Professional Documents
Culture Documents
guidelines for research and discuss some of the dilemmas that can
arise.
investigations this essay will be broken into several areas. A definition, description and
discussion of ethics and more specifically research ethics shall be given and how it relates to
the scientific process. Mention will be given briefly to the main organisations involved in
determining the ethical guidelines that all scientists and psychologists should adhere to.
Ethics will be then be discussed in relation to before, during and after an experiment is
carried out with reference given to why ethics should or should not be used during the life-
cycle of an experiment.
ETHICS - A DEFINITION
formulation of theories based on the research carried out. Such research should be carried
out with an empirical and sceptical approach but also with consideration given to the
consideration of ethics both morally and scientifically so as to uphold the scientific goal of
accurate and beneficial study. Integrity of the scientific approach can only be maintained by
each researcher taking responsibility to seek knowledge in a competent manner and report
the results accurately and honestly in an attempt to improve the quality of life and its
effects on society. This is an ethical obligation. Ethics is defined as a set of principles of right
conduct, of dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and
wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of motives and ends of such
actions. It is a system of morals and beliefs held in common by a group of people regarding
right and wrong, moreover in relation to research we must consider research ethics,
namely, a system of beliefs that scientists hold in common about what is morally right and
affected by culture or personal opinion but such principals are tied to the scientific
community so should provide adequate thought and consideration to the general right and
wrong of conduct in research. There are many bodies such as the Ethical Principles by the
British Psychological Society (BPS) (2000) and the American Psychological Association (APA)
that produce ethical guidelines for research and as Gale (1995) suggests, due to the regular
review and revision of such they remain abreast of changing social and political contexts in
which the research takes place. However as these standards are provided as a guideline for
a wide range of areas within psychology they are at times too generic and confusion and
ambiguity can occur in interpretation of them. Joscelyne (2002) discusses such issues in
relation to relationships with former clients. Such ambiguities however over time can be
clarified and specified in particular research cases by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) that
ethical ramifications and pitfalls that may occur. Sufficient safe-guards can then be put in
place prior to beginning the research to ensure the scientific and ethical integrity is
maintained. Before beginning any experiment the researcher must consider if they
participants time will be wasted or essential in carrying out that experimental task. There is
an ethical obligation to ask a participant to help in an experiment only if they are required to
do so and their involvement will help to aid the experiment. In designing and carrying out
the experiment the researcher should consider if it will undermine the scientific process.
The experiment should seek to enhance the field of knowledge under study. Rather than try
Impediment of knowledge not only wastes the participants’ time but also undermines and
shows no respect for the work carried out by previous researchers and participants in the
area. This does not mean that prior scientific findings should not be criticised but rather that
they should be constructively criticised with the aim to improve the current research
findings. The experimenter should pay heed to the penalties and sanctions that may be paid
if the ethics of the experiment are broken. They have a responsibility to their organisation,
their participants, to previous work in the area and to themselves to ensure that they are
aware of the seriousness of breaking ethical guidelines. There is also an obligation to ensure
that the results are reported accurately and concisely and to that end the various reporting
ensure that instruments and procedures follow these guidelines and strict adherence to
every step is given and if any over-sight or omission is found that correct re-submission
processes are followed. In carrying out research often there is a risk/benefit balance that
needs to be addressed. The right of the participant in terms of dignity, privacy and self-
determination needs to be weighed against the right of society and science to further
knowledge of a given area of investigation Myers (1994). There can be a conflict between
the two and as such a cost/benefit analysis must be carried out as put forward by Aronson
(1992). The researcher in guidance with their relevant professional body must determine if
the costs of using methods that place participants in harm can be justified and balanced
against the research being carried out. Risk involves harm to the participant in terms of
mental, emotional, social and physical stress and also time, effort, attention and resources
that must be volunteered. Lower risk procedures should be used where available and the
concept of minimal risk, the procedure not exceeding those encountered in normal day-to-
very nature, and it is the place of IRBs to ensure that all dilemmas of such a nature are
thought out and discussed before moving forward. In designing and preparing the
without coercion. In order to make a full and honest decision they should be made aware of
the risks and benefits involved. The aim is to have willing participants who will remain
honest in their participation rather than for example taking part in an experiment purely for
financial benefit. Informed consent should be given where all necessary and relevant
This brings about several dilemmas. In order to be fully aware participants should be told
that they are taking part in an experiment but in doing so this brings into question
techniques such as unobtrusive observation. Also if informed consent is required it can pre-
empt the results of the experiment and colour the responses of the participants. This brings
about the question of deception and whether it should be used or if it can in fact be avoided
at all in carrying psychological research as discussed by Krupat and Garonzik (1994). The
characteristics and expectancy effects can negatively affect the outcome and should be
avoided if the researcher is to try to accurately measure the variables of the experiment.
Finally research is ethically bound to protect the participants from physical and
psychological harm such as worry, embarrassment, failure and loss of self-esteem. This in of
experiment. However issues do arise during the course of the experiment. Experiments are
not always tightly controlled within the laboratory setting and as such are subject to
frequent and uncontrollable change. Unexpected reactions can also occur and it is
impossible to have a mapped out response procedure in place for all eventualities. During
the experiment the researcher’s identity should be made clearly and accurately to the
participants but in doing so this may affect the natural setting of the experiment. As the
experiment is carried out behavioural changes can occur in the participants. There is an
ethical obligation on behalf of the researcher to monitor these changes and ensure that
they are not of harm to the participant. These once more cause a dilemma as the researcher
must ascertain if these changes are harmful or are naturally or unnaturally occurring in the
participant. The participants are giving their time and resources in order to aid the
betterment of the scientific community; they should be given due care and attention by the
researcher. Considerate treatment should be given, not only after the experiment has
concluded but also during the experiment to protect the participants. Participants should
have been given all necessary and relevant information with which to make an informed
consent but during the course of the experiment itself circumstances may have changed and
in doing so the participant has the right to retract their consent. The participant should feel
at no time undue pressure to continue with an experiment. This causes a dilemma as the
purpose of the experiment may be the measurement of compliance and coercion affects
them with all relevant information about the experiment they have just taken part in. This
debriefing should take into account factors such as the possible effects of the experiment on
the well-being of the participants, ensuring that participants leave the experiment as having
learnt and given benefit to research and their role in such and the removal of harmful
effects such as may be caused by deception. Christensen (1988) reports that participants
once informed of deception in debriefing don’t mind and Millgram (1977, 1992) reports
further that participants are enthusiastic and impressed by the significance of their part in
experimentation involving deception. It should be noted however that this in of itself is not
Anonymity and confidentiality should be given to all participants and it is unethical to reveal
data about a participant without their informed and unpressurised consent. Typically
experiments make use of a comparison control group. All groups should be given access to
the same after-care and attention and if restricted access to certain procedures during an
experiment should be given full access to any benefits that non-control groups had. This
raises issues relating to anonymity where the researcher in order to provide full and
adequate after-care must have knowledge of all participants. This places the researcher into
a role of trust and responsibility and is fraught with ethical dilemmas. The scientific process
requires the experimenter to accurately report their findings. This involves clear and concise
data reporting and analysis in an objective, empirical and sceptical manner. Reference
acknowledgement should be given to all those that helped in the experiment, particularly
Taking the issues listed above a brief listing of Millgram’s experiments and insight
into ethics in research shall be given. Millgram (1963) obedience experiment gives good
example of the use of deception and brings about the discussion if deception was not
allowed that such important experiments would not be allowed or investigated Millgram
(1977, 1992). Millgram (1974) made great efforts to debrief his participants and showed
that in doing so the participants had a strong sense of having taken part in valid and
worthwhile experiments. He suggests that the justification for allowing any scientific
procedure is not wholly given by a governing body or IRB but rather from the participants
themselves, Millgram (1974). He does acknowledge that there are ethical questions to be
CONCLUSION
This discussion does not give reference to the specific areas of ethics in relation to
animals which is of great concern in the area of scientific experimentation, nor to the
specific area of ethics in drugs research. It is advised that the reader follow up and read the
detailed guidelines in relation to such as provided by BPS and APA. Ethics are fraught with
dilemmas that can only be decided from a subjective view-point. At all times during, before
and after an experiment the participants and the benefits to society as a whole should be
considered in relation to ethical principles. The governing bodies, such as BPA and APA in
closely reflect the constantly changing moral viewpoint of society and the shifting increasing
rights of the individual. If one is to truly follow the scientific approach and call one self a
Aronson, E. (1992) The Social Animal (6th Ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman & co.
British Psychological Society (2000) Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles & Guidelines.
Leicester: BPS.
Gale, A. (1995) Ethical issues in psychological research. In A.M. Colman (ed.) Psychological
Krupat, E. and Garonzik, R. (1994) Subjects’ expectations and the search for alternatives to
Millgram, S. (1963) Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67,
371-8.
Millgram, S. (1977) Subject reaction: the neglected factor in the ethics of experimentation. The
Millgram, S. (1992) The Individual in a Social World (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.