Social Research Association (SRA) Ethics...

Ethicalguidelines

ocial

esearch

ssociation

December 2003

ocial

esearch

ssociation

Ethicalguidelines

December 2003

2

3

Contents

Foreword 5

Background 7

SRA Policy on Research Ethics 8

Introduction to ethical guidelines 10

Level A Basic principles 13

Level B Elements of the basic code expanded

1. Obligations to society 15

2. Obligations to funders and employers 18

3. Obligations to colleagues 22

4. Obligations to subjects 25

5. Ethics committees and IRB’s 40

Level C Bibliographies

Introduction 44

1. Obligations to society 46

2. Obligations to funders and employers 47

3. Obligations to colleagues 48

4. Obligations to subjects 49

5. Ethics committees and IRB’s 52

6. Standard protocols for checking ethicalconsiderations 52

7. Contacting experienced SRA members who canhelp with ethical problems 55

8. Other useful links and contacts 56

9. References 59

4

5

Foreword

The origins of the SRA’s concern to maintain an up-to-dateset of ethical guidelines and be proactive in the discussionof social research ethics lies in our sense of responsibilityfor standard-setting in the profession of social research.

At present in the UK we have no reliable system ofethical governance or review. The sanctions we canapply to those who discredit our profession are limited.There is no comprehensive system of registration orlicensing which can confirm the credentials or quality ofa researcher for commissioners or the general public.

But it is even more complicated than that – the professionof social research is inter-sectoral (governmental,academic, commercial, voluntary and non-profit) andinterdisciplinary (sociology, psychology, economics,politics, marketing, social work etc.); it is international andmulti-problem based.

In addition, methodological innovation is a sine qua nonfor the study of a changing society and its ever-changingconstituent individuals and institutions. New methods posenew ethical problems.

Recent legislative changes and concerns about litigationhave increased funders’ interest in and concern about goodethical practice in social research. Various initiatives areafoot and 2004 will see much more debate about the rightways to ensure compliance with good ethical practiceacross all sectors of social research.

In such a climate the key responsibility for ethicalawareness and for the status of the profession rests witheach individual social researcher and funder, as the actionsof each affect us all. The Social Research Association hasrevised its ethical guidelines, first drawn up in the 1980s inthe light of current concerns and knowledge. All SRA

6

members are required to read and abide by these guidelinesas a condition of membership. We now present them morebroadly so that they may be available to inform ethicalpractice and debate across the whole social researchconstituency.

Ceridwen RobertsChair SRA

2003

7

Background

In recent years ethical considerations across the researchcommunity have come to the forefront. This is partly aconsequence of legislative change in human rights anddata protection, but also a result of increased publicconcern about the limits of inquiry. There has also beenenhanced concern for responsible action within theworkplace with many large organisations expressing adesire for higher ethical standards in customer relationsand in investment decisions. Growing corporateresponsibility entails a clear recognition that business andpublic service activities are not value-free and cannot setstandards merely by the meeting of measurableperformance indicators. Responsibility entails thinkingabout the consequences of one’s actions upon others andthe establishment of clear lines of accountability for theredress of grievances.

No field of human activity can be considered exempt fromsuch concerns and the police service, health and medicineand social care as well as financial and commercialenterprises have been led increasingly to estimate theethical consequences of their activities. This increasedconcern for accountability in these spheres has led to theestablishment of systems for “research governance”; thatis, ways of discovering and sharing information that areopen to public scrutiny and can be seen to be subject tothe highest ethical standards. In an era of advancedinformation and communications technology ethicalconcerns over access to and the management ofinformation are heightened. This current reconsideration ofresearch ethics by the SRA matches a contemporary moodin both the public and private sector to enhanceresponsible behaviour.

8

SRA Policy on Research Ethics

This updated version of ethical guidelines draws heavilyupon the structure and content of the original guidelineswhich were produced by an SRA Ethics Committee in the1980s that, in turn, drew upon the code of theInternational Statistical Ethics Committee. The originalguidelines were reviewed, revised and extended wherenecessary in 2001 by an SRA working group of AnneCorden, Alan Hedges, Roger Jowell, Jean Martin, MalcolmRigg and chaired by Ron Iphofen. This 2003 update hasbeen produced after consultation with the members of thatworking group and the current SRA Executive committeeand in light of comment from others with appropriateprofessional interest and expertise.

The vocabulary, content and style of the guidelines havebeen considered from the perspectives of multiculturalityand gender equality, as well as in terms of the degree ofprescription contained in the principles they espouse.

The SRA’s aim is to promote ethical practice in research byoffering these guidelines as advice on best practice forindividual members, employing research organisations andrelated professional associations. Such organisations willhave their own sanctionable professional codes which maybe mandatory with regard to some aspects of researchpractice. The SRA’s guidelines are intended to inform andadvise. Consequently, the current guidelines have beenreviewed for consistency with other ethical codes acrossthe profession. (Such as those provided by the MRS, IQS,MARQESA, BSA, and BPS.) Links to such guides and codesare offered in Section 9 of these guidelines. The SRA hasalso been a key partner in a European project designed toestablish a voluntary code of practice covering the conductof socio-economic research in Europe – RESPECT. Many ofthe elements of the SRA’s guidelines have been extended

9

and developed in accordance with European law and theresults of this work can be found at:www.respectproject.org

The Executive Committee of the SRA is charged withensuring that these and future versions of the ethicalguidelines should have clearly identified authors and beupdated regularly to account for changes in practice aswell as changes in relevant legislation.

These guidelines have been produced and disseminated ina printed version by the SRA to encourage theirdissemination and practical use in furtherance of theprofession of social research. Further comments frompractitioners are welcomed in the spirit of maintainingethical awareness.

Ron Iphofen(November 2003)

10

Introduction to Ethical Guidelines

Social researchers work within a variety of economic,cultural, legal and political settings, each of whichinfluences the emphasis and focus of their research. Theyalso work within one of several different branches of theirdiscipline, each involving its own techniques andprocedures and its own ethical approach. Many socialresearchers work in fields such as economics, psychology,sociology, medicine, whose practitioners have ethicalconventions that may influence the conduct of researchersand their fields. Even within the same setting and branchof social research, individuals may have different moralprecepts that guide their work. Thus no declaration couldsuccessfully impose a rigid set of rules to which socialresearchers everywhere should be expected to adhere, andthis document does not attempt to do so.

The aim of these guidelines is to enable the socialresearcher’s individual ethical judgements and decisions tobe informed by shared values and experience, rather thanto be imposed by the profession. The guidelines thereforeseek to document widely held principles of research and toidentify the factors which obstruct their implementation.They are framed in the recognition that, on occasions, theoperation of one principle will impede the operation ofanother, that social researchers, in common with otheroccupational groups, have competing obligations not all ofwhich can be fulfilled simultaneously. Thus, implicit orexplicit choices between principles will sometimes have tobe made. The guidelines do not attempt to resolve thesechoices or to allocate greater priority to one of theprinciples than to another. Instead, they offer a frameworkwithin which the conscientious social researcher should,for the most part, be able to work comfortably. Wheredepartures from the framework of principles arecontemplated, they should be the result of deliberationrather than of ignorance.

11

I N T R O D U C T I O N T O E T H I C A L G U I D E L I N E S

The guidelines’ first intention is thus to be informative anddescriptive rather than authoritarian or rigidly prescriptive.The case for an educational code of this type is arguedmore fully in Jowell (1983). Secondly, they are designed tobe applicable as far as possible to different areas ofmethodology and application. For this reason theprovisions are fairly broadly drawn. Thirdly, although theprinciples are framed so as to have wider application todecisions than to the issues specifically mentioned, theguidelines are by no means exhaustive. They are writtenwith full acknowledgement that they will require periodicupdating and amendment by the SRA. Fourthly, neither theprinciples nor the commentaries are concerned withgeneral written or unwritten rules or norms such ascompliance with the law or the need for probity. Theguidelines restrict themselves as far as possible to mattersof specific concern to social research.

How to use these guidelines

This update of the guidelines aims to take account ofsuggestions made about the 2002 update. Commentatorssuggested a variety of ways in which they could be mademore user-friendly, workable in practice and encouragingto new researchers and students of social research.

Consequently the text is divided into nine sections. Thecore of the ethical code can be found in Sections 1 to 5.These first five sections should be approached on threedifferent “levels” of accessibility. Level A is a simple basicstatement of the basic principles of the SRA’s ethical“code”. The next level – B – expands each of the elementsof the basic code to explain why each element is importantto the maintenance of ethical practice and at this level thevital educational and discursive part of the guidelines areto be found. The emboldened sections in Level B areparticularly useful in pinpointing the essential principlesand the dilemmas. These are followed by short

12

I N T R O D U C T I O N T O E T H I C A L G U I D E L I N E S

commentaries on the conflicts and difficulties inherent inthe operation of the core principles – here the dilemmas ofethical decision making in social research are raised andconsidered in detail. Level C contains short annotatedbibliographies for those who wish to pursue the issues orto consult more detailed texts.

The basic ethical principles are interrelated and may wellconflict with one another in certain circumstances.Therefore they need to be considered together; their orderof presentation should not be taken as an order ofprecedence.

The final sections (6 onwards) offer practical advice andguidance for engaging in ethical research and offer usefulcontacts and references for further reading that might aidthe researcher in making difficult decisions.

13

LEVEL A

The core principles summarised at this level should not beread or adopted in isolation. They are highlighted here as aconvenient way of alerting the reader to the relevantcontent of the full code. The nature of an educational codedemands that the fuller versions in Levels B and C beconsulted before the reader can be satisfied with thesesummary principles on their own.

1. Obligations to Society

If social research is to remain of benefit to society and thegroups and individuals within it, then social researchersmust conduct their work responsibly and in light of themoral and legal order of the society in which they practice.They have a responsibility to maintain high scientificstandards in the methods employed in the collection andanalysis of data and the impartial assessment anddissemination of findings.

2. Obligations to Funders and Employer

Researchers’ relationship with and commitments to fundersand/or employers should be clear and balanced. Theseshould not compromise a commitment to morality and tothe law and to the maintenance of standards commensuratewith professional integrity.

3. Obligations to Colleagues

Social research depends upon the maintenance ofstandards and of appropriate professional behaviour that isshared amongst the professional research community.Without compromising obligations to funders/employers,subjects or society at large, this requires methods,procedures and findings to be open to collegial review. Italso requires concern for the safety and security ofcolleagues when conducting field research.

14

4. Obligations to Subjects

Social researchers must strive to protect subjects fromundue harm arising as a consequence of their participationin research. This requires that subjects’ participation shouldbe voluntary and as fully informed as possible and nogroup should be disadvantaged by routinely beingexcluded from consideration.

15

LEVEL B

1. OBLIGATIONS TO SOCIETY

The integrity and conduct of social research is dependentupon the cumulative behaviour of individual researchersand the consequences of their actions in society at large. Ingeneral, researchers have an obligation to conform to theethical standards of the society in which they conduct theirwork. In particular, researchers have an obligation toensure that they are informed about the appropriatelegislation of the country in which they are conductingresearch and how that legislation might affect the conductof their research. Researchers should not knowinglycontravene such legislation.

In most contemporary societies there are threats to thescope of social enquiry from legislative pressure intendedto protect the rights of individuals. Such legislation maylead to diluted research activity as a consequence of thefear of litigation. In the course of time case law is likely toresolve legal uncertainties about acceptable practice, butwaiting for test cases can halt progress and limit theassumed benefits to society of social research activity. Anydilemmas arising from the contradictions of dataprotection, human rights and scientific research legislationcan only be resolved by the judgements of individualmembers of the research community in the short term.

Concern for individual rights needs to be balanced againstthe benefits to society that may accrue from researchactivity. Such ethical conflicts are inevitable. Above all,however, researchers should not automatically assume thattheir priorities are shared by society in general.

16

L E V E L B 1 . 1 W i d e n i n g t h e s c o p e o f s o c i a l r e s e a r c h

1.1 Widening the scope of social research

Social researchers should use the possibilities open tothem to extend the scope of social enquiry andcommunicate their findings, for the benefit of the widestpossible community.

Social researchers develop and use concepts andtechniques for the collection, analysis or interpretation ofdata. Although they are not always in a position todetermine their work or the way in which their data areultimately disseminated and used, they are frequently ableto influence these matters (see clause 4.1).

Academic researchers enjoy probably the greatest degree ofautonomy over the scope of their work and thedissemination of the results. Even so, they are generallydependent on the decision of funding agencies on the onehand and journal editors on the other for the direction andpublication of their enquiries.

Social researchers employed in the public sector and thoseemployed in commerce and industry tend to have lessautonomy over what they do or how their data are utilised.Rules of secrecy may apply; pressure may be exerted towithhold or delay the publication of findings (or of certainfindings); inquiries may be introduced or discontinued forreasons that have little to do with technical considerations.In these cases the final authority for decisions about aninquiry may rest with the employer or client (see clause2.3).

Professional experience in many countries suggests thatsocial researchers are most likely to avoid restrictionsbeing placed on their work when they are able to stipulatein advance the issues over which they should maintaincontrol. Government researchers may, for example, gainagreement to announce dates for publication for variousstatistical series, thus creating an obligation to publish thedata on the due dates regardless of intervening politicalfactors. Similarly, researchers in commercial contracts may

17

L E V E L B 1 . 2 C o n s i d e r i n g c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s

specify that control over at least some of the findings (ordetails of methods) will rest in their hands rather than withtheir clients. The greatest problems seem to occur whensuch issues remain unresolved until the data emerge.

1.2 Considering conflicting interests

Social enquiry is predicated on the belief that greateraccess to well grounded information will serve ratherthan threaten the interests of society. Nonetheless, inplanning all phases of an inquiry, from design topresentation of findings, social researchers shouldconsider the likely consequences for society at large,groups and categories of persons within it, respondentsor other subjects, and possible future research.

No generic formula or guidelines exist for assessing thelikely benefit or risk of various types of social enquiry.Nonetheless, social researchers must be sensitive to thepossible consequences of their work and should as far aspossible, guard against predictably harmful effects (seeclause 4.4).

The fact that information can be misconstrued or misusedis not in itself a convincing argument against its collectionand dissemination. All information, whether systematicallycollected or not, is subject to misuse and no informationcan be considered devoid of possible harm to one interestor another. Individuals may be harmed by theirparticipation in social inquiries (again see clause 4.4), orgroup interests may be damaged by certain findings. Aparticular district may, for instance, be negativelystereotyped by an inquiry that finds that it contains a veryhigh incidence of crime. A group interest may also beharmed by social or political action based on research. Forinstance, heavier policing of a district in which crime isfound to be high may be introduced at the expense oflighter policing in low crime districts. Such a move may beof aggregate benefit to society but to the detriment ofsome districts.

18

L E V E L B 2 O B L I G A T I O N S T O F U N D E R S A N D E M P L O Y E R

Social researchers may not be in a position to preventaction based upon their findings. They should, however,attempt to pre-empt likely misinterpretations and tocounteract them when they occur. But to guard against theuse of their findings would be to disparage the verypurpose of much social enquiry.

1.3 Pursuing objectivity

While social researchers operate within the valuesystems of their societies, they should attempt to upholdtheir professional integrity without fear or favour. Theymust also not engage or collude in selecting methodsdesigned to produce misleading results, or inmisrepresenting findings by commission or omission.

Research can never be entirely objective, and socialresearch is no exception. The selection of topics forattention may reflect a systematic bias in favour of certaincultural or personal values. In addition, the employmentbase of the researcher, the source of funding and a rangeof other factors may impose certain priorities, obligationsand prohibitions. Even so, the social researcher is neverfree of a responsibility to pursue objectivity and to be openabout known barriers to its achievement. In particularsocial researchers are bound by a professional obligation toresist approaches to problem formulation, data collectionor analysis, interpretation and publication of results thatare likely (explicitly or implicitly) to misinform or tomislead rather than to advance knowledge.

2. OBLIGATIONS TO FUNDERS AND EMPLOYERS

Most social research depends on specific prior funding,which carries with it certain mutual obligations. Thegeneral content of a researcher’s obligations may be foundthroughout these guidelines. But some specific obligationsarise in commissioning contracts handled at the

19

L E V E L B 2 . 3 G u a r d i n g p r i v i l e g e d i n f o r m a t i o n

organisational level, and it is the researcher’s responsibilityto ensure that such commitments do not compromise theirown personal ethical and methodological standards.

Employing organisations must in turn bear responsibilityfor their employees’ interests Thus they should not acceptcontractual conditions that are contingent upon aparticular outcome from a proposed inquiry, such asguaranteed response rates or a previously conceivedoutcome. But individual researchers should also considerthe personal consequences for themselves. The rest ofsection 2 is written from the perspective of positions to betaken by the individual researcher.

2.1 Clarifying obligations and roles

Social researchers should clarify in advance therespective obligations of employer or funder and socialresearcher; they should, for example, refer the employeror funder to the relevant parts of a professional code towhich they adhere. Reports of findings should (whereappropriate) specify their role.

2.2 Assessing alternatives impartially

Social researchers should consider the available methodsand procedures for addressing a proposed inquiry andshould provide the funder or employer with an impartialassessment of the respective merits and demerits ofalternatives.

2.3 Guarding privileged information

Social researchers are frequently furnished withinformation by the funder or employer who maylegitimately require it to be kept confidential. Methodsand procedures that have been utilised to producepublished data should not, however, be kept confidential.

20


An essential theme underlying each of the above principlesis that a common interest exists between funder oremployer and the social researcher as long as the aim ofthe social enquiry is to advance knowledge (see clause 1.1).

Although such knowledge may on occasions be sought forthe limited benefit of the funder or employer, even thatcause is best served if the inquiry is conducted in anatmosphere conducive to high professional standards. Therelationship should therefore be such as to enable socialenquiry to be undertaken as objectively as possible (seeclause 1.3) with a view to providing information orexplanations rather than advocacy.

The independent researcher or consultant appears to enjoygreater latitude than the employee researcher to insist onthe application of certain professional principles. Therelationship between an independent researcher and fundermay be subject to a specific contract in which roles andobligations may be specified in advance (see Deming,1972). Employee researchers’ contracts, by contrast, are notproject-specific and generally comprise an explicit orimplicit obligation to accept instructions from theemployer. The employee researcher in the public sectormay be restricted further by statutory regulations coveringsuch matters as compulsory surveys and official secrecy(see clause 4.4).

In reality, however, the distinction between theindependent researcher and the employee researcher isblurred by other considerations. The independentresearcher’s discretion to insist on certain conditions isfrequently curtailed by financial constraints and by theinsecurity of the consultant’s status. These problems applyless to the employee researcher, whose base is generallymore secure and whose position is less isolated.

The employee (particularly the researcher in governmentservice) is often part of a community of researchers whoare in a strong position to establish conventions and

21


procedures that comfortably accommodate theirprofessional goals (see clause 1.1).

Relationships with employers or funders involve mutualresponsibilities.

The funder or employer is entitled to expect from socialresearchers a command of their discipline, candour inrelation to limits of their expertise and of their data (seeclause 3.1), openness about the availability of more cost-effective approaches to a proposed inquiry, and discretionwith confidential information. Social researchers areentitled to expect from a funder or employer a respect fortheir exclusive professional and technical domain and forthe integrity of the data. Whether or not these obligationscan be built into contracts or written specifications, theyremain preconditions of a mutually beneficial relationship.

A conflict of obligations may occur when the funder of aninquiry wishes to ensure in advance (say in a contract) thatcertain results will be achieved, such as a particularfinding or a minimum response level in a voluntary samplesurvey. By agreeing to such a contract the researcherwould be pre-empting the results of the inquiry by havingmade implicit guarantees on behalf of potential subjects asto their propensity to participate or the direction of theirresponse. To fulfil these guarantees, the researcher wouldthen have to compromise other principles, such as theprinciple of informed consent (see clause 4.2).

Social researchers have a responsibility to ensure that thequality of their “product” is maintained. Research cannotbe exempt from quality assurance procedures. High qualityresearch demands high qualities in ethical standards and aconcern to ensure that procedures agreed to at the designstage are maintained throughout a project.

Above all, social researchers should attempt to ensure thatfunders and employers appreciate the obligations thatsocial researchers have not only to them, but also to

22

society at large, to subjects, to professional colleagues andcollaborators. One of the responsibilities of the socialresearcher’s professional citizenship, for instance, is to beopen about methods in order that the research communityat large can assess, and benefit from their application.Thus, in so far as is practicable, methodologicalcomponents of inquiries should be free fromconfidentiality restrictions so that they can form part ofthe common intellectual property of the profession (seeclause 3.2).

3. OBLIGATIONS TO COLLEAGUES

3.1 Maintaining confidence in research

Social researchers depend upon the confidence of thepublic. They should in their work attempt to promoteand preserve such confidence without exaggerating theaccuracy or explanatory power of their findings.

3.2 Exposing and reviewing their methods and findings

Within the limits of confidentiality requirements socialresearchers should provide adequate information abouttheir methods to colleagues to permit procedures,techniques and findings to be assessed by others. Suchassessments should be directed at the methodsthemselves rather than at the individuals who selected orused them.

3.3 Communicating ethical principles

To conduct certain inquiries social researchers need tocollaborate with colleagues in other disciplines, as wellas interviewers, clerical staff, students, etc. In thesecases social researchers should make their own ethicalprinciples clear and take account of the ethical principlesof their collaborators.

L E V E L B 3 . 3 C o m m u n i c a t i n g e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s

23

L E V E L B 3 . 3 C o m m u n i c a t i n g e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s

Each of these principles stems from the notion that socialresearchers derive their status and certain privileges ofaccess to data not only by their personal standing but alsoby virtue of their professional citizenship. Inacknowledging membership of a wider social researchcommunity, they owe various obligations to thatcommunity and can expect consideration from it.

The reputation of social research inevitably depends lesson what professional bodies of social researchers assertabout their ethical norms than on the actual conduct ofindividual researchers. In considering the methods,procedures, content and reporting of their enquiries,researchers should therefore try to ensure that they leave aresearch field in a state which permits further access byresearchers in the future (see clause 4.1).

Social inquiries are frequently collaborative efforts amongcolleagues of different levels of seniority and fromdifferent disciplines. The reputation and careers of allcontributors need to be taken into account. The socialresearcher should also attempt to ensure that socialinquiries are conducted within an agreed ethicalframework, perhaps incorporating principles orconventions from other disciplines, and that eachcontributor’s role is sufficiently well defined. The WorldMedical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki (1975), forinstance, gives excellent guidance to researchers workingin the field of medicine.

A principle of all scientific work is that it should be opento scrutiny, assessment and possible validation by fellowscientists. Particular attention should be given to thisprinciple when using computer software packages foranalysis by providing as much detail as possible. Anyperceived advantage of withholding details of techniquesor findings, say for competitive reasons, needs to beweighed against the potential disservice of such action tothe advancement of knowledge. In fact any principled

24

L E V E L B 3 . 4 E n s u r i n g s a f e t y

suggestion about “meeting obligations to colleagues” maybe compromised by other competitive pressures whichapply throughout the scientific community: competitivetendering, scarcity of funding sources, priority disputes etc.

There is a delicate balance to be maintained betweenprofessional integrity and the need for the autonomousaction and independent judgement of researchers, againstaccountability for research interventions which may haveconsequences for professional colleagues. Some form ofindependent ethical review is proposed as the bestmechanism for addressing this (see Section 5). This in itselfcannot absolve researchers from addressing moraldilemmas entailed in their work for themselves, as well aspart of a community of peers.

One of the most important but difficult responsibilities ofsocial researchers is that of alerting potential users of theirdata to the limits of the reliability and applicability of thatdata. The twin dangers of either overstating orunderstating the validity or degree to which the data canbe generalised are nearly always present. No generalguidelines can be drawn except for a counsel of caution.Confidence in research findings depends critically on theirfaithful representation. Attempts by researchers to cover uperrors (see Ryten, 1983), or to invite over-interpretation,may not only rebound on the researchers concerned butalso on the reputation of social research in general (seeclause 1.2). The reputation of each is maintained by theactions of all.

3.4 Ensuring safety and minimising risk of harm to field researchers

Social researchers have a moral obligation to attempt tominimise the risk of physical and/or mental harm tothemselves and to their colleagues from the conduct ofresearch. Research managers may, in addition, have alegal obligation in terms of health and safety regulationsto ensure that risk to field researchers is minimised.

25

L E V E L B 4 . 1 A v o i d i n g u n d u e i n t r u s i o n

While it has to be acknowledged that risk is a part ofeveryday life, it is also certainly the case that someresearch activities may place the researcher in the field insome degree of extra risk of physical and/or mental harm.Where possible research managers should anticipate therisks and ensure that field researchers are protected, as faras possible, from dangers in the field.

The qualitative study of dangerous or threatening groupsmay place the researcher in some situations of particularpersonal risk, but all research entailing direct contact withthe public presents a risk potential. Researchers shouldmaintain awareness of such risk to themselves and theircolleagues and make every effort to diminish the dangers.

4. OBLIGATIONS TO SUBJECTS

In a very general sense meeting all of the precedingobligations as well as obligations to subjects requires thatcare is taken with research design. Poor design and trivialor foolish studies can waste people’s time and cancontaminate the field for future research. Thus researchdesign in itself raises many ethical considerations.

It may be the case that the general public and potentialresearch subjects do not perceive confidentiality as likelyto be so rigorously maintained as ethical social researcherswould like. Even if research subjects do not perceive anydanger to themselves of data disclosure, nevertheless it isthe task of the researcher to maintain principles ofconfidentiality as far as possible so that the interests ofsubjects are protected (See 4.4).

4.1 Avoiding undue intrusion

Social researchers must strive to be aware of theintrusive potential of their work. They have no specialentitlement to study all phenomena. The advancement ofknowledge and the pursuit of Information are not

26

L E V E L B 4 . 1 A v o i d i n g u n d u e i n t r u s i o n

themselves sufficient justifications for overriding othersocial and cultural values.

Some forms of social enquiry may appear to be moreintrusive than others. For instance, statistical samples maybe selected without the knowledge or consent of theirmembers; contact may be sought with subjects withoutadvance warning; questions may be asked which causedistress or offence; people may be observed without theirknowledge; and information about individuals or groupsmay be obtained from third parties. In essence, people maybe inconvenienced or aggrieved by enquiries in a varietyof ways, many of which are difficult to avoid or toanticipate although the researcher would be behavingresponsibly by the subsequent seeking of informed consentfor participation in the research (see also clause 1.3).

One way of avoiding inconvenience to potential subjects isto make more use of available data instead of embarkingon a new inquiry. For instance, the preferred option wouldbe to make greater statistical use of administrative recordsby conducting secondary analysis of existing data forwhich informed consent had been granted. By linkingexisting records, valuable social research information maybe produced that would otherwise have to be collectedafresh. But there are often issues of confidentiality inlinking records which may affect what can be done.Individual subjects should not be affected by such usesprovided that their identities are protected and that thepurpose is statistical, not administrative. On the otherhand, subjects who have provided data for one purposemay object to its subsequent use for another purposewithout their knowledge (see clauses 4.3 iii, 4.6. and 4.7).This is particularly sensitive in the case of identified data.Decisions in such cases have to be based on a variety ofcompeting interests and in the knowledge that there is no“correct” solution (see clause 4.4). Under the UK DataProtection Act one can use data collected for one purposefor other statistical and research purposes without explicit

27

L E V E L B 4 . 2 O b t a i n i n g i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t

informed consent. This is assumed to be granted under theprocess for collection of the original data. The key concernis that there should be no unanticipated consequences forthe original data subject.

As Cassell (1982b) argues, people can feel wronged withoutbeing harmed by research: they may feel they have beentreated as objects of measurement without respect for theirindividual values and sense of privacy. In many of thesocial enquiries that have caused controversy, the issue hashad more to do with intrusion into subjects’ private andpersonal domains, or by overburdening subjects bycollecting “too much” information, rather than withwhether or not subjects have been harmed. In some cases aresearcher’s attitudes, demeanour or even their latenttheoretical or methodological perspective can beinterpreted as doing an injustice to subjects. Examplesinclude an offhand manner on the part of a surveyinterviewer or studies which depend upon some form ofsocial disruption. By exposing subjects to a sense of beingwronged, perhaps by such attitudes, by such approaches,by the methods of selection or by causing them to acquireself knowledge that they did not seek or want, socialresearchers are vulnerable to criticism. Participants’resistance to future social enquiries in general may alsoincrease as a consequence of such ‘inconsiderateness’ (seealso clauses 3.1, 4.3c, 4.6 and 4.7). (See Ehrich 2001 formore explicit examples.)

4.2 Obtaining informed consent

Inquiries involving human subjects should be based asfar as practicable on the freely given informed consentof subjects. Even if participation is required by law, itshould still be as informed as possible. In voluntaryinquiries, subjects should not be under the impressionthat they are required to participate. They should beaware of their entitlement to refuse at any stage forwhatever reason and to withdraw data just supplied.

28


Information that would be likely to affect a subject’swillingness to participate should not be deliberatelywithheld, since this would remove from subjects animportant means of protecting their own interests.

Gaining informed consent is a procedure for ensuring thatresearch subjectsunderstand what is being done to them, the limits to theirparticipation and awareness of any potential risks theyincur. The principle of informed consent from subjects isnecessarily vague, since it depends for its interpretation onunstated assumptions about the amount of informationand the nature of consent required to constitute acceptablepractice. The amount of information needed to ensure thata subject is adequately informed about the purpose andnature of an inquiry is bound to vary from study to study.No universal rules can be framed. At one extreme it isinappropriate to overwhelm potential subjects withunwanted and incomprehensible details about the originand content of a social inquiry. At the other extreme it isinappropriate to withhold material facts or to misleadsubjects about such matters (see clauses 4.3d and 4.4). Theappropriate information requirement clearly fallssomewhere between these positions but its precise locationdepends on circumstances. The clarity andcomprehensibility of the information provided are asimportant as the quantity.

An assessment needs to be made of what information islikely to be material to a subject’s willingness toparticipate. Examples of what might be consideredappropriate information can be seen in the checklist inSection 7. In selecting from such a list, the socialresearcher should consider not only those items that he orshe regards as material, but those which the potentialsubject is likely to regard as such. Each party may wellhave special (and different) interests. As a means ofsupplementing the information selected, the socialresearcher may choose to give potential subjects a

29


declaration of their entitlements (see Jowell, 1983) whichinforms them of their right to information but leaves theselection of extra details in the subject’s control.

Just as the specification of adequate information varies, sodoes the specification of adequate consent. A subject’sparticipation in a study may be based on reluctantacquiescence rather than on enthusiastic co-operation. Insome cases, the social researcher may feel it is appropriateto encourage a sense of duty to participate in order tominimise volunteer bias. The boundary between tacticalpersuasion and duress is sometimes very fine and isprobably easier to recognise in practice than to stipulate.In any event, the most specific generic statement that canbe made about adequate consent is that it falls short bothof implied coercion and of full-hearted participation.

On occasions, a “gatekeeper” blocks access to subjects sothat researchers cannot approach them directly without thegatekeeper’s permission. In these cases, social researchersshould not devolve their responsibility to protect thesubject’s interests on to the gatekeeper. They should also bewary of inadvertently disturbing the relationship betweensubject and gatekeeper. While respecting the gatekeeper’slegitimate interests they should adhere to the principle ofobtaining informed consent directly from subjects oncethey have gained access to them. The principle of informedconsent is, in essence, an expression of belief in the needfor truthful and respectful exchanges between socialresearchers and human subjects. It is clearly not aprecondition of all social enquiry. Equally it remains animportant and highly valued professional norm. Theacceptability of social research depends increasingly notonly on technical considerations but also on thewillingness of social researchers to accord respect to theirsubjects and to treat them with consideration (see clause4.1).

30


A major limitation upon gaining informed consent lieswith “vulnerable” populations. Such groups includechildren, those with an intellectual disability, or those in adependent relationship to the researcher or commissioningbody. College students, for example, are a frequentlystudied group who may find difficulty in resisting co-operation. In conducting research with vulnerablepopulations, extra care must be taken to protect theirrights and ensure that their compliance is freely entered into. Some would argue that sending a field researcher to aska subject to participate in a study does not constituteinformed consent since the researcher is seeking topersuade the subject to participate. The degree of“persuasion” might be enhanced with vulnerable groups.

In order to protect the researcher from accusations offailing to secure informed consent a practice has grown ofhaving subjects sign a consent form. While this may serveas some indication that the subject understands some ofthe implications of their consent to participate it may alsocompromise principles of confidentiality and anonymity –equally valuable an obligation to subjects (see clause 4.7).Signed consent forms might only be appropriate forlongitudinal and/or more intrusive studies. Both researcherand subject could gain extra protection from having awitness to the process of informed consent, but this doesraise resource implications.

In general, researchers should be explicit about theirrationale for gaining consent and upon how “informed”their subjects can be considered to be. It may be impossibleto anticipate all potential harm to the subject fromparticipation in a study – subjects in clinical trials, forexample, are not guaranteed protection from harm. Butthere should, at least, be clarity about opt-in and opt-outarrangements, about the length and degree of commitmentrequired of respondents, and about the precise goals of theresearch. Adequate subject de-briefing also seems essentialto this last aim.

31

L E V E L B 4 . 3 M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t

4.3 Modifications to informed consent

As a consequence of data base enhancements and the‘matching’ or ‘fusion’ of data sets the probabilities ofdisclosure of participants’ identities has been increased inrecent years so that it becomes harder to guaranteeanonymity. The release of non-anonymised data, such asin sharing data between governmental agencies when theidentities of individuals could be discovered, should beagreed with participants in advance. This may not benecessary when there are adequate safeguards to ensurethat confidentiality is ensured. Where technical or practicalconsiderations inhibit the achievement of prior informedconsent from subjects, the spirit of this principle should beadhered to. For example:

a) Respecting rights in observation studiesIn observation studies, where behaviour patterns areobserved without the subject’s knowledge, socialresearchers must take care not to infringe what may bereferred to as the “private space” of an individual or group.This will vary from culture to culture. Where practicable,social researchers should attempt to obtain consent posthoc. In any event, they should interpret behaviour patternsthat appear deliberately to make observation difficult as atacit refusal of permission to be observed.

b) Dealing with proxiesIn cases where a proxy is utilised to answer questions onbehalf of a subject, say because access to the subject isuneconomic or because the subject is too ill or too youngto participate directly, care should be taken not to infringethe ‘private space’ of the subject or to disturb therelationship between subject and proxy. Where indicationsexist or emerge that the subject would object to certainInformation being disclosed, such information must not besought by proxy.

32


c) Secondary use of recordsIn cases where subjects are not approached for consentbecause a social researcher has been granted access, say, toadministrative or medical records or other researchmaterial for a new or supplementary inquiry, thecustodian’s permission to use the records should notrelieve the researcher from having to consider the likelyreactions, sensitivities and interests of the subjectsconcerned. Where possible and appropriate, subjects couldbe approached afresh for consent to any new enquiry.(Although this is not required under the UK DataProtection Act as long as there are no additionalconsequences for the data subject.) There now existextremely thorough guidelines for best practice on thesecondary use of data, these should be consulted by allresearchers interested in the sharing, preservation andanalysis of archived data (University of Essex and RoyalStatistical Society, 2002).

d) Misleading potential subjectsIn studies where the measurement objectives preclude theprior disclosure of material information to subjects, socialresearchers must weigh up the likely consequences of anyproposed deception. To withhold material informationfrom, or to misinform, subjects involves a deceit, whetherby omission or commission, temporarily or permanently.Such manipulation will face legitimate censure and mustnot be contemplated unless it can be justified. Instead,consideration should be given to informing subjects inadvance that material information is being withheld, andwhen or if such information will be disclosed.

A serious problem arises for social researchers whenmethodological requirements conflict with the requirementof informed consent. Many cases exist in which theprovision of background information to subjects (say,about the purpose or sponsorship of a study), or even theprocess of alerting them to the fact that they are subjects

33


(as in observation studies), would be likely to produce achange or reaction that would defeat or interfere with theobjective of the measurement. These difficulties may leadsocial researchers to waive informed consent and to adopteither covert measurement techniques or deliberatedeception in the interests of accuracy.

The principles above urge extreme caution in these casesand advise social researchers to respect the imputed wishesof the subjects. Thus, in observation studies or in studiesinvolving proxies, the principle to be followed is that mereindications of reluctance on the part of an uninformed orunconsenting subject should be taken as a refusal toparticipate. Any other course of action would be likely todemonstrate a lack of respect for the subject’s interests andto undermine the relationship between, say, proxy andsubject on the one hand, and between researcher andsubject on the other.

The US Office for Protection from Research Risks allowsobservational research to be exempt from consent unless:

a) “information obtained is recorded in such a mannerthat human subjects can be identified, directly orthrough identifiers linked to the subjects; and

b) any disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outsidethe research could reasonably place the subjects at riskof criminal or civil liability or be damaging to thesubjects’ financial standing, employability, orreputation.”

Cultural variations as to what constitutes “public” andwhat “private” space must be acknowledged in covert,unobtrusive observational studies. Once established, therecan be no reasonable guarantee of privacy in “public”settings since anyone from journalists to ordinary membersof the public may constitute “observers” of such humanbehaviour and any data collected thereby would remain, inany case, beyond the control of the subjects observed.

34


Social enquiries involving deliberate deception of subjects(by omission or commission) are rare and extremelydifficult to defend. Clear methodological advantages existfor deception in some psychological studies, for instance,where revealing the purpose would tend to bias theresponses. But as Diener and Crandall (1978) have argued,“science itself is built upon the value of truth”; thusdeception by scientists will tend to destroy their credibilityand standing (see clause 3.1). If deception were widelypractised in social inquiries, subjects would, in effect, betaught not to “trust those who by social contract aredeemed trustworthy and whom they need to trust”(Baumrind 1972).

Nonetheless, it would be as unrealistic to outlaw deceptionin social enquiry as it would be to outlaw it in socialinteraction. Minor deception is employed in many forms ofhuman contact (tact, flattery etc.) and social researchersare no less likely than the rest of the population to beguilty of such practices. It remains the duty of socialresearchers and their collaborators, however, not to pursuemethods of enquiry that are likely to infringe humanvalues and sensibilities. To do so, whatever themethodological advantages, would be to endanger thereputation of social research and the mutual trust betweensocial researchers and society which is a prerequisite formuch research (see clause 3.1).

Covert observation and any other forms of research whichuse deception can only be justified where there is no otherethically sound way of collecting accurate and appropriatedata. If research requires any kind of deception, then onlyby the clear demonstration of the benefits of the researchcan it be justified.

In cases where informed consent cannot be acquired inadvance, there is usually a strong case, for the reasonsabove, for seeking it post hoc. Once the methodologicaladvantage of covert observation, of deception, or of

35

L E V E L B 4 . 4 P r o t e c t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s o f s u b j e c t s

withholding information has been achieved, it is rarelydefensible to allow the omission to stand.

4.4 Protecting the interests of subjects

Neither consent from the subjects nor the legalrequirement to participate absolves the social researcherfrom an obligation to protect the subject as far aspossible against potentially harmful effects ofparticipating. The social researcher should try tominimise disturbance both to subjects themselves and tothe subjects’ relationships with their environment. Socialresearchers should help subjects to protect their owninterests by giving them prior information about theconsequences of participating (see clause 4.2).

Harm to subjects may arise from undue stress throughparticipation, loss of self esteem, psychological injury orother side effects. Various factors may be important inassessing the risk benefit ratio of a particular inquiry, suchas the probability of risk, the number of people at risk, theseverity of the potential harm, the anticipated utility of thefindings, few of which are usually quantifiable (see Levine,1978).

The interests of subjects may also be harmed by virtue oftheir membership of a group or section of society (seeclause 1.2). Consequently social researchers can rarelyclaim that a prospective inquiry is devoid of possible harmto subjects. They may be able to claim that, as individuals,subjects will be protected by the device of anonymity. But,as members of a group or indeed as members of societyitself, no subject can be exempted from the possible effectsof decisions based on research.

When the probability or potential severity of harm is great,social researchers face a more serious dilemma. A socialresearcher may, for instance, be involved in a medicalexperiment in which risks to subjects of some magnitudeare present. If volunteers can be found who have been told

36

of risks, and if the researcher is convinced of theimportance of the experiment, should he or shenonetheless oppose the experiment in view of the risk? Inthese circumstances, probably the best advice is to seekadvice from colleagues and others, especially from thosewho are not themselves parties to the study or experiment.

The major UK legislation to have a potential effect in thisarea is the Human Rights Act 1998 (which came into forcein October 2000). The Act incorporates into UK law rightsand freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention onHuman Rights. Strictly it applies to action by “publicauthorities” so it should not directly affect researchconducted by private and independent researchorganisations – unless such work is being carried out onbehalf of a Government department. However, in e-mailcommunication the Human Rights Unit has suggested thatthe full implications of the Act for social research are asyet unclear and untested: “The Act does not specificallycover issues of research. Some of the Convention rightsmay have indirect implications for research policy, but thisdepends on the individual case. Whether a particularresearch organisation might be regarded as a ‘publicauthority’ for the purposes of the Act would also dependvery much on the individual circumstances.” So it is toosoon to tell what the likely effects on research practice ofsuch legislation might be. Further information can begained directly from the Human Rights Unit on: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hract/

In fact, the UK Medical Research Council have issued athorough and comprehensive guidance document –Personal Information in Medical Research – which offersadvice of use to all researchers working with personal dataof any kind. This document can be found on: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/ethics_a.html

L E V E L B 4 . 4 P r o t e c t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s o f s u b j e c t s

37

L E V E L B 4 . 5 E n a b l i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n

4.5 Enabling participation

Social researchers have a responsibility to ensureinclusion in research projects of relevant individuals orgroups who might otherwise be excluded for reasons ofcommunication, disability, comprehension or expense.

Some people are likely to be excluded from opportunitiesto take part in research unless social researchers routinelyoffer to make arrangements that fit with particularrequirements. What this means in practice is payingattention to the potential need for language interpretation,signers, or communication aids; potential respondents’requirements for flexibility in appointment times andlength of interviews, and, in some limited situations,preference for an interviewer of particular gender and/orethnic background. Correspondence about research,including invitations and information sheets should besent in large print using Plain English and, where relevant,in minority ethnic group languages, in Braille or on audiocassettes. Some people may only be able to take part ifcosts are met for expenses incurred in travelling to venues,or child/adult care required for their participation.

Such issues should be considered at the design stage of theresearch. There are resource implications for researchbudgets in adopting such strategies, and researchers have aresponsibility to explain the issues to funders. There isincreasing understanding of such obligations amongresearch funders, who also understand how findings arestrengthened by adopting approaches that improverepresentativeness.

There are particular issues in respect of research involvingpeople with learning difficulties or sensory/communicationimpairments, and children, where there is an obligation onthe researcher to find the most appropriate medium ofcommunication to enable participation. Relying solely onverbal methods of communication is likely to exclude somechildren, and some disabled people.

38

L E V E L B 4 . 7 P r e v e n t i n g d i s c l o s u r e o f i d e n t i t i e s

4.6 Maintaining confidentiality of records

Research data are unconcerned with individualidentities. They are collected to answer questions such as‘how many?’ or ‘what proportion?’ not ‘who?’. Theidentities and records of co-operating (or non-co-operating) subjects must therefore be kept confidential,whether or not confidentiality has been explicitlypledged.

Data that does not enable identification should not bepassed on without consent and should be stored safelywith restricted access. The requirements of data protectionand human rights legislation together with moderncomputer technology make this principle harder tomaintain with complete security. Researchers must be clearabout who should and who should not be able to gainaccess to information about identifiable individuals andwhat grounds are reasonable for them doing so. Datashould not routinely be released to clients (evenresponsible public authorities) in any form that couldidentify respondents, unless explicit consent was given bythe respondents and guarantees of anonymity and/orconfidentiality had not been made. Thus, for example, itshould be made clear in “informed consent” information tosubjects that complex data sets with postcodes and othergeographic identifiers applied to case records could be usedto identify individuals.

Although it has to be acknowledged that some risk ofdisclosure is always present, researchers should at leastguarantee that they have taken all reasonable steps toprevent the disclosure of identities as in 4.7.

4.7 Preventing disclosure of identities

Social researchers should take appropriate measures toprevent their data from being published or otherwisereleased in a form that would allow any subject’sidentity to be disclosed or inferred. The disclosure of

39

L E V E L B 4 . 7 P r e v e n t i n g d i s c l o s u r e o f i d e n t i t i e s

identity in itself represents a potential risk of harm to asubject. Researchers cannot however be held responsiblefor any subject that freely chooses to reveal theirparticipation in a study.

There can be no absolute safeguards against breaches ofconfidentiality – that is, the disclosure of identified oridentifiable data in contravention of an implicit or explicitobligation to the source. Respondents should be informedif their data is to be deposited in a data archive. Datadeposited with data archives are usually subject to specificconditions for deposit and release. Many methods exist forlessening the likelihood of confidentiality breaches, thefirst of which is anonymity. Anonymous data should bedistinct from non-disclosive data. Non-disclosureguarantees security. Anonymity helps to prevent unwittingbreaches of confidentiality; as long as data travelincognito, they are more difficult to attach to individualsor organisations.

Although debatable, there is a case for identifiable data tobe granted ‘privileged’ status in law so that access to themby third parties is legally blocked in the absence of thepermission of the responsible social researchers (or theirsubjects). Even without such legal protection, however, it isthe social researcher’s responsibility to ensure that theidentities of subjects are protected even when (or perhapsespecially when) under pressure from authoritative sourcesto divulge identities (Grinyer 2001).

Neither the use of subject pseudonyms nor anonymityalone is any guarantee of confidentiality. A particularconfiguration of attributes can, like a fingerprint,frequently identify its owner beyond reasonable doubt. Sosocial researchers need to remove the opportunities forothers to infer identities from their data. They may decideto group data in such as way as to disguise identities (seeBoruch & Cecil, 1979) or to employ a variety of availablemeasures that seek to impede the detection of identities

40

L E V E L B 5 E T H I C S C O M M I T T E E S A N D I R B ’ S

without inflicting very serious damage to the aggregatedataset (see Flaherty, 1979). Some damage to analysispossibilities is unavoidable in these circumstances, but itneeds to be weighed against the potential damage to thesources of data in the absence of such action (see Finney,1984).

The widespread use of computers is often regarded as athreat to individuals and organisations because it providesnew methods of disclosing and linking identified records.On the other hand, the social researcher could exploit theimpressive capacity of modern information technology todisguise identities and to enhance data security.

Some subjects may wish their identities to be disclosed inorder to maintain “ownership” of the data (Grinyer 2002)and, while the researcher has a responsibility to present thepotential disadvantages of removing anonymity, theycannot be held responsible for subjects who choose todisclose their identities themselves. On the other hand theresearcher should certainly resist requests for the identitydisclosure of any individual subject or subjects when suchdisclosure could lead to the failure to preserve theanonymity of other subjects who choose not to disclosetheir identity.

5. ETHICS COMMITTEES AND IRB’S

With the growth of research governance seriousconsideration has to be given by researchers and byresearch organisations to the use of human subjectsreview committees (also known as Ethics Committees, orInstitutional Review Boards (IRB’s).

In some organisations and research sites, a formal “ethicalreview” must have taken place before researchers areallowed to conduct the research. Dilemmas ofaccountability and independence may have to be resolvedwhen seeking permission from ethics committees. For

41


example, researchers in the USA have had problems withIRBs being more concerned about legal threats to theemploying organisation than with the “benefits to society”(see Section 1) of the proposed research. Thus ethicscommittees may serve more as a means of institutionalprotection than operating in the interests of either subjector researcher. Over-protective and bureaucratic procedurescan pose a danger of restricting valuable, particularlyinnovative, social research methods.

Medical or health service ethics committees may not fullyunderstand the checks and balances of social research. Toillustrate, there may be a difference over what preciselyconstitutes informed consent. Medical models can beinappropriate in social settings and vice versa. Forexample, allowing an interviewer to attempt to persuadepeople to take part in a study is regarded as coercion insocial research and, therefore, not regarded as informedconsent. In clinical trials, however, such persuasion is acommon feature of subject recruitment.

Where they do not exist researchers should consider theestablishment of ethics committees and the formal checksand safeguards to be gained from using them. In someareas and with some population types, subjecting aresearch proposal to a research ethics committee may bemandatory. In the UK for example any research on NHSstaff or patients must be subject to local and/or regionalcommittees for ethical approval. Even then, there are someanomalies which leaves a lot of responsibility in the handsof the researcher – there are no legal penalties or sanctionsfor not submitting for ethical approval or for not fulfillingthe requirements of the ethics committee even thoughthere may be organisational penalties for doing so.

There are some concerns about both the competence andthe knowledge of some of these committees which canunnecessarily restrict research activity to the detriment ofsocial scientific progress. Murray L. Wax, Professor

42


Emeritus of Anthropology at Washington University, SaintLouis, when testifying before the US National BioethicsAdvisory Commission in April 2000 denied thatanthropologists can do much harm to those they study,instead he said the “gravest ethical problem… is posed byunknowing and overzealous IRBs, and by governmentalregulators attempting to force qualitative ethnographicstudies into a biomedical mould.” This has to be balancedagainst the need for researchers to accept ethicalresponsibility and to be seen to be formally ensuring thatethical obligations are fulfilled.

IRB’s in the USA grew from the need to meet therequirements of the Nuremburg code established asguidelines for human subject research in response to theiniquities of the Nazi era. Legally they apply only togovernment research, but most non-governmentalorganisations apply the guidelines to their own procedures.

The primary function of an ethics committee is to applythe sorts of ethical standards and principles discussed inthese SRA guidelines, and to maintain some form ofinstitutional memory for decisions taken and permissiongiven. Many believe that ethics committees apply only to“interventionist” research such as medical experiments orpharmaceutical trials. In fact most generalizable socialresearch is interventionist – interviews and surveys areinterventions in the life of the population studied and soshould also be subject to ethical approval when possible.

One key function of an ethics committee may be toconduct a Project Audit. Thus after approval has beengiven for the project to be conducted a follow-up processwill confirm whether or not the project has been completedor abandoned or if there are any difficulties with the studywhich were not anticipated in the original application.Some commentators suggest that, since ethical decision-taking may occur throughout the life of a project, ethicscommittees should maintain review of the project

43


throughout and not consider their job as merely to castethical judgement at the outset. However, to avoid the ‘bigbrother’ connotations of such a supervisory model, ethicscommittees should instead ensure at the outset ensure thatresearchers have established a system for the maintenanceof ethical “awareness” throughout the project to allow forthe occurrence of unanticipated ethical problems, orproblems that could not have been foreseen at the outset.Researchers cannot assume that all ethical problems havebeen resolved when their project has been endorsed byformal ethical review.

Section 6 provides a list of the sorts of items considered byethical approval committees. We offer it separately as anincentive for all researchers to check against any issuesthat emerge as worthy of ethical concern during theplanning and design of a research project.

44

LEVEL C: Bibliography

Introduction: General works on socialresearch ethics

Most modern general texts on research methods tend toinclude chapters on research ethics. Little of substance hasbeen added to the extensive earlier ethical debates acrossthe social and behavioural sciences, so most draw heavilyupon earlier commentaries. For example, Bulmer (2001) ina succinct chapter draws upon most of the earlier work.Homans (1991) offers a comprehensive and readablesummary of the issues to date while Sieber (1993) indicateshow ethical responsibility can become endemic to theresearch process. Examples of good modern texts include:Pole and Lampard (2002); Newman (2000: 89-120);Bryman (2001:145) has many apt case study examples;Somer and Somer (2002: Ch.2) offer a succinct, rapid guideto ethical concerns; Babbie (2001) deals with ethicalmatters in terms of the specific problems facing differentresearch methods; and May (2001: 46-68) links the debateto the problem of values and value judgements. All suchtexts are intended for the undergraduate (and above)reader. While most add little to fundamental ethicalphilosophy, most do have useful commentary upon legaland political issues and research relationships to socialpolicy.

Those that do add something fundamental to the debateinclude Hammersley (2000) writing on partisanship andbias and pursuing some of Howard Becker’s (1965) originalquestions on taking sides. Christians (2000) offers acomprehensive reconsideration of perennial ethical issuesbut with a particular focus upon a qualitative approach. Insome cases ethical problematics are seen as central to themethod and so permeate methodological discussion. Theseinclude action research (Reason and Bradbury 2001), social

45

L E V E L C B I B L I O G R A P H Y

experimentation (Orr 1999: 17-22), emancipatory research(Truman et al. 2000) and human rights research (Witkin inTruman et al. 2000).

On the whole research methods texts dealing withsecondary data analysis make little, if any, reference toethical matters. The most complete discussions are to befound in texts advocating particular forms of primaryresearch. Recent joint work by the Royal Statistical Societyand the UK Data Archive does make a valuablecontribution to this area of concern (University of Essexand Royal Statistical Society, 2002).

Of the earlier works, Sjoberg (1967) provides goodhistorical background. Freund (1969) is written under theshadow of the biomedical paradigm, but includes avigorous statement by Margaret Mead of the differences,on the ethical dimension, between biomedical and socialscience research. Rynkiewich and Spradley (1976) is aimedat anthropologists working in or from America; DienerCrandall (1978) is a general discussion, particularly usefulwith reference to field experiments; Reynolds (1982),which is a condensed and updated version of Reynolds(1979), is a clearly written text aimed mainly at Americanuniversity students. Bulmer (1979) contains articles onsurvey research and census taking in Britain and America.Barnes (1980) is an attempt to analyse sociologically whyethics has become problematic and has a full bibliographyof work up to 1978. Bower and Gasparis (1978) has abibliography of works published between 1965 and 1967with particularly full annotations. Bulmer (1983) containsa good bibliography on covert research and related topics.Jowell (1983) states the case for an educational, ratherthan a regulatory or aspirational code, and has abibliography with many items of special interest tostatisticians. Burgess (1984) focuses on ethnographicresearch by sociologists in the U K. Barnes (1984) arguesthat ethical compromises are unavoidable in social enquiry.

46

L E V E L C 1 O B L I G A T I O N S T O S O C I E T Y

For those interested in reading more about the philosophyof ethics within which the “applied” ethics of socialresearch is conducted there are some useful introductorytexts. Thompson (2000) provides a readable andstraightforward introduction with lots of illustrativeexamples. La Follete (2002) is a comprehensive reader inapplied ethics with contributions from most of the leadingwriters in the field.

11111 OBLIGATIONS TO SOCIETY

Many books or symposia on professional ethics containdiscussions on the broad context in which social enquiry iscarried on, but in most cases these discussion are scatteredthroughout the text. Beauchamp et al. (1982) contains, inPart 2, an explicit general discussion of how and when thepractice of social enquiry can or cannot be justified. Thesocial researcher’s legal and formal social obligations areanalysed, in the United States context, in Beauchamp et al.(1982), Part 5. Pool (1979 & 1980) argues the case for notimposing any formal controls. Douglas (1979) does thesame, more vigorously. Wax and Cassell (1981) discuss therelation between legal and other formal constraints and thesocial scientist’s own set of values. It is perhaps in the areaof social research in health that ethical considerations ofsocial/individual benefits have been particularly raised.Byrne (1990) discusses ethical matters in relation tospecific disease areas and types of research method.Weisstub (1999) considers the value of cross-fertilisation ofethical views between the biomedical and social andbehavioural sciences. As a consequence shared standardsare seen to have emerged in the field of social medicinewhere social researchers have become more informedabout standards of clinical intervention while healthresearchers have raised awareness of relationships withand accountability for their subjects (King et al. 1999).Erwin et al. (1994) offer a compendium of papers frommajor writers in this field – again advocating the benefits

47

L E V E L C 2 O B L I G A T I O N S T O F U N D E R S A N D E M P L O Y E R S

of cross-fertilisation of ideas. Indeed Romm (2000) extendsthe substantive debate by addressing issues of researcheraccountability across a range of theoretical paradigms.

Widening the scope of social science: Diener and Crandall(1978, Chapter 13) discuss this topic with reference topsychological research. Crispo (1975) presents a discussionof public accountability from a Canadian standpoint.Johnson (1982) deals with the hazards that arise inpublishing research findings. Jahoda (1981) demonstratesvividly the ethical and social considerations that limit theconduct of enquiry and the publication of results.

Considering conflicting interests: BAAS (1974) discussesthese conflicts in a British, but now somehow out of datecontext. Baumrind (1972) contrasts the interests ofscientists and research subjects, favouring the latter.Ackeroyd (1984, Section 6.3) deals with conflicts ofinterest in ethnographic enquiry. Dean (1996) confronts thedilemmas of social policy research.

Pursuing objectivity: Stocking and Dunwoody (1982)outline some of the pressures against the preservation ofobjective standards that are exerted by the mass media. Inmore general terms, Klaw (1970) suggests that thesestandards can never remain untarnished.

22222 OBLIGATIONS TO FUNDERS AND EMPLOYERS

Clarifying obligations and roles: Appell (1978, Section 8)presents examples from ethnographic inquiries. Callender(1996) offers a general discussion on the limits to what canbe studied and reported. Daly (2002) reviews the ethicalconsequences of the increasing commercialisation ofresearch in universities and offers many illustrative casestudies.

Assessing alternatives impartially: Many journal articlesand chapters in books discuss this topic in general terms.Schuler (1982, Chapter 2) deals with the difficulties

48

L E V E L C 3 O B L I G A T I O N S T O C O L L E A G U E S

encountered in psychological research. Webb et al. (1966and 2000) is the popular source for alternative proceduresof enquiry.

Pre-empting outcomes: Barnett (1963) discusses thispoint, with reference to the UK context.

Guarding privileged information: SCPR working party(1974) is a general discussion of privacy in a Britishcontext, although it is somewhat out of date. Simmel(1908: 337 402 & 1952: 305 376) is the classic sociologicalanalysis of constraints on the flow of information. Shils(1967) extends Simmel’s work to more recent conditions;Tefft (1980) provides exotic case studies of perceptions ofprivacy and secrecy. Flaherty (1979) discusses the issuesposed by the monopolisation of data by governments,while Bulmer (1979) looks more broadly at data obtainedin censuses and large surveys. Caroll and Kneer (1976)look, from the standpoint of political science in America,at official pressure on scientists to reveal sources ofinformation. Appell (1979, Section 3) gives a range ofdilemmas arising from various kinds of official pressure.Bok (1982) prescribes norms for concealment andrevelation from a neo-Kantian standpoint.

33333 OBLIGATIONS TO COLLEAGUES

Maintaining confidence in research: Reynolds (1975: 598,604) discusses conflicts between, on the one hand,obligations to keep science objective and impartial and, onthe other hand, values held as citizens about trying tochange the world.

Exposing and reviewing methods and findings: Diener &Crandall (1978, Chapter 9) discuss the need for honestyand accuracy. Powell (1983) outlines the conflicts that arisewhen an academic researcher merits censure fromcolleagues because of improper professional conduct.

49

L E V E L C 4 O B L I G A T I O N S T O S U B J E C T S

Communicating ethical principles: Appell (1978) dealswith how to alert ethnographers to ethical issues.

Minimising Risk and Danger: Lee-Treweek and Linkogle(2000) summarise the physical, emotional, ethical andprofessional dangers of conducting qualitative research inparticular, but many of these risks are generalisable to allresearch in which contact with the public is made and toresearch in potentially dangerous settings. Lee (1995) hadalready raised the issues associated with dangerousfieldwork and prompted a growing concern within theprofession to include risk analysis within researchplanning, design and project management. The SRA hasendorsed guidelines for field research safety produced byCraig et al. (2001) and which can be found on the SRAwebsite.

44444 OBLIGATIONS TO SUBJECTS

In response to growing concerns about the use and abuseof data, a concern for human rights and the minimising ofpersonal and social harm, the need to generate innovativeresearch methods for accessing diverse data sources, andthe technical problems of preserving, sharing andanalysing secondary data there have been significantattempts by governmental and non-governmental agenciesto provide best practice guidelines. The UK Data Archiveand the Royal Statistical Society offer one such guide(University of Essex and Royal Statistical Society, 2002) asdo the Department of Work and Pensions (Bacon andOlsen, 2003). The considerable contribution from feministresearchers to reflexive and reflective practice in socialresearch is comprehensively covered in Mauthner et al.(2002). They also offer some alternative (additional) ethicalprinciples to those found in the SRA Guidelines which theyclaim to be more considerate of research subjects.

50


Avoiding undue intrusion: A distinction can be drawnbetween unobtrusive methods (Lee 1995: 57-60) andunobtrusive measures (Webb at al.1966 and 2000; Lee,2000). The former being clearly more intrusive than thelatter – though that does not excuse the latter fromconsideration of the subjects’ perception of intrusion.Boruch & Cecil (1979 & 1982) describe sampling andstatistical techniques for preserving privacy. Hartley (1983)outlines the threats to privacy entailed by varioussampling procedures. Michael (1984) is a journalisticaccount of the threats to privacy from all sources inBritain. Mirvis and Seashore (1982) is a general discussionof research in organisations, where questions about theappropriate extent of intrusion and intervention areparticularly pressing. Reeves and Harper (1981) is a text onorganisation research in a British industrial context.

Obtaining informed consent: Wax (1979 & 1982) arguefor the inappropriateness of requiring informed consent inethnographic enquiry, while Capron (1982) defends therequirement. Agar (1980: 183, 188) discusses succinctlysome of the difficulties ethnographers face in complyingwith this requirement. O’Connor (1976) discusses problemsof interpreting consent, or lack of it, in hierarchical fieldsettings such as prisons. Bulmer (1982) presents anextended case against covert research and summarises thisin Bulmer (2000). Singer (1978) reports empirical evidenceabout the differential effects of seeking informed consentfrom survey respondents.

Modifications to informed consent: Douglas (1979) arguesagainst formal requirements to obtain consent. Bok (1979)summarises and discusses ethical decision making in themost noteworthy examples of early deceptive socialscience research. Geller (1982) makes suggestions abouthow to avoid having to deceive research subjects. Form(1973) deals at length with relations between scientists andgatekeepers.

51


Protecting the interests of subjects: Baumrind (1972)makes a plea for priority for the interests of researchsubjects. Klockars (1979) discusses how to handle theseinterests when they seem to be anti social and/or illegal.Freidson (1978) argues in favour of the routine destructionof all identifiers for data about individuals. Okely (1984)discusses the hazards in publishing findings on anidentifiable social group in Britain. Loo (1982) gives a casestudy of research aimed at promoting the welfare of adeprived community. Canada Council (1977) discusses thespecial problems that arise in research on captivepopulations and on children. Warwick (1983) examines theethical issues that may arise when research is conducted inThird World countries.

Preventing disclosure of identities: Boruch & Cecil (1979& 1982) provide technical answers. Hartley (1982)discusses the relation between sampling and concealment.Hicks (1977) says many pseudonyms used in social sciencereports are unnecessary. Gibbons (1975) says much thesame. Grinyer (2001) points to the difficulty of resistingpressure from authorities to disclose subjects’ identities.She also discusses issue arising from subjects wishing todisclose their identities (Grinyer 2002).

Enabling participation: Ways of enabling children to takepart in research are discussed in Boyden and Ennew(1997). Dean (1996) contains several chapters dealing withthe excluded and the vulnerable; Corden (1996) inparticular examines the dilemmas involved in researchingand writing about poverty. Gorard (2002, 2003) addressesthe delicate counterbalancing of ethical principles bypointing out how fulfilling obligations to participants maylead to excluding the interests of the majority who are, ofnecessity, non-participants but who stand to gain from thevaluable findings of good quality, rigorously conductedsocial research.

52

L E V E L C 6 S T A N D A R D P R O T O C O L S

55555 ETHICS COMMITTEES AND IRB’s

A full discussion of the role of ethics committees orindependent review boards with reference to several keyillustrative cases can be found in Shea (2000). Theprinciples and political legality of ethical review is clearlyand comprehensively summarised in Foster (2001). Romm(2001) addresses the problem of “accountability” within abroad-ranging discussion of methodology that looks at theassumptions and outcomes of social research in terms ofhow it measures up to the “scientific method”.

6 STANDARD PROTOCOLS FOR CHECKING ETHICALCONSIDERATIONS

It is advisable for researchers to routinely check theirprojects to ensure they are meeting ethical requirements.Checklists both act as an aide memoire and arefrequently required procedure prior to seeking approvalfrom ethics committees. Such protocols are likely to beincreasingly employed as standard datasets to ensurecompliance with research governance requirements.Governance is facilitated by the standardising ofdatabase “fields” for containing information about anyresearch project.

The following checklist is intended to act as acomprehensive stimulus to ethical considerationsthroughout a project. Such a checklist prompts the makingof clear statements of intent, mechanisms of approach andconsideration of hazard arising from research in a mannerwhich can be understood by the public and researchprofessionals alike. While some of the items appear to bebeyond the scope of ethics alone, any matter that mayaffect the success of research is of indirect ethical interestif it may expose respondents to exploitation or risk.

53


1. PROJECT TITLE This offers a quick reference for anyinterested party and indicates the broad sphere of interest.

2. EXPECTED DURATION Gives some indication ofcommitment required of subjects and time given byresearcher.

3. IDENTITY OF FIELD RESEARCHERS ANDORGANISATIONAL BASE A list of names, positions,qualifications and functions in the proposed researchof all those holding responsible positions and whomight be in direct contact with subjects. This offers anestimate of competence together with a chain ofresponsibility and accountability.

4. PURPOSE OF STUDY Aims and objectives mightindicate hypothesis testing, policy evaluation, and anypotential “value” added to the subject group and/orsociety in general.

5. SOURCES OF FUNDING The organisation, individual orgroup providing the finance for the study.

6. SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND Some rationale forconducting the study should be offered. If thisinvestigation has been done previously, why repeat it?What research methods are being employed? Why andhow was the subject/respondent chosen? What broadsampling techniques have been deployed?

7. DESIGN OF THE STUDY Describe briefly what will bedone and how the subjects are to be expected toparticipate. What will be required of them? Allprocedural matters should be clarified. Timecommitments and data-collection settings should berevealed. Data analysis methods and procedures shouldalso be clarified.

54


8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND HAZARDS What risks tothe subject are entailed in involvement in the research?Are there any potential physical, psychological ordislosure dangers that can be anticipated? What is thepossible benefit or harm to the subject or society fromtheir participation or from the project as a whole?What procedures have been established for the careand protection of subjects (e.g. insurance, medicalcover) and the control of any information gained fromthem or about them?

9. RECRUITMENT PROCEDURES Is there any sense inwhich subjects might be “obliged” to participate – as inthe case of students, prisoners, or patients – or arevolunteers being recruited? If participation iscompulsory, the potential consequences of non-compliance must be indicated to subjects; if voluntary,entitlement to withdraw consent must be indicated andwhen that entitlement lapses.

10. INFORMED CONSENT Where appropriate, consent ofparticipants MUST be requested and put in terms easilycomprehensible to lay persons. This should ideally beboth ORALLY and in WRITING. An information sheetsetting out factors relevant to the interests ofparticipants in the study must be written in like termsand handed to them in advance of seeking consent.They must be allowed to retain this sheet.

11. DATA PROTECTION The project should comply withthe requirements of current data protection legislationand how this is accomplished should be disclosed toparticipating subjects and those monitoring theresearch procedure. This should include proposed datastorage arrangements, degree of security etc. andwhether material facts have been withheld (and when,or if, such facts will be disclosed).

55

L E V E L C 7 C O N T A C T I N G S R A M E M B E R S

12. CONFIDENTIALITY AND ANONYMITY The steps takento safeguard the confidentiality of records and anypotential identifying information about the subjectmust be revealed.

13. MONITORING OF THE RESEARCH Organisationalprocedures for monitoring the project should beavailable for inspection.

14. DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS What is theanticipated use of the data, forms of publication anddissemination of findings etc?

7. CONTACTING EXPERIENCED SRA MEMBERS WHO CANHELP WITH ETHICAL PROBLEMS

In the first instance contact Ron Iphofen([email protected]).

Ron chaired the SRA Ethical Guidelines Working Group2001; represented the SRA on the European RESPECTproject setting pan-European professional standards insocio-economic research (see: www.respectproject.org.uk);and is responsible for this 2003 update. He has particularinterests in qualitative research in health. If Ron is unableto answer any question he should be able to put you intouch with other experienced SRA members who can.

56

8. OTHER USEFUL LINKS AND CONTACTS

The following urls have turned out to provide useful linksto information from other groups, agencies and individualson researcher conduct and research ethics:

ProfessionalAssociations:

British SociologicalAssociation – http://www.britsoc.org.uk/about/ethic.htm

British PsychologicalSociety – http://www.bps.org.uk/about/rules5.cfm

The MRS Code of Conductand related guidelines (seehttp://www.mrs.org.uk)are now based on theEuropean Code developedby ESOMAR (http://www.esomar.nl).

General linking sites:

The Association forPractical and ProfessionalEthics -http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~appe/home.html

Links to other ethics sites– http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~appe/links2.html

The Social Philosophy andPolicy Center covers a rangeof ethical issues of concern toresearchers at: http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/sppc/index.html

and while the following site ison ethics in public policy andadministration it has usefullinks to elsewhere: http://plsc.uark.edu/book/books/ethics/index.htm

Cases and publications:

http://www.uark.edu/depts/plscinfo/pub/ethics/ethics.html

Information on theAssociation for Practical andProfessional Ethics’ publishedcase studies can be found on:http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~appe/cases.html

The US Department of Energyexpresses its concerns forhuman subjects research on:http://www.er.doe.gov/production/ober/humsubj/index.html

57

Other authoritativesources:

Look at the generalinformation site for theOffice for HumanResearch Protections(OHRP), http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/which is a part of the USDepartment of Health andHuman Services. It is wellworth spending sometime travelling aroundthis site which is highlyinformative. There is auseful guide listed by“topics” on: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/g-topics.htm

On the obligations ofresearch agencies forconfidentiality, qualityetc. look at:

http://www.census.gov/main/www/policies.html

The US Centre for DiseaseControl has some usefuladvice on appropriate useof lay terms for writingexplanatory leaflets andguidelines for writingconsent forms: http://www.cdc.gov/od/ads/hsr2.htm

Discussion groups withinwhich these issues have beendiscussed include: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~jpurcell/Ethics/ethics.html

And:[email protected] listserv discussion group onresearch methods to whichyou can subscribe by sendingthe message:

SUBSCRIBE METHODS<YOUR NAME>

Operational codes can befound on: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/

Advisory protocols such ashuman subjects guidancedecisions charts:

http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/decisioncharts.htm

Those seeking advice aboutethics committee approvalshould look at:

The Intelligent Scholar’sGuide to the Use of HumanSubjects in Research http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~research/ISG.html

An IRB Discussion Forum(known as “MCWIRB”)promotes the discussion ofethical, regulatory and policy

L E V E L C 8 U S E F U L L I N K S

58

L E V E L C 8 U S E F U L L I N K S

concerns with humansubjects research. There isan “IRB Links” to otherweb-based resourcesconcerning IRB’s, humansubjects research and theethics of scientificresearch in general:http://www.mcwirb.org/

visit the site at:http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~slosh/Index.htm

From the UK Data Archive:

On preserving and sharingstatistical data:

http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/home/PreservingSharing.pdf

Information about the UKData Archive licence withdepositors, plus a downloadoption for the form can befound at:

http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/depositingData/LicenceAgreement.asp

Associated user forms can beviewed at:

http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/orderingData/linkAccessAgreement.asp

59

9. REFERENCES

Agar, M. H. (1980) Theprofessional stranger: aninformal introduction toethnography, New York:Academic Press. xi, 227pp.

Akeroyd, A. V. (1984)Ethics in relation toinformants, the professionand governments. In Ellen,Roy F., ed., Ethnographicresearch: a guide togeneral conduct. London;Academic Press. Researchmethods in socialanthropology 1.Pp 133–154

Appell, G. N. (1978)Ethical dilemmas inanthropological inquiry: acase book. Waltham Mass.;Crossroads Press. xii, 292pp.

BAAS (British Associationfor the Advancement ofScience) (1974) Doesresearch threaten privacyor does privacy threatenresearch? Report of a studygroup. London; BAAS.23pp. Publication 74/1.

Babbie, E. (2001) ThePractice of SocialResearch, (9th Edition),Wadsworth

Bacon, J. and Olsen, K.(2003) Doing the RightThing, Dept. for Work andPensions – Research

Working Paper No.11,London: HMSO [ http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/]

Barbour, R. S. & Kitzinger,J. (Eds) (1999) DevelopingFocus Group Research –Politics, Theory andPractice, London: Sage.

Barnes, J. A. (1980) Whoshould know what? Socialscience, privacy andethics. Cambridge;Cambridge UniversityPress. 232 pp

Barnes, J. A. (1984)Ethical and politicalcompromises in socialresearch. WisconsinSociologist 21: pp 100–111.

Barnett, S. (1983) Nevermind the quality ...will itgive us the answers wewant? Social ResearchAssociation NewsNovember: pp 1–2

Baumrind, D. (1972)Reactions to May 1972draft report of the ad hoccommittee on ethicalstandards psychologicalresearch. AmericanPsychologist 27: 1083–1086.

Becker, H/ (1966)“Whoseside are we on”Presidential addressdelivered at the annualmeeting of the Society ofthe Study of Social

Problems, Miami Beach,August 1966.

Bok, S. (1979) Lying:Moral Choice in Publicand Private Life, NewYork: Vintage Books – seeespecially Ch XIII: 192–213 Deceptive SocialScience research.

Bok, S. (1982) Secrets: onethics of concealment andrevelation, New York;Pantheon books. xviii, 332pp.

Boruch, R. F. & Cecil, J. S.(1979) Assuring theconfidentiality of socialresearch data.Philadelphia; University ofPennsylvania Press. viii,312 pp

Boruch, R. F. & Cecil,J. S. (1982) Statisticalstrategies for preservingprivacy in direct inquiry.In Sieber 1982b: 207-232

Bower, R. T. & de Gasfaris,P. (1978) Ethics in socialresearch: protecting theinterests of humansubjects. New York:Praeger. ix 228 pp.

Bryman, A. (2001) SocialResearch Methods, Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Bulmer, M. (1979) (Ed).Censuses, surveys andprivacy. London;Macmillan. xiii 279 pp.

60

Bulmer, Martin (1982)(Ed). Social researchethics: an examination ofthe merits of covertparticipant observation.London: Macmillan. xiv,284 pp.

Bulmer, M. (2001) Theethics of social research,Ch.4: pp.45-57 in GilbertN. (ed.) Researching SocialLife, London: Sage.

Burgess, R. G. (1984) Inthe field: an introductionto field research. London;Allen & Unwin. xiv,264 pp. contemporaryresearch 8

Boyden, J. and Ennew, J.(1997) Children in Focus –a Manual for ParticipatoryResearch with Children,Stockholm: Radda Barnen.

Byrne, P. (Ed) (1990)Ethics and Law in HealthCare and Research,Chichester: John Wiley &Sons

Callender, C. (1996)Contract Research andAcademic Freedom, Ch 3:21-30 in Dean, H.

Canada CouncilConsultative group onethics (1977) Ethics: reportof the consultative groupon ethics. Ottawa; Canadacouncil vi, 34 pp.

Capron, A. M. (1982) Isconsent always necessaryin social science research?

Accountability (TheCommercialisation ofResearch in Universities:an Ethical Intervention),Great Missenden: TheMissenden Centre for theDevelopment of HigherEducation.

Dean, H. (Ed.) (1996)Ethics and Social PolicyResearch, Luton:University of Luton Press.

Deming, W. E. (1972) Codeof professional conduct: apersonal view.International StatisticalReview 40:214–219.

Diener, E. & Crandall, R.(1978) Ethics in social andbehavioural research.Chicago; University ofChicago Press. x, 266 pp.

Douglas, J. D. (1979)Living morality versusbureaucratic fiat. InKlockars & O’Connor1979: 13–33

Ehrich, K. (2001) It Couldbe You, Medical SociologyNews, 27(1): 23–4

Erwin, E., Gendin, S. &Kleiman, L. (Eds) (1994)Ethical Issues in ScientificResearch: An Anthology,New York: GarlandPublishing Inc. (Series:Garland Studies in AppliedEthics, Alan Goldman Ed)

Finney, D.J. (1983)Comment in Proceedingsof the 44th Session of the

L E V E L C 9 R E F E R E N C E S

In Beauchamp et al. 1982pp 215–231.

Carroll, J. D. & Kneer, C.R. (1976) The APSAconfidentiality in socialscience research project: afinal report. PS 9: 416–419

Cassell, J. (1982a) Doesrisk benefit analysis applyto moral evaluation ofsocial research? InBeauchamp et al.1982:144–162

Cassell, J. (1982b) Harms,benefits, wrongs, andrights in fieldwork. InSieber 1982a:7–31

Christians, C. G. (2000)Ch.5 in Denzin, N. K. &Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds) (2000)Handbook of QualitativeResearch (2nd Ed), Londonand New York: Sage.

Corden, A. (1996) Writingabout poverty: ethicaldilemmas, Ch 2: 8-20 inDean, H.

Craig, G., Corden, A. andThornton, P. (2001) A Codeof Safety for SocialResearchers, London: SRA(see SRA website)

Crispo, J. H. G. (1975) Thepublic right to know:accountability in thesecretive society, Toronto;McGraw Hill Ryerson. 395pp.

Daly, R. (2002) TheMissenden Code ofPractice for Ethics and

61


ISI . Volume L,Book 3 p 553.

Flaherty, D.H. (1979)Privacy and access togovernment data banks: aninternational perspective.London; Mansell 353 pp.

Flaherty, D.H., Hanis, E.H., & Mitchell, S. P. (1979)Privacy and access togovernment data forresearch: an internationalbibliography. London;Mansell. ix, 197 pp.

Form, W. H. (1973) Fieldproblems in comparativeresearch: the politics ofdistrust. In Armer, M. &Grimshaw, A. D, (Eds)Comparative socialresearch; methodologyproblems and strategies.New York; Wiley pp 83–117.

Foster, C. (2001) TheEthics of Medical Researchon Humans, CambridgeUniversity Press.

Friedson, E. (1978)Comment on Stephenson,M., et al., articles onethics. AmericanSociologist 13:159–160.

Freund, P. E. (1979) (Ed)Ethical aspects ofexperimentation withhuman subjects, Daedalus,98(2). xiv, 219-59700.

Geller, D. M. (1982)Alternatives to deception:

Hicks, G. L. (1977)Informant anonymity andscientific accuracy: theproblem of pseudonyms,Human Organisation36:214–220.

HMSO (1998) DataProtection Act.

HMSO (1998) HumanRights Act.

Homans, R. (1991) TheEthics of Social Research,London: Longman.

Jahoda, M. (1981) Topublish or not to publish?Journal of Social Issues37: 208–220.

Johnson, C. G. (1982)Risks in the publication offieldwork. In Sieber1982a: 71–91.

Jowell, R. (1983) Aprofessional code forstatisticians? Some ethicaland technical conflicts.Bulletin of theInternational StatisticalInstitute (Proceedings ofthe 43rd session)49(1):165–209.

King, N. M. P., Henderson,G. E. & Stein, J. (Eds)(1999) Beyond Regulations– Ethics in human subjectsresearch, Chapel Hill:University of NorthCarolina Press (Series:Studies in Social Medicine,Brandt, Alan, et al (Eds))

why, what and how ? InSieber 1982b: 39–55

Gibbons, D. C. (1975)Unidentified research sitesand fictitious names.American Sociologist10:32–36.

Gorard, S. (2002) Ethicsand equity: pursuing theperspective of non-participants, SocialResearch Update, Issue 39,Dept of Sociology:University of Surrey.

Gorard, S. (2003) The roleof numbers in socialscience research, London:Continuum.

Grinyer, A. (2001) Ethicaldilemmas in non-clinicalresearch, Nursing Ethics, 8(2): 123–32.

Grinyer, A. (TheAnonymity of ResearchParticipants: Assumptions,Ethics and Practicalities,Social Research Update,Issue 36, Dept. ofSociology: University ofSurrey.

Hammersley, M. (Ed)(2000) Taking sides insocial research: Essays onpartisanship and bias,London: Routledge.

Hartley, S. F. (1982)Sampling strategies andthe threat to privacy. InSieber 1982b: 168–189.

62


Klaw, S. (1970) TheFaustian bargain. InBrown, M. (ed.) The socialresponsibility of thescientist. New York: FreePress, pp.3–15

Klockars, C. B (1979) Dirtyhands and deviantsubjects. In Klockars &O’Connor 1979: 261–282.

Klockars, C. B. &O’Connor, F. W (1979)(Eds) Deviance anddecency: the ethics ofresearch with humansubjects, Beverly Hills:Sage. 284 pp. Sage annualreview of studies indeviance 3.

LaFollette, H. (ed.) (2002)Ethics in Practice: AnAnthology, Oxford:Blackwell.

Lee, R. (1995) DangerousFieldwork, QualitativeResearch Methods Series,Vol.34, London: SagePublications.

Lee, R. M. (2000)Unobtrusive Methods inSocial Research,Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Lee-Treweek, G. &Linkogle, S. (2000) Dangerin the Field: Risk andethics in social research,London and New York:Routledge.

Levine, R. J. (1978) Therole of assessment of risk

Mirvis, P. H. & Seashore,S. E (1982) Creatingethical relationships inorganisational research. InSieber 1982b:79–104.

Neuman, L. W. (2000)Social Research Methods:Qualitative & QuantitativeApproaches (4th ed.),London: Allyn & Bacon.

O’Connor, M. E. (1976)Prison research: amethodologicalcommentary on being aknown observer.Australian and NewZealand Journal ofCriminology 9:227–234.

O’Connor, M. E. & Barnes,J. A.l (1983) Bulmer onpseudo patient studies: acritique. SociologicalReview n.s. 31: 753–758.

Okely, J. (1984) Fieldworkin the home counties.Royal AnthropologicalInstitute News 61: 4–6.

Orr, L.L. (1999) SocialExperiments: Evaluatingpublic programs withexperimental methods,London: Sage.

Pole, C. & Lampard, R.(2002) Practical SocialInvestigation: Qualitativeand Quantitative Methodsin Social Research, NewYork: Prentice Hall.

Pool, l. de S. (1979)Protecting human subjectsof research: an analysis on

benefit criteria in thedetermination of theappropriateness ofresearch involving humansubjects. In United States.National commission forthe Protection ofbiomedical andbehavioural researchAppendix. The Belmontreport: ethical principlesand guidelines for theprotection of humansubjects of research.Washington D.C, U. S.government printing officeDHEW publication (OS) 780013, pp 8-4.10

Levine, R. J. (1979)Clarifying the concepts ofresearch ethics, HastingsCentre Report 9(3): 21–26.

Loo, C. M. (1982)Vulnerable populations:case studies in crowdingresearch. In Sieber 1982b:105–126.

Mauthner, M., Birch, M.,Jessop, J., and Miller, T.(eds) (2002) Ethics inQualitative Research,London: Sage.

May, T. (2001) SocialResearch: Issues, methodsand process, Buckingham:Open University Press.

Michael, J. (1982) Privacy,In Wallington, P. (ed.) CivilLiberties 1984. London;Martin Robertson, pp.131–150.

63


proposed amendments toHEW policy. PS 12: 452–455.

Pool, I. De S. (1980)Response by Pool. PS13:203–204.

Powell, J. P. (1983)Professional ethics inacademia. Vestes 27(2):29–32.

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.(Eds) (2001) Handbook ofAction Research:Participative Inquiry andPractice, London: Sage.

Reeves, T. K. & Harper,D. G. (1981) Surveys atwork: a practitioner’sguide. London, McGrawHill. xviii, 259pp.

Reynolds, P. D. (1975)Value dilemmas in theprofessional conduct ofsocial science.International SocialScience Journal 27: 563–611.

Reynolds, P. D. (1979)Ethical dilemmas andsocial science research: ananalysis of moral issuesconfronting investigatorsin research using humanparticipants. SanFrancisco; Josses Bass. xx,505 pp.

Reynolds, P. D. (1982)Ethics and social scienceresearch. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.:Prentice Hall. xiv 191pp.

Shils, E. (1967) Privacyand power. In Pool, I. (Ed)Contemporary politicalscience: toward empiricaltheory. New York. McGrawHill, pp 228–276.

Sieber, J. E. (1982a) (Ed)The ethics of socialresearch: fieldwork,regulation, andpublication. New York;springer. x,190 pp.

Sieber, J. E. (1982b) (Ed)The ethics of socialresearch: surveys andexperiments. New York;Springer xii, 252 pp.

Sieber, J. E. (1993)Planning EthicallyResponsible Research,London & New York: Sage.

Simmel, G. (1908)Soziologie.Untersuchungen uber dieFormen derVergesellschaftung.Leipzig; Duncher 7Humbolt. 782 pp.

Simmel, G. (1950) Thesociology of Georg Simmel.WOLFF, Kurt Heinrich, ed.Glencoe, lll.; Free press.Ixv, 445 pp.

Singer, E. (1978) Informedconsent: consequences forresponse rate and responsequality for social surveys.American SociologicalReview 43: 144-162

Romm, N. R. (2000)Accountability in SocialResearch – Issues &Debates, New York:Plenum Publishers.

Romm, N. R. (2001)Accountability in SocialResearch, New York:Kluwer Academic.

Rynkiewich, M. A. &Spradley, J. P. (1976) (Eds)Ethics and Anthropology:dilemmas in fieldwork.New York; Wiley. xi, 186pp.

Ryten, J. (1983) Somegeneral considerations asa result of an Ecuadoriancase study. Bulletin of theInternational StatisticalInstitute (Proceedings ofthe 43rd session)49(2):639–65.

Schuler, H. (1982) Ethicalproblems in psychologicalresearch. New York;Academic Press. xviii296pp.

SCPR Working party(1974) Survey researchand privacy: Report of aworking party, London:Social and CommunityPlanning Research v, 56pp.

Shea, C. (2000) Don’t Talkto the Humans: TheCrackdown on SocialScience Research LINGUAFRANCA Volume 10, No. 6– September.

64


Sommer, R. & Sommer, B.(2002) A Practice Guide toBehavioural Research –Tools and Techniques, (5th

Edition), Oxford UniversityPress.

Sjoberg, G.(1967) (Ed)Ethics, politics, and socialresearch. Cambridge,Mass.; Schenkman. xvii,358 pp.

Stocking, S. H. &Dunwoody, S. L. (1982)Social science in the massmedia: images andevidence. In Sieber 1982a:151-169

Tefft, S. K. (1980) (Ed),Secrecy: a cross culturalperspective.

New York; Humansciences press. 351pp.

Thompson, M. (2000)Ethics (Teach Yourselfseries), London: HodderHeadline.

Truman, C., Mertens, D. M.& Humphries, B. (Eds)(2000) Research andInequality, London: UCLPress.

University of Essex andRoyal Statistical Society(2002) Preserving andSharing StatisticalMaterial, University ofEssex: RSS/UK DataArchive.

Warwick, D. P. (1983) Thepolitics and ethics of fieldresearch. In Bulmer, M. &Warwick, D. P. (Eds).Social research indeveloping countries:surveys and censuses inthe Third World.Chichester; Wiley, pp.315–330.

Wax, M. L. (1980)Paradoxes of ‘consent’ tothe practice of fieldwork.Social Problems 27: 272–283.

Wax, M. L. (1982)Research reciprocity ratherthan informed consent infieldwork. In Sleber1982a: 33–48.

Wax, M. L, & Cassell, J.(1981) From regulation toreflection: ethics in socialresearch. AmericanSociologist 16: 224–229.

Webb, E. J., et al (1966)Unobtrusive measures: nonreactive research in thesocial sciences. Chicago;Rand McNally. xii, 225 pp.

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R. D. &Sechrest, L. (2000)Unobtrusive Measures(Revised Edition) NewYork & London: SageClassics 2.

Weisstub, D. N. (Ed) (1998)Research on HumanSubjects – Ethics, Law andSocial Policy, New York:Pergamon.

Witkin, S.L. (2000) Anintegrative human rightsapproach to socialresearch Ch.13: 205-19 inTruman et al.

World Medical AssociationDeclaration Of HelsinkI(1964, revised 1975).

Reprinted in Duncan, H.S.,Dunstan, G.R. andWelbourn, R.B. (eds.)

(1981) Dictionary ofMedical Ethics. (Revisedand enlarged version,Darton, Longman andTodd, London).

ocial

esearch

ssociation

The Social Research Association wasfounded in the UK in 1978 to advancethe conduct, development andapplication of social research.

Its aims are:

� to provide a forum for discussionand communication about socialresearch activity in all areas ofemployment

� to encourage the development ofsocial research methodology,standards of work and codes ofpractice

� to review and monitor theorganisation and funding ofsocial research

� to promote the development oftraining and career structuresfor social researchers

� to encourage the use of socialresearch for formulating andmonitoring social policy

Membership of the Association isopen to any person interested orinvolved in social research.Application forms can be obtainedfrom the administrator:

[email protected]

or downloaded from the web site:www.the-sra.org.uk

There is an active branch inScotland and information can beobtained from:

[email protected]

Price £10.00

Printed copies of this guidecan be obtained from:[email protected]

A free version can be downloadedfrom the web site:www.the-sra.org.uk

Date post:	06-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongdan
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

Social Research Association (SRA) Ethics...

Documents