As social researchers, our concerns are with the things that make up the social world: the people and organisations that form society, and the structures within which these operate. With this in mind, it is important to recognise the place that politics and values have for both the participants of our research, and the agencies with which these people are connected. When considering research participants, we must recognise that:
People who are the objects of research interest – by funders, policy makers and researchers – are predominantly members of socially disadvantaged groups.
Advantaged groups, by their nature, are not commonly available for critical scrutiny; they are protected from research by powerful majority interests. But other groups of people come into designation as problems, as threats to the social order, so warranting intervention to restore harmony; or they are variously iden- tified as socially, economically or politically disadvantaged and in need of help or redress. (Hood et al. 1999, p.1)
In these ‘problem’ or ‘disadvantaged’ groups, we might place such people as offenders, the unemployed, teenage mothers, children, ethnic minority groups, the disabled, and so forth. Such generalisation about these groups being either prob- lematic or disadvantaged may seem somewhat crude, until we consider the agen- cies that exist to service these groups. The probation service exists to ‘deal’ with offenders by assisting their transition back into society. Teenage mothers receive extra advice and guidance from social services based on the particular circum- stances of being a young mother, not usually afforded to older women. Schools are a dominant force in the lives of children, and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate oversees issues which concern those seeking British citizenship.
There is an assumption underpinning these agencies’ existence that the people that use their services are in need of help. The position the agencies hold, as givers of support and guidance, regardless of how well intentioned they may be, is one of power. There is a reliance upon these agencies by the vulnerable people they are set up to help, and this is a particular kind of relationship which we must be aware of when carrying out research with such groups.
When researching vulnerable people, it is often such agencies that we call upon in order to access our research participants. In doing so, we are making use of a gatekeeper, upon whom our participants depend. If we were to carry out research on homeless people, we may wish to access our participants through a housing association which provides beds in hostels, food, and support to help people find homes. This is a useful way of gaining access to an otherwise hidden group of people, and the opportunities that it may open up through snowball sampling are good reasons to use this pathway. However, when an agency such as this is acting as an intermediary between the researcher and the participant, certain effects can occur as a result of the dependency the participant has on the agency.
Firstly, participants may feel an obligation to take part in the research. If approached to take part via the agency which offers them support, they may find it difficult to resist, whatever reservations they may have. This can be particularly problematic if incentives are offered, such as giving food vouchers to homeless people in return for their participation. This is, of course, true of any incentives regardless of the involvement of an external agency. There may be instances when such incentives are not so visible, however. If research was being carried out involv- ing unemployed people, taking part in a series of interviews might be considered to demonstrate willingness to embark on voluntary projects in order to gain expe- rience. The individual may then be looked upon more favourably as taking a proac- tive approach to finding work, which in turn might result in more lenient treatment by agencies such as the employment services. This indirect type of reward for par- ticipating in research is embedded in the nature of the relationship of dependency vulnerable people can have on external agencies.
Having accessed our participants through an agency we must ask ourselves how the participants were chosen. One of the consequences of using gatekeepers to gain access to research participants is the possibility of losing control over the sam- pling strategy. Participants may be chosen because they are known to view the agency in a positive light, and so it is anticipated that this will be reflected in the research. Even if this is not the case, participants may feel inclined to give a posi- tive account of the services of the agency. One way around this is simply not to include anything in our research objectives which directly deals with the services of the agency. In practice, however, this is difficult to achieve, since the agency will play such a central role in the lives of our participants. It is difficult to conceive of a research project involving children that did not tackle the issue of school at some point in one form or another, or research with offenders that did not deal with the probation service in some way.
There may be situations where access to participants via an agency is closely monitored beyond the sampling stage. Imagine we wanted to carry out a series of interviews with patients in a psychiatric hospital. We may be allowed access to such individuals on the condition that a nurse is present during the interviews. This has perfectly good reasoning behind it, in that should the participant become upset or uncomfortable during the interview, the nurse, being a professional and having built up a level of trust with the patients, would be in the best position to reassure the participant. The very presence of agency figures in the interview situation will, however, have an effect on the dynamics of the interview, and adds another element which needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the data. The inter- viewee may feel unable to divulge certain feelings or views in such a situation.
Ironically, the presence of agency representatives during data collection is usually in response to ethical concerns about harm to participants or researcher. However, this very presence can introduce power relations between participant and agency which may influence participants in unseen ways.
If such power relations are unseen, and manifest themselves in a dependency of participant on agency, how can we as researchers account for them? Careful
consideration of the way power is exerted over vulnerable individuals by agencies is required if we are to understand fully the dynamics of such relations. May suggests that:
The definition that there exists a problem will often depend on the relative power that the people who define the social problem have over those who are defined ...
Given these factors, rather than simply accepting given definitions, it is equally valid to examine the process through which a phenomenon became defined as a problem in terms of the power of social groups. (2001, p.52)
When carrying out research with vulnerable individuals, it is necessary to be aware that what they tell us may be affected by social norms which have been established by agencies in positions of power. Given that this may be the case, it is important, as May suggests, to examine how phenomena become labelled as problems. In a school where much emphasis is placed on academic achievement in such subjects as maths and science, a child who excels in creative arts, but lacks interest in the sci- ences, could be labelled as a failure. The child, being powerless against the school as agency, is not in a position to argue for the various merits of the arts, but perhaps shows frustration and disaffection in a tendency for truancy from maths and science classes.
It is easy to see how this chain of circumstances quickly takes on the definition of a ‘problem’. If we are to understand the ways in which such problems are defined, we need to scrutinise the relationship between individuals and agencies.
This is a form of reflexivity (see Chapter 7 for a further exploration of this term).
Rather than reflecting on one’s own role as researcher and our own relationship with research participants, we need to reflect on the presence of other external factors which may introduce imbalances of power into the research scenario.
Reflexivity is a key analytical tool for understanding how different power rela- tions exist, so that our interpretations of data can take these into account. Failure to reflect on differences between the cultural norms of researcher and participant can lead to misrepresentation. This was particularly evident in the work of Hans Eysenck’s studies of intelligence (1971). The quantitative study made use of intelli- gence quotient (IQ) measures in order to test a hypothesis that intelligence was linked to race. The conclusions, which have since come up against much criticism, suggested that intelligence was linked to race, with white individuals demonstrat- ing higher IQ levels than black and Hispanic people. Many of the measures used for the IQ tests made references to ideas which were firmly situated within white, western cultural norms, thereby discriminating against the participants from other cultures.
Quantitative approaches are often defended for being value free and objective, although in the case of Eysenck’s study, this was clearly not the case. With qualita- tive research approaches, which tend to be far more value laden, it is even more important that we reflect on our own cultural norms and our relative power in rela- tion to our participants. In doing so, it is hoped that we might minimise the prob- lems brought about by power imbalance and misrepresentation.
SUMMARY
As we have seen in this chapter, ethical problems can relate to both the subject matter of the research and the conduct of the research – whatis researched and howit is done. There are many issues that need to be addressed if we are to ensure that we produce an ethically sound research design, as well as one that is
intellectually coherent and compelling.
While it is very difficult to anticipate allthat may happen during the execution of a research project, the sensitive and intelligent researcher is charged with thinking through all of the possible areas in which ethics mayimpinge on the research. This is something that should be done during the initial planning stages when the research project is first articulated and considered in detail.
Where possible, ethical issues should be identified and worked through, weighing the costs and benefits of particular courses of action. In this respect, Denzin (1989) emphasises that ethical considerations ought to be interwoven throughout every step of the methodology and should not be pigeon-holed – confined to a particular section of the research strategy or considered as an afterthought. However, it is evidently the case that, if done conscientiously,
‘ethical research takes longer to complete, costs more money, is more complicated, and is more likely to be terminated before completion’ (Neuman 2000, p.444).
We have also seen that there is a heated debate concerning ethical issues in research, one that is inextricably linked with the question of power and politics in the research process. The ethical implications of some of the celebrated cases that we have reviewed in this chapter, such as Humphreys (1970) and Reiss (1971), tend to be viewed differently depending on the contrasting levels of power that reside in those who have been deceived.
It is also the case that the political values of individual researchers are likely to impact upon the judgement that is made concerning what is acceptable behaviour when dealing with such groups or organisations:
The specific circumstances of a research project and the moral and political values of the researcher will inevitably have a powerful effect on the ethical stance that is taken. (O’Connell Davidson and Layder 1994, p.58)
As such, some researchers have argued that it is not possible to define a set of universally acceptable ethical principles that can guide all those who engage in research, motivated by disparate interests and viewing the social world from many different perspectives.
Many of the ethical issues that we have reviewed raise extremely complex questions that demand careful consideration of both context and principle. In reality, the literature concerning research ethics does not provide clear-cut answers to many of the ethical dilemmas that researchers will confront in the course of their research.
This is the case, for example, when the researcher is confronted with making the ‘right’ choice between the confidentiality assured to the participants and
issues of legality. Such dilemmas that face researchers in the field will ultimately need to be resolved in the process of carrying out research, balancing the search for knowledge against a commitment to ethical research.
When embarking upon research it is important to recognise other agencies that are at work which may affect participants. While an ethical code of practice provides good guidelines for how researchers can protect themselves and their participants, there will always be other factors outside the control of the
researcher which need to be considered. Pressures upon participants to take part in research can lead to invalidating the research findings, as can a feeling of insubordination during the research process. Careful choice of methods which involve participants more directly in the research process can help to overcome this problem, at least in part.
When interpreting data, it is important to be aware of cultural norms which may affect how people’s experiences are presented. This is particularly problematic when the researcher is dealing with unfamiliar cultures or organisations. In order to ensure validity in the research, great care must be taken in presenting a true and accurate reading of the data, in order to avoid misrepresentation.
While the literature on ethics may fall short on ready-made answers, it does act as a guide, steering a path through the complex problems and issues that arise in the process of doing research. In this respect, researchers are advised of certain fundamental safeguards against the practice of unethical research:
• That the bounds of the research are negotiated with their research participants.
• That they safeguard the privacy and identity of their research participants and settings.
• That they ensure that their research participants do not suffer harm or embarrassment from the research.
• That they carry out their research in a manner that will not preclude further/future academic research.
Chapter research task
Take the code of ethics for the professional association that is most appropriate for your research. If in any doubt, use the Ethical Guidelines of the SRA. Try and think of research examples where deception might be justified or warranted in gaining data. Are there areas where some measure of deception is justified in gaining data?
Are there institutions that deserve what they get; that is, where devious means are legitimate in exposing ‘bad’ practices? Are codes
of practice too limiting? If so, how might they be modified? Are there any issues/organisations/cultures that you would never research on ethical grounds because to do so would make you feel that you were giving them some sort of credence?
RECOMMENDED READING
Barnes, J. 1979.Who Should Know What? Social Science, Privacy and Ethics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bryman, A. 2001.Social Research Methods. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bulmer, M. (ed.) 1982.Social Research Ethics. London:
Macmillan.
Diener, E. and Crandall, R. 1978.Ethics in Social and Behavioural Research. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Finch, J. 1993. ‘It’s Great to Have Someone to Talk to’:
Ethics and Politics of Interviewing Women. In:
M. Hammersley (ed.), Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: Sage. pp.166–80.
Homan, R. 1991.The Ethics of Social Research. London:
Longman.
May, T. 2001.Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.
pp.53–62.
Punch, M. 1998. Politics and Ethics in Qualitative Research. In: N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. London: Sage. pp.156–84.
Social Research Association, 2003.Ethical Guidelines [online]. Available at
<http://www.the-sra.org.uk/ethics03.pdf> (Accessed 23 February 2005).