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):

http://www.britsoc.co.uk/about/equality/statement-of-ethical-practice.aspx

Social Research Association (SRA), Ethical Guidelines:

http://the-sra.org.uk/sra_resources/research-ethics/ethics-guidelines/

British Psychological Society (BPS), Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines:

http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/ethics-standards/ethics-standards

American Sociological Association (ASA), Code of Ethics:

http://www.asanet.org/about/ethics.cfm

 

 

Bibliography:

Ball, T., 2010. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online]
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].

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].

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].