Soc 200 Ch. 3

Deception ground rules

*Federal regulations do not make reference to the use of deception in research*. The ethical codes of the American Sociological Association and American Psychological Association permit deception, but these codes also refer to deception as a method of "last resort" - pg. 50 At the same time, these codes highlight the anticipated benefits of a study as a standard by which the use of deception is evaluated, and they establish "ground rules" for studies that use deception. 1st ground rule: deception is banned when there is substantial risk of harm or stress. According to the APA, "Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress" [in this case, researchers should undertake a diff. research design that does not involve deception] 2nd ground rule: researchers must "come clean" about the true nature of their study. According to the ASA Code of Ethics, "When deception is an integral feature of the design and conduct of research, sociologists attempt to correct any misconception that research participants may have no later than at the conclusion of the research" = *debriefing* *debriefing* consists of a short interview that takes place b/w an investigator and research participants after they have finished their participation (Ideally, debriefing should occur in all studies with human participants, not just in studies involving deception, as it serves methodological and educational as well as ethical purposes) By interviewing participants after their participation, researchers may gain valuable information about participants' interpretation of research procedures; furthermore, by understand- ing the nature of the study, participants can gain a greater appreciation for their re- search experience. If participants are deceived, however, the debriefing session becomes critically important to reveal the nature and purpose of the deception. *the nature of the debriefing depends on the topic, type of study, and if deception is used, the extent of the deception* (for surveys on nonsensitive topics, it is gen. sufficient to answer any q's that respondents may have) - researchers may also provide a written brief statement of the purpose of the research and offer to send a summary of findings. [for mild forms of deception, it may be enough to answer participants' q's and briefly inform them of the deception, pointing out its purpose & necessity] *if deception is more extensive or likely to cause discomfort, however, the debriefing should be more thorough and probing* (in such cases, it is essential to make sure that participants 1. fully understand how they were misinformed 2. do not leave the experiment feeling worse about themselves than before they began)

Deception

Both Humphreys's and Milgram's studies involved deception: Humphreys lied and dis- guised himself; Milgram misled participants in several ways. Volunteers in Milgram's experiment agreed to participate in what they thought was a learning experiment but was actually a study on obedience. (pg. 43) While these examples of deception raise serious concerns, it is important to realize that researchers rarely give complete information about the purpose of their research and that this is not in itself considered deceptive. Deception in social re- search involves *intentionally* misleading or misinforming participants about aspects of a study As we noted earlier, deception is allowed in social research in certain circumstances, but its use is controversial. On the one hand, some scholars argue that deception is sometimes necessary to place research participants in a mental state where they will behave naturally. On the other hand, many social scientists oppose deception on moral and pragmatic grounds. For some, the most telling argument is that lying is immoral. Similarly, some critics contend that deception invariably violates participants' rights to informed consent, because consent obtained by deceit, by definition, cannot be informed Although social scientists debate this position, most agree that Milgram's and Humphreys's use of deception went too far, as both investigators misled participants about the potential risk of harm, thereby clearly violating the principle of informed consent.

Although difficult, conducting a cost-benefit analysis is an important first step in evaluating the ethics of a proposed study. In addition to assessing risk of harm as well as costs and benefits, the following guidelines also help to minimize harm:

- researchers should inform participants of any reasonable or foreseeable risks or discomforts before the study begins + should give participants sufficient opp. to consider. = IMPT part of informed consent, which is mandated by federal regulations - where appropriate, researchers should screen out research participants who might be harmed by the research procedures (In the prison simulation study, the investigators gave several personality tests to the student volunteers in order to select participants with "normal" personality profiles and thereby minimize the possibility of harm) - if stress or potential harm is likely, measures also should be planned to assess harm after the study, and if nec., provide resources to ameliorate it (To this end, researchers conducting laboratory experiments or doing interviews on sensi- tive topics should probe participants' feelings and reactions immediately after the study - "debriefing") [After discussing such feelings, the re- searcher may ask participants if they want to talk more and then provide contact information for people or groups who are trained to help, such as counselors and medical professionals]

Topic Selection, Political Ideology, and Research Funding

- research begins w/ the selection of a topic [politics also enters into the equation here, in term of personal values and institutional support for social research *a researchers values do shape their research topics and questions* - this is unavoidable - the impact of values on topic selection especially applies in sociology and other social sciences, which justify their work largely on its value relevance to human concerns [the most eminent sociologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries—people like Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Max Weber, W. E. B. DuBois, and Robert Park—concerned themselves with issues emanating from great social upheavals of their day, such as the French and Industrial revolutions, urbanization, and massive foreign immigration to the United States. Their sympathies lay w/ the victims of these changes, and they focused their attention on social problems such as alienation, inequality, deviance and crime, urban crowding, and racism] Topic selection also may be hindered or promoted by the politics of research fund- ing. - the biggest single supporter of social science research is the federal government, which awards grants through agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). [Funding sources influence topic selection in various ways. In allocating resources, funding agencies establish priorities for research on particular topics. During the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, for example, several government agencies supported the idea of a national survey of sexual practices. - Many government officials resisted asking questions about sexual behavior, even if these might shed light on the spread of AIDS. And, despite narrowing the focus of the survey, Laumann and colleagues' study was denied research funding because of political opposition to research on sexuality] When scientists submit proposals for grant support, they must justify the value of their research. Laumann and colleagues (1994) argued that their study would advance scientific understanding of human sexual behavior, and to this end they presented theoretical foundations for their research. But grant proposals generally are expected to do more than describe the intellectual merits of the research. The NSF, for instance, specifies that proposals also must be evaluated in terms of how the research will benefit society and contribute to desired societal outcomes, which is a matter of political preferences. although the Coburn amendment presents new challenges, science has been a part of the political process by which the govt. allocates research funding for many years - pg. 61

Institutional Review Board

A committee formed at nearly all colleges and universities that is responsible for reviewing research proposals to assess provisions for the treatment of human (and animal) subjects.

Data Analysis & Interpretation and Political Ideology

Aside from topic selection, the doctrine of value-free social science holds that the rest of the research process—that is, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data— should not be influenced by one's personal beliefs and values. (social scientists have numerous methods by which they attempt to control for investigator bias) - In addition to these methods, all sciences have structural safe- guards "to protest against the persistence of false, inaccurate, or misleading data and interpretations" Experts are called upon to evaluate grant proposals, so that only the most well-designed studies typically are funded. The best studies are published in refereed journals, in which reviewers judge whether the research is worthy of publication. And, over time, consistent results increase the credibility of data, and failed replications lead to the correction of misleading information [still, despite these efforts, a researcher's political ideology can affect the way in which data are collected & interpreted] - ex. - homosexual parenting - pg. 62 [Because differences between children of homosexual versus heterosexual parents are assumed to be deficits, scholars who support gay rights may ignore differences] One way to address this criticism is to admit one's values and biases up front and allow others to evaluate the research with that information in hand. Stacey and Biblarz agree, noting that especially for ide- ological and emotional subjects such as gay parenting, it is "incumbent on scholars to acknowledge the personal convictions they bring to the discussion" (2001, 161). Thus, they stated in their article that they "personally oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender" (161). [in trying to understand reality from perspective of the marginalized, field researchers may become sympathetic with their point of view - though the study tells us only how things look from that vantage point]

Dissemination of Research Findings: Science, Politics, and Public Policy

Another way in which science and politics relate to one another is in the use of scientific knowledge to inform public policy. The authority of science is undeniable in settling many questions about the physical world, such as the efficacy of medical treatments and effects of pollution. In such cases, scientists are likely to share the values of the decision makers and play the role of impartial experts, providing information to others without engaging directly in the politics of policymaking. [however, when scientific knowledge is uncertain, and the policy options are based on diff. values, the role of scientists is more complicated. Scientists may be forced to take sides or to become advocates for particular policies, and science itself may become a tool of political debate] social scientists must not only be aware of the possible influence of personal values and political views on their research, they also must consider the practical implications of their research and how others may use their findings. - pg. 64 - Similarly today, social scientists lend their expert judgments in cases involving sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and gay rights. At times, professional associations also may serve as knowledge brokers. The Ameri- can Sociological Association (ASA), for example, has "a long history of presenting the consensus research findings of sociologists to American courts for their use in evaluat- ing evidence and legal issues" At times, professional associations also may serve as knowledge brokers. The Ameri- can Sociological Association (ASA), for example, has "a long history of presenting the consensus research findings of sociologists to American courts for their use in evaluat- ing evidence and legal issues"

conflict of interest (def.)

In science, a conflict between the goal of producing accurate, unbiased knowledge and other motives such as financial gain, professional advancement, or political interests. [ex. on pg. 67]

justice

The Belmont principle that the benefits and burdens of research should be fairly distributed so that the group selected for research also may benefit from its application.

informed consent procedures

The Belmont Principle of respect for persons underlies the ethical requirement of informed consent. According to federal regulations, to make an informed decision about whether to take part in a study, research participants must be given adequate information about the study, including foreseeable risks of participating. Furthermore, obtaining their consent must minimize *coercion or undue influence* = participation MUST be voluntary - w/ even greater protections when working w/ special pop's such as children and prisoners (children for ex. can't directly give their informed consent - their parent or guardian needs to) [In a study on students' help-seeking behavior, which we discuss in Chapter 4, Jessica Calarco (2011) sought and obtained parents' consent to observe children in their elementary school] On the other hand, school-aged participants may be required to give their *assent*—that is, agreement to participate in the research—if they are deemed capable of doing so, as determined by their "ages, maturity, and psychological state" Federal regulations generally dictate the use of a written consent form, signed by the participant or the participant's legal guardian. This not only protects participants, it also protects the researcher. Participants are protected from harm by being able to make up their own minds about the risks of participation; researchers are legally protected by participants' explicit voluntary agreement. (exception = a signed informed consent agreement is usually not nec. and may be waived in research involving minimal risk) [ex. in most surveys, it is sufficient to read or have participants read a consent statement and then ask them if they wish to continue w/ the survey] *federal regulations spell out in detail the basic elements of informed consent statements* - pg. 49 (All of this information, according to federal regulations (CFR 2009, 46.116), needs to be conveyed in clear and understandable language; anything less undermines participants' ability to make an informed decision)

review federal regulations and professional ethics codes: step 1 "process of ethical decision making"

We recommend that you also read the Belmont Report, Common Rule, and the professional code of ethics of the discipline within which you are working. Box 3.3, DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH: [pg. 55] Web Resources on Research Ethics, provides links to federal regulations and several other useful resources as you prepare to conduct your research. [discussed already in reading the previous section of this chapter]

ethics and politics

just as it is guided by the elements of scientific inquiry, it is also shaped by moral and political considerations

anonymity (form of protection)

means that participants cannot be identified. Of the two means of pro- tecting participants' privacy, anonymity is the highest standard, but *it is also the most difficult to achieve*. Often at least the investigator can identify participants. Examples of research that provides anonymity include self-administered surveys without names or identifying information attached as well as some existing data. def. Ethical safeguard against invasion of privacy in which data cannot be identified with particular research participants.

ethics

standards of moral conduct that distinguish right from wrong

respect for persons

the Belmont principle that individuals must be treated as autonomous agents who have the freedom and capacity to decide what happens to them, and researchers must protect those with diminished autonomy.

beneficence

the Belmont principle that researchers have an obligation to secure the well-being of participants by maximizing possible benefits and minimizing possible harms.

informed consent

the ethical principle that individuals should be given enough information about a study, especially its potential risks, to make an informed decision about whether to participate.

Social Responsibility

A second issue in Regnerus's study concerns social scientists' responsibility to be aware of and provide direction to how others use their findings. The ethical codes of profes- sional associations often contain statements about "social responsibility." Principle E of the ASA Code of Ethics states: "Sociologists are aware of their professional and scien- tific responsibility to the communities and societies in which they live and work. They apply and make public their knowledge in order to contribute to the public good" The Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) further stipulates: "Anthropological researchers . . . must consider carefully the social and political implications of the information they disseminate. They must do everything in their power to insure that such information is well understood, properly contextualized, and responsibly utilized" Whether Regnerus violated the ethic of social responsibility in reporting his study revolves around his definition of same-sex parents, which has been called the "single biggest weakness" of the study (Perrin, Cohen, and Caren 2013, 331). Recall that Regnerus's research question asks if children of homosexual parents differ from their heterosexual counterparts. Given that his heterosexual comparison group consisted of children raised by parents who were continuously married, their homosexual counter- parts should be children raised by same-sex couples in a continuous relationship. [Instead, he examines children who recalled that one of their parents had a "same-sex romantic relationship" while they were growing up. By this definition, as Regnerus (2012a, 757) notes, the majority of the respondents labeled by him as having been raised by a "lesbian mother" or "gay father" were the offspring of a biological parent who subsequently had a same-sex relationship. - By virtue of how he defined the homosexual parenting groups, his study makes, as the ASA brief argues, "inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons"] - creates misleading understandings - pg. 68 As we have argued, virtually all research, especially in the social sciences, is value- driven. So, Regnerus cannot be faulted for having a value position. It seems very likely, too, that his research would never have been scrutinized and politicized to a very great degree if his findings had been different - It is questionable that he gave due consideration to how his results might be used. And he could have been more careful in how he framed his research question, defined and labeled same-sex parents, and presented his findings.

assess costs & benefits of proposed research: step 2 "process of ethical decision making"

Ethical considerations should begin with the selection of your research topic, for this is a good starting point for analyzing the potential costs and benefits of research. *The potential for doing harm is greatest in social research that investigates negative aspects of behavior*, such as aggression, cheating, and obedience to malevolent authority Research on sensitive topics such as sex and drug use also poses risks. There is potential harm, for example, in surveys that ask ques- tions about illegal behavior such as drug abuse, which could prove embarrassing or put participants at risk for criminal prosecution if the information is disclosed. first few stages of research = topic selection -> reviewing the literature -> creating a plan or design to carry out research [as you read the literature on your topic, , you are likely to get a better understanding of the potential costs and benefits of doing research on this topic by examining the methods (e.g., deception, covert observation) and samples used in previous research (e.g., children, prisoners). Then as you consider your research design, we recommend that you solicit opinions from others, including your faculty supervisor and potential participants. Ultimately, too, you should ask yourself, "How would I feel if I were a participant in my own research?"]

the intersection of ethics and politics in social research

Ethics and politics are often connected to one another in social research. (ex. case study - research on same-sex parenting) - supporters of gay marriage denounced the Regnerus study, opponents praised it, and pundits and social scientists attacked Regnerus, his methodology, and his conclusions - pg. 66 - in addition to its political ramifications, the study involved questions of methodology and ethical issues concerning propriety in the publication review process. *still others raised two issues w/ the study that link politics to research ethics: conflict of interest and social responsibility in the presentation and use of research findings*

evaluating potential harm

Federal regulations specify two main criteria for evaluating potential harm: (1) the level of risk to research participants and (2) the risks of the research in relation to the benefits (cost-benefit analysis) in the first one, the level of risk should be minimized by using sound research procedures that "do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk" - To distinguish studies in which special precautions should be taken, the Common Rule creates a criterion of "minimal risk": "The probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life" (surveys involve minimal risk b/c the researcher is asking of q's that respondents may encounter in everyday life) - e.g. what is your age? /// but when a study poses more than a minimal risk (e.g. sensitive topic, if participants may be identified) or involved special populations (children or prisoners) then researchers need to take greater precautions to minimize risks - the second criterion, derived from the principle of beneficence, is that "risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits" (if there is little to no scientific value from a study that knowingly exposes participants to harm, the study should NOT be done no matter how small the harm - BUT, if a study has considerable scientific merit (worth), some degree of potential risk may be justified) [assessing the costs & benefits of social research is diff.] - the main benefit to participants in social research is simply what they learn about the research or themselves from their experiences - the primary benefits accrue to others: investigators gain knowledge that may contribute to professional success and recognition; the profession advances scientific understanding, which may lead to the betterment of humanity. *costs and benefits may also be hard to predict* - Zimbardo experiment

ethical issues in the treatment of research participants

Four issues have been identified most often regarding the ethical treatment of human participants: potential harm, lack of informed consent, deception, and privacy invasion (are all at stake as we consider research participants' rights and welfare) It is considered a violation of basic human rights to harm others, to force people to perform actions against their will, to lie or mislead them, and to invade their privacy.

Common Rule

Label given to the federal policy for the protection of human subjects.

federal & professional ethical guidelines

Now that you are aware of the four main areas of ethical concern in scientific research with human subjects, let's examine the measures that should be taken to protect participants' rights and welfare. In general, ethical practices are set forth in codes of ethics that were established in response to the worst abuses, such as the Nazi experiments and Tuskegee Syphilis Study. In the United States, congressional hearings on the Tuskegee Study led to the National Research Act (1974), which created a commission charged with the task of making recommendations for the protection of human subjects. - in 1979, the commission issued the Belmont Report that presented 3 broad unifying ethical principles that formed the basis for specific regulations: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice *Respect for persons* means that researchers must treat individuals as "autonomous agents" who have the freedom and capacity to decide what happens to them. It also requires that researchers protect those with diminished autonomy, such as children, prisoners, and the mentally disabled. Beneficence requires researchers to consider the welfare of participants so that they "maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms." Included in this consideration are longer-term benefits that may result from the advancement of knowledge and betterment of humankind Justice means that the benefits and burdens of research should be fairly distributed (National Commission 1979). In particular, the burdens of research should not fall upon one group, while the benefits accrue to another. The exploitation of unwilling prisoners by Nazi scientists is an extreme example of injustice. *based largely on the Belmont report* - federal regulations for protecting research participants were put into place and have been revised several times Subpart A of these regulations, known as the *Common Rule*, provides information about the application of regulations and presents criteria for approval of research. The Common Rule applies to all research conducted or funded by a federal department or agency; it also applies to all research, regardless of funding, conducted at nearly every college and university in the United States. Professional organizations' ethical codes articulate general principles and rules that apply to research situations often encountered in a particular discipline. They are designed at once to protect the welfare of the individuals with whom scientists work and to guide researchers in making ethically responsible choices. (ex. American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010), the American Sociological Association's Code of Ethics (1999))

Collect Data and Secure Participants' Rights

Once the IRB has approved your proposal, all is not said and done. The final step is to secure participants' rights. For the most part this consists of implementing the proce- dures presented in your IRB proposal. As you carry out your research, however, it is important to realize that your ethical responsibility to protect the rights and welfare of participants is ongoing, extending throughout and sometimes beyond the research process. Consider, for example, potential harm. Although it may be sufficient to implement the means you have devised to protect participants from harm, it is possible that the research can unexpectedly threaten participants' welfare. This was the case in Zim- bardo and colleagues' prison simulation study. The investigators had devised means to safeguard participants' welfare, such as screening for psychological problems; however, they did not anticipate the study's adverse effects. Because "guards" behaved inhu- manely toward "prisoners" and "prisoners" showed signs of depression and extreme stress, Zimbardo and colleagues (1973, 45) took additional steps to secure participants' welfare. Not only did they terminate the experiment eight days earlier than planned, they also conducted encounter sessions immediately after the experiment to allow participants to vent their feelings, reflect on the moral issues they had faced, and consider more moral actions - And to assess longer-term effects, they carried out follow-ups via questionnaires, personal interviews, and reunions Finally, circumstances may require additional means of securing participants' confidentiality if something unforeseen happens. For example, when the Facebook researchers realized that it was possible to identify people in their data, they took the data set down from the Web. some researchers go to great lengths to protect participants' privacy when confronted w/ a potential breach - When Laud Humphreys realized there was a possibility that the confidentiality of his data would be compromised, he took his records out of his locked safe and burned them. And rather than tell the police the reason for being in the restroom, he went to jail.

Prepare and Submit Application for IRB approval

Once you've devised means of protecting participants, the next step is to prepare and submit a proposal to your school or organization's IRB. Students engaged in research should complete this step in consultation with a faculty advisor, who is responsible for reviewing and, ordinarily, signing off on all IRB applications. Generally, you must com- plete a form that describes the proposed research and specifies how participants' rights are to be protected. Although IRB forms vary across educational and other institutions, you should at least expect to address the following issues - pg. 56 When you submit your proposal, initially the IRB will decide whether the proposed study is exempt. Social research that is exempt from federal regulations includes the collection of existing data in which participants cannot be identified, research involv- ing normal educational practices and educational testing, and the observation of public behavior when recorded information cannot be linked to individuals [exempt research does not require IRB review, though it is up to the IRB, not the investigator, to decide if the research qualifies as exempt] If the research is subject to review but presents no more than minimal risk to participants, it may be given an "expedited review" performed by either the chair- person or one or more designees, otherwise, the full committee will review it (in any case, the IRB may approve, disapprove, or require modifications to secure approval)

privacy protection: anonymity & confidentiality

Private information, according to federal regulations (CFR 2009, 46.102), is that which makes the participant "individually identifiable"; that is, his or her identity can be ascertained (discovered) from the info. "info. is private when an individual can reasonably expect that the info. will not be made public w/ personal identifiers" -federal regulations state that researchers need to ensure that "there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data" *the informed consent statement should explain to participants HOW their privacy will be protected *there are 2 forms of protection*: anonymity and confidentiality

invasion to privacy

Social research also presents many possibilities for invading the privacy of research participants, as evidenced in Humphreys's study. The right to privacy is the individual's right to decide when, where, to whom, and to what extent his or her attitudes, beliefs, and behavior will be revealed. New forms of technology and social media make privacy invasion in research a major concern today, as illustrated by the Facebook study described in Chapter 1 Still, some critics are uneasy about Lewis and colleagues' study. Michael Zimmer (2010), for one, contends that the Facebook study is a case of privacy invasion because the college and some students' identities could be inferred from the data (e.g., size of school, school housing characteristics, majors offered, as well as students' hometowns and nationalities).

process of ethical decision making

What do you need to do to make sure, so far as possible, that you are protecting the rights and welfare of research participants? Figure 3.2 outlines a process of ethical decision-making as it applies to the treatment of research participants. 1st. review federal regulations and professionals ethics codes (will sensitize you to potential problems and means of addressing them) 2nd. as you select a topic & design your research, you should consider the costs & benefits of proposed methods and identify and address areas of ethical concern 3rd. if you are conducting your own research, you will have to submit a proposal to a college or university wide committee called an *Institutional Review Board* or IRB [to assure compliance w/ federal regulations, the Common Rule requires that all applicable institutions, including nearly every college & university in the U.S., establish an IRB to review and approve research involving humans and animal subjects] 4th. researchers have an ethical responsibility to secure participants rights in collecting and analyzing data

informed consent

arises from the value place on freedom of choice ex. Tuskegee study of syphilis, a sexually transmitted and life-threatening disease, conducted over the course of four decades by the U.S. Public Health Service. - pg. 42 - he purpose of the study was to follow the course of untreated syphilis. When penicillin was accepted as a treatment in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the men were not given it. It wasn't until 1972 that the study was exposed and terminated *Informed* means that research participants must be given enough information about the research to make a rational decision about whether to participate. In the case of Tuskegee, participants were given incomplete and misleading information (i.e., "bad blood"), and they did not know that treatment for their true underlying condition would be withheld. - consent: refers to voluntary participation - To volunteer is to have the freedom to choose to participate and to discontinue participation; however, firsthand accounts indicate that the men at Tuskegee were discouraged from seeking treatment, and they would lose benefits if they withdrew from the study

ethics "overview"

consists of standards of conduct that distinguish between right and wrong ethical standards in research similar to being told not to lie and tell the truth when you were a child include [are expected to give proper credit when they use others ideas; to accept authorship of a paper only when they have made a sig. contribution to it, & to guard against the improper application of their research findings] Most of the ethical standards that guide social research are derived from the larger society; - some standards are codified in pro. codes of conduct & in federal regulations - gen. these standards are not hard and fast rules by which researchers are expected to abide but rather depend on the situation and are subject to multiple interpretations (ex. Is it necessarily wrong, for example, to deceive a re- search participant? By an absolutist standard, the answer is yes: because deception is a form of lying, it should not be tolerated. Yet, according to professional organi- zations such as the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) and the American Sociological Association (ASA, 1999), the answer to this question is "it depends." ) *what it depends on are the risks posed to the rights and welfare of research participants, the benefits of the research, and the steps taken to protect participants rights* In discussing ethics, we focus on issues regarding the treatment of research partic- ipants, as in our example of deception. Every social scientist has a personal and pro- fessional obligation to protect the rights and welfare of research participants. It is important to become aware of these ethical issues and how to address them, whether you are evaluating the research of others or conducting your own research.

Identify and Address Areas of Ethical Concern: step 3 "process of ethical decision making"

go through your research design carefully to determine areas of ethical concern and how you will address them. The best place to start is to review the requirements of an informed consent agreement. As we noted earlier, the agreement should describe foreseeable risks and benefits, indicate how you will maintain confidentiality, and assure participants that their participation is voluntary. - you should also devise a plan for debriefing participants - For research not involving deception, this may be no more than a written statement that describes more fully the nature of the research and reminds participants whom to contact if they have questions about the research or their rights. If the study involves deception, you will need a more elaborate protocol: the debriefing should probe participants' suspicions about the study, fully describe all deceptive elements and why deception is necessary, and explain the true purpose of the study. after debriefing, the APA ethical guidelines further dictate that you give participants the opportunity to withdraw their data *the debriefing, in effect, fully informs participants about the study so that they are truly in a position to give their informed consent*

confidentiality

means that data obtained from participants are not shared with others without their permission. Because investigators can usually identify individuals' responses, *the principal means of protecting participants' privacy is to ensure confidentiality* the researcher can do this in a variety of ways: by conducting research (espe- cially surveys and in-depth interviews) in a private place, by removing names and other identifying information from the data as soon as possible, by keeping the data in a secure place, by not disclosing individuals' identities in any reports of the study, and by not divulging the information to persons or organizations requesting it without re- search participants' permission. Field research usually requires ingenuity to safeguard confidentiality. The tradi- tional approach is to use fictitious names (pseudonyms) for individuals, groups, and locations, which is what Lareau did in her field study. - She assigned pseudonyms for each of the families, such as the "Taylors" and the "Garringers." She also masked the true iden- tities of the schools by calling them "Swan" and "Lower Richmond." And she re- ported that these schools were located in the Midwest and Northeast United States, broad geographical areas that do not allow for the possibility of identification *yet it may not be possible to guarantee complete confidentiality* - Unlike physicians, lawyers, and the clergy, social scientists are not generally shielded by laws that allow them to keep their data secret if they are subpoenaed - participants have a right to know about the limits of confidentiality, which should be included in the informed consent statement def. Ethical safeguard against invasion of privacy by which data obtained from participants are not shared with others without their permission.

conflict of interest

occurs in social research when the professional goal of producing "objective" value-free knowledge conflicts with other motives such as financial gain, professional advancement, or political interests. For example, a scientist doing research on the health effects of passive smoking has a conflict of interest if a tobacco company funds the research. Conflicts of interest arise when sociologists' personal or financial interests prevent them from performing their professional work in an unbiased manner. - The ASA code also states that sociologists must disclose (make known) sources of financial support "that may have the appearance of or potential for a conflict of interest" The question of conflict of interest arose in the Regnerus study because it was funded—to the tune of $795,000 (Sherkat 2012)—by two very conservative foundations, the Bradley Foundation and the Witherspoon Institute. - He disclosed his funding sources and furthermore, he claimed that these "sources played no role at all in the design or conduct of the study, the analyses, the interpretation of the data, or in the preparation of this manuscript" (2012a, 755). Yet scholars remain skeptical (Massey 2012; Sherkat 2012).

Politics & Social Research

politics also enters into social research. Underlying the influence of both ethics and politics is the concept of values. Values refer to guiding beliefs about what is good, important, useful, and desirable. As outlined earlier, *values of respect, beneficence, and justice guided the creation of federal ethical codes that constrain social research* Similarly, values stimulate the influence of politics in social research, for politics essentially concerns the bargaining, negotiation, and compromise that occur in the pursuit of valued outcomes, such as formation of policy Whenever you debate social and political issues, you unavoidably base your position on your personal values, especially your political ideology, which refers to the set of values and beliefs associated with a political system or party. [politics may influence the research process at an individual & a structural level] ------------------------- - at the individual level: a researcher's personal values + ideology may shape his or her choice of what or whom to study (However, Max Weber (1949), one of the founders of sociology, believed that personal values should not influence the collection and analysis of data. Otherwise, social scientists' findings will not be seen as credible and valid but rather as a projection of their personal beliefs) *there is disagreement about whether social science can and should be value-free* - at the structural level: various groups in society including the scientific community, professional associations, and local, national, and international political systems also may exert pressures that influence the course of the research [very impt. source of political influence at the structural level: govt. regulation]

potential harm

the first right of any research participant is the right to personal safety. Atrocities com- mitted in World War II (1939-1945), which came to light in the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946), brought attention to this issue. - pg. 41 During the war, Nazi scientists used pris- oners in experiments that resulted in pain, suffering, and even death. In one experi- ment, subjects were kept naked outdoors in below-freezing temperatures until parts of their bodies froze; in others, they were infected with malaria, typhus, poisons, and bacteria in deliberately inflicted wounds (Katz 1972). This research clearly violated the most fundamental right of research participants: that they should not be harmed by their participation. Research that would endanger the life or physical health of a human subject is simply not acceptable in the scientific community. But harm is not only physical. Participants in social research may experience anxiety, the loss of self-esteem, feelings of embarrassment or humiliation, or even the loss of trust. These forms of harm often are difficult to anticipate and may occur despite researchers' best intentions. - An example is the prison simulation study conducted at Stanford University by Philip Zimbardo and colleagues (the participants got so caught up in the situation, became so absorbed in their roles, that they began to confuse role-playing and self-identity) -the case of Lareau's field study -pg. 41