14: Ethics in Social Research
- Page ID
- 127414
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)- Define ethics.
- Describe the tenets of ethics in research.
- Discuss the purpose of the IRB and professional ethics codes.
- Give an example of an ethical controversy.
Introduction
Ethics is the conformance to the standards of conduct of a given profession or group. Such standards are often defined at a disciplinary level through a professional code of conduct and sometimes enforced by university committees called Institutional Review Boards. Even if not explicitly specified, scientists are still expected to be aware of and abide by general agreements shared by the scientific community on what constitutes acceptable and non-acceptable behaviors in the professional conduct of science. For instance, scientists should not manipulate their data collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures in a way that contradicts the principles of science or the scientific method or advances their personal agenda.
Why is research ethics more critical today than ever before? Because the digital age has blurred the lines between "public" and "private" data. Researchers now have access to massive amounts of data from social media platforms, search engines, and tracking software, which can be manipulated in ways that violate human rights and privacy.
A prominent modern example of this occurred in 2014 when Facebook (now Meta) and academic researchers conducted a large-scale "Emotional Contagion" study. Without the explicit, informed consent of nearly 700,000 users, the company manipulated the algorithms of those users' news feeds to see if exposing them to more positive or negative posts would influence their own emotional state. While the researchers argued this was a natural extension of existing user agreements, the study sparked a massive global backlash regarding the ethical responsibility of researchers and tech corporations when experimenting on unsuspecting human subjects. You can read more about this controversy and the ongoing debate in the New York Times report, "Facebook Tinkers With Users’ Emotions in News Feed Experiment, Stirring Outcry."
Ethics is the moral distinction between right and wrong, and it is important to remember that what is unethical is not necessarily illegal. If a researcher’s conduct falls into the "gray zone" between ethics and law, they may not be legally culpable, but they risk being ostracized by the professional community, losing their research funding, and causing irreparable damage to their professional reputation. These ethical norms may vary across cultures.
Ethical Principles in Scientific Research
Some of the expected tenets of ethical behavior that are widely accepted within the scientific community are as follows:
1. Voluntary Participation and Harmlessness
Subjects in a research project must be aware that their participation in the study is voluntary, that they have the freedom to withdraw from the study at any time without any unfavorable consequences, and that they are not harmed as a result of their participation or non-participation in the project.
Historical violations of this principle have led to the strict guidelines we have today:
-
Nazi Medical Experiments: Forced medical experiments conducted by Nazi researchers on prisoners of war during World War II, as documented in the post-War Nuremberg Trials (originating the term “crimes against humanity”).
-
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments: Conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service during 1932-1972, nearly 400 impoverished African-American men suffering from syphilis were denied treatment even after penicillin was accepted as an effective cure. Subjects were instead presented with false treatments, such as spinal taps.
-
Stanford Prison Experiment: In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo recruited Stanford students and randomly assigned them to roles as prisoners or guards. When it became evident that student prisoners were suffering psychological damage as a result of their mock incarceration and student guards were exhibiting sadism, the experiment was terminated.
Today, all participants must receive and sign an informed consent form that clearly describes their right to not participate and their right to withdraw before their responses in the study can be recorded. In a medical study, this form must also specify any possible risks. For subjects under the age of 18, this form must be signed by their parent or legal guardian.
2. Anonymity and Confidentiality
To protect subjects’ interests and future well-being, their identity must be protected in a scientific study. This is done using the dual principles of anonymity and confidentiality.
| Protection | Definition | Example | Legal Standing |
| Anonymity | The researcher (or readers) cannot identify a given response with a specific respondent. | A mail survey with no tracking identification numbers. | Maximum protection; insulated from law enforcement tracking. |
| Confidentiality | The researcher can identify a person’s responses but promises not to divulge that person’s identity publicly. | Face-to-face interviews; longitudinal field surveys requiring matched data. | Weaker protection; data can potentially be subpoenaed by courts. |
The Modern Limits of Confidentiality
It is a common misconception that research data is protected by "privileged communication" in the same way as doctor-patient or attorney-client interactions. In reality, modern digital research is increasingly vulnerable to external demands for data.
-
The Rise of Administrative Subpoenas: Unlike traditional court-ordered warrants that require judicial oversight, administrative subpoenas are issued directly by government agencies. According to a 2025 report, major social media platforms now disclose user data in up to 82% of government requests. If a sociologist conducts research using digital platforms or SaaS tools (like Google Workspace), that data may be accessible to third parties, and recent legal precedents emphasize that using these "intermediary tools" can weaken claims of privacy or privilege.
-
The Digital Surveillance Risk: Today, researchers often mine "publicly available" social media data. However, there is a stark disconnect between users’ expectations of privacy and the reality of data collection. As documented in a 2024 study on the re-identification of social media data, even when datasets are "de-identified," the risk of re-identification is high because geolocation data or cross-platform activity can be combined to identify individuals.
-
Historical and Ongoing Precedents: The vulnerability of research data is not new but has intensified. In 1993, researchers like Rik Scarce faced jail time for refusing to divulge confidential sources, and the 1991 Exxon Valdez case demonstrated that even guaranteed confidentiality can be overturned by court subpoena.
For a deeper look at how government data access is expanding and the challenges it poses to privacy, you can review this reporting: From Criticism to Subpoena: Platforms Hand Over User Data to DHS as Government Access Expands.
Protecting Participants Today:
To mitigate these risks, researchers are encouraged to:
-
Apply De-identification: Minimize the collection of PII (Personally Identifiable Information) and destroy identifiers as soon as they are no longer necessary.
-
Use Certificates of Confidentiality: For sensitive research (e.g., criminal behavior, substance abuse), researchers should apply for a Certificate of Confidentiality from the NIH or other federal bodies, which provides legal protection against the compelled disclosure of identifiable research information.
-
Assume "Public" is Not "Anonymous": Treat all online user-generated data as private, even when it is technically "publicly accessible" on social media platforms.
3. Disclosure
Usually, researchers have an obligation to provide some information about their study to potential subjects before data collection (e.g., who is conducting the study, its purpose, and expected outcomes). However, in some cases, disclosing such information may potentially bias subjects’ responses.
If a study's true purpose cannot be revealed beforehand (such as in an experiment testing "groupthink"), it must be fully revealed in a debriefing session immediately following the data collection process, along with a list of potential risks or harm borne by the participant.
4. Analysis and Reporting
Researchers also have ethical obligations to the scientific community regarding how data is analyzed and reported.
-
Full Disclosure: Unexpected or negative findings should be fully disclosed, even if they cast doubt on the research design.
-
Honesty in Design: It is unethical to present findings discovered by chance as the product of deliberate design. Hypotheses should not be designed after the fact based on the results of data analysis.
-
Data Integrity: It is unethical to “carve” data into different segments to falsely prove hypotheses or to generate multiple papers claiming different data sets.
Science progresses through openness and honesty, and researchers best serve the scientific community by fully disclosing the problems with their research so others can learn from them.
Institutional Review Boards (IRB)
Research ethics in studies involving human subjects is governed in the United States by federal law. Any agency (like a university or hospital) that applies for federal funding to support its research must establish that it is in compliance with federal laws governing the rights and protection of human subjects.
This process is overseen by a panel of experts called an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB reviews all research proposals involving human subjects to ensure that the principles of voluntary participation, harmlessness, anonymity, and confidentiality are preserved and that risks are minimal.
The IRB approval process requires completing a structured application providing complete information about the research project, the researchers (principal investigators), and details on how the subjects’ rights will be protected. Data collection can commence only after the project is cleared by the IRB review committee.
Professional Code of Ethics
Most professional associations of researchers have established formal codes of conduct describing acceptable and unacceptable professional behavior. For example, the Association of Information Systems (AIS) code of conduct groups ethical violations into two categories:
-
Category I (Serious Transgressions): Includes plagiarism and falsification of data or research procedures, which may lead to expulsion, dismissal from employment, and fatal damage to professional reputation.
-
Category II (Less Serious Transgressions): Includes not respecting the rights of research subjects, misrepresenting the originality of projects, and using unpublished data without acknowledgment.
Though codes of ethics have not completely eliminated unethical behavior, they have helped clarify the boundaries of ethical behavior in the scientific community.
An Ethical Controversy: Humphreys' Tearoom Trade
Robert Allen “Laud” Humphreys is an American sociologist best known for his Ph.D. dissertation, Tearoom Trade, published in 1970. The book is an ethnographic account of anonymous male homosexual encounters in public toilets in parks, a practice known as “tea-rooming” in U.S. gay slang.
Humphreys was intrigued that the majority of participants were outwardly heterosexual men who lived conventional family lives. Typically, tearoom encounters involved three people: the two males engaging in a sexual act and a lookout person called a “watchqueen.” Because it was not otherwise possible to reach these subjects, Humphreys showed up at public toilets masquerading as a watch queen. As a participant observer, Humphreys was able to conduct field observations.
The Controversy: Humphreys needed more information on the participants. Because they were unwilling to be interviewed in the field, Humphreys secretly wrote down their license plate numbers and tracked down their names and addresses from public databases. He then visited these men at their homes, disguising himself to avoid recognition, announced he was conducting a public health survey, and collected personal data under false pretenses.
Humphreys’ research generated massive controversy:
-
Critics argued he invaded others’ right to privacy, used extreme deceit, and put vulnerable men at risk by tracking their home addresses without informed consent.
-
Defenders argued it was an important sociological phenomenon worth investigating, there was no other way to collect the data, and the deceit was harmless since Humphreys never publicly disclosed his subjects’ identities.
This controversy was never fully resolved and remains hotly debated in classes on research ethics today.
-
Ethics Defined: Ethics involves conforming to professional standards of conduct to protect the integrity of science and the rights of human subjects, even when such actions are not strictly mandated by law.
-
Voluntary Participation & Consent: Informed consent is the bedrock of research. Subjects must be fully aware of the study's purpose and their right to withdraw at any time without negative consequences or coercion.
-
Anonymity vs. Confidentiality: While anonymity provides the highest level of protection, confidentiality is often required for longitudinal or interview-based research. However, researchers must be transparent about the limits of confidentiality, as research data lacks "privileged communication" status in the U.S. legal system.
-
The Digital Reality: In the modern era, the line between "public" and "private" data has blurred. Researchers must account for the risks of re-identification in large datasets and the increasing vulnerability of digital data to government administrative subpoenas.
-
Accountability: Regulatory bodies like Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and professional organizations like the American Sociological Association (ASA) serve as essential guardrails. They ensure that researchers prioritize human dignity, social responsibility, and scientific integrity over personal or corporate agendas.
-
Continuous Vigilance: Research ethics is not a static set of rules but an ongoing obligation. As technology changes the ways we interact and share information, researchers must proactively adapt their methods to prevent harm and maintain public trust.