Introduction
Maintaining ethical standards and appropriate relationships while conducting research is vital to the legitimacy and accuracy of a research project. From time to time it is expected to encounter a situation which becomes an ethical concern. When such a situation arises, it is important to address the situation ensuring realignment with an ethical standard. Depending on the situation it can also be important to notify any review board or supervisor of this situation to ensure the study maintains ethical practices and nothing is subject to scrutiny at a later date. Unfortunately, when an ethical issue arises researchers do not always take appropriate actions.
This paper will discuss a case study where Researcher A and Participant B became involved in an unethical situation, the actions of Researcher A and Participant B, what should have been the correct actions taken and how to prevent such a situation in the future. While the situation is not uncommon the actions taken by Researcher A and Participant B caused great concern for the legitimacy of the study and the ethical behaviors of Researcher A. It is important to note a researcher and a researcher’s work is only as good as the ethical standards one holds to and the researcher’s reputation of such.
Ethical Conflict
The ethical conflict developed while Researcher A was conducting a study with human subjects which continued longer than expected approaching almost a year in length. During this time Researcher A and Participant B decided the two would like to pursue an intimate relationship. Researcher A and Participant B understood a relationship would compromise the study and results and decided to wait until after the completion and publication of the study before engaging in an intimate relationship. Neither the researcher or participant appear to realize the impact the understanding of each other’s feelings, planning to start a relationship at a later date and continuing to work together in the meantime would have on the study. Due to Researcher A and Participant B understanding each other’s desire and planning to pursue those desires at a later date brings into questions Researcher A’s behaviors in conducting of the study and understanding of results as well as Participant B’s interactions with Researcher A resulting possibly in inaccurate data. Due to Researcher A and Participant B expressing desires for each other and each other presumably desiring to seek approval, support each other and protect each other, responses to the study could be inconsistent than if Researcher A and Participant B had maintained an appropriate relationship.
Options for Resolution
At this point in the study with the desire of Researcher A and Participant B to engage in an intimate relationship being known, there are several options for resolution. The first is for Researcher A to bring the situation to a supervisor or supervisory board which holds authority over the study. In the event a supervisor or supervisory board do not exist Researcher A should notify the American Psychological Association and what actions Researcher A will be taking to prevent this from becoming an ethical situation which damages the study and Researcher A’s reputation within the scientific community. Researcher A should also be open and solicit direction from a supervisor or the American Psychological Association.
Once, Researcher A has notified appropriate persons Researcher A will need to evaluate and understand if the study needs to be concluded, Participant B’s data excluded, Participant B removed from further participation, the study’s data concluded prior to this issue, if the study can proceed as is or with minor modifications or if the study and all data collected are to be concluded and discarded. As Researcher A is part of the ethical situation, it is possible Researcher A does not have a clear understanding of the situation and allowed one’s self to engage in conversation which caused the ethical situation, the understanding and direction of next steps would likely need to come from a supervisor or the American Psychological Association.
If the relationship between Researcher A and Participant B is localized to only those two and no other participants are aware of or affected by what has taken place with Researcher A and Participant B the study could continue with the removal of Participant B’s data or the removal of Participant B from all future group sessions. The issue with this approach, unless there is a regular rotation of participants in group sessions removal of Participant B will likely raise questions and will change the group dynamic effecting the legitimacy of any result which result from the study.
Another option for resolution would be for Researcher A to report the issue to a supervisor, supervisory board, or the American Psychological Association, end the study and begin the intimate relationship with Participant B. This approach would be unethical (Gartrell, Milliken, Goodson, Thiemann, & Lo, 1992) and would lead to questions about Researcher A’s ability to adhere to ethical standards. However, Researcher A has already violated ethical standards and may not be concerned about any repercussions. It is possible, Researcher A is more interested in pursuing an intimate relationship with Participant B than ensuring ethical standards are addressed and Researcher A’s reputation is respected.
In an ideal situation, the relationship between Researcher A and Participant B would never occur. However, the relationship has occurred. Researcher A should terminate the relationship and contact with Participant B to protect both self and Participant B. The termination of the relationship will likely harm both Researcher A and Participant B. It is possible, Participant B becomes angry and or hateful towards Researcher A. However, as the relationship was developed in an unethical and questionable manner the relationship needs to be terminated. Failure to terminate the relationship now could lead to additional issues in the future where Researcher A and or Participant B are more harmed by the psychological effects of a harmful relationship. For example, if said relationship results in Researcher A’s careering being harmed or ended Researcher A may harbor anger towards Participant B. Or as Researcher A loses ability to financial provide Participant B may look down upon Researcher A. The long-term effects of a relationship started in an unethical situation which could result in long-term damage to one or both person’s reputations will likely cause long-term harm to the relationship and further harm to both persons (Gartrell, Milliken, Goodson, Thiemann, & Lo, 1992).
Preferred Solution
A situation such as this can be detailed and complicated. Ideally the direct supervisor or supervisory board supervising Researcher A will have a detailed understanding of the situation, study, variables which affect the participants and data and will be able to make the best determination of next steps. With the information known, the preferred solution is for Researcher A to report all details to any supervisor or supervisory board, understand what led to this relationship being able to develop and end the study discarding any data collected. It is possible, the study has accumulated useful and important data however due to the situation any data and results will always be in question (Orb et al., 2001). If the study is worthwhile another researcher or Researcher A upon approval from a review board could reconduct the study with a new group of participants avoiding the actions which led to the relationship between Researcher A and Participant B from occurring.
Future Prevention
Prevention of ethical issues should be the focus of all researchers and clinicians. Prevention beings with awareness of ethical standards and the review board which governs the respective field. Psychologists in the United States need to have a basic understanding of the APA code of ethics and a concept of what is right and wrong. When a study or treatment seems to possibly contain an ethical issue the psychologist should review the issue, consider the APA code of ethics, local applicable laws and if appropriate consult a supervisor or supervisory board.
In this situation, there is a question of how the professional relationship between Researcher A and Participant B transitioned to an understanding both desired an intimate relationship. This question could play a significant role in prevention of a dual relationship in the future. Specifically, if Researcher A hugged or rubbed hands on the shoulder of Participant B these actions could have been the opening for the two’s relationship to extend beyond researcher and participant (Fisher, 2017). Further, questions arise such as, did the two stay after group sessions and continue to talk beyond the scope of the study? Or did the two meet outside of the group session all together such as having a meal or drinks together? All of these actions could allow the professional researcher participant relationship to transition to a personal relationship.
Ideally, a researcher should be no more than a researcher to the participant or a psychologist as a psychologist to the client (APA, 2017). Researcher A should never have discussed personal information with any participants including Participant B. Ideally, a researcher or psychologist should not project personality, preference or like or dislike other than what is necessary to accomplish the study or provide treatment. In this case, these ethical standards were not adhered to and Researcher A allowed Participant B to feel comfortable to deepen the two’s relationship.
Another topic to consider for prevention of this unethical situation in future research is the length of the study and the amount of interaction with subjects. The longer a study is and the more interaction there is between researcher and participants the more likely a familiarity will develop, followed by feeling comfortable with each other, followed by a personal conversation and development of a personal type of relationship. As the study ran longer than expected approaching a year of group sessions. With interaction between Researcher A and participants including Participant B it is possible the conversation leading to Researcher A and Participant B desiring an intimate relationship would not have been able to take place if the study had ended within the expected timeframe or at least a shorter timeframe than what occurred. As such, future studies could be shorter or include more researchers whom rotate limiting the amount of interaction one researcher has with participants.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Researcher A should never have allowed a relationship to develop with Participant B outside of the professional researcher participant relationship needed to conduct the study. The study continued longer than expected and at some point, Researcher A opened the door for a conversation about an inappropriate relationship. The best resolution at this time is reporting the situation to the appropriate superior or supervisory board, ending the study, discarding all data collected from the study and the termination of the relationship. In the future, an issue such as this can be avoided by limiting interactions with participants to the study and preventing conversations outside of what is needed to conduct the study. Ethical concerns are vital to the research process and the legitimacy of any data which results therefrom.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Fetner, T., & Heath, M. (2018). Studying 8 the “Right” Can Feel Wrong. Other, Please Specify: Queer Methods in Sociology, 140.
Fisher, C. B. (2017). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN-13: 9781483369297
Gartrell, N. K., Milliken, N., Goodson 3rd, W. H., Thiemann, S., & Lo, B. (1992). Physician-patient sexual contact. Prevalence and problems. Western Journal of Medicine, 157(2), 139.
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of nursing scholarship, 33(1), 93-96.