RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

52 THE ETHICS OF EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL RESEARCH
Box 2.1
The costs/benefits ratio
The costs/benefits ratio is a fundamental concept
expressing the primary ethical dilemma in social
research. In planning their proposed research, social
scientists have to consider the likely social benefits
of their endeavours against the personal costs to the
individuals taking part. Possible benefits accruing from
the research may take the form of crucial findings
leading to significant advances in theoretical and applied
knowledge. Failure to do the research may cost society
the advantages of the research findings and ultimately
the opportunity to improve the human condition. The
costs to participants may include affronts to dignity,
embarrassment, loss of trust in social relations, loss
of autonomy and self-determination, and lowered selfesteem.
On the other hand, the benefits to participants
could take the form of satisfaction in having made
acontributiontoscienceandagreaterpersonal
understanding of the research area under scrutiny.
The process of balancing benefits against possible costs
is chiefly a subjective one and not at all easy. There
are few or no absolutes and researchers have to make
decisions about research content and procedures in
accordance with professional and personal values. This
costs/benefits ratio is the basic dilemma residual in a
great deal of social research.
Source: adapted from Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias
1992
bedrock of ethical procedure – that of informed
consent.
Informed consent
Much social research necessitates obtaining the
consent and cooperation of subjects who are to
assist in investigations and of significant others
in the institutions or organizations providing
the research facilities (see http://www.routledge.
com/textbooks/9780415368780 – Chapter 2, file
2.2. ppt). While some cultures may not be stringent
about informed consent, in others there are
strict protocols for informed consent. Frankfort-
Nachmias and Nachmias (1992) suggest that
informed consent is particularly important if
participants are going to be exposed to any stress,
pain, invasion of privacy, or if they are going to lose
control over what happens (e.g. in drug research);
such informed consent requires full information
about the possible consequences and dangers.
The principle of informed consent arises
from the subject’s right to freedom and selfdetermination.
Being free is a condition of living in
ademocracy,andwhenrestrictionsandlimitations
are placed on that freedom they must be justified
and consented to, as in research. Consent thus protects
and respects the right of self-determination
and places some of the responsibility on the participant
should anything go wrong in the research. As
part of the right to self-determination, the subject
has the right to refuse to take part, or to withdraw
once the research has begun (see Frankfort-
Nachmias and Nachmias 1992). Thus informed
consent implies informed refusal.
Informed consent has been defined by Diener
and Crandall (1978) as ‘the procedures in which
individuals choose whether to participate in an
investigation after being informed of facts that
would be likely to influence their decisions’. This
definition involves four elements: competence,
voluntarism, full information and comprehension.
Competence implies that responsible, mature
individuals will make correct decisions if they
are given the relevant information. It is
incumbent on researchers to ensure they do
not engage individuals incapable of making such
decisions because of immaturity or some form of
psychological impairment.
Voluntarism entails applying the principle
of informed consent and thus ensuring that
participants freely choose to take part (or not)
in the research and guarantees that exposure to
risks is undertaken knowingly and voluntarily.
This element can be problematical, especially in
the field of medical research where unknowing
patients are used as guinea-pigs.
Full information implies that consent is fully
informed, though in practice it is often impossible
for researchers to inform subjects on everything,
e.g. on the statistical treatment of data; and, as
we shall see below, on those occasions when the
researchers themselves do not know everything
about the investigation. In such circumstances,
the strategy of reasonably informed consent has to