With rather divergent views coming in on the issue (i.e., should
the survey be considered ethical if the review committee agreed that the
name could be omitted, etc.), one rather important issue seems to be
being ignored: the kind of class this research is being conducted _for_.
If this were a class in, for example, social psychology or
developmental and the research was part of standard coursework (helping
the students see the results of various influences discussed in the
class, etc.), then, certainly, if the review committee agrees, leaving
out the name of the researcher is no problem. But, in fact, this is
_not_ for such a class, but for one in Experimental Research and Design.
If there are _any_ courses in which rigid adherence to _all_ guidelines
should be insisted on, that's certainly at the top of the list. Allowing
a student in a research design course to violate even the most minor
guideline would seem to be totally at odds with the purpose of the
course!
From a personal perspective, I tend to feel that the name of the
researcher in such a study really isn't a concern for the subject. Since
the researcher IS an undergrad in a research class, final approval and
control of the research is, by necessity, in the hands of the
instructor--his or her name would be at least as appropriate as a
contact person as would that of the student conducting the study. While
guidelines require two contacts, in practice the instructor should
certainly be able to provide a "backup" name who is associated with the
research (perhaps a grad assistant who is working with the student to
insure compliance?), thus fulfilling that requirement.
Given the circumstances, if I were Rod, I'd probably contact the
department chair, express my concerns (including those about violating
the guidelines to any extent at all in such a class) and suggest that he
would be willing to distribute the surveys if the department chair would
add the necessary names to the instrument--whether those include the
student or not really wouldn't be the issue; so long as contacts appear,
guidelines are met. I would personally have no problem distributing the
instrument in class (assuming it isn't an extremely lengthy one) since
it would offer (after administration, of course) an excellent
opportunity to discuss survey research with the students--and of course
delivering them to the department chair isn't enough of a burden to be
an unreasonable request. Lacking the changes, however, I would be very
prone to ignore the request--not because I feel that that information is
necessary to the subjects in such circumstances (assuming the content of
the survey isn't something that could bring negative consequences to the
subject), there really isn't much need for someone to contact if a
subject is "injured" by the research (the worst injury likely is a paper
cut from the survey itself), and since it isn't ongoing there's not much
purpose in having someone to contact about the research as it
progresses--once the survey is done, so is the subject in such a case,
but because as it is designed it is NOT a valid learning experience for
the student involved and could lead him to conduct sloppy or unethical
research in the future when he or she may actually be in a position to
hurt his/her subjects.
Just a few thoughts,
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, Michigan
". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the
love you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
