E

atively influence attitudes about science, and the abuses committed by a fe' are often the ones that receive 'idespread publicity ()authner, Birch, *essop, & )iller, 200+$. #his chapter focuses primarily on issues, activities, and situations that are far from blac, and 'hite in terms of ethics. A balanced presentation remains our goal. #here are no simple ans'ers or solutions. Although guidelines are suggested, each researcher must be responsible for ethical issues 'ithin an investigation. #his chapter 'ill not provide a -complete ethical chec,list. that covers all /uestions, settings, or concerns. 0uch a tas, 'ould be impossible and not terribly helpful in considering the variety of research situations that may be encountered. Although some guidelines are relatively firm, the best insurance against unethical research practices is the ,no'ledgeable indi(vidual scientist 'ho can intelligently consider the circumstances being faced. 1esearchers 'ith their in/uiring minds are compelled to press on in the develop( ment and dissemination of ne' ,no'ledge. #he /uestion becomes not only a matter of 'hether it is ethical to conduct research, but also 'hether it is unethical not to engage in in/uiry. Are researchers guilty of unethical conduct if they do not engage in systematic in/uiry conducted 'ith the safety of participants in mind, and 'ith fully informed consent2 3hile ethical considerations may initially be vie'ed as road(bloc,s to beginning a study, they are clearly integral to the process. Attention to the ethics of an investigation re/uires e4tra thought and effort, but the payoff for a study that is both methodologically intact and ethically sound is e4tremely e4hilarating.

thics has become a cornerstone for conducting and meaningful research. As such, the ethical behavior of individual researchers effective is under unprecedented scrutiny (Best & Kahn, 2006 !ield & Behrman, 200" #rimble & !isher, 2006$. %n today&s society, any concerns regarding ethical practices 'ill neg(

ENSURING THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN PARTICIPANTS

5very researcher has a responsibility to protect the participants in an investigation. #he Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American

03-Drew-45303.qxd

9/7/2007

3:07 PM

Page 57

CHAPTER 3: ETHIC AL ISSUES

IN

CONDUCTING RESEARCH

57

6sychological Association (A6A$ notes that psychologists must be concerned 'ith -the 'elfare and protection of the individuals and groups 'ith 'hom psychologists 'or, and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical stan( dards of the discipline. (American 6sychological Association, 2002, p. +$. 0imilarly, the Ethical Standards of the American Educational Research Association (A51A$ states, -%t is of paramount importance that educational researchers respect the rights, pri(vacy, dignity, and sensitivities of their research populations and also the integrity of the institutions 'ithin 'hich the research occurs. 5ducational researchers should be especially careful in 'or,ing 'ith children and other vulnerable populations. (American 5ducational 1esearch Association, 2002, p. +$. Although the purvie' of A6A and A51A is psychology and education, respectively, social science and educa( tional research involve many other fields of study 'here professionals serve in multi( ple roles (e.g., researchers as 'ell as laboratory supervisors, administrators, teachers, or mentors$ (Behn,e, 200" 7ie,ema, 2008 9aver,amp, 2008$.

3hether a researcher is a psychologist, educator, or anthropologist, the primary responsibilities to participants are clear: obtain consent, protect from harm, and ensure privacy. 9o'ever, there is one area of responsibility that is often less clear for both the researcher and the participants: intentional deception. #hese areas are cov(ered in more detail belo'.

Consent
;onsent involves the procedure by 'hich an individual may choose 'hether or not to participate in a study. #he researcher&s tas, is to ensure that participants have a complete understanding of the purpose and methods to be used in the study, the ris,s involved, and the demands placed upon them as a participant (Best & Kahn, 2006 *ones & Kottler, 2006$. #he participant must also understand that he or she has the right to 'ithdra' from the study at any time. #he t'o forms of consent are direct and substitute. Direct consent is the most preferred because agreement is obtained directly from the person to be involved in the study. Substitute consent, or third(party consent, is given by someone other than the person to be involved in the study. 0ubstitute consent may be obtained 'hen it is determined that the person does not have the capacity to ma,e the decision or is dependent on others for his or her 'elfare, such as children under the age of <= or people 'ith cognitive or emotional disabilities (>agy, 2008a 1oberts, ?eppert, ;overdale, @ouie, & 5denharder, 2008$. Both direct and substitute consent must meet the re/uirements for informed consent. !rom a legal standpoint, informed consent involves three elements: capacity, information, and voluntariness. All three elements must be present for consent to be effective (7re' & 9ardman, 200A$. %t is also important to understand that con( sent is seldom (if ever$ permanent and may be 'ithdra'n at any time. (#he act of 'ithdra'ing consent must also include the elements of capacity, information, and voluntariness.$
Capacity ;apacity is a person&s ability to ac/uire and retain ,no'ledge. #he ability to eval( uate the information received and ma,e a choice based on this evaluation is funda( mental to the element of capacity. Based on the person&s ability to ac/uire, retain, and evaluate information, he or she is deemed competent or incompetent. ;ompetence is partially determined by legal /ualification and ability. @egal /ualification is most often vie'ed in terms of age individuals under the age of maBority (generally <= years$ are considered to be legally unable to ma,e certain decisions. ;hildren&s rights are then legally protected by obtaining permission from parents or legal guardians. ;hildren&s rights are ethically protected 'hen the person giving the consent has a primary interest in the child&s 'elfare (!ield & Behrman, 200"$.

03-Drew-45303.qxd

9/7/2007

3:07 PM

Page 58

58

PART I: OVERVIEW

OF

RESEARCH

#he second factor in determining competence is the individual&s ability to give consent. (7oes the individual understand the nature and conse/uences of giving consent2$ #his factor is again relevant to the involvement of children in research studies but is also applicable to others as 'ell (e.g., persons 'ith cognitive or emo(tional disabilities, or those 'ho are incarcerated$ (9ardman et al., 2006$. !irst, from a legal standpoint, a person is considered competent unless they have been adBudi(cated through the court system as being incompetent. %t cannot be assumed that because individuals of adult age may have a cognitive or emotional disability they are not competent to ma,e decisions regarding their individual 'elfare. 0econd, even if the individual is deemed legally competent, it does not relieve the researcher of the responsibility to ensure that the participant understands the information provided and can e4ercise the free po'er of choice. ;learly the capacity element is not simple. %t often becomes even more comple4 in the conte4t of imple(mentation, 'hich is discussed in later sections of this chapter.
Information

7etermination of 'hether information has been communicated to a participant in an effective manner is based on both substance and manner. 3hat information 'as given, and ho' 'as it presented2 #he information must be planned and pre( sented so it can be completely understood, and it must be fully understood by the participant. %t is the researcher&s responsibility to see that this is accomplished. #his perspective places a great responsibility on an investigator and ma,es assurance that effective consent has been obtained even more complicated.
Vo l u n t a r i n e s s

Coluntary consent is concerned 'ith each individual&s ability to e4ercise the free po'er of choice 'ithout the intervention of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other forms of constraint or coercion. #his right to e4ercise choice must be present throughout the entire research process. #he intent of this interpretation is that no such -constraint or coercion. must be either e4plicit or implicit on the part of the investigator. #he collective consideration of all three elements of consent has great impact on the manner in 'hich a study is planned and e4ecuted. 5ach research situation pre(sents a different set of circumstances, and consent procedures must be adapted accordingly. !or investigators in certain areas (e.g., child development, cognitive disabilities, mental health$, the type of participants fre/uently studied re/uires spe(cial consideration and protection (see, for e4ample, 9ardman et al., 2006 1oberts et al., 2008$. 0uch participants 'ill receive repeated attention in our discussion and e4amination of consent issues regarding who and when.

3ho may give consent2 #he first ans'er to this /uestion is the parent, guardian, or other agent legally responsible for the person and authorized to act on the persons behalf. Although this may seem simple, it is not, and the prerogative of consent is not constant. It varies greatly from situation to situation and among participants. The question of who may give consent is not a difficult one for those who have not been adjudicated as being incompetent.! Adults can give their own consent to par"ticipate in research. It is also clear that they must consent on a voluntary basis and with complete information concerning the nature and consequences of participa"tion. #any individuals deemed incompetent and in need of special protection are thought to be unable to give consent on their own. They may be lac$ing in capacity because

of cognitive or emotional disabilities, or because they are legally too young.