Research Ethics – Part II
We’ve spent a considerable amount of time looking at famous studies which were ethically unsound.
Some of the topics/issues brought up in the videos of the case studies will be discussed in this set of
notes.
Anonymity
 A research project guarantees a participant anonymity when not only the people who read
about the research, but the researcher cannot even identify a given response with a given
participant.

The typical interview survey can never guarantee anonymity to the participant.

Mail-in surveys have the potential of guaranteeing anonymity to the participant.
o
Problems may arise with anonymity when trying to figure out who has or has not
returned their surveys.
Confidentiality
 Researchers can guarantee confidentiality to their participants.

The research must make sure the participant is aware of the difference between their responses
being confidential and their responses being anonymous.

Courts have not recognized social research data as “privileged communication.”
Examples:
o
After the Exxon Valdez supertanker oil spill the economic and environmental damage
was widely reported. Not much attention was given to the psychological and
sociological damage that was incurred on the residents of the area. There were some
reports of increased alcoholism, family violence, etc. Eventually, communities sued
Exxon for their economic, social, and psychological damages suffered by their residents.
To determine the amount of damage done, a San Diego research firm conducted a
survey of households asking the residents some rather personal questions about
increased problems in their families. The families revealed such information with the
promise of confidentiality from the research firm. Exxon asked the court to subpoena
the survey questionnaires and their request was granted. Therefore, all the residents’
survey responses were given to the courts including all identifying information. Exxon
wanted to use this information to call people to the stand cross-examine them
regarding their answers.
o
Rik Scarce was a graduate student at Washington State University when he wrote a
book about his research regarding animal rights activists, Ecowarriors: Understanding
the Radical Environmental Movement. He was then called before a grand jury and asked
1
to identify the activists that he studied. He refused to answer and spent 159 days in 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 confidential disclosure given to me in the course of my research
activities. I cannot answer the question without actually breaching a
confidential communication. Consequently, 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,
researchers, and writers under the First Amendment.” ( pg. 72 Babbie, 2011)
The American Sociological Association filed a friend of the court brief on his behalf.
However, when they revised their code of ethics they warned researchers to make sure
they were informed regarding laws and rules that may limit their ability to promise
confidentiality to research subjects.

There are some ways that researchers are able to ensure their respondents’ answers remain
confidential.
o
Interviewers and others with access to identifications should be ___________________
in their ethical responsibilities.
o
Remove ______________________ information as soon as it is no longer necessary.
o
Interview survey booklets can be printed so that the __________________________
will contain all identifying information and can be torn off.
o
In 2002 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a program to
issue a “Certificate of Confidentiality” to protect the confidentiality of research-subject
data against forced disclosure by the police or other authorities. However, not all
research projects qualify for such protection.
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 subjects of that research. This 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) (pg. 73
Babbie, 2011)
2
Deception
 As a researcher you should not deceive your participants. This includes making sure they know
you are a researcher before they agree to participate in your study. Even if you must conceal
your research identity, you need to consider that your research needs are justified by
compelling scientific or administrative concerns. However, this may not be enough to argue
that approach is not unethical.

Sometime researchers will admit they are conducting a study, but alter their reasoning as to
why they are conducting the study and for whom it is being conducted.
Example:
o Suppose you work for a welfare agency and want to survey those who are participants
in the program. The agency is interested in the living standards among participants. If
the participants knew the Welfare agency was conducting the study they may not be
truthful in their answers. However, what if you told them you were conducting a
research study for the university? The participants are more likely to give truthful
answers, but is it really ethical to do that?
o

Lying about the purpose of laboratory experiments is normal practice. Many of the
experiments in social psychology test the extent to which subjects will abandon the
evidence of their own observations in favor of views expressed by others. We saw this
sort of impact in the Milgram study. Though there is still the stickler that deception is
occurring which is unethical.
One solution to deceiving your participants to have a debriefing at the end of the experiment.
Sometimes telling the participants the truth afterward may make up for them being deceived in
the first place.
Analysis and Reporting
 Researchers have an obligation to present their findings regardless of the results. Negative
findings should be reported if they are in any way related to the analysis.

Researchers should avoid describing their findings as the product of a carefully preplanned
analytic strategy if that is not the case.
Institutional Review Boards (IRB)
 Any research which involves human subjects is governed by federal law. Any agency (such as
universities and hospitals) wishing to receive federal research support must establish an
institutional review board which consists of a panel of faculty (and possibly others) who review
all research proposals involving human subjects so that they can guarantee the subjects’ rights
and interests will be protected.

The law only applies to federally funded research, but many universities apply the same
standards and procedures to all research, including those funded by nonfederal sources and
3
even research done at no cost, such as student projects.

Many of the reasons for establishing IRBs had to do with medical experimentation on humans
and may social research study designs which are generally regarded as exempt from IRB review.

Studies may be exempt from IRB review for the following reasons (Babbie, 2011):
o
Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings,
involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special
education instructional strategies, (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the
comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management
methods.
o
Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude,
achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public
behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human
subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to subjects; (ii) any
disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research could reasonably
place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’
financial standing, employability, or reputation.
o
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 officials or candidates for public office; or (ii)
Federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally
identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter.
o
Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records,
pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, is these sources are publicly available
or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects
cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.
o
Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to approval of
Department or Agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise
examine: (i) Public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or
services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those
programs or procedures; (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payments for
benefits or services under those programs.
o
Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies, (i) is wholesome
foods without additives are consumed or (ii) if 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 of the Food
and Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
4
Professional Codes of Ethics
Most professional associations have created and published formal codes of conduct (ethics) describing
what is considered acceptable and unacceptable professional behavior.
What I’d like each of you to do is find one of the following professional associations’ codes of ethics.
You’ll need to bring the following with you to “present” to the class:




A copy of the code of ethics. (You may bring these to me and I’ll make copies for the class.)
Briefly discuss the purpose of the guidelines (if applicable).
Briefly discuss the main “areas” or “categories” of research included in the code of ethics.
Do you think there is something missing in the code of ethics? That is, is there some area of
research or scenario you can think of that wouldn’t be covered by the code of ethics that you
think should be?
 American Statistical Association (http://amstat.org)
 Association for Public Opinion Research (http://www.aapor.org/Home.htm)
 American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/)
 American Chemical Society (http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content)
 Code of Ethics for Minnesota Teachers (google this and you should find it)
 National Society of Professional Engineers (http://www.nspe.org/index.html)\
 American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/)
 Association of Internet Researchers (http://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf)
 American Political Science Association (http://www.apsanet.org/)
 American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/)
 American Sociological Association (http://www.asanet.org/)
 Society of Professional Journalists (http://www.spj.org/)
 Radio Television Digital News Association (http://www.spj.org/)
5