Essentials of Sociology. George Ritzer

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ cells continue to be invaluable to researchers, but should the manner in which they were obtained affect how they are used?

      Photo Researchers, Inc / Alamy Stock Photo

      No research undertaken by sociologists has caused anything like the kind of suffering and death experienced by the people studied in Nazi Germany or at Tuskegee Institute, or even generated an ethical firestorm like the one raging around the Lacks case. Nonetheless, such research is the context and background for ethical concerns about the harmful or negative effects of research on participants in sociological research (the code of ethics of the American Sociological Association can be found online at www.asanet.org/about/ethics.cfm). There are three main areas of concern: physical and psychological harm to participants, illegal acts by researchers, and deception and violation of participants’ trust.

      Physical and Psychological Harm

      The first issue, following from the Nazi experiments and Tuskegee studies, is concern over whether research can actually cause participants physical harm. Most sociological research is not likely to cause such harm. However, physical harm may be an unintended consequence. In the Robbers Cave research, discussed earlier as an example of a natural experiment, competition and conflict were engendered between two groups of 12-year-old boys. The hostility reached such a peak that the boys engaged in apple-throwing fights and in raids on one another’s compounds.

      A much greater issue in sociological research is the possibility of psychological harm to those being studied. Even questionnaire or interview studies can cause psychological harm merely by asking people about sensitive issues such as sexual orientation, drug use, and experience with abortion. This risk is greatly increased when, unbeknownst to the researcher, a participant is hypersensitive to these issues because of a difficult or traumatic personal experience.

      Some of the more extreme risks of psychological harm have occurred in experiments. The most famous example is Stanley Milgram’s (1974) laboratory study of how far people will go when they are given orders by those in positions of authority. In it, one group, the “learners,” were secretly paid to pretend that painful shocks were being applied to them by the other group of participants, the “teachers,” who were led to believe that the shocks they thought they were applying were real (Figure 2.6). The researcher, dressed officially in a white coat and projecting an aura of scientific respectability, ordered the teachers to apply shocks that appeared to be potentially lethal. The teachers did so even though the learners, who were in another room and not visible, were screaming with increasing intensity. The research clearly showed that if they were ordered to do so by authority figures, people would violate the social norms against inflicting pain on, and even possibly endangering the lives of, others.

      Description

      Figure 2.6 The Teacher (T), Learner (L), and Experimenter (E) in the Milgram Experiment

      The results of the Milgram experiment are important in many senses, especially what the study did to the psyches of the people involved. The “teachers” came to know that they were very responsive to the dictates of authority figures, even if they were ordered to commit immoral acts. Some of them certainly realized that their behavior indicated they were perfectly capable in such circumstances of harming, if not killing, other human beings. Such realizations had the possibility of adversely affecting the way participants viewed, and felt about, themselves. But the research has had several benefits as well, for both participants and others who have read about the Milgram studies. For example, those in powerful positions can better understand, and therefore limit, the potential impact of their orders to subordinates, and subordinates can more successfully limit how far they are willing to go in carrying out the orders of their superiors.

      Another famous study that raises similar ethical issues was conducted by Philip Zimbardo (1973). Zimbardo set up a prison like structure called “Stanford County Prison” as a setting in which to conduct his experiment. Participants were recruited to serve as either prisoners or guards. The “prison” was very realistic, with windowless cells, minimal toilet facilities, and strict regulations imposed on the inmates. The guards had uniforms, badges, keys, and clubs. They were also trained in the methods of managing prisoners.

      Philip Zimbardo’s experimental re-creation of prison conditions was so realistic, and the participants were so severely affected by their involvement in it, that the experiment had to be cut short by several weeks. Could this early cutoff have invalidated the research?

      Standford University Archives. Used with permission.

      The experiment was supposed to last six weeks, but it was ended after only six days when the researchers grew fearful about the health and sanity of the prisoners, whom some of the guards insulted, degraded, and dehumanized. Only a few guards were helpful and supportive. However, even the helpful guards refused to intervene when prisoners were being abused. The prisoners could have left, but they tended to go along with the situation, accepting both the authority of the guards and their own lowly and abused position. Some of the guards experienced psychological distress, but it was worse for the prisoners when they realized how much they had contributed to their own difficulties. Social researchers learned that a real or perceived imbalance of power between researcher and participant may lead the participant to comply with a researcher’s demands even though they cause distress.

      Ask Yourself

      Are there any other ways to answer the questions Milgram and Zimbardo explored? How would you tackle these questions as a social scientist?

      Illegal Acts

      In the course of ethnographic fieldwork, a researcher might witness or even become entangled in illegal acts. This problem confronted Randol Contreras in his research on a group of Dominican men who robbed upper-level drug dealers in the South Bronx (Contreras 2017). These “stickup kids” engaged in brutal acts of violence and possessed illegal drugs and cash. Contreras, himself a former—though admittedly unsuccessful—drug dealer, had to be careful to avoid participating in illegal activities that the stickup kids were describing to him, particularly because some of them were childhood friends.

      In other cases, researchers must weigh sticky legal and ethical ramifications for participants. Publishing an account of such a dramatic act might help the researchers’ careers, but it might also send the perpetrator of the illegal act to jail. It was also possible that not informing the police, or refusing to turn over field notes, could lead to imprisonment for the researchers

      Violation of Trust

      Researchers can betray participants’ trust in several ways. For instance, the researcher might inadvertently divulge the identity of respondents even though they were promised anonymity. There is also the possibility of exploitative relationships, especially with key informants. Exploitation is of special concern in cases where there is a real or perceived imbalance of power—often related to race, class, or gender—between researcher and participant. In the Tuskegee case, for example, African American men suffered the adverse effects of the research even though syphilis is distributed throughout the larger population. Although this research should not have occurred under any circumstances, a more equitable research design would have meant that most of the participants were white males.

      It is also a betrayal of СКАЧАТЬ