Chapter 3
Perspectives
Contents
3.1 I ntroduction 30
3.1.1 Worst Case Scenario 30
3.1.2 What Are Ethics? 31
3.1.3 Three Cases 32
3.2 Conceptualizing Research Ethics 36
3.2.1 Responsible Research Conduct 36
3.2.2 Research Ethics and Integrity 36
3.2.3 Research Ethics and Professional Ethics 38
3.3 Codes of Conduct 39
3.3.1 Guiding Principles 39
3.3.2 Key Imperatives 41
3.4 Fundamental Dilemmas and Ethical Theories 42
3.4.1 The Need for Ethical Reflection 42
3.4.2 Deontology Versus Consequentialism 43
3.4.3 Virtue Ethics 45
3.4.4 Ready-made Solutions? 45
3.5 Conclusions 45
3.5.1 Summary 45
3.5.2 Discussion 46
Case Study: The Ethics in Suicide Prevention Research 46
Assignment 49
Suggested Reading 49
References 50
This chapter has been co-authored by Naomi van Steenbergen.
Electronic Supplementary Material: The online version of this chapter (https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6_3) contains supplementary material, which is available to autho-
rized users.
© The Author(s) 2020 29
J. Bos, Research Ethics for Students in the Social Sciences,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6_3
,30 3 Perspectives
After Reading This Chapter, You Will:
• Better comprehend what research ethics is about
• Understand why research ethics is an integral part of doing research in the social
sciences
• Be able to distinguish between research ethics and professional ethics
• Develop a general knowledge of the three most important theories of ethics
Keywords Board of complaint · Code of conduct · Consequentialism ·
Deontology · Deplorable practices · Ideal practices · IRB · Integrity ·
Ombudsperson · Principled sensitivity · Professional ethics · Questionable research
practices · Research ethics · Shared values · Ideal research behavior · Deplorable
research behavior · Questionable research practices
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Worst Case Scenario
In August 1971, Stanford University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo was
running just the first week of his grand ‘Prison Experiment’, and participants were
already behaving according to the roles assigned to them. The twelve ‘prisoners’
were becoming passive, subordinate, almost inert, while the twelve ‘guards’ were
behaving more and more like bullies.
The prisoners and guards, who were all male students at Stanford University and
voluntary participants in the experiment, were assigned their respective roles ran-
domly at the offset. Zimbordo’s goal was to research the psychological effects of
perceived power. In particular, he was interested in ‘deindividualization’ and ‘dehu-
manization’ (loss of personhood).
There was a major problem developing: the experiment was quickly getting out
of hand. The ‘guards’ began to behave callously, and the ‘prisoners’ were beginning
to actually suffer. After some deliberation, Zimbardo decided to discontinue the
experiment.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) has been the subject of heated debate to
this day (see Haslam and Reicher 2012; Haslam et al. 2019). In a reanalysis of the
original data, Le Textier (2018) found that Zimbardo’s narrative of the experiment
was flawed in a number of respects. Le Texier found that the data presented by
Zimbardo was incomplete and biased towards dramatization and did not disclose
that the guards acted on precise instructions from Zimbardo, whose ‘experiment’
seemed to be designed more as a demonstration than a scientific study. Bartels and
Griggs (2019) concluded from these criticisms that textbooks should revise and
repurpose the coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Textbook authors should
use the SPE as a case to teach students the importance of critical thinking, and the
value of self-correction in science.
,3.1 Introduction 31
Indeed, the educational value of historical cases such as these lies less in their
isolated ethical and methodological shortcomings, of which Zimbardo seemed
acutely aware. Rather, their value resides in understanding how our moral beliefs
have changed over time. What are our ethical presumptions, and by which norms do
we live?
Getting an answer to these questions is the purpose of this chapter. In order to
answer them, we need to begin at what ethics are and why they are important. To do
this, we will explore the various approaches to ethics.
3.1.2 What Are Ethics?
Peter Singer (2001), professor of bio-ethics at Princeton University, notes that peo-
ple often like to believe that ethics are just ‘an annoying list of things you are not
allowed to do, so you can’t have fun.’ Rather, he says, that’s not the case. Ethics are
an inquiry into what is right and wrong, and what is valuable and important. It
attempts to answer the question of what you ought to do.
When performing research, you are inevitably going to make decisions that will
affect others, and you need to know which of the available options is the best course
of action. Which one to choose is not always immediately clear. Here are a few
examples:
• Suppose you want to know a respondent’s view on a particular subject, but
directly asking about it would likely influence the respondent. Is it therefore
acceptable to mislead the respondents so the information you receive is more
valid? Or should you be honest and open about your intentions, which would
require fully informing the participant and possibly affecting your data?
• Suppose you want to investigate certain behaviors, and to do so, your respon-
dents need to perform a task that carries a small risk about which the respondent
is fully informed. Do you still have a responsibility for the safety and well-being
of the respondents even if they are fully informed about the risks? If so, how far
does that responsibility reach? Does it end with the experiment or should you
provide care afterwards?
• Suppose you have made a discovery that could benefit some, but harm others.
Should you publish the results or not? How should you reach your decision and
on what criteria?
The answers to many of these questions have already been formulated, either in
the form of general principles to be followed (‘codes of conduct’), or in the form of
very specific rules that apply to certain situations or conditions (‘do’s and don’ts’),
to which we turn later in this chapter.
However, the strictest of rules leave room for interpretation, and even in the most
clear-cut cases, there may be more than one solution available.
Thus, knowing what to do requires a degree of principled sensitivity, meaning
researchers should be sensitive to the rights of others and their well-being. Many
, 32 3 Perspectives
argue, furthermore, that this sensitivity does not stop at individuals; it stretches into
communities, animals, and even the environment at large.
3.1.3 Three Cases
Before we go into detail on the ethical approaches in research, let us first examine
three concrete examples that will allow us to appreciate the various dimensions of
ethics in a broader sense.
First, consider the horrendous hypothermia experiments carried out by Nazi doc-
tors on prisoners during the Second World War. Prisoners were strapped naked to a
stretcher in the Polish winter or immersed in ice-cold water while data on their
bodily response was meticulously collected. The Nazis used this data to determine
how much cold a human body could endure, arguing that it would come in handy on
the Eastern Front (Berger 1992).
About a third of the prisoners did not survive the experiments. Post-war abhor-
rence for these types of experiments led to the ‘Nuremberg Code of Ethics’, on
which our present-day ethical codes are based.
The question here is obviously not whether there is an ethical dilemma about the
experiment’s procedures. The question is: could the data still be used? This question
has been subject of an ongoing post-war debate (Schafer 1998). In a discussion on
this issue, David Bogod (2004, p. 1156) contends that unethically acquired data
should never be used. That being said, he does acknowledge that others would argue,
‘if some general good can come of the most evil acts, then those who suffered and
died might not have done so entirely in vain.’ However, this quickly leads to a follow-
up question: when you honor that argument, aren’t you assuming that the subjects are
providing a posthumous consent? The very first principle of the Nuremberg Code
outlines that ‘voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.’
Second, consider the well-known 1961 obedience studies conducted by Yale psy-
chologist Stanley Milgram. Milgram (1963) led his subjects to believe they were
taking part in an experiment on learning. In their role as a ‘teacher’, the participants
were to administer electric shocks to a fellow participant, the ‘learner.’ The shocks
supposedly increased in severity over the course of the experiment, and the response
from the learner became ever more volatile. What the subject didn’t know was that
in reality, the learner was a stooge, an actor hired by Milgram to feign pain, never
actually receiving the electric shocks.
Milgram rationalized ‘obedience’ as the willingness to ‘carry out another per-
son’s wishes.’ He wanted to know whether his research participants would continue
participating in his study, and at what point would they decide that their collabora-
tion was no longer justifiable. However, when his subjects voiced doubts and pro-
posed to stop, the researcher answered with a line from a script: ‘The experiment
requires that you continue…’ (see Perry 2013) (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2).
Milgram’s work has been widely criticized, especially on ethical grounds. The
controversy even affected his professional career (he was denied tenure at Harvard,
see Miller 1986). Did his subjects know what they were in for? Had they been
Perspectives
Contents
3.1 I ntroduction 30
3.1.1 Worst Case Scenario 30
3.1.2 What Are Ethics? 31
3.1.3 Three Cases 32
3.2 Conceptualizing Research Ethics 36
3.2.1 Responsible Research Conduct 36
3.2.2 Research Ethics and Integrity 36
3.2.3 Research Ethics and Professional Ethics 38
3.3 Codes of Conduct 39
3.3.1 Guiding Principles 39
3.3.2 Key Imperatives 41
3.4 Fundamental Dilemmas and Ethical Theories 42
3.4.1 The Need for Ethical Reflection 42
3.4.2 Deontology Versus Consequentialism 43
3.4.3 Virtue Ethics 45
3.4.4 Ready-made Solutions? 45
3.5 Conclusions 45
3.5.1 Summary 45
3.5.2 Discussion 46
Case Study: The Ethics in Suicide Prevention Research 46
Assignment 49
Suggested Reading 49
References 50
This chapter has been co-authored by Naomi van Steenbergen.
Electronic Supplementary Material: The online version of this chapter (https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6_3) contains supplementary material, which is available to autho-
rized users.
© The Author(s) 2020 29
J. Bos, Research Ethics for Students in the Social Sciences,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6_3
,30 3 Perspectives
After Reading This Chapter, You Will:
• Better comprehend what research ethics is about
• Understand why research ethics is an integral part of doing research in the social
sciences
• Be able to distinguish between research ethics and professional ethics
• Develop a general knowledge of the three most important theories of ethics
Keywords Board of complaint · Code of conduct · Consequentialism ·
Deontology · Deplorable practices · Ideal practices · IRB · Integrity ·
Ombudsperson · Principled sensitivity · Professional ethics · Questionable research
practices · Research ethics · Shared values · Ideal research behavior · Deplorable
research behavior · Questionable research practices
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Worst Case Scenario
In August 1971, Stanford University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo was
running just the first week of his grand ‘Prison Experiment’, and participants were
already behaving according to the roles assigned to them. The twelve ‘prisoners’
were becoming passive, subordinate, almost inert, while the twelve ‘guards’ were
behaving more and more like bullies.
The prisoners and guards, who were all male students at Stanford University and
voluntary participants in the experiment, were assigned their respective roles ran-
domly at the offset. Zimbordo’s goal was to research the psychological effects of
perceived power. In particular, he was interested in ‘deindividualization’ and ‘dehu-
manization’ (loss of personhood).
There was a major problem developing: the experiment was quickly getting out
of hand. The ‘guards’ began to behave callously, and the ‘prisoners’ were beginning
to actually suffer. After some deliberation, Zimbardo decided to discontinue the
experiment.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) has been the subject of heated debate to
this day (see Haslam and Reicher 2012; Haslam et al. 2019). In a reanalysis of the
original data, Le Textier (2018) found that Zimbardo’s narrative of the experiment
was flawed in a number of respects. Le Texier found that the data presented by
Zimbardo was incomplete and biased towards dramatization and did not disclose
that the guards acted on precise instructions from Zimbardo, whose ‘experiment’
seemed to be designed more as a demonstration than a scientific study. Bartels and
Griggs (2019) concluded from these criticisms that textbooks should revise and
repurpose the coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Textbook authors should
use the SPE as a case to teach students the importance of critical thinking, and the
value of self-correction in science.
,3.1 Introduction 31
Indeed, the educational value of historical cases such as these lies less in their
isolated ethical and methodological shortcomings, of which Zimbardo seemed
acutely aware. Rather, their value resides in understanding how our moral beliefs
have changed over time. What are our ethical presumptions, and by which norms do
we live?
Getting an answer to these questions is the purpose of this chapter. In order to
answer them, we need to begin at what ethics are and why they are important. To do
this, we will explore the various approaches to ethics.
3.1.2 What Are Ethics?
Peter Singer (2001), professor of bio-ethics at Princeton University, notes that peo-
ple often like to believe that ethics are just ‘an annoying list of things you are not
allowed to do, so you can’t have fun.’ Rather, he says, that’s not the case. Ethics are
an inquiry into what is right and wrong, and what is valuable and important. It
attempts to answer the question of what you ought to do.
When performing research, you are inevitably going to make decisions that will
affect others, and you need to know which of the available options is the best course
of action. Which one to choose is not always immediately clear. Here are a few
examples:
• Suppose you want to know a respondent’s view on a particular subject, but
directly asking about it would likely influence the respondent. Is it therefore
acceptable to mislead the respondents so the information you receive is more
valid? Or should you be honest and open about your intentions, which would
require fully informing the participant and possibly affecting your data?
• Suppose you want to investigate certain behaviors, and to do so, your respon-
dents need to perform a task that carries a small risk about which the respondent
is fully informed. Do you still have a responsibility for the safety and well-being
of the respondents even if they are fully informed about the risks? If so, how far
does that responsibility reach? Does it end with the experiment or should you
provide care afterwards?
• Suppose you have made a discovery that could benefit some, but harm others.
Should you publish the results or not? How should you reach your decision and
on what criteria?
The answers to many of these questions have already been formulated, either in
the form of general principles to be followed (‘codes of conduct’), or in the form of
very specific rules that apply to certain situations or conditions (‘do’s and don’ts’),
to which we turn later in this chapter.
However, the strictest of rules leave room for interpretation, and even in the most
clear-cut cases, there may be more than one solution available.
Thus, knowing what to do requires a degree of principled sensitivity, meaning
researchers should be sensitive to the rights of others and their well-being. Many
, 32 3 Perspectives
argue, furthermore, that this sensitivity does not stop at individuals; it stretches into
communities, animals, and even the environment at large.
3.1.3 Three Cases
Before we go into detail on the ethical approaches in research, let us first examine
three concrete examples that will allow us to appreciate the various dimensions of
ethics in a broader sense.
First, consider the horrendous hypothermia experiments carried out by Nazi doc-
tors on prisoners during the Second World War. Prisoners were strapped naked to a
stretcher in the Polish winter or immersed in ice-cold water while data on their
bodily response was meticulously collected. The Nazis used this data to determine
how much cold a human body could endure, arguing that it would come in handy on
the Eastern Front (Berger 1992).
About a third of the prisoners did not survive the experiments. Post-war abhor-
rence for these types of experiments led to the ‘Nuremberg Code of Ethics’, on
which our present-day ethical codes are based.
The question here is obviously not whether there is an ethical dilemma about the
experiment’s procedures. The question is: could the data still be used? This question
has been subject of an ongoing post-war debate (Schafer 1998). In a discussion on
this issue, David Bogod (2004, p. 1156) contends that unethically acquired data
should never be used. That being said, he does acknowledge that others would argue,
‘if some general good can come of the most evil acts, then those who suffered and
died might not have done so entirely in vain.’ However, this quickly leads to a follow-
up question: when you honor that argument, aren’t you assuming that the subjects are
providing a posthumous consent? The very first principle of the Nuremberg Code
outlines that ‘voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.’
Second, consider the well-known 1961 obedience studies conducted by Yale psy-
chologist Stanley Milgram. Milgram (1963) led his subjects to believe they were
taking part in an experiment on learning. In their role as a ‘teacher’, the participants
were to administer electric shocks to a fellow participant, the ‘learner.’ The shocks
supposedly increased in severity over the course of the experiment, and the response
from the learner became ever more volatile. What the subject didn’t know was that
in reality, the learner was a stooge, an actor hired by Milgram to feign pain, never
actually receiving the electric shocks.
Milgram rationalized ‘obedience’ as the willingness to ‘carry out another per-
son’s wishes.’ He wanted to know whether his research participants would continue
participating in his study, and at what point would they decide that their collabora-
tion was no longer justifiable. However, when his subjects voiced doubts and pro-
posed to stop, the researcher answered with a line from a script: ‘The experiment
requires that you continue…’ (see Perry 2013) (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2).
Milgram’s work has been widely criticized, especially on ethical grounds. The
controversy even affected his professional career (he was denied tenure at Harvard,
see Miller 1986). Did his subjects know what they were in for? Had they been
