RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

ETHICAL DILEMMAS 65
unnamed data sheets. As they comment, ‘the very
impersonality of the process is a great advantage
ethically because it eliminates some of the negative
consequences of the invasion of privacy’ (Aronson
and Carlsmith 1969).
Confidentiality
The second way of protecting a participant’s right
to privacy is through the promise of confidentiality.
This means that although researchers know who
has provided the information or are able to identify
participants from the information given, they will
in no way make the connection known publicly;
the boundaries surrounding the shared secret will
be protected. The essence of the matter is the
extent to which investigators keep faith with
those who have helped them. It is generally at
the access stage or at the point where researchers
collect their data that they make their position
clear to the hosts and/or subjects. They will thus
be quite explicit in explaining to subjects what
the meaning and limits of confidentiality are in
relation to the particular research project. On the
whole, the more sensitive, intimate or discrediting
the information, the greater is the obligation on
the researcher’s part to make sure that guarantees
of confidentiality are carried out in spirit and letter.
Promises must be kept.
Kimmel (1988) notes that some potential
respondents in research on sensitive topics
will refuse to cooperate when an assurance of
confidentiality is weak, vague, not understood,
or thought likely to be breached. He concludes
that the usefulness of data in sensitive research
areas may be seriously affected by the researcher’s
inability to provide a credible promise of
confidentiality. Assurances do not appear to affect
cooperation rates in innocuous studies perhaps
because, as Kimmel suggests, there is expectation
on the part of most potential respondents that
confidentiality will be protected.
Anumberoftechniqueshavebeendeveloped
to allow public access to data and information
without confidentiality being betrayed. These
have been listed by Frankfort-Nachmias and
Nachmias (1992) as follows:
deletion of identifiers (for example, deleting
the names, addresses or other means of identification
from the data released on individuals)
crude report categories (for example, releasing
the year of birth rather than the specific date,
profession but not the speciality within that
profession, general information rather than
specific)
micro-aggregation (that is, the construction of
‘average persons’ from data on individuals and
the release of these data, rather than data on
individuals)
error inoculation (deliberately introducing
errors into individual records while leaving
the aggregate data unchanged).
Cooper and Schindler (2001: 117) suggest that
confidentiality can be protected by obtaining
signed statements indicating non-disclosure of
the research, restricting access to data which
identify respondents, seeking the approval of
the respondents before any disclosure about
respondents takes place, non-disclosure of data
(e.g. subsets that may be able to be combined to
identify an individual).
Betrayal
The term ‘betrayal’ is usually applied to those
occasions where data disclosed in confidence
are revealed publicly in such a way as to cause
embarrassment, anxiety or perhaps suffering to the
subject or participant disclosing the information.
It is a breach of trust, in contrast to confidentiality,
and is often a consequence of selfish motives
of either a personal or professional nature. As
Plummer (1983) comments, ‘in sociology, there
is something slightly awry when a sociologist can
enter a group and a person’s life for a lengthy
period, learn their most closely guarded secrets,
and then expose all in a critical light to the
public’ (see http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/
9780415368780 – Chapter 2, file 2.4. ppt).
One of the research methods that is perhaps
most vulnerable to betrayal is action research.
As Kelly (1989a) notes, this can produce several
ethical problems. She says that if we treat teachers
Chapter 2