Introduction
In various research, proponents are recommended to observe and adhere to ethical, moral, and legal standards within various phases of the study. According to Walton (n.d.), research ethics is described as “specifically interested in the analysis of ethical issues that are raised when people are involved as participants in research” (p. 1). In the current discourse, the objective is to address questions about research ethics in the study conducted by Humphreys (1972).
Discussion of the research ethics that were violated in this study
Upon review of Humphreys (1972) study, it was apparent that there were some ethical issues or standards that were violated. First, the researcher was not completely and consistently honest in indicating his personal role and participation in the observed study. As revealed, Humphreys indicated that the study was a marketing research or another study, the social-health survey, of which he integrated some of the participants as an integral part of . As indicated, the researcher gathered information from the participants in secret through copying “down their license plate numbers, went to the police and, giving a false cover story, obtained names and addresses based on the license plates, and subsequently interviewed the men. He informed them that it was part of a marketing research project” . In this context, the research was guilty of data manipulation and misrepresentation of research findings .
In addition, the research also admitted guilt of bias in selecting participants. As indicated, the researcher was able to allocate and spend hundreds of hours or more time to about a dozen of the respondents: “I gained a dozen respondents who contributed hundreds of hours of interview time. This sample I knew to be biased in favor of the more outgoing and better educated of the tearoom population” .
Further, there were also violations in terms of approaching married participants and deciding how they could be interviewed while maintaining covertness, privacy, and strict confidentiality. The researcher disclosed that “I was faced with interviewing these men (often in the presence of their wives) without destroying them” . As such, the researcher resorted to using another study to cover for the actual research to which the participants’ behavior were definitely observed.
Was there any therapeutic benefits to this study?
As indicated in the case overview, the objective of the research was to gain information on the personal characteristics of men who allegedly participated in sexual activities in a public place, or more commonly known as tearooms . The findings revealed that the personalities of these men who participated in the study bore “no striking differences in terms of occupations, marital status, socioeconomic characteristics, and the like were found. Aside from their participation in secretive homosexual activity, there was little to distinguish these men from typical adult male” . As such, there seemed to be no deeper goal or objective that would benefit society or any practitioners from the research. It is as if readers could say after being of the findings: so what now?
Conclusion
In retrospect, the study conducted by Humphrey tacked a controversial subject and apparently violated some components of ethics in research. More importantly, the objective was trivial and the results did not have any therapeutic benefits to society.
References
Analzing Research Ethics. (2017).
Humphreys, L. (1972). Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Retrieved from angelfire.com: http://www.angelfire.com/or3/tss/tearoom.html
Kamat, P. V. (n.d.). Research Ethics. Retrieved from nd.edu: https://www3.nd.edu/~pkamat/pdf/ethics.pdf
Walton, N. (n.d.). What Is Research Ethics? Retrieved from researchethics.ca: https://researchethics.ca/what-is-research-ethics/
