Research Ethics

694 Journal of Public Administration • Vol 41 no 3.1 • October 2006

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

J. Lutabingwa1

Visiting ProfessorDepartment of Public GovernanceUniversity of Johannesburg

T. NethonzheDepartment of Public GovernanceUniversity of Johannesburg

ABSTRACT

The aim of this article is to address three broad areas of ethical concern in terms of the design and execution of research: the ethics of data collection and analysis; the ethics of the treatment of participants; and the ethics of

responsibility to the society. Attention is also paid to some of the common ethical issues faced by Social Science researchers and suggestions made concerning approaches that researchers can use to address some of the ethical issues in terms of the context of research.

INTRODUCTIONne of the challenges facing both quantitative and qualitative Social Science researchers has to do with ethical issues. This is brought about by the fact that researchers studying human beings have to be concerned with how they

treat them, for example, researchers face the dilemma of whether they should give full information to the participants about their research, thus possibly contaminating their studies, or withhold some information. Additionally, when researchers are studying people’s behaviours or asking them questions, they have responsibilities to those people. Moreover, Social Science researchers have to be concerned about how their research findings will be used. According to Reese and Fremouw (1984), there are three broad areas of ethical concern in research: the ethics of data collection and

1 Prof Jesse Lutabingwa is also the Associate Vice Chancellor for International Programs and a Professor in Public Administration at the Appalachian State University, North Carolina (US)

695

analysis; the ethics of the treatment of participants; and the ethics of responsibility to the society.

In this article some of the common ethical issues faced by social science researchers, are addressed Four ethical problems have been identified relating to the ethical treatment of human beings namely informed consent; potential harm to participants; deception; and privacy. some approaches that researchers can use to address some of the ethical issues discussed are also suggested.

ETHICS IN DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISccording to Babbie and Mouton (2005:546) “in addition to technical and scientific considerations, social research projects are likely to be shaped by practical, ethical, and political considerations”. At its simplest level, ethics is what people agree

on about right and wrong and good and bad. Data collection methodologies used in social research may either be right or wrong, good or bad, not only technically, in terms of their effectiveness as research instruments, but also in terms of their consequences for the people being studied and the society at large (Guy et al., 1987 and Babbie and Mouton 2005:546).

In data collection, ethical infractions could vary from manipulating data in order to obtain desired results to the complete fabrication of data (Singleton and Straits, 2004). Data manipulation can occur in many different ways: (2004:516).

a researcher may exclude certain cases from the analysis to achieve a significant difference between experimental conditions;a researcher may fail to report results that contradict a favoured hypothesis or position;a researcher may search for statistical tests, however inappropriate, that improve the appearance of the data by yielding significant results or larger effect size.

Although very rare, data fabrication does happen but when it is discovered, it has a devastating effect on the researcher. A case that has attracted the world’s attention is that of Dr. Hwang Woo-suk, a rising South Korean stem-cell researcher.

In December 2005, Dr. Woo-suk was forced to resign in disgrace from his university position at the Seoul National University (considered a prestigious university in South Korea) after it was learned that he had fabricated stem-cell research that had raised hopes of new cures for hard-to-treat diseases. A panel of the Seoul National University experts investigating the incident reported that Dr. Woo-suk had faked results in at least nine of 11 stem cell lines he claimed to have created. Dr. Woo-suk had published his results in a paper in Science in May 2005. The South Korean government had supported Dr. Woo-suk by investing a total of US$39,9 million for research and facilities. The government had also designated him the country’s first top scientist. Dr. Woo-suk asked Science to withdraw his May 2005 paper, citing fatal errors, claiming that he had created only some of the 11 stem-cell colonies at the time of publication but completed the work later. This article had been viewed by the scientific community as significant for Dr. Woo-suk’s

•

•

•

J. Lutabingwa & T. Nethonzhe


Articleefficiency in cloning the stem-cell lines, by using just 185 human eggs to create custom-made embryonic stem-cells for the 11 patients.

Dr. Woo-suk also resigned in November 2005 as head of the World Stem Cell Hub, an international project founded in October 2005. The Hub had planned to open centres in Britain, and the United States. He resigned after admitting that he used eggs from female workers at his laboratory in violation of ethics guidelines.

Box 1.1 provides another case of Karen Ruggiero who had fabricated her data. As a direct consequence of Ruggiero’s case, several measures were taken to prevent such fraud from happening again in the U.S. These measures could also apply to the South African context. Murray (in Singleton and Straits, 2004) summarises the recommendations made to the social scientists in the U.S.:

Research institutions should educate students/researchers about scientific misconduct. The topic of research ethics should be an integral part of all courses in social science research methods.Institutions, funding agencies, and individual researchers should periodically check data. Survey researchers, for example, should validate a sample of interviews for every interviewer.Investigators should prescribe specific criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of certain data, such as outliers, before data are collected and analysed.

•

•

•

Karen Ruggiero had risen to fame due to her research work published in several leading psychological journals between 1995 and 2000. Her provocative central thesis was that racial and sexual discrimination are more widespread than most people think. Her research had drawn a great deal of attention. For example, one of her 1995 paper was cited in over 50 studies. Ruggiero’s work also had important policy implications in the U.S. However, suspicions about the validity of her research arose when other researchers could not replicate her findings. When her former research assistant asked Harvard University to investigate, Ruggiero admitted to having used ‘invalid data’ in her research studies. In 2001, she retracted articles in two journals.

Before the revelation of fraud, Ruggiero was a rising star in her discipline. After completing her Ph.D. at McGill University in Canada in 1996, she became an assistant professor at Harvard University, and then moved to the University of Texas in 2000 where she quickly gained a reputation as an excellent teacher and colleague. After the revelations of her fraud, Ruggiero was subjected to professional disgrace and public humiliation from media coverage of the incident. She resigned her faculty position and almost certainly ended her career as a research scientist.

Box 1.1: Karen Ruggiero and Fraudulent Data

Source: Singleton and Straits, 2004:516-517.

697

In papers submitted for publication, researchers should provide detailed information on how they collected, processed, and analysed their data, and journal editors should insist on such detailed accounting.

ETHICS OF TREATMENT OF HUMAN PARTICIPANTSour ethical problems are discuss relating to the ethical treatment of human beings: Informed Consent; Potential Harm to Participants; Deception; and Privacy (Diener and Crandall, 1978).

Informed Consent and Voluntary ParticipationA major tenet of social research ethics is that participation must be voluntary, that is, no one should be forced to participate (Babbie, 2001 and Babbie and Mouton 2005:546). Participants also have the right of informed consent. This means that their participation in a research study is based on a sufficient understanding of the project goals and methods. This does not mean that the researcher must tell a potential participant every detail about his or her research (Diener and Crandall, 1978). But participants have the right to know what possible harm or benefits can come from study and the probability of this harm or benefit occurring (Singleton and Straits, 2004). In studies involving human subjects, participants must be informed that they have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. This is particularly true of so-called “vulnerable” groups in society. When potential participants are children, or individuals of low intelligence, or are institutionalized, special care is necessary so that the researcher does not take unfair advantage of these individuals who are not fully capable of protecting themselves.

Potential Harm to ParticipantsA researcher should never harm the people being studied, regardless of whether they consented and volunteered to participate in the study. Sometimes it is difficult to define and predict harm. Given the nature of Social Science research project, it is unlikely to cause physical harm to the research participants (Singleton and Straits, 2004 and Babbie and Mouton 2005:546). However, not all harm is of a physical nature. Researchers can harm participants in very different ways:

By asking participants to reveal information that would embarrass them or endanger their home life, friendships and jobs.By asking participants to reveal deviant behaviours, attitudes they feel are unpopular, or demeaning personal characteristics such as low income, the receipt of welfare payments, and the like. This has the potential of harming participants psychologically.By forcing participants to face some aspects of themselves that they do not normally consider. A certain past behaviour that may appear unjust or immoral could be a source of continuing personal agony for the participants.

•

•

•

•



Through the analysis and reporting that violates the participants’ rights of privacy and possibly even expose them to retribution or punishment.

There are widely acceptable ethical principles designed to protect participants from harm that researchers should become familiar with. These principles have been discussed by Diener and Crandall (1978) and are summarised below:

The researcher should inform the participants of any reasonable or foreseeable risks or discomforts before the study begins and should give them sufficient opportunity to consider whether they want to participate.Where appropriate, the researcher should screen out participants who might be harmed by the research procedures (e.g., persons suffering from psychological problems being put under stress).If stress or potential harm is likely to occur, the researcher should take measures to assess harm after the study and participants should be informed of procedures of how they can contact the researcher. If long-lasting effects are possible, the researcher has a special obligation to conduct follow-up interviews and possibly to provide counselling.

DeceptionDeception is a major issue in social science research. Deception is often used in research and especially in experimental research (Guy et al., 1987; Babbie, 2001; Singleton and Straits, 2004). The most common deception involves misleading participants about the purpose of the study. A cover letter for a survey, for example, might indicate that the study’s objective is to examine general belief about health when, in fact, e.g. researchers may be interested in participants’ knowledge of and beliefs about the relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

It is hard for researchers to give up studies based on deception. Many researchers do not feel that valid information about various kinds of behaviour can be obtained if participants know the purpose of the study. The argument is that if participants know the purpose of the study, they are likely to play to it or to subvert it (Guy et al., 1987; Singleton and Straits, 2004). In either case, the validity of the research is compromised. Baumrind (1985) is one of the most vocal opponents of deception in social research. She argues that intentional deception in the research setting is unethical, imprudent, and unwarranted scientifically because it violates a participant’s right to informed consent and the trust implicit in the researcher-participant relationship.

Even when it is possible and important to conceal the research identity, there is an important ethical dimension to be considered. Social researchers are divided on how to deal with this issue. Various professional and scientific associations (e.g., American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, and the British Sociological Association, British Psychological Association) allow for some deception, however, they all provide a code of conduct that researchers must follow when deception is involved.

•

•

•

•

699

One solution researchers have found appropriate to deal with the issue of deception is that of debriefing participants following the study (Rudestam and Newton, 2001; Babbie, 2001; Singleton and Straits, 2004). Debriefing involves interviewing research participants to ascertain if there are any problems resulting from the research in order to correct them. Even though participants cannot be told the true purpose of the study prior to their participation in it, there is usually no reason they cannot be informed afterward. Telling them the truth afterwards may make up for having lied to them at the outset.

PrivacyInvasion of privacy remains a public concern as a result of widely publicized accounts of government wiretapping, police entrapments, and corporate drug testing (Singleton and Straits, 2004). Social research presents many possibilities for invading the privacy of research participants, and it is essential that researchers be sensitive to the ways in which their actions can violate the participants’ basic right to privacy.

Whether we define access to information as an invasion of privacy will depend on how private that information is. Clearly, some information is considered more private or sensitive than others. Among the most sensitive and threatening private areas are sexual behaviour and illegal activities. Researchers investigating these areas have a special obligation to protect the privacy of their informants.

No matter how sensitive the information, ethical researchers protect the right to privacy by guaranteeing anonymity or confidentiality. The two concepts are often confused or used synonymously, but they are not the same (Babbie, 2001; Singleton and Straits, 2004 and Babbie and Mouton 2005:546). A participant may be considered anonymous when the researcher cannot identify a given response with a given participant. This means that an interview survey participant can never be considered anonymous, since the interviewer collects information from an identifiable participant (Grinyer, 2002). An example of anonymity would be the mail survey in which no identification numbers are put on the questionnaire before their return to the researcher. However, a survey researcher who assures anonymity makes it difficult to keep track of who has or has not returned the questionnaire. Despite this problem, there are some situations in which the researcher may be advised to pay the necessary price (Grinyer, 2002).

For example, in one study of drug use among university students during the 1960s, Earl Babbie (2001) specifically decided that he did not want to know the identity of respondents. He did so for two reasons: to increase the accuracy and response rate and to avoid being put in the position of being asked by authorities for names of drug offenders

In a confidential survey, the researcher is able to identify a given participant’s responses but essentially promises not to do so publicly (Rudestam and Newton, 2001; Babbie, 2001). In a survey for example, the researcher is in a position to make public certain information reported by a given participant but does not do so. Confidentiality can be assured by removing identifying information as soon as it is no longer needed.



ETHICS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY

Analysis and ReportingIn any rigorous study, the researcher should be more familiar than anyone else with the technical shortcomings and failures of the study (Guy et al., 1987; Babbie, 2001; Singleton and Straits, 2004). The researcher has an obligation to make these shortcomings known to his or her readers. Even though he or she may feel foolish admitting mistakes, he or she should do it anyway. Negative findings should be reported if they are at all related to the researcher’s analysis. There is an unfortunate myth in scientific reporting that only positive discoveries are worth reporting. According to Gorard (2003:175), “…we also need virtues such as honesty to behave as researchers, to publish results even when they are painful or surprising…and the courage to proceed even if this approach is unpopular.”

It is important for the researcher to avoid the temptation to save face by describing his or her findings as the product of a carefully pre-planned analytical strategy when that is not the case. Many findings are arrived at unexpectedly even though they may seem obvious in retrospect. The researcher can serve his or her fellow researchers by telling the truth about all the pitfalls and problems he or she experienced in a particular line of inquiry.

Objectivity and IdeologySocial scientists have become increasingly sensitive not only to the ethical implications of their research participants but also to its moral and ideological implications for the larger society (Singleton and Straits, 2004). At one point, some argued that social scientists should be value-free. This view advocated a sharp distinction between the roles of scientist and citizen. According to this view, methods of science are designed to eliminate personal preferences and values. They are supposed to be neutral and objective. The value-free ideology maintains that as social scientists, social researchers can remain neutral in accumulating facts about social lives that are of equal utility to liberals and conservatives, as well as various political parties (e.g. African National Congress, Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party).

The value-free ideology, however, is no longer widely held. It is now generally accepted that values have a substantial influence on the research process (Singleton and Straits, 2004). Personal values and political beliefs sometimes do affect how researchers select and conceptualize problems and how they interpret their findings. Many non-scientific factors such as personal interests and ideologies, the availability of funding, the climate of opinion in society, and research fads and fashions, also may affect problem selection. Similar factors affect the perspective that researchers take and the kinds of questions they ask, which in turn determine the kinds of answers they will obtain (Gorard, 2003).

While claiming to be value-neutral seemingly protects the researcher’s self-interest and autonomy, in effect this position places researchers in the service of others’ values, such as those of research sponsors or anyone else who chooses to use their findings. The

701

nature of the problem selected by social researchers and the motivation to study them are inherently value laden. Researchers must, therefore, be aware not only of the influences of personal values and political preferences on their own work, but also the implications of their findings for constructive or destructive use by others.

Use of Research Findings:There is little question that the products of social research will be used by others. For policy and public administration research, the product of research is likely to be used by policy makers and managers of public programmes to change policy, develop new policies and programmes, or to discontinue others. Researchers must be aware of and provide direction to how others may use their research findings (Singleton and Straits, 2004). They cannot leave this to chance.

Diener and Crandall (1978) provide some guidelines in resolving ethical issues related to the use of research finding. Their guidelines are summarised below:

Researchers have an obligation to consider how their research findings will be used.Given that the eventual applications of research findings are not usually known, researchers should disseminate knowledge to the widest possible audience to increase public knowledge and encourage debate to prevent one group from exploiting the knowledge for its own good.When research findings have obvious and immediate applications, as in applied and evaluation research, researchers have a special obligation to promote actively appropriate use and to prevent misuse of their findings.Researchers can assume collective responsibility for the application of research findings through an organisation that communicates on their behalf and provide a forum for the discussion of policy-related issues – most professional and scientific associations serve this function.

CONCLUSIONven though researchers do not necessarily agree about all the issues they should be aware of the ethical and political constraints on research. The study of human beings is often an intrusive activity and raises the question of ethical standards in terms of

simple considerations of fairness, honesty, openness of intent, disclosure of methods, the ends for which the research is executed, a respect for the integrity of the individual, the obligation of the researcher to guarantee unequivocally individual privacy, and an informed willingness on the part of the subject to participate voluntarily in the research activity. These matters are crucial and should be taken into account at the outset when a research is first contemplated.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBabbie, E. 2001. The Practice of Social Research. (9th Edition).

••

•

•



Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Babbie, E. and Mouton, J. 2005. The Practice of Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baumrind, D. 1985. Research Using Intentional Deception:Ethical Issues Revisited. American Psychologist, 40:165-174.

Diener, E. and Crandall, R. 1978. Ethics in Social and Behavioural Research. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Gorard, S. 2003. Quantitative Methods in Social Science. New York: Continuum.

Grinyer, A. 2002. The Anonymity of Research Participants: Assumptions, Ethics and Practicalities. Social Research Update, 36:1-4.

Guy, R.F., Edgley, C.E., Arafat, I. and Allen, D.E. 1987. Social Research Methods: Puzzles and Solutions. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Reese, H.W. and Fremouw, W.J. 1984. Normal an Normative Ethics in Behavioural Science. American Psychologist, 39:863-876.

Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. 2001. Surviving your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process (2nd Edition). Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Singleton, R.A. and Straits, B.C. 2004. Approaches to Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Research Ethics

Documents

Transcript of Research Ethics