Helen Simons

School of Education, University of Southampton, UK

Key concepts

Ethical principles are abstract and it is not always obvious how they should be applied in given situations . . . Some of the most intractable ethical problems arise from conflicts among principles and the necessity of trading one against the other. The balancing of such principles in concrete situations is the ultimate ethical act. (House, 1993: 168) Introduction

Ethics in research is a situated practice as the quotation above implies. Ethical decisions are the result of a weighing up of a myriad of factors in the specific complex social and political situations in which we conduct research. Frequently sets of prin-ciples are drawn up to guide our actions in the field as well as protect the rights of participants in research.

In some disciplines research proposals have to pass through ethical committees which judge not only whether the research is sensitive to human ‘subjects’

but in many cases also whether the methodology is sound and appropriate for the research in question.

This chapter outlines different ways of conceiving how to act ethically in social research and highlights the moral dilemmas we may encounter. It first outlines the traditional key concepts associated with conducting ethical social science research such as informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity and publication access. Secondly, it briefly examines the increasing trend in publication of ethical principles and guidelines by professional organizations and the institutionalization of ethical committees. Thirdly, the concept of situated ethics is elaborated. Finally the

role of the researcher is examined as ethical guidelines more often than not pay more attention to the rights of participants than the ethical rights of and/or danger for the researcher. Ethical practice is often defined as ‘doing no harm’. In this chapter we take the view that we should also aspire to do ‘good’, in other words to conduct research that benefits participants in positive ways.

Informed consent

With some exceptions, those who argue that certain participant observation studies could never be con-ducted if informed consent was the norm, most writers of social science ethics adhere to a concept of informed consent. This means that those interviewed or observed should give their permission in full knowledge of the purpose of the research and the consequences for them of taking part. Frequently, a written informed consent form has to be signed by the intending participant. However achieving in-formed consent is not a straightforward process. First, there is often a tension between ‘fully’ informing and gaining access, as outlining all the potential conse-quences may limit access. Secondly it may not always be possible to foresee the consequences in advance.

A more appropriate concept is ‘rolling informed consent’, that is the renegotiation of informed con-sent once the research is underway and a more realistic assessment of the risks to participants can be made. Thirdly, informed consent is needed from each person interviewed and/or observed, not simply the major gatekeeper in an institution or project. Fourth-ly, there is the difficulty of gaining informed consent from groups where there may be peer pressure to participate, or from individuals, for example those with learning difficulties, or children, in contexts

where the adult has authority and/or responsibility for their behaviour or assessment.

Confidentiality and anonymity

The second common assumption in ethical social science practice is confidentiality in the process of conducting the research and the anonymization of individuals in reporting. These are often linked as though the second, that is to say using pseudonyms in reporting, justifies the reporting of information ob-tained in confidence. However, the two concepts require separate consideration. Confidentiality is a principle that allows people not only to talk in confidence, but also to refuse to allow publication of any material that they think might harm them in any way. Anonymization is a procedure to offer some protection of privacy and confidentiality. Though helpful in the attempt not to identify people, anonymiz-ation cannot guarantee that harm may not occur. How people will react to research reports cannot be foreseen in advance. The context, unless massively disguised, often reveals clues to identity even when names and places are changed. Moreover, not all people in a research study can be anonymized and the number to whom this applies is often more than we frequently envisage. In such situations, a sound ethical principle is to seek clearance from the individuals concerned for use of the data in a specific context or report.

There are some situations, in bereavement counsell-ing for instance, where the argument has been made that in order to help individuals cope with the grieving process, it is important to keep the person who has died ‘alive’, so to speak, visibly and through discussion using their real names and faces. To anonymize in this context is tantamount to a double death. A second reason for not anonymizing is to encourage the development of ethical reflexivity between the partici-pants and the researcher, through a process of honest, open deliberation of the issues and possible conse-quences so that the outcome is morally and ethically defensible to all. Finally, anonymization may be inappropriate in those forms of action and participa-tory research where participants, individually or joint-ly, research their own practice or policy context. In such contexts naming is important to acknowledge an individual’s contribution to generating knowledge.

Prepublication access

The principle of giving participants the opportunity to read a research report before it goes public appears

on first sight to adhere to the principle of respect for persons. However, much depends upon the intent. If it is merely to warn participants of critical elements so they will not be shocked when a report goes public, this offers more protection to the researcher than to participants. If it offers an opportunity for the participants to comment upon and possibly add to the report, this demonstrates greater respect for potential difference of interpretation and the right to a fair voice.

Ethical guidelines

Many social researchers draw up ethical principles and procedures reflecting the above concerns and based upon traditional research ethics of duties, rights and analysis of harm and benefit. Others embody in such statements democratic values of justice, fairness and respect for privacy of persons and public knowledge.

For example, Simons (1989) and, in relation to children, Alderson and Morrow (2003).

Increasingly professional associations have also written guidelines to facilitate ethical practice. Some aspire to set standards to judge the quality of the research. Others are couched in terms of codes and rules. Yet others prefer statements of principle which offer guidance for ethical decision-making and a basis from which possible codes and rules might be developed. Such guidelines traditionally embody a normative ethics – concerned with how people ought to behave (Newman and Brown, 1996).

Ethical guidelines vary on a number of other dimensions, such as the extent to which they do or do not make a distinction between ethical-moral and scientific-methodological issues and the quasi-legal language in which they are sometimes written. Often there is a lack of clarity between ethical and legal issues. For example, treating participants ‘fairly and equally’ is written into the Human Rights Act and is now a legal imperative. It still remains an ethical issue, however, how ‘treating fairly’ is interpreted.

Ethical committees

Ethical committees have long been established in the field of medicine and increasingly they are being set up in the social sciences and other pro-fessional fields. They exist to ensure that researchers have considered the ethical issues that are likely to arise and have developed protocols to protect participants from harm. In many cases such com-mittees also act as the guardians of what is to 6 E T H I C A L R E S P O N S I B I LI T Y I N S O C I A L R E S E A R C H

count as research methodology. Some have claimed (Furedi, 2002) that ethical committees are in practice acting as gatekeepers of methodology and we are focused on preventing litigation than ensuring ethical practice. As a consequence they may inhibit freedom to research, especially topics that may be sensitive.

Where this happens, their function has become part of the culture of managerialism, and is not necessarily to do with ethics at all.

Situated ethics

Principles provide a shared frame of reference and are useful to guide ethical decision-making. However, they are abstract statements of intent and cannot be followed simply as rules. Ethical practice depends on how the principles are interpreted and enacted in the precise socio-political context of the research. For examples of such concrete ethical decisions in prac-tice see Simons and Usher (2000) and Lee-Treweek and Linkogle (2000).

The application of general principles and codes of practice nearly always stems from a rational, reasoning approach to the consideration of individuals’ rights, duties and obligations of different groups. With the growth of feminist research, postmodern thinking, participatory and democratic practices, a different concept of ethics is being invoked – the ethics of care (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984). This is more con-cerned with relationships, people’s lives and context than universal laws and principles. This approach has much in common with the ethical discourse of social justice (House, 1993) and the redistribution of power in research and evaluation relationships (MacDonald, 1976). It also has affinities with forms of participatory research which encourage participants to develop their own ethical practice in the groups and contexts in which they work and an ethics which takes into account the specific cultural differences between people.

Situated ethics, in summary, acknowledges the uniqueness and complexity of each situation and any ethical decision needs to take cognisance of the precise way in which many of the above factors are played out in the specific socio-political context. To what should the researcher appeal?

Some have suggested the ultimate recourse is to one’s own conscience. However, to be justifiable as an ethical practice, this would need to be accom-panied by a disciplined self-reflexive approach to one’s own behaviour. Others have recommended

broadening the reference point. Soltis (1990) sug-gests that an issue/situation be considered from three different perspectives: of the person (the researcher in this case), the profession and the public, noting the different dilemmas that occur for each. Newman and Brown (1996) offer a framework for ethical decision-making that includes intuition, rules and codes, principles and theory, personal values and beliefs and action, listing a few questions to ask of oneself in regard to each. This may appear overly rationalistic. However given the uncertainty, complexity and finely tuned professional judgement we have to make in the

‘ethical moment’ (Usher, 2000), it draws our at-tention to a range of issues we may need to integrate into our consciousness to inform ethical decision-making in research.

Ethics for the researcher

Ethical principles and guidelines tend to focus on protecting participants from harm or in some cases on empowering them. Rarely is so much ethical attention paid to the researcher. However, this is changing as awareness grows about the risks and ethical danger a researcher may face studying certain contexts. Lee-Treweek and Linkogle (2000) make a strong case for redressing the predominant focus of ethics by considering the ethical dangers that can confront a social researcher in field situations. They provide a framework for considering ethical issues by drawing distinctions between risk and emotional, physical and ethical danger. It is only the ethics that concern us here, that is to say the risks associated with making judgements in the field, though there may be links with emotional – and even physical – danger in facing ethical dilemmas. Making wrong judgements about what to study or how to study social life has consequences for how one’s research is seen by others. Ethical danger is perhaps at its most critical, say Lee-Treeweek and Linkogle (2000: 5–6), when studying unfamiliar cultures, where there is the risk of unconsciously breaching cultural norms through the lens of one’s own, and when studying extremist groups. It is sometimes for this reason, or in order to study groups for which one might not gain research access, that covert participant observation is em-ployed (Bulmer, 1982). In some forms of research, however, such as naturalistic or phenomenological inquiry, deceptive research practices are inherently unacceptable (Lincoln, 1990).

Implications for research design

While it is rarely possible to anticipate all the ethical dilemmas you may encounter in doing research, there are a number of steps you can take in your research design to indicate that you are thinking ethically:

( Consider at the outset what ethical issues might arise (numerous questions and frameworks exist in the literature to facilitate such thinking), and think through, in one or two instances, how these would be addressed.

( Be conscious of what kind of ethics you per-sonally aspire to and what values you hold in relation to the research topic.

( Think through the ethical implications of any methodology you choose – for example, does it respect participants’ rights? Does it balance this with the responsibility for generating public knowledge? Does it provide scope for partici-pants’ ethical development if this is part of your purpose? Does it honour those who are less enfranchised? Does it respect cultural, gender and age differences?

( Draw up a brief set of ethical procedures to guide data collection and dissemination. This is especial-ly important if you have to submit your research proposal to an ethical committee. It will not be possible to encapsulate all the ethical dilemmas that may arise, but it will demonstrate that you have thought about the issues and have some reference points for acting ethically in the field.

Indicate that you are working within the ethical guidelines (where they exist) of your department, profession or university.

( Pilot any potential methodological tools to ensure that questions are unobtrusive (though do not equate this with non-challenging) and culture, gender and age sensitive.

( In your ethical procedures indicate how you will maintain respect for persons while making re-search knowledge public. Include a consideration of issues such as non-coercion (do you require an opt-out clause?), potential benefit to participants (what might they gain from this research? What might they lose?) and potential harm (what might be the consequences and for whom?).

( Think through how and in what form you might report in-depth experiences of individuals and what rights you will give them in this process.

( Become familiar with any legislation that exists in relation to your topic and act within it.

( Decide what position you will adopt on informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity, control over data and access before publication. Decisions on these issues will to some extent be determined by the choice you make as to whether you prefer to be guided by an ethical tradition that favours universal laws and principles, one that is more relational and situation specific or one that is democratic in intent and/or participatory in pro-cess and outcome.

Stories from the Field

Heather Piper

The story told here – of a project commissioned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) – was chosen not only for the ethical issues it raised at the time but also after the research process was completed (Piper et al., 2001). In particular, this choice of project illustrates how it is not always possible or necessarily desirable to have a pre-prepared blueprint for ethical research practice. The example is one of situated ethics and ethical reflexivity – two concepts raised in the previous section – where ethical issues are considered to be a collaborative venture, to be resolved in a particular context at a particular time.

This research project attempted to identify why children harm animals in response to concern that such violence was apparently on the increase. The steering group comprised mainly colleagues from within the university (including teacher and social work educators) plus an RSPCA officer. During the planning stages many potential ethical problems were raised. Of particular concern was the proper response to young people stating they had harmed an animal because they had been, or were being, abused. This expectation stemmed from an assumption among some in the RSPCA and elsewhere, which resulted from research in America that supports this claim (Ressler et al., 1988). There was disagreement in the steering group about what the researchers should do if faced with such an admission. Most thought that children claiming they were being abused should be dealt with by following child protection procedures, that is reporting the claim to the relevant professional responsible, but one member differed and was quite adamant that all such information should be treated 6 E T H I C A L R E S P O N S I B I LI T Y I N S O C I A L R E S E A R C H

as confidential. This led to lengthy discussions where many previously hidden ethical differences emerged.

These included differing views on confidentiality if children divulged harming behaviour, safety issues, privileging children over animals and vice versa, and the differing professional socialization of teachers, social workers and RSPCA officers.

The issue was not resolved in one meeting. I consulted with members of the university ethics committee in an attempt to learn from the experien-ces of others. Searching the literature indicated that many others were similarly confused about this issue. The matter was finally resolved by preparing a briefing paper for wider circulation, identifying literature that indicated the reporting of abuse as a legal imperative, not just a moral or ethical one.

This allowed a way forward, even though not everyone was happy. We agreed that all interviews would begin with the statement ‘I can promise confidentiality on anything you may tell me except on anything that leads me to be concerned for your own or another’s safety, in which case I must do whatever is necessary to ensure that you or the person being harmed is protected.’ This example perhaps serves to demonstrate not only the difficulty in getting people with opposing views to agree, but also how once a resolution has been found, ethical issues generally become enshrined in law and therefore are no longer the subject of discussion (see Masson, 2000).

As it transpired, during the period of the research no child or young person made any claim that they had been harmed themselves. Thus in a sense the lengthy preparation for this eventuality had been unnecessary, although the issue clearly needed airing.

Perhaps significantly the main concerns of the RSPCA officer differed in certain respects from those of other contributors. She was more concerned with the researcher becoming aware of animal abuse but not reporting it to her. For her, this was a legal and moral imperative. Again a lengthy exchange took place. The RSPCA representative was finally per-suaded that it would be impossible to conduct research that asked children for examples of their harming behaviour towards animals, only to

In document Research Methods in the Social Sciences (Page 73-83)