Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Social Science Research Ethics For A Globalizing World
1 Social Science Research Ethics For A Globalizing World
1 Social Science Research Ethics For A Globalizing World
The word ‘ethics’ is derived from the Greek ethos, meaning a person’s char-
acter or disposition, whereas the related term ‘morality’ is derived from the
Latin moralis, meaning custom, manners or character (Kimmel, 2007: 5).
In general, philosophers have drawn a distinction between morals in terms
of concerns of right or wrong, ought or ought not, a good action or a bad
one and the term ‘ethical’ as often used to refer to rules of behavior or
conformity to a code or set of principles (Kimmel, 2007: 5). The systematic
study of ethics is linked to ancient Greek civilization, and it included both
the study of the underlying basis for shaping judgments in specific situations
of what constitutes appropriate conduct and the essence of the judgments
themselves (Preissle, 2008). Some scholars, however, prefer to use the term
‘ethics’ for the study of frameworks for judgment (e.g., consequentialism)
and to use the terms ‘morals’ and ‘morality’ for specific injunctions (e.g., do
no harm) (Preissle, 2008: 273). The distinction between ‘ethics’ and ‘moral-
ity’ is culture specific, as Europeans view it in terms of a binary opposition
between “right and wrong, good and bad and doing the right thing and
avoiding wrong action,” whereas the Chinese see it as balancing comple-
mentary or competing forces, such as the Chinese yin and yang (Preissle,
2008: 273). Florence Kellner has eloquently marked out the distinction
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
between the letter (codes) and the spirit (morality) and sees research as more
about morality than ethics (2002: 32).
Ethics are conceptualized in multifaceted ways: (1) Descriptive ethics pres-
ents the empirical dimensions of social sciences, which address the actual
behavior and the values that guide this behavior. (2) Normative ethics engages
with fundamental questions on the behavior of people that could be cate-
gorized as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behavior and the distinction between these two
domains of ethics’ ‘is’ and ‘ought’ sides of human behavior. (3) Metaethics
engages with reasoning of moral decisions and the characteristic of moral con-
duct. (4) Applied ethics is based on normative ethics, which forms the basis
for the resolution of moral questions. Social science research ethics is in the
domain of applied ethics (see Kitchener 2000; Kitchner and Kitchner 2009).
In addition, Kitchener and Kitchener (2009) have developed a five-level
model of ethics: the lowest level is of particular behavior (action) and
6 Keerty Nakray
ordinary moral judgment. The second level is that of ethical rules that gov-
ern the decisions and actions, and this is where the critical evaluative level
begins. The third level is ethical principles that include morals, rules and jus-
tification for their existence. The next level is that of ethical theory, which is
the traditional normative ethics that defines worthwhile behavior. The fifth
and final level is metaethics, which includes the meaning of ethics.
According to Preissle (2008), normative ethics form the basis for research
ethics and it also, within its ambit, further incorporates justice-based ethics,
duty-based or deontological ethics, consequence-based or utilitarian ethics
and virtue-based ethics. Justice-based ethics is an assimilation of human
rights and tenets of fairness to form the underlying framework related to the
treatment of all human beings. It is guided by Aristotelean thought, that is
that “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally” (Velasquez
et al., 1990). In modern societies, justice ethics is defined through statutory
agreements. Duty-based or deontological ethics is based on rules, duties and
obligations that humans have to their fellow humans, their communities and
Meta-Ethics
Ethical Theory
The concept of ‘consent’ can be traced back to Egyptian civilization but also
that of the Greeks and Romans. Documents have been found that show how
the doctor’s intervention had, to some extent at least, first to be approved
by the patient. Plato (law IV) had already foreseen the problems, the pro-
cedures and the modes of information that are, in synthesis, at the root of
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
the principles of the present formula of informed consent and correlated the
practice of the information and consensus with the quality and social posi-
tion of the patient (Mallardi, 2005). Similarly, the Hippocratic physician
was concerned with his own outcomes in terms of treating patients suc-
cessfully, with Christian religion adding the sacred dimensions of medicine
(Mallardi, 2005).
The early origins of the ethics codes for research are usually traced to the
period following the Second World War, as the Nazi’s doctors had conducted
medical experiments in concentration camps under the conditions of war
and genocide that were brought to light during the Nuremberg war crime
trials (see Table 1.1). The perils and horrors of the Nazi medical experimen-
tation resulted in Western powers initiating and developing the Nuremberg
Code, which brought forth the principle of ‘do no harm,’ which consti-
tutes the bulwark of bioethics followed by medical practitioners. Along with
Table 1.1 The Nuremberg Code
Tuskegee Syphilis Trials: In the early 1930s, the trials were undertaken under the
US Public Health Service (PHS), which began a study of the long-term effects
of untreated syphilis. For the purposes of the study, 399 African-American
men with syphilis from rural Alabama were enrolled without any consent
or knowledge of being enrolled for the study. In 1947, when penicillin was
invented, it was deliberately not provided to these men, and researchers
continued with their research on long-term consequences. The findings of
the study were published in several journals, and it was only in 1972 that a
newspaper reporter exposed it to the wider public. The researchers had made
conscious efforts to ensure that these research participants did not see a doctor
outside of the study (Reverby, 2008). By this time, over two-thirds of the men
had died from syphilis or syphilis-related complications. In 1997, President
Bill Clinton apologized to the six remaining men from the study and to all
African-Americans. Nearly forty years after the study ended and ten years after
the formal apology, “Tuskegee” still reminds some Black Americans of the
institutional racism deeply embedded in the health-care system and why medical
research should be accountable (Reverby, 2008).
Willowbrook Hepatatis Study (1963–1966): The Willowbrook State School in
Staten Island, New York, housed and cared for mentally disabled children.
Dr. Saul Krugman from the New York University School of Medicine and his
coworkers began conducting hepatitis studies there in 1955 and continued
hepatitis studies there in 1955 and for more than 15 years. The children from
the school were deliberately infected with hepatitis, as there was a tendency
among the children admitted to the school, therefore if infected under medical
supervision the intensity was likely to be less. The purposeful transmission
of the disease was questioned not only on ethical grounds but also on legal
grounds. The researchers had obtained consent from the parents of each child.
Parents of children who participated early in the study gave consent after
receiving information provided by Willowbrook orally and in writing. One
of the key questions relates to appropriateness of parental consent when the
children received no therapeutic benefit for his or her involvement.
Mkultra Project (1953–64): The Central Intelligence Agency’s Project MKULTRA
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
(Continued )
14 Keerty Nakray
Table 1.2 (Continued)
police arrived. Humphreys recorded the license plates of men he had watched
over and also obtained their addresses through police department contacts.
Furthermore, he visited their homes pretending to undertake a market research
project. Humphreys study is highly criticized, as more than half of the men had
closeted their homosexuality.
can be achieved beyond the sense experience. The three theses that form
the bulwark of rationalism include: a) The Intuition/Deduction Thesis pro-
poses that certain hypothesis can be known through intuition, whereas
others have to be deduced through valid arguments. (b) The Innate Knowl-
edge Thesis supposes the existence of innate knowledge of propositions as
a priori, that is, independent of experience and some of these propositions
might come into consciousness through experiences but do not create new
knowledge. (c) The Innate Concept Thesis as some claim is subsumed within
the innate knowledge; that is, a particular instance of knowledge can be
innate only if concepts that comprise that proposition are innate. The com-
peting epistemology was empiricism; that is, all knowledge is a posteriori
dependent upon sense experience (Markie, 2004). For empiricists, such as
John Locke (1632–1704), human beings are born tabula rasa, that is, with a
‘clean slate.’ What we come to know is the result of our experience written
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
Table 1.3 Paradigms: Epistemology, Ontology, Methodology and Methods in Social Science Research
Positivism Ontology: Naïve Realism, Realism. Internal and Logical- Scientific- Extrinsic to the
There is a “real,” objective reality external deductive. report-aimed research design
that is knowable. validity. explanation, titled toward
Epistemology: Dualistic/Objectivist. Reliability and prediction researcher’s
The researcher can, and should, objectivity. and control. goals rather
avoid any bias or influence on the than participant
outcome. Results, if done well, are interests.
true. Informed consent
Methodology: Quantitative methods from research
based on hypothesis testing. participants,
Largely aimed at experiments or protection of
analysis of data. identity of
Methods: Quantitative analysis of participants and
survey or data. restricted access.
Post-positivism Ontology: Critical Realism—real Internal and Logical- Hypotheses Extrinsic to the
reality but only imperfectly and external deducive. tested research project.
probabilistically apprehensible. validity. through Informed
There is a “real,” objective reality, Reliability and could-be consent and
but humans cannot know it objectivity. facts or laws confidentiality.
for sure.
Epistemology: Modified Objectivist.
The goal is objectivity, but pure
objectivity is impossible. Results
are “probably” true.
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
Methodology: Includes both
qualitative and quantitative
methods. Seeks reduction of
bias through qualitative validity
techniques (e.g., triangulation)
Constructivist Ontology: Relativist.Local and Trustworthiness, Substantive- Interpretative Intrinsic to the
specific constructed and credibility, formal. case studies, research design
co-constructed realities. All truth transferability, ethnographic aimed toward
is “constructed” by humans confirmability. fiction. encouraging
and situated within a historical participation.
moment and social context. Critical ethics
Multiple meanings exist of or participatory
perhaps the same data. ethics.
Epistemology: Transactional/
subjectivist-created findings.
Researcher and participants are
linked in constructing knowledge
together.
Methodology: Hermeneutical/
Dialectic
Methods: Generally qualitative,
research through dialogue.
Critical Theory Ontology: Historical Realism. Virtual Historical Structural theory Qualitative Intrinsic to the
reality shaped by social, political, situatedness based in Reports research design
cultural, economic, ethnic and and erosion of understand-ing of that include aimed at
gender values crystallized over ignorance. power relations reflective mutual learning
time. Reality can be understood accounts of experience.
but only as constructed historically undertaking
and connected to power. research.
(Continued )
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
Table 1.3 (Continued)
Epistemology: Transactional/
subjectivist, value-mediated
findings. Knowledge is mediated
reflectively through the perspective
of the researcher.
Methodology: Dialogic/ Dialectical
Methods: Focused on investigator/
participant dialogue, uncovering
subjugated knowledge and linking
it to social critique
Advocacy/ Ontology: Varied Catalysts to bring Conscientization Communication Participation and
Participatory Epistemology: The distinction about social based toward of dispersal of
between researcher and researched change. individual and participatory research findings
breaks down. Insider knowledge community research are intrinsic to
highly valued. realization of to the such research.
Methods: Works with individuals oppression. stakeholders.
on empowerment and issues that
matter to them. Tends toward
social, cultural or political change
using any appropriate method.
Pragmatism Ontology: Varied. Pragmatists may Bring forth Awareness raising. Communication Ethics of impact
be less interested in what “truth” knowledge with making.
is and more interested in “what that could stakeholders.
works.” contribute to
social change.
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
Source: (Creswell, 2009; Guba and Lincoln, 1994: 193–97; 198–99; Lather, 1992)
20 Keerty Nakray
on that slate (Bernard, 2006). Hume’s (1711–1776) skepticism, based on
empiricist philosophy of knowledge, forms the basis of principles of modern
science. That is, we have to make improvements in existing knowledge, we
are moving toward truth but we can never reach a point to claim absolute
truth (Bernard, 2006). Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) questioned division
between a priori truths and a posteriori truths, he proposed the powerful
idea that a priori truths exist but our perception of truth is based on our
minds’ capabilities to organize sensory experience (Bernard, 2006).
The philosophical principles that formed the basis for scientific revolu-
tion in the 17th century propelled a greater interest in the application of
these principles toward understanding social problems. The leading French
thinker August Comte, founder of sociology, initiated the idea of a posi-
tivist approach to social sciences. Subsequently, Comte was followed by
another influential French scholar Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), whose
epoch-making work Suicide emphasized the role of social facts in shaping
everyday human behavior. Their leading counterparts in Germany, such as
G. F. W. Hegel (1770–1831), focused on dialectical views on varied social
processes, relationships, conflicts and contradictions (Ritzer and Goodman,
2004). On the contrary, Karl Marx focused solely on the dialectics of eco-
nomic relations, whereas Max Weber introduced verstehen in the context of
study of society, and he understood human motivations as being the result
of a complex juxtaposition of varied forces, including religion, capitalism,
bureaucracy and industrialism. Foucault provided a radical departure from
these perspectives, focusing on power as emerging from various sources to
shape the experiences of the modern human being. Feminist thinking led
to paradigm shifts in the social sciences, which was otherwise dominated
by white, middle-class thinkers who did little to capture women’s experi-
ences. The purpose of feminist research is to present women’s everyday life
experiences as valuable sources of knowledge toward understanding power
hierarchies in the society (Campbell and Wasco, 2000: 783).
Social science research is based on the paradigm that is defined by social
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
fering and oppression. Being critical requires a radical ethics, an ethics that
is always/already concerned about power and oppression, even as it avoids
constructing power as a new truth (Cannella and Lincoln, 2011: 81). In
their groundbreaking book Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis, Flyvb-
jerg, Landman and Schram questioned the possibility of social sciences on
the lines of natural sciences. They have viewed social science enquiry as a
site of contestations that involves human consciousness, volition, power
and reflexivity and attempts to build generalizable, predictive models such
as those for the natural world are misplaced and even futile (Flyvbjerg
et al., 2012: 1). In this context, ethical research assumes new meaning that
is one wherein researchers follow the ethics of care toward their partici-
pants and also to themselves through self-reflective research practice (Gibbs
et al., 2007).
Social Science Research Ethics for a Globalizing World 23
than research ethics” and that “ ‘Ethics’ has [. . .] collapsed into discourses
of institutional control.” Ethics are peripheral in research training and
usually the thrust of such training is on cleanly laid out methods that are
followed with a few practice sessions on databases and selected computer
software. Textbooks on fieldwork almost exclusively focus on gaining entry,
establishing rapport, building trust and so on, but critics have identified the
step-by-step plan or process as far too simplistic, because fieldwork appears
as a series of resolvable problems when in fact this is not the reality. Each
step in fieldwork is affected by the development of interpersonal contingen-
cies in the setting. Being in the subject’s world means being surrounded
by real-life contingencies as an enduring problem of fieldwork (Gubrium
and Holstein, 1997: 68–9). Contingencies make the researcher vulnerable
and may cause personal stress. The conditions of fieldwork (paradoxes,
24 Keerty Nakray
ambiguities and dilemmas) that are qualitative by way of contrast to quan-
titative research inquiry (positivistic-oriented and impersonal) and put the
researcher in direct contact with people to form various types of relation-
ships (power, personal and social) make fieldwork inherently problematic
(Fabian, 1991). Ethical and moral dilemmas are an occupational hazard of
fieldwork that the researcher cannot plan for, but nonetheless, these must
be addressed on the spot, by drawing on values, ideals, ethical codes, moral
and professional standards, intuition and emotions. Researchers require
sensitivity, authenticity, integrity and maturity, perhaps more than in previ-
ous moments of social science, because people are put in contact with others
in more intimate ways (Lincoln, 1995). With regard to sensitive issues, Alty
and Rodham (1998) provide three options: 1. Plan another project entirely.
2. Proceed with caution. 3. Publish and be damned.
Qualitative researchers are further constrained as they might not have
the same opportunities as quantitative researchers in research training, as
qualitative research tends to have greater variations owing to the nature of
research projects, motivating factors underlying these projects and ques-
tions surrounding the emotional and personal trajectories of the researchers.
Advanced qualitative research, such as doctoral research, is further impacted
by power equations between postgraduate students and their supervisors,
as students are dependent on their supervisors for all the preparations for
the research. Unless made aware of their moral and ethical responsibili-
ties, students might not actively seek to carry out their research consciously,
and the questions of ethics can be subsumed in the bureaucratic structure.
This can work against researchers assuming a high moral and ethical stance
(De Laine, 2000: 10). Hammersley (2009) has argued against presence of
ethical standards in social sciences, as it imposes arbitrary conditions on
research, which does not necessarily lead to qualitative improvements in the
insights generated from the study. The key to change, then, is to acknowl-
edge that when the ethics review process takes qualitative research seriously,
the whole research enterprise will stand to benefit (van den Hoonard, 2008).
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
REFERENCES
Alty, A. and Rodham, K. 1998. “The Ouch! Factor: Problems in Conducting Sensi-
tive Research.” Qualitative Health Research 8(2): 275–82.
Athanassoulis, N. 2014. Virtue Ethics. http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/ (accessed
January 1, 2014).
Boden, R. Epstein, D. and Latimer, J. 2009. “Accounting for Ethos or Programmes
for Conduct? The Brave New World of Research Ethics Committees.” The Socio-
logical Review 57(4): 727–49.
Bristow, W. 2010. Enlightenment. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/
(accessed January 1, 2014).
Campbell, R. and Wasco, S. 2000. “Feminist Approaches to Social Science: Epis-
temological and Methodological Tenets.” Journal of Community Psychology
28(6): 29–50.
Social Science Research Ethics for a Globalizing World 25
Cannella, G. and Lincoln, Y. 2011. “Ethics, Research Regulations, and Critical
Social Science.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N.
Lincoln and Y. Denzin, 81–91. Thousand Oaks, California : Sage publications.
Carlson, R. Boyd, K. and Webb, D. 2004. “The Revision of the Declaration of Hel-
sinki: Past, Present and Future.” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 57(6):
695–713.
Corbetta, P. 2003. Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. First ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collabora-
tion with the World Health Organization (WHO). 2002. International Ethics
Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS.
Creswell, J. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. First ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Darley, J. (1980) “The Importance of being earnest and ethical.” Contemporary
Psychology 25: 14-15.
De Laine, M. 2000. Fieldwork, Participation and Practice Ethics and in Qualitative
Research. First ed. London: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. 2005. “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of
Qualitative Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited
by N. Lincoln and Y. Denzin, 1–33. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fabian, J. 1991. “Dilemmas in Critical Anthropology.” In Constructing Knowl-
edge: Authority and Critique in Social Science, edited by L. Pels and P. Nencel,
180–202. London: Sage Publications.
Flyvbjerg, B. Landman, T. and Schram, S. 2012. Real Social Science: Applied Phro-
nesis. First ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, P. Costley, C. Armsby, P. and Trakakis, A. 2007. “Developing the Ethics of Worker-
Researchers Through Phronesis.” Teaching in Higher Education 12 (3): 365–75.
Gilligan, C. 2003. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Devel-
opment. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. First ed. California:
Sage Publications.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. 1994. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.”
In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln,
191–215. Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications.
Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method. First
ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hammersley, M. 2009. “Against the Ethicists: On the Evils of Ethical Regulations.”
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.