Following on from this thread, I too share the concerns that have been
raised about the new Ethics Guidelines and would add two further points:
First, there is no need to start a debate and the apparent divergence
between the institutionalisation of research ethics and the real and
everyday moral/ethical dilemmas which social researchers face. The
debate has been simmering away for a good few years now in many social
science journals and through conference presentations: see various
papers by Martyn Hammersley, Will van-den Hoonaard and myself amongst
others. We've also been running research training events at Lancaster
University where these issues have been very much at the fore (these
workshops have been regularly advertised via this list - the next is
happening June 23rd - 25th 2008 - see
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/ihr/events/esrcResearchTrainingProgramme.htm
l )
Secondly, given there has been this debate, and it remains on-going, it
seems a great shame and missed opportunity that the SPA Guidelines seem
to reflect more the concerns of the bio-medical disciplines than those
of the social sciences.
Carole
Professor Carole Truman
Professor of Health and Community Studies
School of Health and Social Sciences
University of Bolton
Deane Road
Bolton
BL3 5AB
UK
Telephone: (+44) 01204 903722
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Greener
Sent: 20 May 2008 19:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SPA draft guidelines on research ethics
Dear all,
I think Paul is making a number of important points
here, and am a little surprised about the lack of
comment about them - busy time of year with marking I
guess.
I've spent much of the last year teaching research
methods at Master's level for ESRC-funded students,
and have noticed how problematic teaching ethics has
become. Students appear to deal with guidelines on two
levels - one of which is where a number of generalised
principles are drawn up (informed consent, minimising
harm etc), but another in which they want to know how
to operationalise any of this in practical terms
whilst still doing worthwhile work.
We need to find ways of linking together these
principles, which I hope we can all agree upon in
general terms, with the practical needs of doing
research in the complex settings we work within. It is
necessary to provide a logic of justifiability for
what we do, and for us to be accountable for our
research decisions. Principles are important for us to
orient ourselves to, but equally because it is
necessary sometimes to critical engage with them. My
students regularly come up with several areas of
research that would be just about impossible without
being prepared to transgress some of the principles
listed below, and I think they are probably right.
What is important is thinking through how we can do
research in an ethical way. Paul's contribution to
this debate is an important one, and I hope can be the
start of a debate on these topics rather than
reproducing codes of ethics that appear, even to pg
students, to be so generalised as to be of little use
to them in practice.
Best regards,
Ian Greener
Reader in Applied Social Sciences/Social Policy,
School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University
--- Paul Spicker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The idea of putting together a code of ethics for
> social policy is, generally, welcome. It has become
> increasingly difficult to function in a contemporary
> research environment without being able to refer
> This draft, however, is seriously inadequate. In
> important respects, it is deeply, disturbingly,
> misconceived.
>
>
>
>
> The rights of participants
>
>
>
>
> The most obvious examples of the misplaced
> application of principles come from section B,
> "Obligations to research participants". The draft
> states that
>
>
>
> "There is a general duty on all researchers to
> ensure that individuals participate in research on
> the basis of freely given consent and that their
> participation does not expose them to harm of any
> kind. "
>
>
>
> This comes from the Nuremberg rules for medical
> intervention, by way of various sociological codes;
> it does not have much directly to do with Social
> Policy. Social policy research includes a wide
> range of evaluative activities where researchers
> work to assess the activity of service agencies and
> their operation. Of course this puts people at risk
> of harm: people's jobs, and sometimes their
> reputations, are on the line. If we were to accept
> this as an ethical principle, we could never do a
> service evaluation, or publish negative criticism
> evidenced by primary material.
>
>
>
> "Research participation should wherever possible be
> based on freely given informed consent. ... Consent
> to participate in a research study should be
> regarded as an on-going process and it should be
> made clear to participants that they are free to
> withdraw from the study or withhold information at
> any point."
>
>
>
> Social policy works extensively in the public
> sphere. People who are working in a public capacity
> - like politicians, public officials, office-holders
> and candidates for public office - are subject to
> public scrutiny, whether they welcome it or not.
> They do not necessarily have a right to withhold
> information. Most do not have the option to refuse
> to cooperate - any employee, and any public
> official, will be bound by the terms of their role.
> It is not unethical to use the Freedom of
> Information Act.
>
>
>
> "Information provided to a researcher in the
> context of a research study should be treated as
> confidential. Care should be taken at all stages of
> the research process not to compromise that
> confidentiality. Careful consideration should be
> given to how to maintain confidentiality and
> anonymity for research participants whose social
> position may make their identity hard to disguise."
>
>
>
>
> Social Policy has a critical function, which is
> essential to the functioning of any democractic
> governance. People who say things or do things in a
> public capacity must be publicly accountable for it.
> Public information cannot and must not be treated
> as if it was private information.
>
>
>
> Those who are interested in more fully developed
> arguments might want to read my paper on "Research
> without consent", Social Research Update 51,
> avaialble on-line at
> http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU51.pdf
>
>
>
> The rights of others
>
>
>
> The principles which have been included in the draft
> code are ill-considered and inappropriate. No less
> important, however, is the exclusion of other, far
> more important, ethical principles. I give a more
> detailed argument about the ethical principles we
> ought to consider in "The ethics of policy
> research", Evidence and Policy 2007 3(1) pp 99-118,
> but to give you a sense of what has been missed out,
> this short section comes from the second edition of
> my basic textbook, Social Policy (Policy Press
> 2008):
>
> "There are several principles which could be
> argued to be central to social policy research. The
> first set apply in general to all forms of public
> service. The most fundamental principle in research
> ethics is 'beneficence' - the question of who
> benefits, and who is harmed, by the research. Each
> person should be respected; that people should be
> treated as ends in themselves, rather than means;
> that their rights should be respected to the
> greatest degree possible, and that the work of the
> policy researcher should not lend itself to
> procedures which are offensive, degrading or
> detrimental to people's welfare.
>
> The second guiding principle is public
> accountability. Social policy research has a
> critical function. Public scrutiny is essential for
> democracy to work, and public accountability is
> itself an ethical principle. In a democracy, if
> someone is functioning in a public role, that person
> is subject to public examination and criticism in
> that role, whether they like it or not.
>
> Third, researchers should consider the
> implications of their actions, including
>
> *
> the implications for
> policy,
> *
> conformity with other
> moral codes (such as equality, opposition to racism
> or respect for humanity), and
> *
> a commitment to benefit
> the wider society."
>
> I think these are the central, most important
> principles governing research in Social Policy. If
> any of them is considered in the draft code,
> however, they are hard to spot.
>
>
>
>
> The implications of this code
>
>
>
>
> We need to be aware that any professional code will
> have implications for deliberations by Research
> Ethics Committees, and through them for the
> operation of research in practice. Unfortunately,
> the draft code of ethics which has been prepared
> does not seem to have been made with Social Policy
> research in mind. The other codes of ethics
> referred to certainly do not cover the field.
> Looking at other ethical guidance, like the codes
> from RESPECT or ASPA, could have helped. As it
> stands, this code runs the risk of discrediting and
> disqualifying many of the core activities in Social
> Policy. It is dangerous, and it needs to go back to
> the drawing board before it goes any further in this
> form.
>
> Paul Spicker
> Professor of Public Policy
> Centre for Public Policy and Management
> The Robert Gordon University
> Garthdee Road
> Aberdeen
> AB10 7QE
> Scotland
>
> Tel: +44 1224 26 3120
> Fax: + 44 1224 26 3434
>
> Website: http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy
> <http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social
> policy specialists on behalf of Karen Clarke
> Sent: Mon 19/05/2008 16:07
>
=== message truncated ===
|
