Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 271–297 | Cite as

Defending Research Confidentiality “To the Extent the Law Allows:” Lessons From the Boston College Subpoenas

  • Ted PalysEmail author
  • John Lowman


Although in the US there have been dozens of subpoenas seeking information gathered by academic researchers under a pledge of confidentiality, few cases have garnered as much attention as the two sets of subpoenas issued to Boston College seeking interviews conducted with IRA operatives who participated in The Belfast Project, an oral history of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. For the researchers and participants, confidentiality was understood to be unlimited, while Boston College has asserted that it pledged confidentiality only “to the extent American law allows.” This a priori limitation to confidentiality is invoked by many researchers and universities in the United States, Canada and Great Britain, but there has been little discussion of what the phrase means and what ethical obligations accompany it. An examination of the researchers’ and Boston College’s behaviour in relation to the subpoenas provides the basis for that discussion. We conclude that Boston College has provided an example that will be cited for years to come of how not to protect research participants to the extent American law allows.


Research confidentiality Boston College Belfast Project Legal cases Limited confidentiality Ethics-first 


  1. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2002). Do university lawyers and the police define research values? In W. C. van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: ethical issues for qualitative researchers (pp. 34–42). Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, C. (2010). Arrest Adams now. Sunday Life, February 21, pp. 4–7. Online at
  3. Bernhard, J. K., & Young, J. E. E. (2009). Gaining institutional permission: researching precarious legal status in Canada. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blomley, N., & S. Davis. (1998). Russel Ogden decision review. Report prepared for the President of Simon Fraser University. Online at
  5. Bray, C. (2012a). Reckless negligence: Expanding the case against Boston College. Online at
  6. Bray, C. (2012b). Hot pursuit. Online at
  7. Bray, C. (2012c). BC files appellate brief in Belfast Project case. Online at
  8. Brewer, J. D. (2012). Inescapable burden of ‘guilty knowledge.’ Times Higher Education, January 26. Online at
  9. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (2010) Tri-Council Policy Statement Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Online at
  10. Cecil, J. S., & Wetherington, G. T. (eds) (1996). Court-ordered disclosure of academic research: A clash of values of science and law. Law & Contemporary Problems (Special issue, Vol.59).Google Scholar
  11. Clayman, B. (1997). The law of the land. Simon Fraser News, 10(5). Online at
  12. Comarow, M. (1993). Are sociologists above the law? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15, A44.Google Scholar
  13. Cote, D. (2012a). Researchers weigh in on Belfast Project legal drama. The Heights, 15 February. Online at
  14. Cote, D. (2012b). BCAAUP writes to Leahy, BOT asking for investigation. The Heights, 1 April. Online at
  15. Cote, D. (2012c). Belfast court issues stay on materials. The Heights, 10 September. Online at
  16. Fanning, J. P. (2007). Policies and best practices for ensuring statistical and research confidentiality. Paper prepared for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under contract under PO HHSP 233200500320A.Google Scholar
  17. Gopsill, T. (1999). Belfast court win ‘a victory for journalism.’ Online at
  18. Hachey, T. E., & O’Neill, R. K. (2010). Preface. In E. Moloney (Ed.), Voices from the grave: two men’s war in Ireland (pp. 1–4). London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  19. Hachey, T. E., & O’Neill, R. K. (2012). College has fought to deny access to interview materials. The Irish Times, 19 January. Online at
  20. Lowman, J., & Palys, T. (2000). Ethics and institutional conflict of interest: the research confidentiality controversy at Simon Fraser University. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology, 2(4), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowman, J., & Palys, T. S. (2001). The ethics and law of confidentiality in criminal justice research: a comparison of Canada and the United States. International Criminal Justice Review, 11(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lowman, J., & Palys, T. S. (2007). Strict confidentiality: an alternative to PRE’s “limited confidentiality” doctrine. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowman, J., & Palys, T. S. (in submission). The betrayal of research confidentiality in British Criminology and Sociology.Google Scholar
  24. McCann, E. (2012). Getting Gerry Adams: Norman Baxter’s long crusade. Counterpunch, 13 February. Online at
  25. Moloney, E. (1999). Briefing note. Online at
  26. Moloney, E. (2010). Voices from the grave: two men’s war in Ireland. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  27. Moloney, E. (2012a). Problematic stories: Documenting conflict during a peace process. Paper presented at an International Culture Arts Network (ICAN) Symposium: Nine Tenths Under: Performing the Peace, held in Belfast, Ireland, 22–24 March. Online at
  28. Moloney, E. (2012b). Press statement on Boston College judicial review hearing in Belfast. 12 September . Online at
  29. Moloney, E., & McIntyre, A. (2012). A reply to Niall O’Dowd. Online at
  30. Palys, T. S., & Lowman, J. (2000). Ethical and legal strategies for protecting confidential research information. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 15, 39–80.Google Scholar
  31. Palys, T. S., & Lowman, J. (2002). Anticipating law: research methods, ethics and the common law of privilege. Sociological Methodology, 32, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palys, T. S., & Lowman, J. (2006). Protecting research confidentiality: towards a research-participant shield law. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 21, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palys, T. S., & Lowman, J. (2010). Going boldly where no one has gone before? How confidentiality risk aversion is killing research on sensitive topics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(4), 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Popkin, S. (2001). Interview with Samuel Popkin. In B. Schultz & R. Schultz (Eds.), The price of dissent: testimonies to political repression in America (pp. 339–347). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rooney, E. (2011). WGBH-TV Interview with Boston College spokesperson Jack Dunn, Boston College executive director of Irish Programs Professor Thomas Hachey and Boston Globe reporter Kevin Cullen, 25 May. Online at
  36. Scarce, R. (1994). (No) trial (but) tribulations: when courts and ethnography conflict. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silverglate, H. A., & Schwartz, D. (2012). Boston College, the Belfast Project and the academy of betrayal: Protection of academic freedom until it becomes inconvenient. 23 March. Online at
  38. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (2004). Giving voice to the spectrum: Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee. Report prepared for the federal Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Online at
  39. Teitelbaum, L. E. (1983). Spurious, tractable and intractable legal problems: a positivist approach to law and social science research. In R. F. Boruch & J. S. Cecil (Eds.), Solutions to ethical and legal problems in social research (pp. 11–48). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Traynor, M. (1996). Countering the excessive subpoena for scholarly research. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wigmore, J. H. (1905). A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law, including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United States, England, and Canada. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Legal Cases Cited

  1. Atlantic Sugar, Ltd., v. U.S., 85 Cust. Ct. 128 (1980).Google Scholar
  2. Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708, 716 (1st Cir. 1998).Google Scholar
  3. Deitchman v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. 740 F.2d 556 (7th Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
  4. Dow Chemical Co. v Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1274-77 (7th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
  5. In re Grand Jury Proceedings. James Richard Scarce, 5 F.3d 397 (9th Cir. 09/17/1993).Google Scholar
  6. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dtd. January 4, 750 F.2d 223 (2nd Cir. 12/13/1984).Google Scholar
  7. In RE: Request from the United Kingdom Pursuant to the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters in the Matter of Dolours Price. M.B.D. No. 11-MC-91078.Google Scholar
  8. People v. Newman, 32 N.Y.2d 379, 298 N.E.2d 651, 345 N.Y.S.2d 502 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1163 (1973)).Google Scholar
  9. Richards of Rockford Inc. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 71 F.R.D. 388 (N.D. Cal, 1976).Google Scholar
  10. Snyder v. American Motors Corp.,115 F.R.D. 211 (D. Ariz. 1987).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology at Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations