Research participants cannot give their consent to something they are not aware of or informed about. This paper analyzes a case study on potential violations of informed consent in research. Informed consent implies that those involved in a research or, more specifically, in counseling, are completely aware of the procedures and risks or potential harm entailed by the research for them to provide genuine consent to participate. Consent must not be forced. All participants have the right to decline any procedure, question, or activity they deem inappropriate. However, in certain instances, full disclosure could adversely affect the outcome of the research and generate erroneous, inaccurate results (Keehn 28). This is the dilemma of Hannah-- she knows that full disclosure of her research procedures to her clients would distort the program's findings, resulting in invalid data. Partial disclosure or no disclosure at all is considered 'deception'. Deception is the exclusion of particular information, or limited truths disclosed to participants. Some scholars argue that deception is in no way justifiable, while others argue for its use under specific circumstances (e.g. to minimize or avoid participant bias) (Goodwin 51). In Hannah's case, the least possible level of deception might be justifiable.
As stated in the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines, partial disclosure to human subject of the procedures and/or objectives of study could at times be reasonable. This is due to the fact that in certain human studies, like counseling research, the objectives of the research cannot be realized if these objectives and/or the procedures are completely revealed to participants (NHMRC para 2). The American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines allow some exceptions to the rule as long as the researcher carries out additional safety measures. The key considerations for allowing such exceptions arise in cases where the research objective is considered to be of tremendous significance, the goals cannot be attained without exercising deception, the research subjects are debriefed afterward, and the reason for deception is justifiable (Keehn 30-31). Furthermore, the participant should be allowed to drop out or cease any participation entirely at any time and the researcher shoulders “full responsibility for detecting and removing stressful aftereffects” (Keehn 31). This implies that the researcher would take the brunt for the exercise of deception.
Participant observation research-- which Hannah plans to carry out in order to assess the procedure and performance of her counseling approaches-- wherein the researcher does not disclose his/her participation in the research would be one instance of deception. Usually, low-profile, unnoticeable observation in public places is not regarded as an ethical issue. Yet, concealed observation in private contexts like a counseling session, wherein a certain extent of privacy is present, is considered an ethical dilemma. In some cases, if revealing the researcher's identity or the nature of the research could influence the behavior and/or responses of the participants or encourage them to doubt or challenge the intentions of the research, nominal deception is allowed (e.g. nondisclosure of research questions) (Goodwin 55). Deception must not be exercised for irresponsible, inappropriate reasons, like enhancing responses or where such deception could place the participant at significant risk. Therefore, if Hannah's motive is to make her counseling programs look good by cropping up positive responses from her clients by means of deception, then that would amount to an ethical problem.
Apparently, how excessive a deception is from an ethical perspective is consistently a personal discretion. Institutional Review Boards (IRB) evaluates the extent of deception that an investigator plans to employ, with the main concern being how indispensable deception is to the realization of research objectives (Bellini and Rumrill 116-7). As explained by McMillan and Schumacher (1997 as cited in Bellini and Rumrill 117), partial or no disclosure must only be exercised in instances where proper debriefing, wherein the investigator notifies the participant about the justifications for and nature of the deception after the research has been accomplished, is carried out; deception is the sole credible option to conduct the research; and, the importance of the potential outcome is more valuable than the definite impact of deception. These criteria are also supported by the NHMRC. As specified by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC) ethical guidelines (Bellini and Rumrill 117-8):
Rehabilitation counselors will not conduct research involving deception unless alternative procedures are not feasible and the prospective value of the research justifies the deception. When the methodological requirements of a study necessitate concealment or deception, the investigator will be required to explain clearly the reasons for this action as soon as possible.
Hannah's reasons for using deception are justified based on the abovementioned criteria. However, she still has to explain her reasoning for choosing deception in her research, because she has to be totally accountable to what will happen before, during, and after the study.
Yet, the main issue is bypassed in the guidelines because the exercise of deception breaches the participant's autonomy that might be exposed to possible risk, without being sufficiently briefed and voluntarily making a decision to take such potential harm or disadvantages. The outcome of these actions is not merely ethical, but also scientific, psychological, and social. While it becomes widely known that credible experts exercise deception in their research or projects and that these practices are tolerated and even favored, the public might think that either these professionals cannot be expected to honor their words or, more importantly, to disclose the truth, or others might potentially follow these deceptive professionals' footsteps. From the empirical point of view, scholars have asserted that public support for the human sciences is put at risk when researchers uphold distinctive ideals and practices that contradict more general values of moral principles and moral choice (Keehn 48). When investigators exercise deception in their research, thus violating the rights of their participants, they put themselves and the profession at risk which could threaten their future capability to conduct a study with human participants.
Therefore, it seems apparent that in order for Hannah to most successfully safeguard the rights of her clients, her research objectives and procedures must be thoroughly evaluated by relevant committees, specifically formed to assess the ethical implications of a particular research design. Research designs must not only undergo thorough scientific assessment, they must also be subjected to comprehensive ethical evaluation. This procedure is crucial because those who are not that directly involved in a particular study may identify threats that the researcher has not anticipated and they could give an advice on how to avoid ethical problems.
Conclusions
Partial disclosure, no disclosure, or deception in a research is ethically questionable, regardless of the reasons or justifications. However, research organizations, such as NHMRC, CRCC, and IRB, have provided some exceptions to the somewhat rigid rule of informed consent. Based on the ethical guidelines developed by these research organizations, Hannah's reasons for exercising deception in her research are acceptable. Nevertheless, Hannah must proceed with extra caution in order to ensure the inherent rights of her clients.
Works Cited
Bellini, James and Phillip Rumrill. Research in Rehabilitation Counseling: A Guide to Design, Methodology, and Utilization. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 2009. Print.
Goodwin, C. James. Research in Psychology: Methods and Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Print.
Keehn, J.D. The Ethics of Psychological Research. New York: Elsevier, 2013. Print.
National Health and Medical Research Council. “Qualifying or Waiving Conditions for Consent.” Australian Government NHMRC N.p., 13 May 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. <https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research- 2007-updated-december-2013/chapter-2-3-qualif>
