RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

VOICES OF EXPERIENCE 61
maintaining the privacy of participants
through the use of aggregated or anonymised
data.
While some of these are uncontentious, others in
this list are debatable, and researchers will need to
be able to justify the decision that they reach.
Absolutist and relativist ethics
The second source of tension in this context is
that generated by the competing absolutist and
relativist positions. The absolutist view holds that
clear, set principles should guide the researchers
in their work and that these should determine
what ought and what ought not to be done
(see Box 2.6). To have taken a wholly absolutist
stance, for example, in the case of the Stanford
Prison Experiment (see Chapter 21), where the
researchers studied interpersonal dynamics in a
simulated prison, would have meant that the
experiment should not have taken place at all
or that it should have been terminated well before
the sixth day. Zimbardo (1984) has stated that the
absolutist ethical position, in which it is unjustified
to induce any human suffering, would bring about
the end of much psychological or medical research,
regardless of its possible benefits to society.
Box 2.6
Absolute ethical principles in social research
Ethics embody individual and communal codes of
conduct based upon a set of explicit or implicit principles
and which may be abstract and impersonal or concrete
and personal. Ethics can be ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’.
When behaviour is guided by absolute ethical standards,
ahigher-ordermoralprincipleisinvokedwhichdoes
not vary with regard to the situation in hand. Such
absolutist ethics permit no degree of freedom for
ends to justify means or for any beneficial or positive
outcomes to justify occasions where the principle is
suspended, altered or diluted, i.e. there are no special
or extenuating circumstances whichcanbeconsidered
as justifying a departure from, or modification to, the
ethical standard.
Source:adaptedfromZimbardo1984
By this absolute principle, the Stanford Prison
Experiment must be regarded as unethical because
the participants suffered considerably.
In absolutist principles – ‘duty ethics of principles’
(Edwards and Mauthner 2002: 20), a
deontological model – research is governed by universal
precepts such as justice, honesty and respect
(among others). In the ‘utilitarian ethics of consequences’
(p. 20) ethical research is judged in
terms of its consequences, e.g. increased knowledge,
benefit for many.
Those who hold a relativist position would argue
that there can be no absolute guidelines and that
ethical considerations will arise from the very
nature of the particular research being pursued
at the time: situation determines behaviour.
This underlines the significance of ‘situated
ethics’ (Simons and Usher 2000), where overall
guidelines may offer little help when confronted
with a very specific situation.
There are some contexts, however, where
neither the absolutist nor the relativist position
is clear cut. Writing of the application of the
principle of informed consent with respect to life
history studies, Plummer (1983) says:
Both sides have a weakness. If, for instance, as the
absolutists usually insist, there should be informed
consent, it may leave relatively privileged groups
under-researched (since they will say ‘no’) and
underprivileged groups over-researched (they have
nothing to lose and say ‘yes’ in hope). If the individual
conscience is the guide, as the relativists insist,
the door is wide open for the unscrupulous–even
immoral–researcher.
(Plummer 1983)
He suggests that broad guidelines laid down by
professional bodies which offer the researcher
room for personal ethical choice are a way out
of the problem. We consider these later in this
chapter.
Voices of experience
Whatever the ethical stance one assumes and
no matter what forethought one brings to
bear on one’s work, there will always be
Chapter 2