Greetings blogging masses! How are you today? Bully.
Today, I will be discussing socially-sensitive research. Is it to the detriment of society that we pursue potentially divisive research? Should the truth be regarded as more important than maintaining the equilibrium of the common man? Confucius suggested that, “the object of the superior man is truth.” This is a view, historically, that man has provided evidence for since the very first human scientist left his cave. As humans it is our natural inclination to investigate and understand the truths of the world around us, whether we look to the heavens for answer from a celestial being or under a microscope. As scientists, though we are obliged to maintain a level of humbleness in saying that we can never find the truth; we nevertheless still go looking for it. But as psychologists are we further obligated to not delve too far into the forest of truth and eke out every morsel of truth we can find? According to Kuhn, the truth is subject to potential paradigm shifts; yesterday’s truth may be tomorrow’s untruth, can we really conduct divisive research knowing that it may merely be apparently true? As Oscar Wilde said, “the truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
Psychological research generally puts three types of people at risk: the participant, the researcher (and the body of psychology that he represents), and society. Historically, studies (including a study conducted by the APA) have led to the concession that there is a 15 point IQ gap between white and black people. These studies have led to inhumane real-world changes, including mounting arguments for eugenics and an attempt in the ’50s by the US Board of Education to segregate students. As time has gone on scientists have grown to understand that this is not necessarily a hereditary fault, but potentially a poor learning environment, possibly as a result of low socio-economic status. There is little more dangerous in this world than a divisive opinion shared loudly. James Watson, Nobel laureate in biology, put forward his view that low average intelligence was a cause for poverty in Africa. Spokesmen like this place seemingly credible blame on certain groups of people, leading to further ‘scientifically-based’ movements ranging from the ridiculous to the irresponsible. Rushton (1990) suggested that black people had smaller brains and therefore lower intelligence. Trivia fans among you may know that Einstein had a below average sized brain. Levin (1990) believed that no attempt should be made to aid black people in terms of intelligence, deeming it pointless. Studies like this perpetuate a negative stereotype that can only fuel negative actions towards a minority, as seen in numerous eugenics movements. Is it our right to investigate an area that may unearth some dirty cultural laundry? As humanists, do we owe it to the individual that we do not seek any truth that may put them in a disadvantageous position? Kelman (1965) suggests that knowledge is “ethically neutral”, but this is far from a popular view.
Put yourself in the position of a students administrator.
As a charming, attractive, logical person; you would no doubt agree that you are above prejudice and would pick someone for a position based on salient information. Now, you are faced with a decision. You can offer one PhD place to one of these prospective students – one is black, one is white and they have similar qualifications. As a learned administrator (in this completely hypothetical scenario), you know that the weight of research has demonstrably indicated that intelligence and academic potential is completely rooted in genetics. Unfortunate evolutionary circumstances have meant that white people have got the weaker genetics and in general have less potential than black people. SO, who do you employ? Do you provoke the rage of an entire ethnicity by siding with the aforementioned COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL objective truth/fact/whatever, or do you take the side of humanism and offer the position based on presumably superficial, (HYPOTHETICALLY) archaic perceptions of equality?
Though you may not be sure on whether the search for truth is > societal equilibrium, you can play it safe by taking the advice of Sieber and Stanley (1988). They suggest 10 ethical issues that a researcher must keep in mind when conducting socially sensitive research:
- Privacy
- Confidentiality
- Sound & Valid Methodology
- Deception
- Informed Consent
- Justice & Equitable Treatment
- Scientific Freedom
- Ownership of Data
- The values of social scientists
- Cost/Benefit Analysis
I understand that I have mainly focused on race but socially-sensitive research is rife throughout psychology’s history. Investigating issues such as gender differences and sexuality, the literature is huge and well worth a read. I believe these types of questions must be debated and ultimately decided upon. Whether your values are based in the attainment of intrinsic truths, potentially leading to a future where we do not deter ourselves from research for risk of offence; or your values may be based in the maintaining of indiscriminate equality, leading to a world where we live in happy ignorance. I hope that my writing has not implied any bias as I am not sure what I think yet. All I believe is that it is right to be cautious in deciding this matter,but recognise that it is a matter that psychology is ignoring at the detriment of both science and humanism. As Brown (1997) put it, “as long as research ethics avoid the matter of whether certain questions ethically cannot be asked, psychology will conduct technically ethical research that violates a more general ethic of avoiding harm to vulnerable populations.”
psychopolemic 