Is the Use of Deception in Social Science Research on Human Participants Justified?
Title: Is the Use of deception in social science research on human participants justified? By Noel Matea, University of Waikato, New Zealand, 2011.
Introduction
The ethical issue in human subjects’ research continues to receive greater attention within the research ethics literature and the wider academia. A particular ethical issue that continues to draw controversy is the use of deception in social science research involving human subjects. The question of whether deception can be ethically justified is always at the forefront of the deception debate. While some argue that the use of deception, whether intentional or not, carries a considerable potential risk and harm for research subjects, others however, stresses that some measure of deception is sometimes necessary and may be the only effective means to obtain essential knowledge (Elms, 1982).
This essay will briefly discuss and critique a number of literature that contribute to the debate on the issue of deception in social science research. To bring my discussion into perspective I will first attempt a definition on the word deception. This will frame the context of my discussion. The essay will then highlight some of the arguments surrounding the issue of contention. I will conclude with a brief summary and a thought on whether deception is always wrong in social science research.
To begin with, deception in research involves a variety of practices where the researcher intentionally provides limited information to research subjects on the true purpose of research. Reynolds (1979) defined deception as research where the researcher conceals the real purpose of the study and the true nature of what is to be expected by research participants. Baumrind (1985) enlarges on Reynolds (1979) definition and classified deception in two categories: intentional and non-intentional where the former carries the meaning of “withholding of information in order to obtain participation, concealment in natural
Introduction
The ethical issue in human subjects’ research continues to receive greater attention within the research ethics literature and the wider academia. A particular ethical issue that continues to draw controversy is the use of deception in social science research involving human subjects. The question of whether deception can be ethically justified is always at the forefront of the deception debate. While some argue that the use of deception, whether intentional or not, carries a considerable potential risk and harm for research subjects, others however, stresses that some measure of deception is sometimes necessary and may be the only effective means to obtain essential knowledge (Elms, 1982).
This essay will briefly discuss and critique a number of literature that contribute to the debate on the issue of deception in social science research. To bring my discussion into perspective I will first attempt a definition on the word deception. This will frame the context of my discussion. The essay will then highlight some of the arguments surrounding the issue of contention. I will conclude with a brief summary and a thought on whether deception is always wrong in social science research.
To begin with, deception in research involves a variety of practices where the researcher intentionally provides limited information to research subjects on the true purpose of research. Reynolds (1979) defined deception as research where the researcher conceals the real purpose of the study and the true nature of what is to be expected by research participants. Baumrind (1985) enlarges on Reynolds (1979) definition and classified deception in two categories: intentional and non-intentional where the former carries the meaning of “withholding of information in order to obtain participation, concealment in natural