Search

This commentary focuses on two important contrasts in the behavioral sciences: ( i ) default versus nondefault study populations, where default samples have been used disproportionately (for psychology, the default is undergraduates at major research universities), and ( ii ) the adoption of a distant versus close (engaged) attitude toward study samples. Previous research has shown a strong correlation between these contrasts, where default samples and distant perspectives are the norm. Distancing is sometimes seen as necessary for objectivity, and an engaged orientation is sometimes criticized as biased, advocacy research, especially if the researcher shares a social group membership with the study population (e.g., a black male researcher studying black male students). The lack of diversity in study samples has been paralleled by a lack of diversity in the researchers themselves. The salience of default samples and distancing in prior research creates potential (and presumed) risk factors for engaged research with nondefault samples. However, a distant perspective poses risks as well, and particularly so for research with nondefault populations. We suggest that engaged research can usefully encourage attention to the study context and taking the perspective of study samples, both of which are good research practices. More broadly, we argue that social and educational sciences need skepticism, interestedness, and engagement, not distancing. Fostering an engaged perspective in research may also foster a more diverse population of social scientists., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The focus of this paper is to demonstrate how embodied subjectivities shape research experiences. Through an autoethnography of my involvement in a Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) after-school program with low-income and working-class youth of Color from predominantly Latinx communities I examined my embodied subjectivities, via an ethical reflective practice, as these surfaced in the research context. Autoethnography is presented as a tool to facilitate an ethical reflective practice that aligns with heart-centered work. Drawing from an epistemology of a theory in the flesh (Anzaldúa & Moraga, 1981), embodied subjectivities are defined by the lived experiences felt and expressed through the body, identities, and positionalities of the researcher. The article concludes with implications for the development of community psychology competencies that attend to the researcher's embodied subjectivities., (© 2018 Society for Community Research and Action.)

This article deals with the topic of social psychological research methods in practice, by examining how informed consent is gained from research participants. In most research, the consent-gaining process is hidden from analytic scrutiny and is dealt with before data collection has begun. In contrast, conversation analytic research, which records interactional encounters from beginning to end, enables examination of this methodological 'black box'. We explored how 'requests' to consent in research played out across different institutional settings. We found that participants had to 'opt-out' of a research process that was already underway. Consent-gaining sequences constrained opting out in two ways: (1) because research activity was already underway, it must be stopped affirmatively by participants; (2) consent-gaining turns were tilted in favour of continued participation, making opting out a dispreferred response. We also found a mismatch between what ethics guidelines specify about consent-gaining 'in theory' and what actually happens 'in practice'. Finally, we make suggestions about interventions in and recommendations for existing practice to best achieve informed consent., (© 2012 The British Psychological Society.)

The article sets out the value of theorizing collective action from a social science perspective that engages with the messy actuality of practice. It argues that community health psychology relies on an abstract version of Paulo Freire's earlier writing, the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which provides scholar-activists with a 'map' approach to collective action. The article revisits Freire's later work, the Pedagogy of Hope, and argues for the importance of developing a 'journey' approach to collective action. Theories of practice are discussed for their value in theorizing such journeys, and in bringing maps (intentions) and journeys (actuality) closer together.

All agree that if the Milgram experiments were proposed today they would never receive approval from a research ethics board. However, the results of the Milgram experiments are widely cited across a broad range of academic literature from psychology to moral philosophy. While interpretations of the experiments vary, few commentators, especially philosophers, have expressed doubts about the basic soundness of the results. What I argue in this paper is that this general approach to the experiments might be in error. I will show that the ethical problems that would prevent the experiments from being approved today actually have an effect on the results such that the experiments might show less than many currently suppose. Making this case demonstrates two conclusions. The first is that there are good reasons to think that the conclusions of many of Milgram's commentators might be too strong. The second conclusion is a more general one. The ethics procedures commonly used by North American research ethics boards serve not only to protect human participants in research but also can sometimes help secure, to an extent, the integrity of results. In other words, good ethics can sometimes mean better science.

This article addresses the ethics of utilizing the bogus pipeline (BPL) procedure in social psychological research. A debate is presented between 2 positions: One challenges the use of the BPL based on ethical principles, and the other confronts these challenges. The debate addresses the void in previous BPL literature regarding concerns about the ethics of using this technique, and raises awareness about potential ethical dilemmas faced by BPL users. The BPL is discussed from utilitarian and deontological ethical perspectives.

The ethics of using deception in research are discussed, and Aguinis and Handelsman's (1997) arguments that research using the bogus pipeline (BPL), in particular, is unethical are reviewed and critiqued. Stances that view any deception research as unethical may be reasonable, and lead to the conclusion that BPL research is unethical. However, if the position taken is that deception research may be ethically acceptable, then there is not basis for concluding that BPL research is intrinsically unethical. The same considerations that are taken into account when deciding whether any deception in research is ethical apply to decisions about the ethical appropriateness of using the BPL.

Sigall (1997) asserted that the bogus pipeline (BPL) methodology is not a uniquely deceptive technique and, therefore, does not pose unique ethical challenges for social psychology researchers. We argue that empirical research is needed to clarify the controversial issue of the ethics of using the BPL. Results of such a research program will provide guidance for researchers as well as institutional review boards regarding conditions under which the use of the BPL may or may not be ethically justified.

An ethical issue becomes a dilemma when the psychologist is pulled in different directions by competing values. This paper will focus on the conflict between experimental and ethical values inherent in field research. The problem has special significance in community psychology, which gives priority to studying, in natural settings, those affected by social problems. An example is given of research that required observation of family interaction in the homes of convicted child abusers. The case demonstrates that the value of ecological validity often conflicts with the need to protect privacy and obtain uncoerced consent. Other ethical constraints, including the duty to report lawbreaking and to protect the public from harm, may threaten research validity.