User talk:KSars

In Social Research Methods lecture on 1/19/2010, I wanted to expand upon the ethics of the examples used when conducting research.

"Trouble in the Tearoom", by my standards was comlpetely ethical. Reviewing the circumstances of the experiment, this is the legitimacy of the study:

1) The homosexual individuals were conducting sexual acts in the public, not in the privacy of their homes.

2) The names of the individuals being studied where kept annonymous and no personal/private information was available to the public (confidentiality without consent was upheld because the individuals were unaware they were being observed).

3) If the indivuals were informed that they were being studied, there could be potential harm to both the researcher or the individual. To elaborate:

* Confrontation to the individual by the researcher could elicit a hostile response. Ex. The individual attacking the researcher (Assuming the public restroom was a location for the individual to to participate/hide his tendancies for homosexual acts, the researcher could be threatning just by recording his/her observations; fear by the individual of having his "secret" let out).

* Additional stress or anxiety can be brought upon the individual, who was not informed of the the study prior. Ex. Fear of his "secret" being released would cause the stress.

4) This matter would have legal impications above all else.

5) The experiment was successful without anyone being harmed.

In Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment, I feel this experiment has potential to fall in the grey area even though it was deemed unethical. Yes there was mental strain upon the prisoners and claims of Zimbardo being to much involved in the experiment are true, the particpants were well aware of what was expected of them even though in reality the conditions were harsh. That's the question that I pose. If the participants are well aware of the conditions and procedures of an experiment, can the experiment be unethical? The point of an experiment is to test a hypothisis or further knowledge on the topic of interest. If the particpants are told all the possible known outcomes or any possible sideffects, can it be unethical. Can a researcher be held liable for any harm to particpants when some experiments are conducted to learn side effects of the topic of interest. When one volenteers to try a new drug and the participants have sign their consent forms, why should a psychologist, sociologist/ etc. be questioned of ethics when pharmaceutical companies aren't blamed. In the Tuskegee experiment, had the participants been aware that they were given a disease and told of all the possible implications yet still gave consent to be active in the experiment, could this case be ethical or is it still wrong? Ignoring the fact of releasing the infected individuals of the Tuskegee experiment into the general public, which is completely unethical, is maintaining informed particpants in a controlled setting considered right had the experiment been proceded differently under those conditions?