Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 391–414 | Cite as

Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics

  • Kevin D. HaggertyEmail author


This article presents an analysis of the Canadian ethics review process by a member of a Research Ethics Board. The author suggests that the new formal system for regulating the ethical conduct of scholarly research is experiencing a form of “ethics creep.” This is characterized by a dual process whereby the regulatory system is expanding outward to incorporate a host of new activities and institutions, while at the same time intensifying the regulation of activities deemed to fall within its ambit. These tendencies are demonstrated through an analysis of: 1) the scope of research ethics protocols, 2) the concept of “harm” employed by these boards, 3) the use of informed consent provisions, and 4) the presumption that research participants will remain anonymous. To accentuate the nature of this ethics creep, comparisons are made between the ways in which identical knowledge generation activities are governed within journalism and the academy. The conclusion suggests that one effect of the increasingly formalized research ethics structure is to rupture the relationship between following the rules and acting ethically. Some of the reasons for this “creep” are highlighted along with the risks that it poses for scholarship.

research ethics regulation bureaucracy risk rules 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  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: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, C. (1997). Spies like us: When sociologists deceive their subjects. Lingua Franca, 7, 31–39.Google Scholar
  3. Annas, G., & Grodin, M. (Eds.) (1992). The Nazi doctors and the Nuremburg Code: Human rights in human experimentation. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Beecher, H. E. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 274, 1354–1360.Google Scholar
  7. Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  8. Douglas, M. (1986). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Erikson, K. T. (1967). A comment on disguised observation in sociology. Social Problems, 14, 366–373.Google Scholar
  10. Erikson, K. T. (1976). Everything in its path: Destruction of community in the Buffalo Creek flood. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  11. Fadan, R., & Beauchamp, T. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Galanter, M. (1992). Law abounding: Legalisation around the North Atlantic. Modern Law Review, 55, 1–24.Google Scholar
  13. Haggerty, K. D. (2003). From risk to precaution: The rationalities of personal crime prevention. In R. V. Ericson & A. Doyle (Eds.), Risk and morality (pp. 193–214). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Howard, P. K. (1994). The death of common sense: How law is suffocating America. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  15. Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  16. Innes, M. (2001). Control creep. Sociological Research Online. Retrieved form http://www. Scholar
  17. Kellner, F. (2002). Coping with guidelines from the Tri-Council. In van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the tightrope (pp. 26–33).Google Scholar
  18. Kitchin, H. A. (2002). The Tri-Council on cyberspace: Insights, oversights and extrapolations. In van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the tightrope (pp. 160–174).Google Scholar
  19. Korn, J. H. (1997). Illusions of reality: A history of deception in social psychology. New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
  20. Marx, G. T. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. McNally, R. J. (2003). Remembering trauma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  23. Palys, T., & Lowman, J. (2000). Ethical and legal strategies for protecting confidential research information. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 15, 39–80.Google Scholar
  24. Scarce, R. (1994). (No) trial (but) tribulations: When courts and ethnography conflict. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 123–149.Google Scholar
  25. Shea, C. (2000). Don't talk to the humans: The crackdown on social science research. Lingua Franca, 10, 26–34.Google Scholar
  26. Steadman Rice, J. (1996). Appendix A: Methodology. In J. Steadman Rice (Ed.), A disease of one's own: Psychotherapy, addiction, and the emergence of co-dependency (pp. 219–228). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  27. Sunstein, C. (2002). Risk and reason. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. van den Hoonaard, W. (2001). Is research-ethics review a moral panic? Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38, 19–36.Google Scholar
  29. van den Hoonaard, W. (Ed.). (2002). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wax, M. L. (1980). Paradoxes of “consent” to the practice of fieldwork. Social Problems, 27, 272–283.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Zhou, X. (1993). The dynamics of organizational rules. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1134–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford Prison experiment. Cognition, 2, 243–256.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada;

Personalised recommendations