ETHNICAL CONCERNS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH INTRODUCTION There has been increasing concern about the exploitation of subjects by researchers,

especially in biomedical research (when an experiment might cause permanent damage to the subjects health) and political research a government aims at greater control over its own citizens or those of another country). A general principle, the right to knowledge must be balanced by the rights to personal and community integrity and privacy. This places limits where, when and how research can be carried out. The main areas of concern vary from one type of research to another. They include weighing up the costs and benefits of a proposed project, obtaining the informed consent of those participating in the research and ensuring that the after-effects are not damaging to either individuals or the community. Although certain cases stand out as obviously morally wrong and illustrate the need for regulation, there is often considerable room for argument in this field. Good intentions can lead to disastrous outcomes, and perceived dangers may never arise. Thus, the best that can be the best decision, building reasonable safeguards into the project. An over concentration on possible risks could effectively prevent any research being done, which would deny the society the good effects which could stem for it. For clarity, it may be useful to attempt conceptualizing ethics, as we shall apply it in this chapter. In most dictionaries and in common usage, ethics is typically associated with morality and both concern matters of right and wrong. But what is right and what is wrong? What is the source of the distinction? For individuals, the sources vary. They may be religious, political ideologies, or the pragmatic observation of what seems to work and what does not.

Websters New World Dictionary is typical among dictionaries in defining ethical as conforming to the standards of conduct of a given profession or groups. Although the idea may frustrate those in search of moral absolutes, what we regard as morality and ethics in day-to-day life is a matter of agreement among members of a group. And, not surprisingly, different groups have agreed on different codes of conduct. If you are going to live in a particular society, then, it is extremely useful for you to know what that society considers, ethical and unethical. The same holds true for the social research community. Because of both the importance and the ambiguities of ethical issues in social research, most of the professional associations have created and published formal codes of conduct describing what is considered acceptable and unacceptable professional behaviour. As an illustration, the code of the American Sociological Association is printed as an appendix to this chapter. Be that as it may, the rest of this chapter shall include a discussion of the following. i. ii. iii. iv. v. I. Rationale for ethical concerns Deception Informed consent and privacy The use gift to facilitate rapport and response Anonymity and confidentiality RATIONALE FOR ETHICAL CONCERNS

The discussion of ethical problems tends to emphasize the dangers and ignore the benefits of research, this is a reaction to the easy assumption of the past that all knowledge is necessarily good and nothing should interfere with its acquisition. This convenient premises has justified asking questions which caused considerable anxiety, bribing clerks to obtain confidential paper to which the government has denied access and publishing detailed reports on individual and communities without attempting to disguise the source to protect participants. Complaints have led to increasing government control over

research we know from communications with colleagues in Kenya and pre-1993 Malawi that in some countries, no research project may be initiated without written permission from central and/or local government. In other like Nigeria, certain groups (such as civil servants and military personnel) may not be interviewed unless permission has been obtained. Elsewhere, universities exercise the doorkeeper role, vetting applications form abroad (and to a lesser extent from local academics). While some uses of this power are justified, others are not. Permission may be withheld because those in authority fear that the study will inspire demands for change or demonstrate the unpopularity of government policies. In one case, an applicant was told that no political questions could be asked because people might start talking about politics (Peil, 1982). Though the country was under military rule, it was obvious to any casual observer that politics were a common topic of conversation. Local university staff may oppose research by outsiders because they want to keep a field entirely to themselves, even when they have done no research in it so far and work is needed. Members of one department refused all outside requests on the grounds that an alternative ideology might shape the investigation. These problems arise most often in political research and local political scientists may face more obstruction than outsiders because they will remain in the country and could influence political events there. But some local councils resist any attempt to do research in their area because they do not want informed outsiders to know (and possibly report) what is going on there. In spite of misuse, the need for some control over research has become evident. The band wagon effect means that one research project often leads to many more, which go to the same areas (or firms or schools), ask much the same questions, and can easily become a nuisance. Peil (1982) reported that one

village near Accra was studied by four different projects in two years. High government officials and factory managers may find that a steady stream of interviewers takes a good deal of time. A country, or firm has the right to ask, Whats in it for us? and to refuse permission for yet another study which has more to do with the researchers career than with local needs and goals. Obikeze (1979:737-8) point out that interested government officers and sponsors have a right to be consulted at various stages of the project and that satisfactory relations can be maintained if this is done. Another rationale for ethical concern in social research is that, research should never injure the people being studied, regardless of whether they volunteer for the study. Perhaps, the clearest instance of this norm in practice concerns the revealing of information that would embarrass them or endangers their home life, friendships, jobs and so forth. It is possible for subjects of study to be harmed psychologically in the course of a study, however and the research must be aware of the often subtle dangers and guard against them. Very often, research subjects are asked to reveal deviant behaviour, attitudes, they feel are unpopular or demeaning personal characteristics such as low income, past criminal record and the like. Revealing such information is very likely to make them feel at least uncomfortable. (Babbie, E. 1979). Often social research projects force participants to face aspects of themselves that they do not normally consider. This can happen even when the information is not revealed directly to the researcher. In retrospect, a certain past behaviour (as with deviant sexual behaviour by a married person) may appear unjust and immoral. The project then, can be the source of a continuing, personal agony for the subject. Suppose, for example that the study concerns codes of ethical

conduct for policy makers and administrators the subject may being questioning his or her own morality, and that personal concern may last long after the research have been completed and reported. II. DECEPTION

In normal social intercourse a person who is totally honest is unbearable and socially immature. To a certain extent he, or she has to dissemble to protect his or her autonomy and to lubricate relations with others (Reisman, 1979). Someone who is consciously and egoistically mendacious or devious, however, breaks the strong social norm that we should present ourselves to people as we are and not misrepresent ourselves. In certain profession some lying may be acceptable and be seen as beneficial (Bok, 1978), but generally, someone caught in a lie is discredited. There are, of course, a number of occupations that routinely use lies, disguise and deception in their daily work, and these include prostitution, policing, espionage, and journalism. The key question is, should social science be among them? In terms of research, one can think of deception in relation to the research purpose, the researchers identity, the used of disguise, the nature of the methods, and in terms of broken promises to the researched. Overlying these matters are two related issue of vital significance in determining ones stance. First, are there areas where some measure of deception is justified in gaining data (while bearing in mind, and respecting, privacy, identification and confidentially)? And, second are there some institutions, which deserve what they get so that devious means are legitimate and crucially, it is out intention to expose them? There are a number of ways that research subjects may be deceived. One way is simply to study them without informing them of the fact or securing their

permission, as in the case of a participant observer who joins an organization merely to study the members. Many subjects might consider such behaviour unethical. Some persons might feel that such observation without permission is tantamount to trying. Others simply dislike being the objects of research, especially experiments. Some people apparently associate experimentation with laboratory animals such as rats or monkeys, and find experiments degrading or dehumanizing as if they reduce persons to the level of laboratory animals. A more common form of deception involves informing the subject that he or she is part of a study but deceiving him or her about its true nature. For example, mailed questionnaire features as length or type of postage have been labeled deceptive because the respondent thought the purpose of the study was purely informational, and did not know that he or she was involved in a study to compare different types of questionnaire (Bailey, 1982:436-7). In general, however deception is not needed in survey studied, and is rare. Deception is much more common in psychological and social psychological experiments, but its use varies greatly with the subject matter of the experiment. Striker (1967) studied four psychology journals for 1964 and found that out of 457 studied described in 390 articles, 88 or 19.3 percent used deception. The percentage using deception varied greatly by subject matter. Studied of opinion, attitudes, and values (survey research) as well as studies on hypnosis, response styles, and birth order had no deception at all, while conformity studies had 81.2 percent deception (13 out of 16), cognitive dissonance and balance theory studied had 72.2 percent deception (13 out of 18), and decision making studied had 50 percent deception (3 out of 6). Apparently, deception is more necessary for research in some substantive areas than in others. For example, where the benefits of knowledge outweigh, the

harms and where the harms have been minimized by following convention on confidentiality and identity. One need not be always brutally honest, direct, and explicit about ones research purpose. But should not normally engage in disguise. One should not steal documents. One should not directly lie to people and while one may disguise identity to a certain extent, one should not break premises made to people. Academics in weighing up the balancing edge between overt and covert and between opinions and being less than open should take into account the consequences for the subject, the profession and not least for themselves. But Kelman (1967, p2) thinks that some instances of deception are unnecessary. He says that deception has been turned into a game, often played with great virtuosity and skill. Most of the studies using deception are probably not dangerous to the subject and are of short duration so they should not have permanent effects. Still, no one likes to be deceived, made a fool of, or laughed at. Further, some experiments have been quite traumatic for the deceived subjects, and may well have caused permanent scars. For example, in one study cited by Kelman (1967, pp 4-5) subjected were given a drug that temporarily interrupted their breathing. Though not permanent or painful, subjects reported that to be temporarily unable to breathe was a horrific experience, and that all the subjects in the standard series thought they were dying Kelman (1967, p 4). In another study designed to produce stress (Kelman 1967, p. 5), a group of army recruits flying on an airplane were told that the plane was malfunction and would have to crash land. How can researchers get away with such potentially harmful deception? Their main justification seems to be that scientific investigation is governed by a different set of norms from those that govern everyday human interaction.

As Kelman says: In our other inter human relationships, most of us would never think of doing the kinds of things that we do to our subjects exposing others to lies and tricks, deliberately misleading them about the purpose of the interaction or withholding pertinent information, making premises or giving information that we intend to disregard (Kelman, 1967, p 5). In addition to the ethical questions it raises, deception also has methodological implications. The major reason for deceiving a subject about the real purpose of a study is a feeling that if the subject knows the purpose, it will be more difficult to fulfil the goals of the study. This may be because the subjects subconscious biases are aroused, or because he or she consciously manipulates the data for such reasons as to make himself and herself appear intelligent, to please the researcher, or perhaps to make the researcher appear incompetent. With all the views presented above, for and against deception in social research, one would want to canvass for a moderate measure of field-related deception, provided the interests of the subjects are protected and provided above all, that it produces good research! A number of academics however do take a very strong like in this area. The claim of Douglas that basically anything goes is firmly opposed by Kai Ericson (in Bulmer, 1982). Among others, he argue that, it is unethical deliberately to misrepresent our identity to gain entry into private domains otherwise denied to us. It is also unethical to misrepresent deliberately the character of our research. Bulmer (1982, p 217) supports the contention that the use of covert observation as a method is neither ethically justified, nor practically necessary, nor in the best interests of sociology as an academic pursuit. This does not meant that it is never justified, but its use requires most

careful consideration in the light of ethical and practical considerations. Bulmer (1982) then goes on usefully to summarize his position in this debate by arguing that the rights of subjects override the rights of science; that anonymity and confidentially are necessary but not sufficient for subjects of research (we cannot predict the consequences of publication); and that covert observation is harmful to subjects, researcher an the discipline. III. INFORMED CONSENT AND PRIVACY For ease of discussion and proper understanding, this section of the paper shall be discussed under separate sub-heads: Informed consent and invasion of privacy. (a) Informed Consent

This is probably the most common method in medical and social research. Informed consent essentially entails making the subject fully aware of the purpose of the study, its possible dangers, and the credentials of the researchers. The reader will recall that these are some of the basic elements of information contained in the covering letter or introductory statement accompanying a questionnaire. It has been traditional in survey research to give the potential respondent this information in order to induce him or her to participate in the study. However, if the respondent does participate he or she does so voluntarily and is not asked to sign a release, whereas in medical studies it is customary not only to inform the respondent but also to secure his or her written permission to conduct the study or operation. In order to give informed consent, participants need to be told something about the research project. They have a right to know (a) who is sponsoring the study (b) what area is being investigated (c) how much of their time it is likely to take, (d) whether the results will remain confidential, so that their answers cannot be traced back to them and (e) how the results will be used (Peli, 1982).

Several problem arise in providing this information. There are times when knowing the sponsor would so bias the answers as to render the project useless. A study of workers sponsored by the management, or by the union, would produce quite different answer than one sponsored by somebody seen as neutral, such as a university. In such a situation, it is necessary to assess whether the goals of the research make it ethical to say nothing about its sponsor, being sure that no harm will come to participants because of this omission. As in all other aspects of contact with participants, lies should be avoided, as in the long term they seriously interfere with the trust between researchers and the public which is essential for valid results. If knowing about the sponsorship could affect participants adversely, they must be told. This depends on the use the sponsor will make of the information and whether the answers of individual participants will be identifiable in the report. People may be quite willing to provide information on certain topics but prefer not to participate if other topics are involved. Thus, they want to know what the research is about. But, like sponsorship, some topics cannot easily be studied if people know in advance what you are looking for. If villagers know that the level of cooperative activity is being studied, their behaviour may change to what they think is expected of them, at least for the duration of the project. Thus, it is sometimes necessary to be somewhat ambiguous about what is being studied, or to use indirect measure, if the results are to be valid. Again, lies should be avoided, as people rather easily find out that your research interests are not what you said they were. But the topic can be introduced at an abstract or general level rather than specifying exactly what is wanted. With cooperative activity example, it would be more expedient to tell the respondent that our interest is in how people her get along with each other rather than stipulating that this is a study of family conflict (Peil, 1982).

(b)

Invasion of Privacy

The charge of invasion of privacy is most commonly made against survey research, but may also arise with observational studies, document studies, or experiments. What constitutes invasion of privacy is obviously very subjective. In general, any question that arouses feelings of anxiety or guilt in a respondent is an invasion of privacy. For example, in a February, 1995) Newsline programme on Nigerian Television Network respondents were asked whether if they have the opportunity of choosing their life partners again, they would choose their present partners. The first respondent, a lady took a long at the interviewer and without a uttering a word, walked away! From experience, marital issue are one of many topics which people prefer not to discuss with strangers; the researcher should be sure of necessity of the information to the project and minimal risks to the participant before including them and should not exert undue pressure on respondents to get answers. It is interesting to note that, some academics argue that these safeguards do not always apply to public figures. For example, Galliher draws up an alternative code that reverses some of the American Sociological Association (ASA) Ethical Code assumptions and proposals: Rule 3: When actors become involves in government and business or other organizations where they are accountable to the public, no right of privacy applies to conduct in such roles. Rule 5: The revelation of wrong doing in positions of public trust shall not be deemed confidential information within the meaning of this rule. (Galliher, 1982, p 162). This arises two issues, first, what obligations does the researcher have to the researched? And second, to what extent can public figures claim the same rights

of privacy as ordinary citizens? Excerpts from the code of Ethics of the American Sociological Association reproduced in the appendix to this chapter provides some direction as to the answers to these questions and the further issues that they raise. In general, Punch (1986) concluded, there is a strong feeling among fieldworkers that settings and respondents should not be identifiable in print and that they should not suffer harm or embarrassment as a consequent of the research. IV. THE USE OF GIFTS TO FACILITATE RAPPORT AND RESPONSE A related issue to the problem of ethics in social research is whether and when to use materials incentives or facilitation gifts to induce rapport with respondents in order to achieve one of the goals of surveys a high response rate. A part from the addition heavy financial cost it adds to fieldwork, the use of such incentives may be opposed on the ground that the induced high response rate may yield a different kind of sample composition and thus, somewhat different findings at the aggregate level from those that would be yielded by a survey that did not employ facilitation gift. This difference may be quite important in studies of health seeking disguise sexual and reproductive behaviour. On the other hand, we have observed that social researcher in Nigeria and Africa counties who favour the giving of material incentives to interviewees do so many on the ground that it represents a compensation for intending into the private life or for disrupting the normal work/leisure schedule of respondents especially for the poor who cannot afford to wait for the benefits of the research to procure to them. It is not uncommon in contemporary Nigeria

for promises to be made by research organizations to communities about facilities and projects which may never be fulfilled. On the whole, however, it would seen inadvisable to use incentives whenever it is suspected that such inducements may lead respondents to give the kind of responses they would not normally give to the questions posed. Sometimes, the rate of spontaneous non-response to a particular questions may itself constitute a research finding. V. ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

The clearest concern in the protection of the subjects interests and well-being is the protection of their identity, especially in survey research. If revealing their survey responses would injure them in any way, adherence to this norms becomes all the more important. Two techniques-anonymity and confidentiality assist a researcher in this regard, although the two are often confused. a. Anonymity A respondent may be considered anonymous when your as researcher cannot identify a given response with a given respondent. This means that an interview survey respondent can never be considered anonymous, since an interviewer collects the information from an identifiable respondent. (It is arevmed here that standard sampling methods are followed). An example of anonymity would be the mail survey (which is not too common in Nigeria) in which no identification numbers are put on the questionnaires before their return to the research office. b. Confidentiality

In a confidential survey, the researcher is able to identify a given persons responses but essentially promises not to do so publicly. In an interview survey, for example, the researcher would be in a position to make public the income

reported by a given respondent, but the respondent is assured that this will not be done. One can use a number of techniques to insure better performance on this guarantee. To begin, interviewers and other with access to respondents identifications should be trained in their ethical responsibilities. As soon as possible, all names and addresses should be removed from questionnaires and replaced by identification numbers. A master identification file should be created linking numbers to names to permit the later correction of missing or contradictory information, but this file should not be available except for legitimate purposes (Babbie, 1979). Whenever, a survey is confidential rather than anonymous, it is the responsibility of the researcher to make that fact clear to the respondent. The use of the term anonymous to mean confidential should never be tolerated. CONCLUSION Ethical issues arise in gaining access to information, in getting cooperation from participants and in the use which is made of the data collected. Social science research may be seen as an exchange economy: informants invest effort in providing information and take risks in giving confidence. They have a right to benefit in return, psychological if not material: fair, honest, treatment and accurate, responsible reporting. Whereas physical scientists work in the privacy of a laboratory, social scientists do much of their research in public, and the impression they make affects the cooperation given to those who come later. Therefore, unfulfilled promises, coercion and invasion of privacy are not only unethical but damage the credibility of innocent colleagues. Social science research has much to offer policy makers. To fulfil its promise, we must attend to our public image as well as to our research techniques.

REFERENCES Babbie, E. (1979) The practice of Social Research, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Bailey, K. (1982) Bok, S. (1978) Galliher, J. (1967) Methods of Social Research, New York: Free Press. Lying. New York: Pantheon. The Protection of Human Subjects: A re-examination of the professional code of ethics, pp 152-165 M. Bulmer Kelman (ed), Social Research Ethics, London Macmillan. Human Use of Human Subjects: The Problem of Deception Obikeze, D. (1979) in Social Psychological Experiments, Psychological Bulletin 67 (January): 1-11. A new approach to Social Research in Africa: the exchange process International Social Science Journal, 31: 732-40. Peil, M. (1982) Punch, M. (1986) Social Science Research Methods: An African Handbook, London: Hodder and Stoughton. The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork, Sage University Paper series on Qualitative Research Methods (Vol. 3) Beverly Hills, C.A: Sage. Reisman, M. (1979) Stricker, L. (1967) Folded Lies: New York: Free Press. The True Deceiver, Psychological Bulletin 68: 13-20.

Bulmer, M (ed) (1982) Social Research Ethics: London: Macmillan.

APPENDIX CODE OF ETHICS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 1. 2. Objectivity in Research In his research the Sociological Model maintain scientific objectivity Integrity in Research The sociologist should recognize his own limitations and when appropriate seek more expert assistance or decline to undertake research beyond his competence. He must not misrepresent his own abilities or the competence of his staff to conduct a particular research project. 3. Respect of the Research Subjects Rights to Privacy and Dignity- Every person is entitled to the right of privacy and dignity of treatment. The sociologist must respect these rights. 4. 5. Protection of subjects from Personal Harm All research should avoid causing personal harm to subjects used in research. Preservation of confidentiality of Research Data Confidential information provided by a research subject must be treated as such by the sociologist. Even though research information is not a privileged communication under the law the sociologist must, as far as possible, protect subjects and informants. Any promises made to such person must be honoured. However. Provided that he respects the assurances he has given his subjects, the sociologist has no obligation to withhold information of misconduct of individuals or organizations. 6. Presentation of Research Findings The sociologist must present his findings honestly and without distortion. There should be no omission of data from a research report which might significantly modify the interpretation of findings. 7. Misuse of Research Role The sociologist must not use his role as a cover to obtain information for other professional purposes.

8.

Acknowledgement of Research Collaboration and Assistance The sociologist must acknowledge the professional contributions or assistance of all persons who collaborated in the research.
Excerpted from Toward a code of Ethics for

Sociologists, The American Sociologist 3 (November, 1968): 318. 9. Disclosure of the Sources of Financial Support The Sociologist must report fully all sources of financial support in his research publications and any special relations to the sponsor that might affect the interpretations of the findings. 10. Distortion of Findings by Sponsor The Sociologist is obliged to clarify publicly any distortion by a sponsor or client of the findings of a research project in which he has participated. 11. Disassociation from Unethical Research Arrangements The Sociologist must not accept such grants, contracts, or research assignments as appear likely to require violation of the principles above, and must publicly terminate the work or formally disassociate himself from the research if he discovers such as violation and is unable to achieve its correction. 12. Interpretation of Ethical Principles When the meaning and application of these principles are unclear, the sociologist should seek the judgment of the relevant agency or committee designated by the American Sociologist Association. Such consultation, however, does not free the sociologist from his individual responsibility for decisions or from his accountability to the profession. 13. Applicability of Principles In the conduct of research the principles enunciated above should apply to research in any area either within or outside United States of America.