Ethics of research

A biochemist cannot inject a serum into a human being unless it has been thoroughly tested. To do otherwise would be both unethical and ille­gal. Sociologists must also abide by certain speci­fic standards in conducting research—a code of ethics. The professional society of the discipline, the American Sociological Association, first published the Code of Professional Ethics in 1971 (most recently revised in 1984), which put forth the following basic principles:

1 Maintain objectivity and integrity in research.

2 Respect the subject's right to privacy and dig­nity.

3 Protect subjects from personal harm.

4 Preserve confidentiality.

5 Acknowledge research collaboration and as­sistance.

6 Disclose all sources of financial support.

On the surface, these principles probably seem quite clear-cut. It may be difficult to imagine how they could lead to any disagreement or contro­versy. However, many delicate ethical questions cannot be resolved simply by reading the six points above. For example, should a sociologist engaged in participant-observation research al­ways protect the confidentiality of subjects? What if the subjects are members of a religious cult al­legedly engaged in unethical and possibly illegal activities? In Box 2-4 (page 51), we consider this sensitive issue by examining the views of one soci­ologist who studied a highly controversial reli­gious group (see also S. Heller, 1987; Shupe and Bromley, 1980a).

In an important 1984 decision, a federal dis­trict court judge held that the research notes of a social scientist should be recognized as confiden­tial and protected under the law. Mario Brajuha, a graduate student in sociology, was working as a waiter and interviewing coworkers for a study of restaurants in the United States. After a suspi­cious fire took place, he agreed to testify before a grand jury but refused to provide them with his notes, insisting that he must maintain his pro­mise of confidentiality to his interview subjects. Agreeing with Brajuha's position, Judge Jack B. Weinstein ruled: "Serious scholars are entitled to the same protection as journalists. Affording social scientists protected freedom is essential if we are to understand how our own and other societies operate" (COSSA, 1984:3).

The judge's ruling was subsequently over­turned by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which held that the case needed to be retried. Eventually, the prosecutors agreed to drop the case against Brajuha if he submitted that portion of his re­search which he judged not to be confidential. While this case did not fully resolve a scholar's right to maintain control over research notes—or even clarify who is considered to be a researcher or a serious scholar by a court of law—there is reason to be pleased that there was some recog­nition of the privileged relationship between researchers and their subjects (Brajuha and Hallowell, 1986).

Дата добавления: 2015-08-27