Topic-Legal Ethics: Falsified Data/students

Case 11: The Case of the Falsified Data

Mickey Jordan had developed a collaborative social-impact assessment project involving two

colleagues and three students. The six-person team was responsible for collecting field data in a

wide geographical area at some distance from their university. Each person was responsible for a

specific region. The data were fed, by region, into a computer on a weekly basis and monthly

meetings were held so that progress reports could be made by team members. At these meetings,

names of individuals who had been interviewed during the preceding period were given as a

means of checking off the list of identified community specialists, so that the overall progress of

the project could be ascertained. Information filed in the computer did not contain informants'

names or other identifiers, as a measure for maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of

informants. Each member of the team was paid by the funds made available through a contract

with a federal agency (the faculty members were able to buy release time from teaching with

contract funds).

Jordan had an occasion to be in the region assigned to one of the faculty members, Brian Cash,

and happened to find himself talking with one of Cash's reported informants, Henry Jones.

Jordon took the opportunity to ask Jones for clarification of reported data that had puzzled him.

Jones appeared confused and asked Jordan why he was asking him "these questions." Jordan

explained that he had been curious about specific details of Cash's report and thought this would

be an opportune time to get further information. Jones said that he had never heard of Brian

Cash, much less having ever talked to him, and furthermore he did not even know a research

project was being conducted in his community.

Jordan's Dilemma: Should he accept Jones's statement as a denial of participation in the project

to maintain anonymity? Should he accuse Jones of lying? Should he drop the matter for the

moment and later tell Cash about the incident? Perhaps Cash had lied about interviewing

Jones? Should be confront Cash with this suspicion? Since it was some distance to the field site

from the university, should he [Jordan] now seek out other informants Cash had reported on to

determine whether or not they had been interviewed? Or, were there other tactics to be

employed?