In 1998, actor Jim Carey starred in the movie The Truman Show. At first glance, the film appears to depict a perfect sociological experiment. Just imagine the possibilities if we could control every aspect of a person’s life, from how and where that person lives to where he or she works to whom he or she marries. Of course, keeping someone in a bubble, controlling every aspect of his or her life, and sitting back and watching would be highly unethical (not to mention illegal). However, the movie clearly inspires thoughts about the differences between researching humans versus inanimate objects. One of the most exciting—and most challenging—aspects of conducting research is the fact that (at least much of the time) our subjects are living human beings whose free will and human rights will always have an impact on what we are able to research and how we are able to conduct that research.

Unsurprisingly, research on human subjects is regulated much more heavily than research on nonhuman subjects. There are ethical considerations that all researchers must consider regardless of their research subject. As outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement, there are basic principles to follow, from which stem specific considerations when researching human subjects. We’ll discuss those considerations following a brief outline of the TCPS2 “guiding principles.”

The Tri-Council Policy Statement

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans is a definitive source of guidelines and best-practices when conducting research with human participants. It is a joint publication of the three main federal granting agencies in Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The guidelines in the TCPS2 are grounded in the underlying value of respect for human dignity. This means that any research involving humans must be “sensitive to the inherent worth of all human beings and the respect and consideration that they are due” (TCPS2, 1998, p.6). This notion is further specified by the three core principles of “respect for persons,” “concern for welfare,” and “justice,” each of which imply certain inherent rights of research participants:

• Respect for Persons
• Respect for free and informed consent
• Respect for vulnerable persons
• Concern for Welfare
• Respect for privacy and confidentiality
• Minimizing harm/maximizing benefits
• Balancing harm and benefits
• Justice
• Respect for Justice and Inclusiveness
• (Respect for Vulnerable Persons)

Knowing these principles in their general sense, as well as how such principles are applied to different issues and in different contexts, is essential to proper research conduct.

Specific Ethical Issues to Consider

As should be clear by now, conducting research on humans presents a number of unique ethical considerations. Human research subjects must be informed about and be given the opportunity to consent to their participation in research. Further, subjects’ identities and the information they share should be protected by researchers. In this section, we’ll take a look at a few specific topics that individual researchers must consider before embarking on research with human subjects.

Informed Consent

A norm of voluntary participation is presumed in all sociological research projects. In other words, we cannot force anyone to participate in our research without that person’s knowledge or consent (so much for that Truman Show experiment). Researchers must therefore design procedures to obtain subjects’ informed consent to participate in their research. Informed consent is defined as a subject’s voluntary agreement to participate in research based on a full understanding of the research and of the possible risks and benefits involved. Although it sounds simple, ensuring that one has actually obtained informed consent is a much more complex process than you might initially presume.

The first requirement is that, in giving their informed consent, subjects may neither waive nor even appear to waive any of their legal rights. However, since social science research does not typically involve asking subjects to place themselves at risk of physical harm by, for example, taking untested drugs or consenting to new medical procedures, researchers do not often worry about potential liability associated with their research projects.

However, their research may involve other types of risks. For example, what if a researcher fails to sufficiently conceal the identity of a subject who admits to participating in a local swinger’s club, enjoying a little sadomasochistic activity now and again or violating her marriage vows? While the law may not have been broken in any of these cases, the subject’s social standing, marriage, custody rights, or employment could be jeopardized were any of these tidbits to become public. This example might seem rather extreme, but the point remains: even social scientists conduct research that could come with some very real legal ramifications.

Beyond the legal issues, most institutional review boards (IRBs) require researchers to share some details about the purpose of the research, possible benefits of participation, and, most importantly, possible risks associated with participating in that research with their subjects. In addition, researchers must describe how they will protect subjects’ identities, how and for how long any data collected will be stored, and whom to contact for additional information about the study or about subjects’ rights. All this information is typically shared in an informed consent form that researchers provide to subjects. In some cases, subjects are asked to sign the consent form indicating that they have read it and fully understand its contents. In other cases, subjects are simply provided a copy of the consent form and researchers are responsible for making sure that subjects have read and understand the form before proceeding with any kind of data collection.

One last point to consider when preparing to obtain informed consent is that not all potential research subjects are considered equally competent or legally allowed to consent to participate in research. These subjects are sometimes referred to as members of vulnerable populations, people who may be at risk of experiencing undue influence or coercion.

The rules for consent are more stringent for vulnerable populations. For example, minors must have the consent of a legal guardian in order to participate in research. In some cases, the minors themselves are also asked to participate in the consent process by signing special, age-appropriate consent forms designed specifically for them. Prisoners and parolees also qualify as vulnerable populations. Concern about the vulnerability of these subjects comes from the very real possibility that prisoners and parolees could perceive that they will receive some highly desired reward, such as early release, if they participate in research. Another potential concern regarding vulnerable populations is that they may be underrepresented in research, and even denied potential benefits of participation in research, specifically because of concerns about their ability to consent. So on the one hand, researchers must take extra care to ensure that their procedures for obtaining consent from vulnerable populations are not coercive. And the procedures for receiving approval to conduct research on these groups may be more rigorous than that for non-vulnerable populations. On the other hand, researchers must work to avoid excluding members of vulnerable populations from participation simply on the grounds that they are vulnerable or that obtaining their consent may be more complex. While there is no easy solution to this double-edged sword, an awareness of the potential concerns associated with research on vulnerable populations is important for identifying whatever solution is most appropriate for a specific case.

Protection of Identities

As mentioned earlier, the informed consent process includes the requirement that researchers outline how they will protect the identities of subjects. This aspect of the process, however, is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of research.

In protecting subjects’ identities, researchers typically promise to maintain either the anonymity or the confidentiality of their research subjects. Anonymity is the more stringent of the two. When a researcher promises anonymity to participants, not even the researcher is able to link participants’ data with their identities. Anonymity may be impossible for some researchers to promise because several of the modes of data collection that social scientists employ, such as participant observation and face-to-face interviewing, require that researchers know the identities of their research participants. In these cases, a researcher should be able to at least promise confidentiality to participants. Offering confidentiality means that some identifying information on one’s subjects is known and may be kept, but only the researcher can link participants with their data and he or she promises not to do so publicly. Sometimes it is not even possible to promise that a subject’s confidentiality will be maintained. This can be the case if data are collected in public or in the presence of other research participants.

Protecting research participants’ identities is not always a simple prospect, especially for those conducting research on stigmatized groups or illegal behaviors. Scott DeMuth learned that all too well when conducting his dissertation research on a group of animal rights activists. As a participant observer, DeMuth knew the identities of his research subjects. So when some of his research subjects vandalized facilities and removed animals from several research labs at the University of Iowa, a grand jury called on Mr. DeMuth to reveal the identities of the participants in the raid. When DeMuth refused to do so, he was jailed briefly and then charged with conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism and cause damage to the animal enterprise (Jaschik, 2009).

Publicly, DeMuth’s case raised many questions. What do social scientists owe the public? Is DeMuth, by protecting his research subjects, harming those whose labs were vandalized? Is he harming the taxpayers who funded those labs? Or is it more important that DeMuth emphasize what he owes his research subjects, who were told their identities would be protected? DeMuth’s case also sparked controversy among academics, some of whom thought that as an academic himself, DeMuth should have been more sympathetic to the plight of the faculty and students who lost years of research as a result of the attack on their labs. Many others stood by DeMuth, arguing that the personal and academic freedom of scholars must be protected whether we support their research topics and subjects or not. What do you think? Should DeMuth have revealed the identities of his research subjects? Why or why not?

Minimising Harms

As illustrated above, there are a variety of ways in which our actions as researchers nmay put our participants at risk of harm. Whether such harm is professional, psychological, physical, or otherwise, it is our responsibility to do all that can be done to minimise them. While it may be that all risks cannot be eliminated without compromising the research, “should attempt to achieve the most favourable balance of risks and potential benefits” (TCPS2, p. 8) As well, we must be aware that harm may not only accrue to individual participants. Research, for instance, into marginalised neighborhoods or social groups may yield benefits, but there may also be the risk of further stigmatization or discrimination. In short, while much quantitative research may be deemed “minimal risk,” we must be aware that risks of harm extend beyond the individual participants in our research.

Indeed, certain vulnerable populations deserve and require special consideration. The TCPS2 devotes a chapter to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and special protections are required for research with members of vulnerable populations, such as children, those of diminished mental capacity, and those under control of the state. The nuances involved in ethically researching these populations suggest that all researchers in Canada have more than a passing familiarity with the TCPS2.