Do Sociologists Need "Ethical Education?
            Jim Thomas / Northern Illinois University

(Originally appeared in The Midwest Sociologist, 44(September): 5.

Like it or not, a new age of "research responsibility" has
emerged.  Although we sociologists generally consider ourselves
an ethical bunch, our courses, our publications, our workshops,
and our conversations tend toward topics other than "doing the
right thing" in our empirical inquiries. We are, of course, not
alone.  In the belief that ALL researchers need education in
human subjects research, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) in
2000 enacted a policy that public and private sector research
institutions receiving federal funds must implement training on
research ethics and require education on the protection of human
research participants for all investigators submitting NIH
funding applications (NIH, 2000).  The expectation, however, is
that institutions receiving NIH and other federal funds would
apply the new guidelines to all faculty and staff directly or
indirectly involved in human subjects research.

Although federal implementation of this "Responsible Conduct of
Research" (RCR) initiative has been delayed for a year because of
a jurisdictional dispute with Congress (Tauzin and Greenwood,
2001), many universities have begun exploring ways to comply with
RCR guidelines in anticipation of the policies taking effect in
October, 2001.  How the education occurs and who should receive
the education will be left to individual institutions.

RCR committee and Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies grew
out of concern for human subjects primarily in the medical and
experimental sciences.  However, the intent of the federal RCR
policy is clear: All researchers, even those not directly
involved in human subjects research, should be familiar with the
issues of responsible research. This would include students,
staff, and faculty, even those whose research is not federally
funded (NIH, 2001). Failure to comply with RCR guidelines could
jeopardize an institution's federal funding.

Why should sociologists care?

The National Institution of Health's definition of "human
subjects" from Title 45 CFR Part 46, "Protection Of Human
Subjects," consistent with the explicit or implied definitions of
most social science professional organizations, defines a human
subject as:

   ...a living individual about whom an investigator (whether
   professional or student) conducting research obtains
      (1) data through intervention or interaction with the
          individual,
      (2) identifiable private information.

This covers the bulk of sociological empirical research.  IRBs
attempt to assure that all researchers protect their subjects by
obtaining their consent, by protecting their dignity, and by
doing them no harm. However, because the methodology of social
inquiry often differs from that of medical or experimental
inquiry, sometimes it seems as if IRBs are unnecessarily critical
especially of ethnographic and other participant observation
research.  In fact, judging from the responses of colleagues and
from comments on electronic discussion groups, there is growing
concern that the one-two punch of RCR education and IRB oversight
is increasingly creating unnecessary obstacles for social
scientists.  Some of the concerns result from a misunderstanding
of the intents of the RCR guidelines, and others result from the
ambiguity of their content and implementation. The most serious
concerns, however, come from fears that the guidelines will
obstruct social science research by limiting access to subjects
and restricting what we may publish about them.

For several reasons, the MSS and its members should take
aggressive proactive measures to assess the impact and
implementation of IRB/RCR policies.

First, the MSS's Standards, Training and Employment Committee
could review RCR and IRB policies at midwest institutions in
order to determine inter-institutional consistency in standards
and procedures.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that some
institutions may be more critical of ethnographic inquiry,
especially of "problem populations" than of other types of
scholarship.  Further, inter-institutional uniformity would
reduce, among other things, problems resulting if
co-investigators are required to comply with competing IRB
standards.

Second, a major professional organization should take the
initiative in formulating RCR educational content, IRB review
policies, and IRB review criteria for the social sciences. Rather
than assume that IRB personnel--many of whom come from the
physical sciences, humanities, or the non-academic community--may
be well-meaning but clueless about the ethical conundrums social
scientists face and how we resolve them.  This means that we, as
social scientists, must actively participate in the review and
education process.

Third, we can educate ourselves by continually keeping ethical
issues in the forefront of the discipline. An occasional special
issue of The Sociological Quarterly, increased conference
sessions, sponsored workshops, and an RCR/IRB section on the MSS
homepage would be relatively simple first steps.

Finally, we should remember that the RCR core areas of
responsible research extend beyond what occurs in the
data-gathering/human subjects process.  The issues include
authorship, intellectual property rights, student/faculty and
other power relationships, and even cultural diversity.

We should proactively recognize that IRBs and RCR committees are
our friends, not our foes, and compliance with guidelines can
only strengthen the integrity and credibility of our enterprise.
Without recognizing the implications of RCR/IRB policies for
social science research, sociologists risk losing the opportunity
to shape the content and delivery of RCR education. We also risk
losing our ethical credibility when we are seen as hostile to and
resisting oversight and accountability. As a Society, we should
reaffirm our commitment to our ethical roots by taking a
leadership role in responsible research, both within the
discipline and within our institutions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Institute of Health (NIH).  2000. "Required education in
the Protection of Human Research Participants."
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html

____. 2001. "Frequently Asked Questions for the Requirements for
Education on the Protection of Human Subjects.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs_educ_faq.htm


Office of Research Integrity (ORI).  2000.  "PHS Policy on
Instruction in t he Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)." U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/finalpolicy.asp

Tauzin, W.J. and James Greenwood. 2001.  Letter from
Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to
Office of Research Integrity. February 5.
http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/congressionalconcernsinquiry.asp