RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

ETHICAL DILEMMAS 63
coercing them to participate
withholding information about the true nature
of the research
deceiving participants in other ways
inducing them to commit acts diminishing
their self-esteem
violating rights of self-determination (e.g. in
studies seeking to promote individual change)
exposing participants to physical or mental
stress
invading their privacy
withholding benefits from some participants
(e.g. in comparison groups)
not treating participants fairly, or with
consideration, or with respect.
Interestingly, Robson (1993) calls these ‘questionable
practices’ rather than areas to be proscribed,
indicating that they are not black and white, right
or wrong matters. They constitute the problem of
ethical dilemmas.
At the beginning of this chapter, we spoke of
the costs/benefits ratio. Frankfort-Nachmias and
Nachmias (1992) express this as a conflict between
two rights: the rights to conduct research in
order to gain knowledge versus the rights of
participants to self-determination, privacy and
dignity. This constitutes the fundamental ethical
dilemma of the social scientist for whom there
are no absolute right or wrong answers. Which
proposition is favoured, or how a balance between
the two is struck will depend very much on the
background, experience, and personal values of
the individual researcher. We examine here other
dilemmas that may confront investigators once
they have come to some accommodation with this
fundamental dilemma and decided to proceed with
their research.
Privacy
For the most part, individual ‘right to privacy’
is usually contrasted with public ‘right to
know’ (Pring 1984) and this has been defined
in the Ethical Guidelines for the Institutional Review
Committee for Research with Human Subjects as that
which
extends to all information relating to a person’s physical
and mental condition, personal circumstances
and social relationships which is not already in the
public domain. It gives to the individual or collectivity
the freedom to decide for themselves when and
where, in what circumstances and to what extent
their personal attitudes, opinions, habits, eccentricities,
doubts and fears are to be communicated to or
withheld from others.
(Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada 1981)
In the context of research, therefore, ‘right to
privacy’ may easily be violated during the course
of an investigation or denied after it has been
completed. At either point the participant is
vulnerable.
Privacy has been considered from three different
perspectives by Diener and Crandall (1978). These
are the sensitivity of the information being given,
the setting being observed, and dissemination
of information. Sensitivity of information refers
to how personal or potentially threatening the
information is that is being collected by the
researcher. Certain kinds of information are
more personal than others and may be more
threatening. According to a report by the
American Psychological Association (1973) for
example, ‘Religious preferences, sexual practices,
income, racial prejudices, and other personal
attributes such as intelligence, honesty, and
courage are more sensitive items than ‘‘name,
rank and serial number’’ ’. Thus, the greater the
sensitivity of the information, the more safeguards
are called for to protect the privacy of the
participants.
The setting being observed may vary from
very private to completely public. The home,
for example, is considered one of the most
private settings and intrusions into people’s homes
without their consent are forbidden by law.
Dissemination of information concerns the ability
to match personal information with the identity
of the research participants. Indeed, personal data
are defined at law as those data which uniquely
identify the individual providing them. When such
information is publicized with names through the
Chapter 2