1 / 22

Chapter 11 Ethical Issues

Chapter 11 Ethical Issues. Winston Jackson and Norine Verberg Methods: Doing Social Research, 4e. Ethical Issues in Social Research.

Sophia
Télécharger la présentation

Chapter 11 Ethical Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 11Ethical Issues Winston Jackson and Norine Verberg Methods: Doing Social Research, 4e

  2. Ethical Issues in Social Research • Conflicting pressures: researcher torn between using the “ideal” design (technical merit of research) and a less effective design that respects the rights of participants • Is the research design ethically acceptable? • Two studies – become landmark in the discussion of research ethics • Laud Humphreys: Tearoom Trade • Stanley Milgram: Behavioral Study of Obedience © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  3. Humphreys: Tearoom Trade • Laud Humphrey’s classic study, Tearoom Trade (1970), was a study of “sexual deviance” • Two parts to the research • Covert observational study of impersonal sex among men in public restrooms • Adopted “watch queen” role to allow observation • “Health survey” • Involved the men who participated in the tearoom in a legitimate study to gather personal information • The men did not know that they were part of a research project focused on sexual deviance © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  4. Humphreys (cont’d) • While observing sexual encounters, Humpheys documented the men’s licence plate number • Used licence numbers to get names and addresses of participants • Police contact: claimed to be “market research” • Participant list kept in safety deposit box • Included the men in a health survey of men (being conducted by other researchers) • Interviewed them at their home; to conceal identity, he wore different clothes, used a different car © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  5. Humphreys (cont’d) • Survey had questions on family background, personal health and social histories, SES, religious affiliation, socio-political attitudes, friendship networks, marital relations and sex • No questions about homosexuality • Final sample was 50 deviant/ 50 matched • Findings • Participants came from all walks of life, most married, primarily heterosexual: a search for fast, exciting, impersonal sex © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  6. Four Procedures Raise Ethical Issues • The researcher acted as a lookout, alerting participants engaged in an illegal activity of any impending danger • Unknown to the subjects, the researcher noted the licence numbers of their cars • Licence numbers were traced to reveal the name and address of each car owner • Traced participants were interviewed as part of a larger public health survey (true purpose of their participation not revealed) © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  7. The Fallout: Debate on Research Ethics • Gouldner: tried to block Humphreys from getting Ph.D. on ethical grounds • Horowitz & Rainwater: • Humphreys was entitled to do the observations • the tactic was necessary for the project • how was the subjects’ right to privacy violated? • Donald P. Warwick: 3 objections • Took advantage of powerless group • Portrays researchers as “sly tricksters” • Use of deception unacceptable © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  8. Four Ethical Problems A. Aiding in crime • Since the Missouri law forbade homosexual activity Humphreys was assisting in a crime by acting as a lookout (i.e., the “watch queen”) B. Withholding information • When arrested for loitering he refused to give police his name • When in the guise of doing market research he traced licence numbers © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  9. Four Ethical Problems (cont’d) C. Informed Consent • Did not seek informed consent • Likely they would have refused participation D. Endangering Participants • Took some care here: the names in safety deposit box in another state, refusing to tell police what he was doing. • What if names had been released? • Would the publication lead to a “crack down”? © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  10. Laud Humpheys’ Postscript • Social scientists cannot ignore “a harassed population of deviants” • Provides his views in Box 11.2; feels his methods did not harm participants, nor breach their rights • Because of his study, the sociology department lost federal funding, many senior faculty left • Sociology program later eliminated • Laud Humphreys (1930-1988) received his Ph.D. Career SUNY (Albany, NY) © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  11. Stanley Milgram: Obedience • Brief outline of study • Subjects believed they were administering shocks to other “subjects” (in fact a confederate who faked pain and begged for mercy!) • Subjects told to continue with the shocks. (Each time an error was made a shock of increasing amount was administered) • 2/3 of subjects administered shocks labelled as “dangerous” © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  12. Milgram (cont’d) • Milgram sought to understand whether people will obey unethical orders. • The Nuremberg war trials often had people saying they were just following orders © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  13. Assessing Ethical Acceptability: Criteria • Two approaches • The consequentialist view • The deontological view • Consequentialist View • What are consequences of study for subjects, for the academic discipline, and for society? • Cost/benefit analysis: anticipate possible negative effects of the research (entrapping individuals to do things they otherwise would not; unwanted self-knowledge, diminution of self-esteem) and weigh against possible benefits © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  14. Criteria (cont’d) • Deontological View • Use absolute moral strictures (never use deception; never pressure respondents, always mask identity of respondents) to assess ethical merit of a proposed study • Milgram’s research could never be done, nor could Humphreys’ under this view © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  15. Monitoring Ethical Research Practices • Awareness of unethical research practices has led to the development of ethical guidelines • In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) provides guidelines for Canadian researchers • All universities, hospitals are required to have a Research Ethics Board (REB) • Purpose: to scrutinize the ethical merit of research projects carried out by researchers © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  16. Monitoring (cont’d) • Researchers are required to write an application to receive “ethical approval” from the research ethics committee in their own university, and also key institutions (hospitals) • Onus on the researchers to demonstrate how they will protect the right of participants • Undergraduate students need approval from a departmental ethics review committee • Graduate students use same approval process as faculty © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  17. TCPS: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Guiding Ethical Principles (see Box 11.4) • Respect for human dignity • Respect for free and informed consent • Respect for vulnerable persons • Respect for privacy and confidentiality • Respect for justice and inclusiveness • Balancing harm and benefits • Minimizing harm • Maximizing benefit © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  18. Your Proposals Must... • Include a clear statement of research design • Show any causal models • Indicate measurement of dependent variable • Indicate who is to be studied, and how many • Outline data processing techniques • Give date for completion • Include bibliography © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  19. Your Proposals Must Also… • Show how the study will be explained to potential participants. For example: • How will purpose be explained? • How will you describe the procedures and what you want to participant to do? • How will noncoercive, informed consent be explained and obtained? • How will right to refuse be communicated? • How will you ensure participants’ responses will be kept confidential? © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  20. Rules for Resolving Ethical Issues • Rule 1. Protect the confidentiality of respondents • Rule 2. Do not place pressure on respondents • Rule 3. Make the subject’s participation painless • Rule 4. Identify sponsors • Rule 5. Disclose the basis on which respondents have been selected © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  21. Rules (cont’d) • Rule 6. Place no hidden identification codes on questionnaires • Rule 7. Honour promises to provide respondents with research report • Rule 8. Informed consent is a key concern • Rule 9. Debrief subjects • Rule 10. Researchers should distinguish between science and advocacy • Rule 11. Do not hunt through data looking for pleasing findings © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

  22. Rules (cont’d) • Rule 12. Be aware of potential sources of bias • Rule 13. Represent research literature fairly • Rule 14. Do the best research you can • Rule 15. Acknowledge all your sources • Rule 16. Seek advice on ethical issues © 2007 Pearson Education Canada

More Related