Due to the fact that
ethics are not concrete in their definition, nor are they universally
interchangeable, is can be quite difficult to clearly state what it means to be
ethical. Furthermore what can be even
more of a challenge is getting others to conform to a given definition of
ethics. The reason for this is that ethics differ from group to group, culture
to culture; for instance many vegetarians reject the idea of utilitarianism believing
that it is unethical to kill another being, were as the utilitarian such as Jeremy
Bentham and James Mill would argue that all action (including the slaughter of
animals for consumption) should be undertaken for the greater good and
happiness of the majority (Ball, 2010) . What is almost universal is that sanctity of
human life; most societies deem it unethical to take the life of human without
a ‘just’ cause (Singer, 1991) . Again the term ‘just’ is also problematic, in
that who dictates what is ‘just’. Is it
the church, the state, science, the wealthy, the Monarch? However decides one
thing is for certain, there will always be someone who contests the validity of
that particular definition of just.
Social research
ethics differ slightly, in that the boundaries are not as easy to define, it is
not as simple as is it right to kill for food or not. Quite often writer from the same group and
society will differ in what they feel is ethical (Bryman, 2008) . That said whilst
there are differing opinions within the field of social research, most of these
opinions gravitate around the same age old arguments. Listed below are some of the key ethical
topics of concern
Harm to participant: Is there a chance that the information obtained
whilst doing a piece of research likely to cause any form of harm to the
participant(s) of the research, furthermore is the outcome of the study likely
to inform decisions that may lead to the harm of a person(s). In harm it is meant, physical, mental,
reputational, financial, developmental (Bryman, 2008) and or including
subjects being made to engage in or act out reprehensible acts (Diener and
Crandall, cited in Bryman, 2008).
Informed consent (or
lack of): According to Bryman, the topic of consent is the
most heated debate to be had in the field of social research. He argues that the main point of contention
is the area of social research that is known as ‘covert’ or ‘disguised’
observation (Bryman, 2008) . Covert observation comes in two forms, there
is covert participation observation and there is ‘simple or contrived
observation’. The first term refers to
research that is undertaken without the knowledge of the person(s) that is the
focus of the research, and the latter term refers to the researcher’s identity
or intention being withheld from the research subject(s). In both cases the issue has to do with the
lack of informed consent, as according to the BSA (British Sociological Association)
…covert methods
violate the principles of informed consent and may invade the privacy of those
being studied… (BSA, 2002)
Invasion of Privacy:
Although Bryman has highlighted informed consent and invasion of privacy as two
separate topics of concern, the boundaries between two are somewhat
blurred. The only real difference
between the two would be that the research participant may have given their
consent to an interview, or to partake in a particular piece of research, but
they may have done so with conditions, such as the right to not answer certain
questions, or they may have requested that their identity be kept
anonymous. If the researcher violates
the agreed boundaries then they could be in danger of violating the
participant(s)’s privacy (Bryman, 2008) .
Deception: This
topic needs little explanation as the definition speaks for itself. Deception within social research occurs when
the researcher presents their research to be something other than what it
actually is.
There are many
reasons as to why the above mentioned are ethically debated, although the most
obvious common denominator is the potential harm that may arise to a person(s)
if some form of ethical consideration in not under taken when considering a
research proposal. As to whether or not
the above mentioned topics should be considered under an ethical framework,
well The European Convention on Human Rights article 8 speaks for itself…
ARTICLE 8
1. Everyone
has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There
shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others. (CouncilofEurope, 2010)
Social research
associations that dictate ethical boundaries:
British Sociological
Association (BSA), statement of Ethical Practice (March 2002):
Social Research Association (SRA),
Ethical Guidelines:
British Psychological Society (BPS),
Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines:
American Sociological Association
(ASA), Code of Ethics:
Bibliography:
Ball, T., 2010. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. [Online]
Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james-mill/
[Accessed 16 May 2013].
Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james-mill/
[Accessed 16 May 2013].
Bryman, A., 2008. Socail
Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BSA, 2002. Statement
of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association. [Online]
Available at: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/about/equality/statement-of-ethical-practice.aspx#_cov
[Accessed 16 May 2013].
Available at: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/about/equality/statement-of-ethical-practice.aspx#_cov
[Accessed 16 May 2013].
CouncilofEurope, 2010. Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by
Protocols No. 11 and No. 14. [Online]
Available at: http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
[Accessed 16 May 2013].
Available at: http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
[Accessed 16 May 2013].
Singer, P., 1991. Practical
Ethics. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skeptics, C., n.d. UTILITARIANISM:
the ethical theory for all times.. [Online]
Available at: http://www.skeptically.org/utilitarianismtheethicaltheoryforalltimes/id7.html
[Accessed 16 May 2013].
Available at: http://www.skeptically.org/utilitarianismtheethicaltheoryforalltimes/id7.html
[Accessed 16 May 2013].
