Transcript The Ethics of Power in Conducting & Evaluating Social Science Research Beth Manke, PhD Lauren Rauscher, PhD Department of Human Development California State University Long Beach.

The Ethics of Power
in Conducting & Evaluating
Social Science Research
Beth Manke, PhD
Lauren Rauscher, PhD
Department of Human Development
California State University Long Beach
Contents
This module contains three topic sections that engage our understanding of how
power pervades all aspects of the social science research process – from the
creation of research questions to the dissemination of findings.
Learning Objectives:
• understand how power operates throughout the research process
• critically evaluate ethical research practices in both basic and
applied studies
• identify alternative research designs that do not reproduce
existing inequalities and hierarchies
For each section, we identify key concepts and a list of recommended sources to
illustrate the applicability of the concepts to research in anthropology, psychology,
and sociology.
Power: the fundamental ethical issue in research
 Power defined.
Contested term in the social sciences.
 Multiple bases of power
Force
Coercion
Authority
Legitimacy
Position
Exemplary Cases: Debates on the misuse of power in research
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
This case illustrates the decisions made by scientists in the U.S. Public Health Service
during the 40 year Tuskegee Experiment in rural Alabama that denied Black men
treatment for syphilis – long after treatment options had been developed – in order to
study racial differences in how the disease progressed. One legacy of Tuskegee is the
institutionalization of protection for human subjects in research.
 Deadly Deception, PBS/WGBH NOVA documentary video; Bad Blood (Jones 1993)
Tuskegee Revisited?: AZT Trials in Africa
More recent headlines draw attention to debate over the AIDS clinical trials in Africa and
the Dominican Republic that provide AZT placebos to a control group of HIV positive
women. This contemporary case raises questions about informed consent, race, and the
use of placebos when effective treatment exists.
 http://www.hks.harvard.edu/case/azt/ethics/case_3-0.html
Exemplary Cases: cont’d
Gays + Lesbians Excluded from Medical Research
A recent article in the New England Journal of Health reports that gay men and lesbians
are excluded from medical trials during the screening process, especially in studies that
focus on sexual function. This case raises questions of inclusion and exclusion, and how
that can influence findings.
 Egleston, Dunbrack, and Hall (March 18, 2010)
Consent for the Uses of DNA
Members of the Havasupai Indian tribe in the Grand Canyon were awarded $700K after a
fight with the Arizona State University over the (mis)use of their DNA in genetic research.
In the 1990s tribe members gave consent for their blood samples (which they view as
sacred) to be used in research on diabetes, yet the data was used to study other issues as
well. This case highlights issues of transparency and thoroughness in informed consent,
research with groups that are culturally different from researchers, and the type and
extent of information that can be gleaned from DNA about original donors.
 New York Times series (Spring 2010)
Section I:
Understanding Social Location
Social location: What is it? What does it have to do with research?
Social location – one’s position within society
• Hierarchies based on Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Nationality, Social Class, Sexual
Orientation, (Dis)Ability
We all interpret behavior based on our own particular
point of view, which is shaped by our social location,
culture, experiences, community, historical period, values,
and assumptions about the world.
 Reflexivity is key!
Developing Research Questions: aware of social location
Should this particular group, setting,
situation, or question be studied by anyone?
Should this group, setting, situation, or
questions be studied by me?
(Lofland et al)
Ask these important questions about the potential negative
consequences for doing any research in efforts to avoid
reproducing existing social, economic, and political hierarchies.
Data Collection + Analyses: aware of social location and bias
How can we avoid errors rooted in the
particularities of our own backgrounds and
improve our reasoning of the social world?
(Schutt 2006: 5)
Ethnocentrism: Using the standards of one’s own group, culture or
subculture to evaluate the characteristics of another group, generally
from the view that one’s own culture is superior.
Key Concepts
 Social Location
 Domination
 Oppression
 Privilege
 Ethnocentrism
 Bias
 Reflexivity
Select References
 Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge,
Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
 Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006.
Chapter 1 in Analyzing Social Settings, 4th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
 Mills, C.W. 2003/[1959]. The Promise. In Down to Earth Sociology, 12th
Edition, edited by James Henslin. New York: The Free Press. (Reproduced
from The Sociological Imagination). Pp. 20-27.
 Miner, Horace. 2003/[1956]. Body Ritual among the Nacirema. In Down to
Earth Sociology, 12th Edition, edited by James Henslin. New York: The Free
Press. (Reproduced from American Anthropologist 58:3). Pp. 79-83.
 Schutt, Russell K. 2009. Chapter 1: Science, Society, and Social Research in
Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research, 6th
Edition. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Section II:
Having Voice and Giving Voice
- Designing and Carrying Out
Research
Relationships Between Researchers + Researched
Having and giving voice embody issues of
power as the “researched other” is usually
less powerful and more marginalized vis-àvis the relatively elite position of
researchers.
Challenges: relationships between researchers + researched
 Paternalistic attitudes and stereotypes about “at-risk”
groups (acting like we know what’s best for others without
asking them what they want) .
 Research paradigms that treat people as passive
objects to be studied, analyzed and investigated,
thereby rendering people nameless and voiceless.
 Defining benefits to research as solely that which
adds to academic knowledge or is a material good
(e.g., monetary incentive, class credit).
Challenges: in the relationships between researchers + researched
 The use of large monetary incentives in the recruitment
of research participants that may be seen as
manipulative.
 Data collection techniques that involve deception (e.g.,
Milgram experiments).
 Laws that inadvertently place researchers in a “policing
role” (laws about reporting abuse disclosed by participants).
Alternatives: relationships between researchers + researched
 Involving participants (and the community) as co-
researchers (partners) who are jointly responsible for
the design and implementation of research.
 Including community members on IRB committees or
advisory boards to review research proposals.
Alternatives: relationships between researchers + researched
 Defining study benefits in terms of what the
community gains including public awareness, political
empowerment, and amelioration of social
inequalities.
 Frank discussions about the pros and cons of
maintaining confidentiality versus giving credit to
participants.
Legitimacy among researchers within scientific communities
The power to shape (or dictate) research
agendas is not equally shared among
researchers, with some researchers and
topics having more influence than others.
Legitimacy among researchers within scientific communities
Who has more power to shape research agendas?
 Senior investigators: those with track records of productivity
and success are seen as “safer bets” when grant funds are
awarded. This may disadvantage more junior researchers with
cutting-edge ideas.
 Investigators at research-intensive institutions: those at
institutions that have established infrastructures for
supporting large grants are often advantaged in the grant
process. Investigators at teaching-intensive institutions are
sometimes seen as less legitimate researches and are further
disadvantaged because they often have fewer immediate
mentors to guide them in the grant process.
Legitimacy among researchers within scientific communities
Not all topics have equal appeal. What research topics are
more likely to get funded?
 Topics that have gained recent media attention: academic
research is susceptible to trends and “hot” topics (e.g.,
recent focus on obesity). Less trendy research remains
important but may be harder to fund.
 Topics that aim to fix rather then prevent: intervention
projects often gain more attention and funding than do
prevention projects. It is easier to convince people to fund
projects that aim to fix something that is already a problem
rather than projects that aim to prevent possible problems.
Key Concepts
 Paternalistic attitudes
 Community-based participatory research
 Monetary incentives
 Deception
 Intervention
 Prevention
Select References
 Bradley, M. (2007). Silenced for their own protection: How the IRB
marginalizes those it feigns to protect, International Journal for Critical
Geographies, 6, 339-349.
 Daley, C., James, A., Ulrey, E., Joseph, S., Talawyma, A., Choi, W., et al.
(2010). Using Focus Groups in Community-Based Participatory Research:
Challenges and Resolutions. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 697-706.
 Horowitz, C.R., Goldfinger, J.S., Muller, S., Pulchino, R., Vance, T., Arniella,
G., and Lancaster, K. (2008). A model for using community-based
participatory research to address the diabetes epidemic in East Harlem,
Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 75, 13- 21.
 Hudley, C. (2006). Who is watching the watchers? The Challenge of
observing peer interactions on elementary school playgrounds. New
Directions for Evaluation, 110, 73-85.
Selected References
 James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems,
pitfalls and potentials, American Anthropologist, 109, 261-272.
 Maher, Lisa. 1997. Appendix: On Reflexivity, Reciprocity, and Ethnographic
Research from Sexed Work: Gender, Race, and Resistance in a Brooklyn
Drug Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Miller, F., & Wertheimer, A. (2007). Facing up to paternalism in research
ethics. Hastings Center Report, 37(3), 24-34.
 Twine, F.W., & Warren, J.W. (2000). Racing Research, Researching Race:
Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Sudies. New York University
Press: New York.
Section III:
Research for Whom?:
Dissemination of Findings
Research for Whom?: Dissemination of Findings
The dissemination of research findings
embodies issues of power as researchers
make important decisions about what and
where their findings will be disseminated.
Research for Whom?: Dissemination of Findings
WHAT research findings are disseminated?
 Reporting only statistically significant findings: most
academic journals only publish statistically significant
findings even though null findings, in many cases, have
social relevance.
 Withholding findings when results may be
controversial: researchers may be tempted (or
pressured) to withhold findings when their results may
invite controversy.
Research for Whom?: Dissemination of Findings
WHAT research findings are disseminated?
 Framing results to support specific agendas: results
can be manipulated to support political and social
agendas.
Research for Whom?: Dissemination of Findings
Do researchers have an ethical
responsibility to disseminate findings to
both academic peers and lay audiences?
Research for Whom?: Dissemination of Findings
WHERE are research findings disseminated?
To academic peers: findings are published in academic
journals and books and presented at professional
conferences.
PRO:
Findings are typically subject to rigorous review by
a panel of peers prior to dissemination.
CON:
 This form of dissemination is often criticized as
being elitist and esoteric.
Research for Whom?: Dissemination of Findings
WHERE are research findings disseminated?
To lay audiences: findings are presented at community
forums and written about in newsletters and
reports. The media also reports research findings in
TV newscasts and newspapers.
PROS:
In these outlets findings are usually more accessible—
written about/discussed in ways that are more useful in
applied settings.
Represents an inclusive approach that invites feedback
from all stakeholders including research participants and
community members.
Research for Whom?: Dissemination of Findings
CON:
Little regulation or review of findings
disseminated via these outlets. Findings can be
sensationalized, oversimplified, distorted, and
overgeneralized, particularly by the media (e.g., recent
reports about the benefits of spanking).
Research for Whom?: Dissemination of Findings
Should researchers be held responsible
for how their research findings are used by
policy makers and other decision makers?
Select References
 Beirich, H. (2007). Promoting Hate, Intelligence Report, 125. Southern
Poverty Law Center (for an example of the debate regarding whether
researchers should be responsible for how their research is used by others).
 Black, R (January 4, 2010). Spanking makes kids perform better in school,
New York Daily News (for an example of how the media can oversimply
research findings and report on findings that have yet to undergo rigorous
peer preview).
 Santisteban, D., Vega, R., & Suarez-Morales, L. (2006). Utilizing
dissemination findings to help understand and bridge the research and
practice gap in the treatment of substance abuse disorders in Hispanic
populations. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 94-101.