RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

60 THE ETHICS OF EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL RESEARCH
are employing at the time prove controversial.
Indeed, this polarity between the research and
the researched is reflected in the principles of
the American Psychological Association which,
as Zechmeister and Shaughnessy (1992) show,
attempts to strike a balance between the rights of
investigators to seek an understanding of human
behaviour, and the rights and welfare of individuals
who participate in the research. In the final
reckoning, the decision to go ahead with a research
project rests on a subjective evaluation of the costs
both to the individual and society.
The corollary of non-maleficence is beneficence:
what benefits will the research bring, and
to whom Many would-be participants could be
persuaded to take part in research if it is made
clear that it will, or may, bring personal, educational
and social benefits. For example, it may lead
to the improvement of learning, increased funding
and resources for a particular curriculum area,
improved approaches to the teaching of a subject,
increased self-esteem for students, or additional
teachers in a school. While it is sometimes worth
including a statement of potential benefit when
contacting schools and individuals, it may also be
an actual requirement for ethics regulatory boards
or sponsors.
The recipients of the benefit also have to be
factored into the discussion here. A researcher
may gain promotion, publications, a degree,
research sponsorship and celebrity from a piece
of research. However, the research might still
leave the participants untouched, underprivileged,
living and working in squalid and underresourced
conditions, under-supported, and with
no material, educational or other improvements
brought to the quality of their lives and work.
On the one hand, it could be argued that
research that did not lead to such benefits is
unethical; on the other hand, it could be that the
research helps to place the issue on the agenda
of decision-makers and that, in the long run, it
could contribute to a groundswell of opinion that,
itself, brings change. While it may be fanciful
to believe that a single piece of research will
automatically lead to improvement, the ethical
question raised here – who benefits – suggests
that a selfish approach to the benefits of the
research by the researcher is unethical.
This latter point requires researchers to do more
than pay lip service to the notion of treating
research participants as subjects rather than
as objects to be used instrumentally – research
fodder, so to speak – imbuing them with selfesteem
and respect. One can treat people with
respect but still the research may make no
material difference to their lives. While it is
surely impossible to argue against treating people
with dignity and respect, it raises the issue of the
obligations and commitments of the researcher.
Let us say that the researcher has been working
closely in a school for one or two years; surely
that researcher has an obligation to improve the
lives of those being researched, rather than simply
gathering data instrumentally To do the latter
would be inhumane and deeply disrespectful. The
issue is tension ridden: is the research for people
and issues or about people and issues We have
to be clear about our answer to the question
‘what will this research do for the participants
and the wider community, not just for the
researcher’
Bailey (1994: 457) suggests that there are several
approaches that can be used to avoid harming
research subjects, including:
using computer simulations
finding a situation in which the negative effects
of harm already exist, i.e. where the research
does not have the responsibility for having
produced these conditions
applying only a very low level of potential
harm, or for only a short period of time, so that
any effects are minimal
obtaining informed consent (providing details
of the potential negative effects and securing
participants’ consent)
justifying the research on the grounds that
the small amount of harm caused is much less
than the harm caused by the existing situation
(which the research is trying to improve)
using samples rather than complete populations,
so that fewer people are exposed to the
harm