Consider the unique ethical considerations that pertain to working with human research subjects
Understand the significance of fully informed consent and how to go about obtaining it
All scientists must consider the potential impacts of their work. Yet, what is arguably distinct about the social sciences in general and political science specifically is the central role that humans play in our studies. For instance, as Chapter 7 on qualitative methods demonstrates, approaches to political science rely heavily on interviewing human subjects, and in some instances, living with and significantly immersing oneself in their cultures, communities and ways of life. For instance, the relational character of participant observation often requires researchers to establish relationships with participants to co-create knowledge, rather than simply treating them as informants which are mined for academic data (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2011). Indeed, one of the rewarding and challenging aspects of conducting research in political science, perhaps unlike the study of atoms, rocks, or even the cosmos, is that our “subjects” are not only a means to testing theories, illuminating puzzles, and discovering new ones, but are also ends in themselves. Consequently, this requires striking a balance between one’s role as a researcher, an active participant in the phenomenon under investigation, a friend, and in certain instances, an adversary.
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Research participants from the Buklod Tao organization in Brgy by Steven Cauchon
To be sure, political research always entails an element of human costs, be it the time our participant gives us, reliving a private or traumatic event, or worse. This is true for both qualitative and quantitative approaches. That being said, research that minimizes such costs and
is conducted in an ethical fashion can help us better understand certain political phenomena that can lead to positive change for humanity, emancipation for the oppressed, and the empowering process of having one’s voice heard. And while there is no exact formula for assessing when our research ends justify our means, as a scientific community, we generally agree on a number of foundational principles and practices that assist us in making ethical research considerations and choices. For instance, we must consider to what extent our study might harm our subjects, be it physical, psychological, and emotional, intentional or not.
It is for this reason that we are expected to be forthcoming with our research participants and avoid misleading them as our research and its dissemination may put them in harm’s way. For example, given the personal and individual nature of qualitative data collection, the principle of “fully informed consent” is employed before participants engage in our study. There are a number of ways this can be done, but it is often useful to use a consent script that is read to all participants, which is useful to maintain a common standard for all participates and is often reviewed by an IRB before the study can even begin (See Image 9.2) . This script typically informs participants about the exact nature of the study, the potential implications for them, what will happen to them during this process, what will happen to the data they provide, how it will ultimately be used, and that they have the right at any time during the study to withdraw if they feel uncomfortable or are no longer willing to participate (Gibbs 2008).
Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Sample of ORB oral consent script by Steven Cauchon
Although a consent script gives the research and their home institution legal protection and provides the study’s participants with the information they need to decide if it is in their interest to proceed, this is no substitute for the trust often necessary for conducting qualitative research. For example, the use of participant observation and other forms of immersion research are frequently instrumental to not only learn, but also engender trust with human subjects. Even if a researcher has a profound research question, theory, or hypothesis, without access to the necessary archives, organizations, or communities, let alone the trust of key individuals, the project cannot proceed beyond the theoretical. However, once access and trust are established, multiple opportunities can emerge for one to learn from. Given that many of our initial hunches and subsequent questions we ask interviewees emerge from provisional inferences made before we conduct any fieldwork, participant observation can help us construct survey instruments that minimize the potential for confirmation bias and/or misrepresenting our study’s participants (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2011).
Moreover, establishing deep connections with human subjects can give researchers unique access and perception as an ‘insider,’ rather than an ‘outsider,’ with only scholarly interests. For example, when conducting qualitative interviews, surveys, or ethnography, we often have access to rich details of our participants’ lives, communities, etc. This richness often entails getting close to our participants and it is not uncommon for friendships and deep connections to grow. Indeed, one of the exciting aspects of this kind of research is that it is unpredictable and can lead to new discoveries that we did not originally anticipate. However, while this can lead to a deep understanding of the phenomena under investigation, we may be exposed to data that could be illegal, ethically dubious, or might put us or our participants in danger. With this in mind, the following section discusses how such access and trust entails a number of ethical considerations, such as being forthcoming about our interests and intentions as both scholar, participants, and who we are individually.
