Unethical Conduct

It’s common for social scientists to be frustrated by institutional ethical oversight of their research plans. The whole process seems to be based on the inference of potential harm based on the medical science /psychology model; as if speaking to people about their experiences or opinions were the same as making them guinea pigs for a new drug treatment or behaviourist psychological experimentation. Some universities in Australia currently use the standardised National Ethics Application Form, which is an on-line instrument the convolutions of which are enough to boil the blood. It takes more than a full day’s work to complete one of these forms which works on the principle that the more you disclose the more explaining you have to do. Completed forms are then passed onto what the Americans call Institutional Review Boards, bodies that comprise gatekeepers who demand the production of a range of documents (consent, information forms) and undertakings about the conduct and performance of research, many of which appear superficially reasonable but in practice are often very difficult to comply with. Such bodies can nip well-intentioned research projects in the bud by delaying research or presenting insurmountable obstacles. For example, these committees can sometimes require that ‘community consent’ be demonstrated before research can commence. This request is based on a simplistic and un-theorised notion of community and (particularly in situations of political conflict, where who speaks for the community is up for grabs) difficult to adhere to.

There is also the inference that the research is likely to involve some domination or misrepresentation of participants, by virtue of unequal power relations. However, most social scientists are fairly conscious of their relative privilege and have usually thought it through in more detail than have the ethics gatekeepers. They are usually keen to alienate the advantage they possess and produce work that is useful to those who are the focus of that research. Interviewees/ participants too will frequently relish the opportunity to have their voices heard (‘put that in your book!’): to exert an influence. However, in a society where academic knowledge has very little popular influence, it is easy to over-state the influence of researchers. A quick perusal of the readership stats for academic journal articles is enough to deflate even the most robust academic ego. It is ironic that in a world where the shock-jocks and hacks of the commercial media have very little to constrain their excesses, academic researchers are so closely policed. This is clearly based less on universities’ concern that research be conducted ethically than with the desire to minimize risk and liability if things go wrong.

The entire ethics review process is based on the ‘audit society’ fallacy: that the documentation of ethical intent will guarantee the performance of that intent. It is quite possible to jump through the ethical review hoops but to perform research that is far from ethical in its conduct (in the same way that it is possible to make yourself look like a good teacher on paper, when in fact you are not). In short, whether research is conducted ethically or not will depend on the researcher and has nothing to do with how comprehensive the instrument that seeks to compel ethical research, nor with how each researcher has responded to it. Some years ago I presented a proposal to interview market gardeners about their childhood memories of farming/gardening. The university ethics committee insisted that before beginning the conversations I supply the interviewees with details of trauma counselling services because of the danger that childhood recollections bring up any painful memories. You can imagine how effective this was as an ice-breaker. It is already very difficult to persuade people from socially disadvantaged and/or non-English speaking backgrounds to sign interview consent forms. In my experience they are deeply suspicious of such documents and this works against the establishment of trust on which good research is based.

There is no doubt that some researchers in the past have abused their power but the cost of trying to engineer compliance to certain ethical standards is enormous (has anyone ever done the sums on this??). Those working in research partnership with large organisations often have to go through a second ethical review process. Would it not be better for universities to provide in-service training on ethical research practice and require researchers to pledge commitment to conduct ethical research rather than making them undertake separate and time-consuming applications for each project? Some disciplinary associations – that representing sociologists, for example – have sought to produce their own codes for ethical research, a worthy enterprise and one that enriches collegial culture. But in an era of institutional anxiety universities tend to use neo-liberal quasi-contractual means to regulate more and more of their employees activities. Resistance seems futile. The ethics battlefield is littered with the corpses of heroic refuseniks who have tried to challenge ethics hypocrisy. The easiest course of action is to retreat from undertaking research with human subjects completely. I have seen many colleagues, honours and graduate students do this. Many good research projects have been dashed on the rocks of faux ethical oversight.