Research Ethics and Integrity: What You Need to Know

Introduction 

Research ethics and integrity are sensitive issues for social scientists. Israel (2014) illustrated various examples where participants in the studies become victims of scrupulous entities seeking to protect personal interest. Under such circumstances, confidentiality and privacy issues take center stage. However, the case studies by Zimbardo et al. (1973) and Piliavin and Piliavin (1972), illustrated that exposure to harm of participants in experimental research can result from other factors besides breach of confidentiality and privacy. As evidenced in the article, “ A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison”, potential harm to participants in the course of experimental studies raises grave ethical concerns. Avoiding harm is the utmost goal of any social research involving live subjects. The implications go beyond harm caused through exposure to participation in the experiment. According to Israel (2014), revelation of the findings of the study in breach of confidentiality can result to stigmatization and discrimination. Therefore, research designs must conform to ethical principles that govern social research – with safety of subjects taking the highest precedence. This paper seeks to illustrate ethical issues by examining scenarios in the case studies. 

Contentious Ethical Issues Emerging from the Case Studies 

The psychological social experiments by Zimbardo et al. (1973), and Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) brought to focus the need to investigate social scientists’ concerns in regards to frustration by ethical regulators. Israel (2014) advances the argument that regulators of ethical practice lack understanding of the workings of social science, including the cultural, economic, and political contexts in which social scientists operate. Social experiments depend on the ability of the researcher to replicate the natural conditions of the context to which participants are to be subjected to. The case studies illustrated that both experiments took this into account through research designs that let experimental events unfold in the most naturalistic manner. One can argue that the employment of natural settings in both studies is the main cause of antagonism between researchers and regulators of ethics. For instance, to ensure the best conditions for the study, Zimbardo et al. (1973) recreated a prison environment where participants were subjected. Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) experiment employed a similar strategy. From the social research perspective, the plausibility of the research designs cannot be disputed. However, ethical issues emerge in regards to potential harm participants in such natural settings are subjected to. 

It is common for researchers to get overexcited about the unfolding events that they fail to recognize that participants in the experiments face the risk of actual harm by virtue of their involvement in the study settings. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that research ethics dictates minimal interference of the researcher in influencing the behavior of research participants. The two case studies clearly illustrate the pitfalls of this phenomenon. In the study by Zimbardo et al. (1973), “ prisoners” and “ guards ” were demonstrated to assume the actual roles that have been portrayed by those in their positions in actual government prisons. However, the resultant physical and emotional harm to participants was unbearable. The confrontations that were outcomes of assumptions of the roles of “ prisoner” and “ guards ” subjected the former to unprecedented negative treatment including stripping, denial of basic rights such as using the toilet, the freedom to opt out of the study at will. 

Zimbardo et al ., in their work “ A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison,” highlighted the need for balancing costs and benefits of the study as a critical ethical issue. It is important to point out that the experiment, initially scheduled for two weeks, was infamously abandoned after the sixth day owing to the developing hostilities between “ prisoners” and the “ guards. ” One can argue that the harm to participants in the study was grave, thus making researchers unable to draw on the utilitarian principle to justify its continuation. Israel (2014) observed that ethical principles in research dictate that the obligation to do no harm overrides the obligation to ensure any other benefits. By any standards, continuation of Zimbardo et al. (1973) experiment would have flaunted this ethical principle. 

One can argue that Zimbardo et al. ’s work falls in the category of research that is antithetical to emancipatory aspirations of social science, and undermines the legitimacy for society co-existence. According to Israel (2014), ethical behavior among social scientists is critical in minimizing harm and expanding the benefits. However, the predicament of Zimbardo et al.’s experiment pointed to the contrary. The Stanford Prison Experiment raised a number of critical ethical issues. According to Zimbardo et al. (1973), participants who assumed the role of “ prisoners” were not given detailed information about the experiment, thus raised concerns about lack of full knowledge in regards to what they were consenting and signing up for. Therefore, despite participants being informed that the mock prison experiment would include denial of some rights, none was prepared to be arrested at home or stripped upon arrival to “ prison. ” In addition, failure to institute regulatory mechanisms exposed participants to unprecedented risks. While researchers may have been aware of the ethical principles flaunted by the “ guards,” they were powerless to intervene as the mock experiment morphed into a real prison scenario. Guards’ unmitigated power was the major source of harm to “ prisoners.” For instance, despite assurance that participants were free to leave the study at any point, they were actually prevented from doing so by guards , which exacerbated ethical concerns. 

The design of the experiment by Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) was instrumental towards the replication of the context in which the intended treatment was to be administered. This can be attributed to the need to demonstrate consequentialism and non-consequentialism, which according to Israel (2014), are both act-oriented approaches. Just like in the experiment by Zimbardo et al. (1973), Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) research design was intended to create the perfect natural scenario where participants would behave normally as they would usually do without influence from the researchers. 

It is imperative to point out that the two case studies were traumatic to participants. The Stanford Prison experiment left “ prisoners” in fragile mental state upon realization that they signed up for actual imprisonment. On the other hand, the “ guards ” were at first animated to exert their authority, but later experienced conflicting emotions as they too realized that they were hurting the “ prisoners.” One can argue that similar implications are evident in Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) experiment. The sight of blood from the perceived victims in the experiment was traumatic to most bystanders, thereby drastically reducing chances of victims getting help. Based on the findings of the experiment, one can argue that Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) “ perception of risk due to involvement” hypothesis was true. Overall, it is evident that Zimbarddo et al. experiment exposed participants to risk of emotional and physical harm. Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) study did not raise ethical concerns of similar magnitude, though exposure to blood may be considered a biological risk, especially if there is contact. However, the unfolding events in the two case studies were beyond the control of researchers. 

Strategies Employed to Ensure Standards of Ethical Research 

On examination of the complexities beyond regulatory compliance in social science, Israel (2014) observed that social scientists are not only faced with the challenge to develop working that is defendable as scientific, but also by the need to meet regulatory demands without compromising ethical conduct. In all respects, one can argue that Zimbardo et al. (1973) and Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) research designs conformed to ethical requirements that govern such studies. For instance, recruitment of participants in both studies was done ethically and they were required to consent to involvement. The researchers also sought to ensure credibility of the study through replication of real environmental settings in the experiments. This is critical in social science, which involves studying subjects’ behavior and attitudes in natural settings following administration of treatment and recording results. Therefore, the researchers cannot be faulted of fabrication or falsification of the findings despite other emerging ethical concerns because data from the experiment is a true reflection of what transpired once the experiment was underway. Perhaps the researchers can be apportioned blame for failure to scrutinize the research designs from the consequentialist and non-consequentialist perspectives. Such negligence, in most situations, leads to inability to recognize the loopholes in the designs that can pose risk of harm to participants. Nevertheless, it is important to note that researchers sometimes experience difficulties predicting how the research process would unfold because they banked on the effectiveness of instituted control measures and initial ethical precautions. However, Zimbardo et al. Stanford Prison experiment showed that is not the case. 

According to Israel (2014), ethical issues faced by social scientists may be outcomes of the complications in the chosen methodologies, actions of participants, or the regulatory environment. The first two are of utmost significance to case the studies reviewed herein. By Israel’s account, it can be argued that the events that unfolded in the experiment were outcomes of consequentialism, which operates in the precipice that merit of an action is of more importance than its motivation or intent. Zimbardo et al. and Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) experiments led to the realization that while modalities may be set to ensure conformity of the study to ethical principles, the outcomes may still be undesirable. 

However, the evident aspect from the two studies is in relation to success of researchers in recreating scenarios that trigger natural changes in behavior of the participants. One can argue that the motivation of the researchers in the two studies was to understand people’s reactions when exposed to a prison environment and blood during accidents. The steps employed in executing the experiments bore fruit by all accounts because the researchers collected the intended data. Therefore, it can be concluded that the procedures used were successful. However, it is worth pointing out that the ethical strategies were also responsible for exposure of participants to harm. According to Zimbardo et al. (1973), the “ guards ” started expressing extreme behavior from day one, putting the experiment in jeopardy. The reaction of the prisoners only served to exacerbate the situation as guards adopted more extreme techniques when punishing prisoners. Rebellions by prisoners were suppressed using force including physical and sexual harassment. When prisoners could not bear it any more, they requested to leave the study but in violation of the ethics code, guars refused them their wish. The whole scenario illustrates failure of the researchers to ensure modalities for moderation of the experiment were in place as guards were left with autonomy of running the mock prison. Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) experiment does not share these extremes, but psychological trauma suffered by participants at the sight of blood can be argued to reflect those of participants in the mock prison experiment. 

Alternate Strategies for Achieving Similar or Better Results 

It is important to reiterate that the initial designs of the two experiments considered ethical issues. What raised concerns was the manner in which the events unfolded owing to the contexts replicated for the two studies. In addition, it could have been possible to carry out the experiments to their conclusions if appropriate regulatory mechanisms were instituted. Therefore, alternative strategy that would have been ethical in regards to protection of participants in the mock prison experiment would have been the conduction of the experiment in actual prison. Zimbardo et al. (1973) observed that guards resorted to using extreme measures because there were no control measures in place to regulate their actions. Conducting the study in a real prison would have ensured the necessary discipline among guards because protocols for the same are in place. However, the recruitment process for prisoners would have needed modification to involve new inmates without previous incarceration records. The process would have allowed the study to run to its conclusion. This is based on the assumption that convicted prisoners serving genuine terms would have be tolerated being denied some of their basic rights, which is a norm in prison environments. The use subjects who are ready to accept their predicament would have eliminated instances of call to leave the study, thus reducing the need for strict adherence to details of the consent forms. 

In Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) experiment, the sudden exposure of participants to a staged accident scene may have been too traumatic for some of them to trigger natural responses, a situation exacerbated by the presence of blood. To protect participants from such unprecedented emotional torture, the researchers could have employed a survey questionnaire rather than observation. Participants should have been selected randomly and given a picture of the staged accident scene and a questionnaire. This would have ensured that participants were not under duress, hence able to give desirable feedback based on their sober judgment of the situation. 

The Case Study that Represents Better Implementation of Research Ethics 

One can argue that none of the two cases represented better implementation of research ethics because they both violated the basic principle that requires researchers to do no harm to participants. However, the degree of harm varied in the two experiments with Zimbardo et al. experiment demonstrated to cause both physical and psychological harm, while Piliavin and Piliavin (1972) resulted mainly to the latter. In both studies, the researchers failed to recognize the need to protect their subjects from any eventualities stemming from exposure to environments in which experiments were conducted. Based on the “do no harm” code of conduct, one can argue that such failure discredits the gains of other ethical procedures undertake to implement the studies. According to Israel (2014), social scientists are concerned about ethics. The righteous and virtuous behavior demanded of them are for the sake of stakeholders how put thrust in social scientists and their work, hence the need to reciprocate through doing good. Any harm suffered by the participants in the study does not justify the results of the study regardless of how important such findings are. The situation worsens with knowledge that alternative strategies could have been employed to yield better outcomes. 

Conclusion 

The two experiments epitomize situations that dominate the field of social research where research designs, considered to be ethical in the initial stages of the study, adopt a narrow view of the lager implications of conducting the actual study. The gap between theory and practice in matters of research ethics is evident. For instance, in the Stanford Prison experiment, Zimbardo tested the hypothesis that the external environments, specifically the institutions individuals live in and are part of, have a significant role in shaping their behavior. On the contrary, being equipped with prior notion of what to expect from the study did not prompt the researchers into institution measures to protect participants. The move is comparable to blatant disregard of the dictates of ethics in social research. Exposing participants in the study to unnecessary harm is unethical by all standards, placing the ethical appropriateness of the studies reviewed herein in question. In addition, it is important to consider the implications of failure to observe ethics to the field of social research. 

Stakeholders, including funding agencies and consumers of research information are sensitive about such issues because of their potential to attract serious legal and political confrontations. Therefore, observing research ethics is not an option for social scientists. However, social scientists cannot solely bear the blame for outcomes of studies that are considered to have crossed the boundary of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. It is important to understand that no social scientist willingly and knowingly disregards ethics that constitute the norms of conduct. A significant number of ethical issues in social research emerge from different interpretation, application, and balancing of ethical norms. 

References 

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison.  Naval Research Reviews ,  9 (1-17). 

Israel, M. (2014).  Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance . Sage. 

Piliavin, J. A., & Piliavin, I. M. (1972). Effect of blood on reactions to a victim.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23 (3), 353-361.