews can be kept conidential. In case and observational studies, the identity of the person or group studied can be disguised in any publications. In most research methods, analysis and reporting of data should be at the group or aggregate level.

Protection from Harm

Harm may include emotional or psychologi- cal distress, as well as physical harm. Poten- tial for harm varies by research method; it is more likely in experimental studies where the

researcher manipulates or does something to the subject than in observational or survey re- search. Emotional distress, however, is a pos- sibility in all studies of human sexuality. Re- spondents may be asked questions that elicit anxiety, dredge up unpleasant memories, or cause them to evaluate themselves critically. Researchers can reduce the potential for such distress during a study by using anony- mous, self-administered questionnaires or well-trained interviewers and by wording sen- sitive questions carefully.

All three of these ethical criteria are quite subjective. Violations are sometimes justiied by arguing that risks to subjects are out- weighed by beneits to society. h e issue here, of course, is who makes that critical decision. Usually, such decisions are made by the researcher and often a screening committee that deals with ethical concerns. Most creative research ers have been able to follow all three ethical guidelines and still do important research.

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH76

a disservice to less experienced researchers by leading them into thinking that all scientii c in- quiry is rigorously preplanned and organized.

In general, science progresses through honesty and openness; ego defenses and deception retard it. Researchers can best serve their peers—and scientii c discovery as a whole—by telling the truth about all the pitfalls and problems they’ve experienced in a particular line of inquiry. Per- haps they’ll save others from the same problems.

Finally, simple carelessness or sloppiness can be considered an ethical problem. If the research project uses up limited resources or imposes on subjects but produces no benei ts, many in the re- search community would consider that an ethical violation. h is is not to say that all research must produce positive results, but it should be con- ducted in a manner that promotes that possibility.

Institutional Review Boards

Research ethics in studies involving humans is now also governed by federal law. Any agency (such as a university or a hospital) wish- ing to receive federal research support must establish an institutional review board (IRB), a panel of faculty (and possibly others) who review all research proposals involving human subjects so that they can guarantee that the subjects’ rights and interests will be protected. h e law applies specii cally to federally funded research, but many universities apply the same standards and procedures to all research, including that funded by nonfederal sources and even research done at no cost, such as student projects.

You can fi nd the “Protection of Human

Subjects” federal regulation at

www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/

guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.101

h e chief responsibility of an IRB is to en- sure that the risks faced by human participants in research are minimal. In some cases, the IRB may refuse to approve a study or may ask the re- searcher to revise the study design. Where some

can’t know afterward. Telling them the truth afterward may make up for having to lie to them at the outset. h is must be done with care, however, making sure the subjects aren’t left with bad feelings or doubts about themselves based on their performance in the experiment. If this seems complicated, it’s simply the price we pay for using other people’s lives as the subject matter for our research.

As a social researcher, then, you have many ethical obligations to the subjects in your studies. h e box “Ethical Issues in Research on Human Sexuality” illustrates some of the ethical questions involved in a specii c research area.

Analysis and Reporting

In addition to their ethical obligations to sub- jects, researchers have ethical obligations to their colleagues in the scientii c community. h ese obligations concern the analysis of data and the way the results are reported.

In any rigorous study, the researcher should be more familiar than anyone else with the study’s technical limitations and failures. Researchers have an obligation to make such shortcomings known to their readers—even if admitting quali- i cations and mistakes makes them feel foolish.

Negative i ndings, for example, should be reported if they are at all related to the analy- sis. h ere is an unfortunate myth in scientii c reporting that only discoveries of strong, causal relationships among variables are worth report- ing ( journal editors are sometimes guilty of believing this as well). In science, however, it’s often as important to know that two variables are not related as to know that they are.

Similarly, researchers must avoid the tempta- tion to save face by describing their i ndings as the product of a carefully preplanned analytic strategy when that is not the case. Many i nd- ings arrive unexpectedly—even though they may seem obvious in retrospect. So an interesting re- lationship was uncovered by accident—so what? Embroidering such situations with descriptions of i ctitious hypotheses is dishonest. It also does

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 77

(4) Research involving the collection or study of

existing data, documents, records, pathologi-

cal specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these

sources are publicly available or if the information

is recorded by the investigator in such a manner

that subjects cannot be identii ed, directly or

through identii ers linked to the subjects.

(5) Research and demonstration projects which

are conducted by or subject to the approval of

Department or Agency heads, and which are de-

signed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine:

(i) Public benei t or service programs; (ii)

procedures for obtaining benei ts or services

under those programs; (iii) possible changes in

or alternatives to those programs or proce-

dures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or

levels of payment for benei ts or services under

those programs.

(6) Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer

acceptance studies, (i) if wholesome foods without

additives are consumed or (ii) if a food is consumed

that contains a food ingredient at or below the

level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural

chemical or environmental contaminant at or below

the level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug

Administration or approved by the Environmental

Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection

Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Paragraph (2) of the excerpt exempts much of the social research described in this book. None- theless, universities sometimes apply the law’s provisions inappropriately. As chair of a univer- sity IRB, for example, I was once asked to review the letter of informed consent that was to be sent to medical insurance companies, requesting their agreement to participate in a survey that would ask which medical treatments were covered un- der their programs. Clearly, the humans involved were not at risk in the sense anticipated by the law. In a case like that, the appropriate technique for gaining informed consent is to mail the ques- tionnaire. If a company returns it, they’ve con- sented. If they don’t, they haven’t.

Other IRBs have suggested that researchers need to obtain permission before observing

minimal risks are deemed unavoidable, research- ers must prepare an “informed consent” form that describes those risks clearly. Subjects may par- ticipate in the study only after they have read the statement and signed it.

Much of the original impetus for establishing IRBs had to do with medical experimentation on humans, and many social research study de- signs are generally regarded as exempt from IRB review. An example is an anonymous survey sent to a large sample of respondents. h e guideline to be followed by IRBs, as contained in the Fed- eral Exemption Categories (45 CFR 46.101 [b]) exempts a variety of research situations:

(1) Research conducted in established or com-

monly accepted educational settings, involving

normal educational practices, such as (i) research

on regular and special education instructional

strategies, or (ii) research on the ef ectiveness of or

the comparison among instructional techniques,

curricula, or classroom management methods.

(2) Research involving the use of educational tests

(cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement),

survey procedures, interview procedures or obser-

vation of public behavior, unless:

(i) information obtained is recorded in such a

manner that human subjects can be identii ed,

directly or through identii ers linked to the

subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the hu-

man subjects’ responses outside the research

could reasonably place the subjects at risk of

criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the

subjects’ i nancial standing, employability, or

reputation.

(3) Research involving the use of educational tests

(cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey

procedures, interview procedures, or observation of

public behavior that is not exempt under paragraph

(b)(2) of this section, if:

(i) the human subjects are elected or appointed

public oi cials or candidates for public oi ce;

or (ii) Federal statute(s) require(s) without

exception that the coni dentiality of the person-

ally identii able information will be maintained

throughout the research and thereafter.

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH78

entitled to special protection. In practice, this

principle is rel ected in the process of informed

consent, in which the risks and benei ts of the re-

search are disclosed to the subject. h e second prin-

ciple, benei cence, involves maximizing possible

benei ts and good for the subject, while minimizing

the amount of possible harm and risks resulting

from the research. Since the fruits of knowledge can

come at a cost to those participating in research,

the last principle, justice, seeks a fair distribution of

the burdens and benei ts associated with research,

so that certain individuals or groups do not bear

disproportionate risks while others reap the

benei ts. (Frankel and Siang 1999:2–3)

Professional Codes of Ethics

Ethical issues in social research are both impor- tant and ambiguous. For this reason, most of the professional associations of social research- ers have created and published formal codes of conduct describing what is considered accept- able and unacceptable professional behavior. As one example, Figure 3-1 presents the code of conduct of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), an interdis- ciplinary research association in the social sci- ences. Most professional associations have such codes of ethics. See, for example, the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Political Science Association (APSA), and so forth. You can i nd many of these on the associa- tions’ websites. In addition, the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) has a code of ethics accessible online.

For more on codes of ethics, see the

following:

AAPOR: www.aapor.org/aaporcodeofethics

ASA: www.asanet.org/page.ww?section=

Ethics&name=Code+of+Ethics+Table+of+

Contents

APA: www.apa.org/ethics/

APSA: www.apsanet.org/content_9347.cfm

AoIR: www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf

participants in public gatherings and events, before conducting surveys on the most mundane matters, and so forth. Christopher Shea (2000) has chronicled several such questionable appli- cations of the law while supporting the ethical logic that originally prompted the law.

Shea’s critical article regarding IRBs can be

found in print as Christopher Shea, “Don’t

Talk to the Humans: The Crackdown on Social

Science Research,” Lingua Franca 10, no. 6

(September 2000): 27–34. Or you can fi nd the

article online by searching the web for “shea

lingua franca irb.”

Don’t think that these critiques of IRBs minimize the importance of protecting human sub jects. Indeed, some universities exceed the federal requirements in reasonable and respon- sible ways: requiring IRB review of nonfederally funded projects, for example.

Research ethics is an ever-evolving subject, because new research techniques often require revisiting old concerns. For example, the in- creased use of public databases for secondary research recently caused some IRBs to worry whether they would need to reexamine such projects as the General Social Survey every time a researcher proposed to use those data. Most IRBs have decided this is unnecessary. (See Skedsvold 2002 for more on this.)

Similarly, the prospects for research of and through the Internet has raised ethical concerns. For example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a workshop on this topic in November 1999. h e overall conclusion of the report produced by the workshop sum- marizes some of the primary concerns already examined in this chapter:

h e current ethical and legal framework for pro-

tecting human subjects rests on the principles of

autonomy, benei cence, and justice. h e i rst prin-

ciple, autonomy, requires that subjects be treated

with respect as autonomous agents and ai rms

that those persons with diminished autonomy are

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 79

FIGURE 3-1 Code of Conduct of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. From AAPOR, Code of Ethics, By-Laws, 1977. Copyright © 1977 AAPOR. Reprinted by permission.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES

We, the members of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, subscribe to the principles

expressed in the following code.

Our goal is to support sound practice in the profession of public opinion research. (By public opinion

research we mean studies in which the principal source of information about individual beliefs, preferences, and

behavior is a report given by the individual himself or herself.)

We pledge ourselves to maintain high standards of scientific competence and integrity in our work, and in

our relations both with our clients and with the general public. We further pledge ourselves to reject all tasks or

assignments which would be inconsistent with the principles of this code.

THE CODE

I. Principles of Professional Practice in the Conduct of Our Work

A. We shall exercise due care in gathering and processing data, taking all reasonable steps to assume the

accuracy of results.

B. We shall exercise due care in the development of research designs and in the analysis of data.

1. We shall employ only research tools and methods of analysis which, in our professional judgment,

are well suited to the research problem at hand.

2. We shall not select research tools and methods of analysis because of their special capacity to yield

a desired conclusion.

3. We shall not knowingly make interpretations of research results, nor shall we tacitly permit interpretations,

which are inconsistent with the data available.

4. We shall not knowingly imply that interpretations should be accorded greater confidence than the

data actually warrant.

C. We shall describe our findings and methods accurately and in appropriate detail in all research reports.

II. Principles of Professional Responsibility in Our Dealings with People

A. The Public:

1. We shall cooperate with legally authorized representatives of the public by describing the methods

used in our studies.

2. We shall maintain the right to approve the release of our findings whether or not ascribed to us.

When misinterpretation appears, we shall publicly disclose what is required to correct it, notwithstanding

our obligation for client confidentiality in all other respects.

B. Clients or Sponsors:

1. We shall hold confidential all information obtained about the client's general business affairs and

about the findings of research conducted for the client, except when the dissemination of such information

is expressly authorized.

2. We shall be mindful of the limitations of our techniques and facilities and shall accept only those

research assignments which can be accomplished within these limitations.

C. The Profession:

1. We shall not cite our membership in the Association as evidence of professional competence, since

the association does not so certify any persons or organizations.

2. We recognize our responsibility to contribute to the science of public opinion research and to

disseminate as freely as possible the ideas and findings which emerge from our research.

D. The Respondent:

1. We shall not lie to survey respondents or use practices and methods which abuse, coerce, or humiliate

them.

2. We shall protect the anonymity of every respondent, unless the respondent waives such anonymity

for specified uses. In addition, we shall hold as privileged and confidental all information which tends to

identify the respondent.

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH80

To round out his understanding of the tearoom trade, Humphreys needed to know something more about the people who participated. Because the men probably would not have been thrilled about being interviewed, Humphreys developed a dif erent solution. Whenever possible, he noted the license numbers of participants’ cars and tracked down their names and addresses through the police. Humphreys then visited the men at their homes, disguising himself enough to avoid recog- nition, and announced that he was con ducting a survey. In that fashion, he collected the personal information he couldn’t get in the restrooms.

As you can imagine, Humphreys’ research provoked considerable controversy both in- side and outside the social science community. Some critics charged Humphreys with a gross invasion of privacy in the name of science. What men did in public restrooms was their own busi- ness. Others were mostly concerned about the deceit involved—Humphreys had lied to the participants by leading them to believe he was only a voyeur-participant. Even people who felt that the tearoom participants were fair game for observation because they used a public facility protested the follow-up survey. h ey felt it was unethical for Humphreys to trace the partici- pants to their homes and to interview them un- der false pretenses.

Still others justii ed Humphreys’ research. h e topic, they said, was worth study. It couldn’t be studied any other way, and they regarded the deceit as essentially harmless, noting that Hum- phreys was careful not to harm his subjects in disclosing their tearoom activities. One result of Humphrey’s research was to challenge some of the common stereotypes about the partici- pants in anonymous sexual encounters in public places, showing them to be conventional in other aspects of their lives.

h e tearoom trade controversy is still de- bated, and it probably always will be, because it stirs emotions and involves ethical issues people disagree about. What do you think? Was Humphreys ethical in doing what he did? Are there parts of the research that you believe were acceptable and other parts that were not?

TWO ETHICAL CONTROVERSIES

As you may already have guessed, the adoption and publication of professional codes of conduct have not totally resolved the issue of research ethics. Social researchers still disagree on some general principles, and those who agree in prin- ciple often debate specii cs.

h is section briel y describes two research projects that have provoked ethical controversy and discussion. h e i rst project studied homo- sexual behavior in public restrooms; the second examined obedience in a laboratory setting.

Trouble in the Tearoom

As a graduate student, Laud Humphreys be- came interested in the study of homosexual behavior. He developed a special interest in the casual and l eeting same-sex acts engaged in by some male nonhomosexuals. In particular, his research interest focused on homosexual acts between strangers meeting in the public restrooms in parks, called “tearooms” among homosexuals. h e result was the publication in 1970 of Tearoom Trade.

What particularly interested Humphreys about the tearoom activity was that the par- ticipants seemed otherwise to live conventional lives as “family men” and accepted members of the community. h ey did nothing else that might qualify them as homosexuals. h us, it was im- portant to them that they remain anonymous in their tearoom visits. How would you study some- thing like that?

Humphreys decided to take advantage of the social structure of the situation. Typically, the tearoom encounter involved three people: the two men actually engaging in the sexual act and a lookout, called the “watchqueen.” Humphreys began showing up at public restrooms, of ering to serve as watchqueen whenever it seemed ap- propriate. Because the watchqueen’s payof was the chance to watch the action, Humphreys was able to conduct i eld observations as he would in a study of political rallies or jaywalking behavior at intersections.

TWO ETHICAL CONTROVERSIES 81

phenomenon under study. If you had been a subject in the experiment, you would have had something like the following experience.

You’ve been informed that you and another subject are about to participate in a learning ex- periment. h rough a draw of lots, you’re assigned the job of “teacher” and your fellow subject the job of “pupil.” h e pupil is led into another room and strapped into a chair; an electrode is attached to his wrist. As the teacher, you’re seated in front of an im- pressive electrical control panel covered with dials, gauges, and switches. You notice that each switch has a label giving a dif erent number of volts, rang- ing from 15 to 315. h e switches have other labels, too, some with the ominous phrases “Extreme- Intensity Shock,” “Danger—Severe Shock,” and “XXX.”

h e experiment runs like this. You read a list of word pairs to the learner and then test his ability to match them up. Because you can’t see him, a light on your control panel indicates his answer. Whenever the learner makes a mistake, you’re instructed by the experimenter to throw one of the switches—beginning with the mildest—and administer a shock to your pupil. h rough an open door between the two rooms, you hear your pupil’s response to the shock. h en you read another list of word pairs and test him again.

As the experiment progresses, you adminis- ter ever more intense shocks, until your pupil screams for mercy and begs for the experiment to end. You’re instructed to administer the next shock anyway. After a while, your pupil begins kicking the wall between the two rooms and con- tinues to scream. h e implacable experimenter tells you to give the next shock. Finally, you read a list and ask for the pupil’s answer—but there is no reply whatever, only silence from the other room. h e experimenter informs you that no an- swer is considered an error and instructs you to administer the next higher shock. h is continues up to the “XXX” shock at the end of the series.

What do you suppose you really would have done when the pupil i rst began screaming? When he began kicking on the wall? Or when he became totally silent and gave no indication of life? You’d refuse to continue giving shocks, right? And surely the same would be true of most people.

For more on the political and ethical context

of the “tearoom” research, see the discussion

by Joan Sieber online at web.missouri.

edu/~bondesonw//Laud.html.

Observing Human Obedience

h e second illustration dif ers from the i rst in many ways. Whereas Humphreys’ study involved participant observation, this study took place in the laboratory. Humphreys’ study was sociologi- cal; this one, psychological. And whereas Hum- phreys examined behavior considered by many to be a form of deviance, the researcher in this study examined obedience and conformity.

One of the most unsettling clichés to come out of World War II was the German soldier’s common excuse for atrocities: “I was only follow- ing orders.” From the point of view that gave rise to this comment, any behavior—no matter how reprehensible—could be justii ed if someone else could be assigned responsibility for it. If a su- perior oi cer ordered a soldier to kill a baby, the fact of the order supposedly exempted the soldier from personal responsibility for the action.

Although the military tribunals that tried the war-crime cases did not accept this excuse, so- cial researchers and others have recognized the extent to which this point of view pervades so- cial life. People often seem willing to do things they know would be considered wrong by others, if they can claim that some higher authority or- dered them to do it. Such was the pattern of jus- tii cation in the 1968 My Lai tragedy of Vietnam, when U.S. soldiers killed more than 300 unarmed civilians—some of them young children—simply because their village, My Lai, was believed to be a Viet Cong stronghold. h is sort of justii cation ap- pears less dramatically in day-to-day civilian life. Few would disagree that this reliance on autho- rity exists, yet Stanley Milgram’s study (1963, 1965) of the topic provoked considerable controversy.

To observe people’s willingness to harm oth- ers when following orders, Milgram brought 40 adult men from many dif erent walks of life into a laboratory setting designed to create the

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH82

acceptable from another. Although political and ethical issues are often closely intertwined, I want to distinguish between them in two ways.

First, the ethics of social research deals mostly with the methods employed; political issues tend to center on the substance and use of research. h us, for example, some critics raise ethical ob- jections to the Milgram experiments, saying that the methods harmed the subjects. A political ob- jection would be that obedience is not a suitable topic for study, either because (1) we should not tinker with people’s willingness to follow orders from higher authority or (2) because the results of the research could be misused to make people more obedient.

h e second distinction between ethical and political aspects of social research is that there are no formal codes of accepted political con- duct. Although some ethical norms have political aspects—for example, specii c guidelines for not harming subjects clearly relate to the U.S. pro- tection of civil liberties—no one has developed a set of political norms that all social researchers accept.

h e only partial exception to the lack of po- litical norms is the generally accepted view that a researcher’s personal political orientation should not interfere with or unduly inl uence his or her scientii c research. It would be considered im- proper for a researcher to use shoddy techniques or to distort or lie about his or her research as a way of furthering the researcher’s political views. As you can imagine, however, studies are often enough attacked for allegedly violating this norm.

Objectivity and Ideology

In Chapter 1, I suggested that social research can never be totally objective, because researchers are human and therefore necessarily subjective. Science, as a collective enterprise, achieves the equivalent of objectivity through intersubjectiv- ity. h at is, dif erent scientists, having dif erent subjective views, can and should arrive at the same results when they employ accepted re- search techniques. Essentially, this will happen to the extent that each can set personal values and views aside for the duration of the research.

So we might think—but Milgram found out otherwise. Of the i rst 40 adult men Milgram tested, nobody refused to continue administer- ing the shocks until they heard the pupil begin kicking the wall between the two rooms. Of the 40, 5 did so then. Two-thirds of the subjects, 26 of the 40, continued doing as they were told through the entire series—up to and including the administration of the highest shock.

As you’ve probably guessed, the shocks were phony, and the “pupil” was a confederate of the ex- perimenter. Only the “teacher” was a real subject in the experiment. As a subject, you wouldn’t actually have been hurting another person, but you would have been led to think you were. h e experiment was designed to test your willingness to follow or- ders to the point of presumably killing someone.

Milgram’s experiments have been criticized both methodologically and ethically. On the ethi- cal side, critics have particularly cited the ef ects of the experiment on the subjects. Many seem to have experienced personally about as much pain as they thought they were administering to someone else. h ey pleaded with the experi- menter to let them stop giving the shocks. h ey became extremely upset and nervous. Some had uncontrollable seizures.

How do you feel about this research? Do you think the topic was important enough to justify such measures? Would debriei ng the subjects be sui cient to ameliorate any possible harm? Can you think of other ways the researcher might have examined obedience?

In recognition of the importance of ethical is- sues in social inquiry, the American Sociological Association has posted a website entitled “Teach- ing Ethics h roughout the Curriculum,” which contains a wide variety of case studies as well as resources for dealing with them. It can be found at www2.asanet.org/taskforce/Ethics/.

THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL

RESEARCH

As I indicated earlier, both ethics and politics hinge on ideological points of view. What is unacceptable from one point of view will be

THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH 83

that the workers have access to professional re- search methods.

Quite aside from abstract disagreements about whether social science should be value- free, many have argued about whether particular research undertakings are value-free or whether they represent an intrusion of the researcher’s own political values. Typically, researchers deny such intrusion, and others then challenge their denials. Let’s look at some examples of the con- troversies surrounding this issue.

Social Research and Race Nowhere have social research and politics been more controversially intertwined than in the area of racial relations. Social researchers studied the topic for a long time. Often, the products of the social research found their way into practical politics. A few brief references should illustrate the point.

In 1896, when the U.S. Supreme Court esta- blished the principle of “separate but equal” as

h e classic statement on objectivity and neutrality in social science is Max Weber’s “Science as a Vocation” ([1925] 1946). In this lecture, Weber coined the phrase value-free sociology and urged that sociology, like other sciences, needed to remain unencumbered by personal values if it was to make a special contribution to society. Liberals and conser- vatives alike could recognize the “facts” of social science, regardless of how those facts accorded with their personal politics.

Most social researchers have agreed with this abstract ideal, but not all. Marxist and neo- Marxist scholars, for example, argue that social science and social action cannot and should not be separated. Explanations of the status quo in society, they contend, shade subtly into defenses of that same status quo. Simple explanations of the social functions of, say, discrimination can easily become justii cations for its continuance. By the same token, merely studying society and its ills without a commitment to making society more humane has been called irresponsible.

In 2004 American Sociological Association President Michael Burawoy made “public soci- ology” the theme of the annual ASA meeting. Many scholars have espoused this term in re- cent years. Although these researchers may dis- agree on how sociology should af ect society or which sectors of society should be af ected, they generally agree that research should have an intentional impact. Recall our discussion of “ap- plied” and “pure” research as a background for this movement in contemporary sociology (see Chapter 1). If you want to explore this further, you might examine a special symposium on the issue in Contemporary Sociology (2008).

In Chapter 10, we’ll examine participatory action research, which is committed to using social research for the purposes designed and valued by the subjects of the research. h us, for example, researchers who want to improve the conditions for workers at a factory would ask the workers to dei ne the outcomes they would like to see and also ask them to have a hand in con- ducting the social research relevant to achieving them. h e task of the researchers is to ensure

Politics can intrude in research as in other aspects of life.

E a

rl B

a b

b ie

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH84

only examine a few research projects that have produced conclusions disagreeing with the pre- dominant ideological position.

Most social researchers have—overtly, at least—supported the end of school segregation. h us, an immediate and heated controversy was provoked in 1966 when James Coleman, a respected sociologist, published the results of a major national study of race and education. Con- trary to general agreement, Coleman found little dif erence in academic performance between African American students attending integrated schools and those attending segregated ones. Indeed, such obvious things as libraries, labora- tory facilities, and high expenditures per student made little dif erence. Instead, Coleman reported that family and neighborhood factors had the most inl uence on academic achievement.

Coleman’s i ndings were not well received by many of the social researchers who had been active in the civil rights movement. Some schol- ars criticized Coleman’s work on methodological grounds, but many others objected hotly on the ground that the i ndings would have segrega- tionist political consequences. h e controversy that raged around the Coleman report heark- ened back to the uproar provoked a year earlier by Daniel Moynihan (1965) in his critical analy- sis of the African American family in the United States. Whereas some felt Moynihan was blam- ing the victims, others objected to his tracing those problems to the legacy of slavery.

Another example of political controversy sur- rounding social research in connection with race concerns IQ scores. In 1969 Arthur Jensen, a Har- vard psychologist, was asked to prepare an article for the Harvard Educational Review examining the data on racial dif erences in IQ test results ( Jensen 1969). In the article, Jensen concluded that genetic dif erences between African Ameri- cans and whites accounted for the lower average IQ scores of African Americans. Jensen became so identii ed with that position that he appeared on college campuses across the country discussing it.

Jensen’s research has been attacked on numerous methodological bases. Critics charged

a means of reconciling the Fourteenth Amend- ment’s guarantee of equality to African Americans with the norms of segregation, it neither asked for nor cited social research. Nonetheless, it is widely believed that the Court was inl uenced by the writ- ings of William Graham Sumner, a leading social scientist of his era. Sumner was noted for his view that the mores and folkways of a society were rela- tively impervious to legislation and social plan - ning. His view has often been paraphrased as “stateways do not make folkways.” h us, the Court ruled that it could not accept the assumption that “social prejudices may be overcome by legislation” and denied the wisdom of “laws which conl ict with the general sentiment of the community” (Blaun- stein and Zangrando 1970:308). As many a politi- cian has said, “You can’t legislate morality.”

When the doctrine of “separate but equal” was overturned in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka), the new Supreme Court decision was based in part on the conclusion that segregation had a detrimental ef ect on African American children. In drawing that conclusion, the Court cited several sociological and psychological re- search reports (Blaunstein and Zangrando 1970).

For the most part, social researchers in this century have supported the cause of African American equality in the United States, and their convictions often have provided the impetus for their research. Moreover, they’ve hoped that their research will lead to social change. h ere is no doubt, for example, that Gunnar Myrdal’s classic two-volume study (1944) of race relations in the United States signii cantly inl uenced race rela- tions themselves. Myrdal amassed a great deal of data to show that the position of African Americans directly contradicted U.S. values of so- cial and political equality. Further, Myrdal did not attempt to hide his own point of view in the matter.

Many social researchers have become directly involved in the civil rights movement, some more radically than others. Given the broad sup- port for ideals of equality, research conclusions supporting the cause of equality draw little or no criticism. To recognize how solid the general social science position is in this matter, we need

THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH 85

women (1953). Kinsey’s extensive interviewing allowed him to report on frequency of sexual activity, premarital and extramarital sex, homo- sexual behavior, and so forth. His studies pro- duced public outrage and ef orts to close his research institute at Indiana University.

Although today most people no longer get worked up about the Kinsey reports, Americans tend to remain touchy about research on sex. In 1987 the National Institutes of Health (NIH), charged with i nding ways to combat the AIDS epidemic, found they needed hard data on con- temporary sexual practices if they were to design ef ective anti-AIDS programs. h eir request for research proposals resulted in a sophisticated study design by Edward O. Laumann and col- leagues. h e proposed study focused on the dif- ferent patterns of sexual activity characterizing dif erent periods of life, and it received rave re- views from the NIH and their consultants.

Enter Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) and Congressman William Dannemeyer (R-California). In 1989, having learned of the Laumann study, Helms and Dannemeyer began a campaign to block the study and shift the same amount of money to a teen celibacy program. Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist, sought to un- derstand the opposition to the Laumann study.

h e surveys, Helms argued, are not really intended “to

stop the spread of AIDS. h e real purpose is to compile

supposedly scientii c facts to support the left-wing

liberal argument that homosexuality is a normal,

acceptable life-style. . . . As long as I am able to stand

on the l oor of the U.S. Senate,” he added, “I am never

going to yield to that sort of thing, because it is not just

another life-style; it is sodomy.” (Fausto-Sterling 1992)

Helms was sui ciently persuasive as to win a 66–34 vote in favor of his amendment in the U.S. Senate. h e House rejected the amendment, and it was dropped in conference committee, but government funding for the study was put on hold. Laumann and his colleagues then turned to the private sector and obtained funding for a smaller study, published in 1994 as h e Social Organization of Sexuality.

that much of the data on which Jensen’s conclu- sion was based were inadequate and sloppy— there are many IQ tests, some worse than others. Similarly, it was argued that Jensen had not taken social-environmental factors sui ciently into ac- count. Other social researchers raised still other methodological objections.

Beyond the scientii c critique, however, many condemned Jensen as a racist. Hostile crowds drowned out his public presentations by booing. Ironically, Jensen’s reception by several university audiences recalled the hostile reception received by abolitionists a century before, when the pre- vailing opinion favored leaving the institution of slavery intact.

Many social researchers limited their objec- tions to the Moynihan, Coleman, and Jensen research to scientii c, methodological grounds. h e political i restorms ignited by these studies, however, demonstrate how ideology often shows up in matters of social research. Although the abstract model of science is divorced from ideol- ogy, the practice of science is not.

The Politics of Sexual Research As I indicated earlier, the Laud Humphreys study of “tearoom trade” raised ethical issues that researchers still discuss and debate. At the same time, much of the furor was related to the subject matter itself. As I have written elsewhere,

Laud Humphreys didn’t just study S-E-X but ob-

served and discussed homosexuality. And it wasn’t

even the caring-and-committed-relationships-

between-two-people-who-just-happen-to-be-of-the-

same-sex homosexuality but tawdry encounters

between strangers in public toilets. Only adding

the sacrii ce of Christian babies could have made

this more inl ammatory for the great majority of

Americans in 1970. (Babbie 2004:12)

Although Humphreys’ research topic was unusu- ally provocative for many, tamer sexuality re- search has also engendered outcries of public horror. During the 1940s and 1950s, Alfred Kinsey, a biologist, published landmark studies of sexual practices of American men (1948) and

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH86

politically radical immigrants concentrated in

Northeastern cities. Conservatives in Congress

blocked reapportionment, complaining among

other things that because January 1 was then cen-

sus day, transient agricultural workers were “incor-

rectly” counted in cities rather than on the farms

to which they would return in time for spring

planting. (Census day was later shifted to April 1,

where it has remained.) h e arguments dragged

out for a decade, and Congress was not reappor-

tioned until after the next census. (Prewitt 2003)

More recently, concern for undercounting the urban poor has become a political issue. h e big cities, which have the most to lose from the un- dercounting, typically vote Democratic rather than Republican, so you can probably guess which party supports ef orts to improve the counting and which party is less enthusiastic. By the same token, when social scientists have ar- gued in favor of replacing the attempt at a total enumeration of the population with modern sur- vey sampling methods (see Chapter 7 for more on sampling), they have enjoyed more support from Democrats, who would stand to gain from such a methodological shift, than from Republi- cans, who would stand to lose. Rather than sug- gesting Democrats support science more than do Republicans, this situation of ers another example of how the political context in which we live and conduct social research often af ects that research.

Politics with a Little “p”

Political ideologies often confound social re- search, but the more personal “politics” of social research runs far deeper still. Social research in relation to contested social issues simply can- not remain antiseptically objective—particularly when dif ering ideologies are pitted against each other in a i eld of social science data.

h e same is true when research is invoked in disputes between people with conl icting inter- ests. For instance, social researchers who have served as “expert witnesses” in court would prob- ably agree that the scientii c ideal of a “search for truth” seems hopelessly naive in a trial or lawsuit.

Politics and the Census h ere is probably a political dimension to every attempt to study human social behavior. Consider the decennial U.S. Census, mandated by the Constitution. h e original purpose was to discover the population sizes of the various states to determine their proper representation in the House of Represen- tatives. Whereas each state gets two senators, large states get more representatives than do small ones. So what could be simpler? Just count the number of people in each state.

From the beginning, there was nothing simple about counting heads in a dispersed, national population like the United States. Even the dei - nition of a “person” was anything but straight- forward. A slave, for example, counted as only three-i fths of a person for purposes of the census. h is decreased the representation of the slave- holding Southern states, though counting slaves as whole people might have raised the dangerously radical idea that they should be allowed to vote.

Further, the logistical problems of counting people who reside in suburban tract houses, urban apartments, college dorms, military bar- racks, farms, cabins in the woods, and illegal housing units, as well as counting those who have no place to live, has always presented a daunting task. It’s the sort of challenge social researchers tackle with relish. However, the dii culty of i nd- ing the hard-to-reach and the techniques created for doing so cannot escape the political net.

Kenneth Prewitt, who directed the Census Bureau from 1998 to 2001, describes some of the political aspects of counting heads:

Between 1910 and 1920, there was a massive

wartime population movement from the rural,

Southern states to industrial Northern cities. In

1920, for the i rst time in American history, the

census included more city dwellers than rural

residents. An urban America was something new

and disturbing, especially to those who held to the

Jef ersonian belief that independent farmers best

protected democracy. Among those of this persua-

sion were rural, conservative congressmen in the

South and West. h ey saw that reapportionment

would shift power to factory-based unions and

THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH 87

Even though the civil servants got their cost-of-living allowance back, I have to admit I was also concerned with how I looked in front of the courtroom assemblage. I tell you this anecdote to illustrate the personal “politics” of human interactions involving presumably scientii c and objective research. We need to realize that as human beings social researchers are going to act like human beings, and we must take this into account in assessing their i ndings. h is recogni- tion neither invalidates their research nor pro- vides an excuse for rejecting i ndings we happen to dislike, but it does need to be taken into account.

Similar questions are raised regularly outside the social sciences. For example, you’ve probably read reports about research demonstrating the safety of a new drug—research that was paid for by the very pharmaceutical company who de- veloped the drug and was seeking government approval to sell it. Even if the research was of the highest quality, it’s appropriate to question whether it was tainted by a conl ict of interest. Similarly, when research sponsored by the coal or petroleum industries concludes that global climate change is not a human-made problem, you shouldn’t necessarily assume that the re- search was biased, but you should consider that possibility. At the very least, the sponsorship of such research should be made public.

Politics in Perspective

Although the ethical and the political dimen- sions of research are in principle distinct, they do intersect. Whenever politicians or the public feel that social research is violating ethical or moral standards, they’ll be quick to respond with remedies of their own. Moreover, the standards they defend may not be those of the research community. And even when researchers support the goals of measures directed at the way re- search is done, the means specii ed by regulations or legislation can hamstring research.

Today, the “politicization of science” is a par- ticularly hot topic, with charges l ung from both sides of the political spectrum. On the one hand, we can see renewed objections to the teaching of evolution while demands for the teaching of

Although expert witnesses technically do not represent either side in court, they are, none- theless, engaged by only one side to appear, and their testimony tends to support the side of the party who pays for their time. h is doesn’t neces- sarily mean that these witnesses will lie on behalf of their patrons, but the contenders in a lawsuit are understandably more likely to pay for expert testimony that supports their case than for testi- mony that attacks it.

h us, as an expert witness, you appear in court only because your presumably scientii c and honest judgment happens to coincide with the interests of the party paying you to testify. Once you arrive in court and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, however, you i nd yourself in a world foreign to the ideals of objective contemplation. Suddenly the norms are those of winning and losing. As an expert witness, of course, all you have to lose is your respectability (and perhaps the chance to earn fees as an expert witness in the future). Still, such stakes are high enough to create discomfort for most social researchers.

I recall one case in federal court when I was testifying on behalf of some civil service work- ers who had had their cost-of-living allowance (COLA) cut on the basis of research I thought was rather shoddy. I was engaged to conduct more “scientii c” research that would demonstrate the injustice worked against the civil servants (Bab- bie 1982:232–43).

I took the stand, feeling pretty much like a re- spected professor and textbook author. In short order, however, I found I had moved from the academy to the hockey rink. Tests of statistical signii cance and sampling error were suddenly less relevant than a slap shot. At one point, an at- torney from Washington lured me into casually agreeing that I was familiar with a certain profes- sional journal. Unfortunately, the journal did not exist. I was mortii ed and suddenly found myself shifting domains. Without really thinking about it, I shifted from Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood to the dark alleys of ninja-professor. I would not be fully satisi ed until I, in turn, could mortify the attorney, which I succeeded in doing.

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH88

researchers get angry and call each other names, or when the research community comes under attack from the outside, scientii c inquiry per- sists. Studies are done, reports are published, and new things are learned. In short, ideological disputes do not bring science to a halt, but they do make it more challenging—and exciting.

h ird, an awareness of ideological considera- tions enriches the study and practice of social research methods. Many of the established

creation science have been replaced by support for intelligent design. In many of these regards, science is seen as a threat to religiously based views, and scientists are sometimes accused of having an antireligious agenda. On the other hand, a statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists (2005), cosigned by thousands of sci- entists, illustrates the concern that the concen- tration of political power in the hands of one party can threaten the independent functioning of scientii c research:

h e United States has an impressive history of

investing in scientii c research and respecting the

independence of scientists. As a result, we have

enjoyed sustained economic progress and public

health, as well as unequaled leadership within the

global scientii c community. Recent actions by

political appointees, however, threaten to under-

mine this legacy by preventing the best available

science from informing policy decisions that have

serious consequences for our health, safety, and

environment.

Across a broad range of issues—from child-

hood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to

climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear

weapons—political appointees have distorted and

censored scientii c i ndings that contradict estab-

lished policies. In some cases, they have manipu-

lated the underlying science to align results with

predetermined political decisions.

h ere are four main lessons that I hope you will take away from this discussion. First, science is not untouched by politics. h e intrusion of politics and related ideologies is not unique to social research; the natural sciences have experienced and continue to experience similar situations. However, social researchers study things that matter to people; things they have i rm, personal feelings about; and things that af ect their lives. Moreover, researchers are human beings, and their feelings often show through in their professional lives. To think otherwise would be naive.

Second, science proceeds in the midst of political controversy and hostility. Even when

h e Nazi medical experiments were outra- geous in many ways. Some of the experi- ments can only be described as ghoulish and sadistic. Often the scientii c caliber of the experiments was shoddy. One could argue, however, that some people today suf er and even die from research. We often condone these risks by virtue of the benei ts to humankind expected to follow from the research. Some of the Nazi doctors, no doubt, salved their own consciences with such rel ections.

h e Nazi medical experiments breached a fundamental ethical norm discussed in this chapter. h is is rel ected in the indictments of the Nuremberg trials, which charged several medical personnel in the Nazi war machine with “plans and enterprises involv- ing medical experiments without the subjects’ consent, upon civilians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with the German Reich [emphasis mine]” (Tri- als of War Criminals 1949–1953). Even if the most hideous experiments had not been conducted, and even accepting that there is always some risk when human research is undertaken, it is absolutely unacceptable to subject people to risks in research without their informed consent.

? What do you think? REVISITED

THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH 89

characteristics of science, such as intersubjecti- vity, function to cancel out or hold in check our human shortcomings, especially those we are unaware of. Otherwise, we might look into the world and never see anything but a rel ection of our personal biases and beliefs.

Finally, although researchers should not let their own values interfere with the quality and honesty of their research, this does not mean that researchers cannot or should not participate in public debates and express both their scientii c expertise and personal values. You can do scien- tii cally excellent research on racial prejudice, all the while being opposed to prejudice and say- ing so. Some would argue that social scientists, because of their scientii c expertise in the work- ings of society, have an obligation to speak out,

rather than leaving that role to politicians, jour- nalists, and talk-show hosts. Herbert Gans (2002) writes of the need for “public sociologists”:

A public sociologist is a public intellectual who

applies sociological ideas and i ndings to social

(dei ned broadly) issues about which sociology

(also dei ned broadly) has something to say. Public

intellectuals comment on whatever issues show

up on the public agenda; public sociologists do

so only on issues to which they can apply their

sociological insights and i ndings.

For more on the ethics of Nazi experiments,

see www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/

indiptx.htm

Main Points

Introduction

Ethical, and political considerations, in addi-• tion to technical scientii c and administrative concerns, shape social research problems.

Ethical Issues in Social Research

What is ethical and unethical in research is • ultimately a matter of what a community of people agree is right and wrong.

Researchers agree that participation in • research should normally be voluntary. h is norm, however, can conl ict with the scientii c need for generalizability.

Researchers agree that research should not • harm those who participate in it, unless they willingly and knowingly accept the risks of harm, giving their informed consent.

Whereas anonymity refers to the situation • in which even the researcher cannot link specii c information to the individuals it describes, coni dentiality refers to the situa- tion in which the researcher promises to keep

information about subjects private. h e most straightforward way to ensure coni dentiality is to destroy identifying information as soon as it’s no longer needed.

Many research designs involve a degree of de-• ception of subjects. Because deceiving people violates common standards of ethical behav- ior, deception in research requires a strong justii cation—and even then the justii cation may be challenged.

Social researchers have ethical obligations to • the community of researchers as well as to subjects. h ese obligations include reporting results fully and accurately as well as disclos- ing errors, limitations, and other shortcom- ings in the research.

Institutional review boards review research • proposals involving human subjects so that they can guarantee that the subjects’ rights and interests will be protected.

Professional associations in several disciplines • publish codes of ethics to guide researchers. h ese codes are necessary and helpful, but they do not resolve all ethical questions.

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH90

steps you’ll take to avoid them. Perhaps you’ll prepare forms to insure that subjects are aware of and give their informed consent to the risks stemming from their participation. h e terms anonymous and/or coni dential are likely to ap- pear in your discussion.

Review Questions

1. Consider the following real and hypothetical re-

search situations. What is the ethical component

in each example? How do you feel about it? Do

you think the procedures described are ultimately

acceptable or unacceptable? You might i nd it

useful to discuss some of these situations with

classmates.

a. A psychology instructor asks students in an

introductory psychology class to complete

questionnaires that the instructor will analyze

and use in preparing a journal article for

publication.

b. After a i eld study of deviant behavior during

a riot, law enforcement oi cials demand that

the researcher identify those people who were

observed looting. Rather than risk arrest as

an accomplice after the fact, the researcher

complies.

c. After completing the i nal draft of a book

reporting a research project, the researcher-

author discovers that 25 of the 2,000 survey

interviews were falsii ed by interviewers. To

protect the bulk of the research, the author

leaves out this information and publishes the

book.

d. Researchers obtain a list of right-wing radicals

they wish to study. h ey contact the radicals with

the explanation that each has been selected “at

random” from among the general population to

take a sampling of “public opinion.”

e. A college instructor who wants to test the

ef ect of unfair berating administers an hour

exam to both sections of a specii c course. h e

overall performance of the two sections is

essentially the same. h e grades of one section

Two Ethical Controversies

Laud Humphreys’ study of “tearoom” encoun-• ters and Stanley Milgram’s study of obedience raised ethical issues that have been debated to this day.

The Politics of Social Research

Social research inevitably has a political and • ideological dimension. Although science is neutral on political matters, scientists are not. Moreover, much social research inevitably involves the political beliefs of people outside the research community.

Although most researchers agree that politi-• cal orientation should not unduly inl uence research, in practice it can be very dii cult to separate politics and ideology from the con- duct of research. Some researchers maintain that research can and should be an instru- ment of social action and change. More subtly, a shared ideology can af ect the way other researchers receive social research.

Even though the norms of science cannot • force individual researchers to give up their personal values, the intersubjective character of science provides a guard against “scientii c” i ndings being the product of bias only.

Key Terms

anonymity debriei ng

coni dentiality informed consent

Proposing Social Research: Ethical Issues

If you are actually proposing a research project, you may be required to submit your proposal to your campus institutional review board (IRB). In that case, you’ll need to i nd the proper forms and follow the procedures involved. h e key concern here is the protection of research sub- jects: avoiding harm, safeguarding their privacy, and so forth.

In this section of the proposal, you’ll discuss the ethical risks involved in your study and the

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS AND POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH90

THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH 91

2. Review the discussion of the Milgram experiment

on obedience. How would you design a study to ac-

complish the same purpose while avoiding the ethi-

cal criticisms leveled at Milgram? Would your design

be equally valid? Would it have the same ef ect?

3. Suppose a researcher who is personally in favor

of small families (as a response to the problem

of overpopulation) wants to conduct a survey to

determine why some people want many children

and others don’t. What personal-involvement

problems would the researcher face and how

could she or he avoid them?

4. What ethical issues should the researcher in

item 3 take into account in designing the survey?

Online Study Resources

Go to www.cengage.com/login

and click on “Create My Account” for access to this powerful online study tool. You’ll get a per- sonalized study plan based on your responses to a diagnostic pretest. Once you’ve mastered the material with the help of interactive learning tools, you can take a posttest to coni rm that you’re ready to move on to the next chapter.

Website for The Basics of Social Research, 5th edition

At the book companion website (www.cengage .com/sociology/babbie) you’ll i nd many re- sources in addition to CengageNOW to aid you in studying for your exams. For example, you’ll i nd Tutorial Quizzes with feedback, Internet Exercises, Flash Cards, Glossary and Crossword Puzzles, as well as Learning Objectives, GSS Data, Web Links, Essay Questions, and a Final Exam.

are artii cially lowered, however, and the

instructor berates the students for performing

so badly. h e instructor then administers the

same i nal exam to both sections and discovers

that the performance of the unfairly berated

section is worse. h e hypothesis is coni rmed,

and the research report is published.

f. In a study of sexual behavior, the investiga-

tor wants to overcome subjects’ reluctance

to report what they might regard as shameful

behavior. To get past their reluctance, subjects

are asked, “Everyone masturbates now and

then; about how much do you masturbate?”

g. A researcher studying dorm life on campus dis-

covers that 60 percent of the residents regularly

violate restrictions on alcohol consumption.

Publication of this i nding would probably cre-

ate a furor in the campus community. Because

no extensive analysis of alcohol use is planned,

the researcher decides to keep this i nding quiet.

h. To test the extent to which people may try to

save face by expressing attitudes on matters

they are wholly uninformed about, the re-

searcher asks for subjects’ attitudes regarding a

i ctitious issue.

i. A research questionnaire is circulated among

students as part of their university registration

packet. Although students are not told they

must complete the questionnaire, the hope is

that they will believe they must—thus ensuring

a higher completion rate.

j. A researcher pretends to join a radical political

group in order to study it and is successfully

accepted as a member of the inner planning

circle. What should the researcher do if the

group makes plans for the following?

(1) A peaceful, though illegal, demonstration

(2) h e bombing of a public building during a

time it is sure to be unoccupied

(3) h e assassination of a public oi cial

ONLINE STUDY RESOURCES 91