Toward Ethical Guidelines for Social Science Research in Public Policy

  • Donald P. Warwick
  • Thomas F. Pettigrew
Part of the The Hastings Center Series in Ethics book series (HCSE)


Front-page newspaper headlines about economic indicators, voting analyses, national scores on school achievement tests, and a myriad of other topics tell the story. Social science is now taken seriously in public policy. No longer are social science findings and theories of great interest only to those in the discipline. Such work now has the potential to affect the lives of citizens.


Policy Research Ethical Guideline Head Start Ethical Problem Social Science Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. S. Coleman et al, Equality of Educational Opportunity ( Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Sjoberg, “Politics, Ethics, and Evaluation Research,” in Handbook of Evaluation, ed. by E. Struening and M. Gutentag ( Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications, 1975 ). p. 29.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. L. Horowitz, “Life and Death of Project Camelot,” Trans-Action, 3 (November—December, 1965 ) 3–7, 44–47.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For an especially thorough critique of the entire KAP approach, see A. Marino, “KAP Surveys and the Politics of Family Planning,” Concerned Demography, 3 (1971), 36–75.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Of course, the physical sciences vary considerably among themselves on these matters. Occasionally, publicized cases arise that resemble social science controversies. Consider seismology and the sweeping earthquake predictions of Brian Brady, a mathematician with the U.S. Bureau of Mines. With unusual specificity, Brady predicted that a quake of 8.0 Richter magnitude would hit near Lima, Peru, on or about June 28, 1981, followed by a 9.2 quake on or about August 10 and culminating in a massive 9.9 disaster on September 16. This third earthquake would be the largest ever recorded by modern instruments. At first, these forecasts were supported by William Spence, a geophysicist of the U.S. Geological Survey. But as understandable concern arose in Peru and a special Evaluation Council rejected the predictions, Spence and others withdrew their support and sharp controversy ensued. “Quake Prediction Rattles Peru, Scientists Disagree,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 29, 1981, p. 10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For further discussion on these points, see T. F. Pettigrew, “Race, Ethics, and the Social Responsibility of Social Scientists,” Hastings Center Report, 9 (October, 1979 ), 15–18.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    P. H. Rossi, M. Boechmann, and R. Berk, “Some Ethical Implications of the New Jersey—Pennsylvania Income Maintenance Experiment,” and D. Warwick, “Ethical Guidelines for Social Experiments,” in The Ethics of Social Intervention, ed. by G. Bermant, H. Kelman and D. Warwick ( Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1978 ), pp. 245–88.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    P. Mott et al, Shift Work: The Social Psychological and Physical Consequences ( Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1965 ).Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    T. F. Pettigrew, “Competing Evaluating Models: The ESAA Evaluation,” Journal of Educational Statistics, 3 (Spring, 1978 ), 99–106.Google Scholar
  10. V. Cicirelli et al, The Impact of Head Start: An Evaluation of the Effects of Head Start on Children’s Cognitive and Affective Development A report to the Office of Economic Opportunity pursuant to Contract B89–4536, June 1969. Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio University. Distributed by Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Institute for Applied Technology, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    The inadequacy of this research design was known prior to the Head Start study. See, for example, F. M. Lord, “Large-scale Covariance Analysis when the Control Variable is Fallible,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55 (1960), 307–21; and S. H. Evans and E. J. Anastasio, “Misuse of Analysis of Covariance when Treatment Effect and Covariate are Confounded,” Psychological Bulletin, 69 (1968), pp. 225–34.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    D. T. Campbell and A. Erlebacher, “How Regression Artifacts in Quasi-experimental Evaluations can Mistakenly Make Compensatory Education Look Harmful,” in Struening and Gutentag, pp. 597–617.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    D. T. Campbell, “Statement by Donald T. Campbell, approved for press release, on the draft report entitled ”Public and Private Schools.“ Unpublished manuscript, University of Syracuse, April 6, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    J. S. Coleman, T. Hoffer, and S. Kilgore, Public and Private Schools (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, March, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Campbell, p. 1. The same point, among other criticisms, has also been made by the economist Arthur Goldberger. Difficult as the problem is, Goldberger notes that “the approaches to statistical removal of such selectivity biases… are now routine in the econometric literature.” A. S. Goldberger, “Coleman Goes Private (in Public).” Unpublished manuscript. University of Wisconsin, May, 1981, p. 8. Goldberger has himself contributed to this literature; see B. S. Barnow, G. G. Cain, and A. S. Goldberger, “Issues in the Analysis of Selectivity Bias,” Madison, Wis., University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty, April, 1980, paper no. DP 60080.Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    Smith, E. Traganza, and G. Harrison, “Studies on the Effectiveness of Antidepressant Drugs,” Psychopharmacology Bulletin, March, 1969, 1–53. 21E. L. McDill, M. S. McDill, and J. Sprehe, Strategies for Success in Compensatory Education: An Appraisal of Evaluation Research. ( Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969 ).Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    T. F. Pettigrew, D. Archer, and E. Aronson, “Recurrent Problems in Evaluation Studies of Energy Conservation Programs,” unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz, August, 1981.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    For a detailed discussion of both research designs and outcome measures E. T. Hilton and A. A. Lumsdaine, “Field Trial Designs in Gauging the Impact of Fertility Planning Programs,” Evaluation and Experiment, ed. by C. A. Bennett and A. A. Lumsdaine ( New York: Academic Press, 1975 ), pp. 319–400.Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    St. George and P. H. McNamara, “ ‘Filthy Pictures’ or The Case of the Fraudulent Social Scientist: Unmasking the Phony Expert,” American Sociologist, 14 (August, 1979 ), 142–9.Google Scholar
  20. 27.
    T. F. Pettigrew, et al,“Busing: A Review of The Evidence,” Public Interest,30 (Winter, 1973), 88–118.Google Scholar
  21. 28.
    Population Council of the U.S.A., Family Planning in Kenya: A Report Submitted to the Republic of Kenay by an Advisory Mission of the Population Council of the United States of America ( Nairobi: The Kenya Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, 1966 ), p. 16.Google Scholar
  22. 30.
    Reply affidavit of James S. Coleman, Morgan v. Kerrigan, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, August 28, 1975, p. 1.Google Scholar
  23. 32.
    J. S. Coleman, “Response to Professors Pettigrew and Green,” Harvard Educational Review, 46 (May, 1976 ), 223.Google Scholar
  24. 33.
    L. Wolins, “Responsibility for Raw Data,” American Psychologist, 17 (1962), 657–8. The authors wish to thank Prof. Sharon Herzberger of Trinity College This case is described in full in L. D. Cain, Jr., “The AMA and the Gerontologists: Uses and Abuses of ‘A Profile of the Aging: USA,’ ” Ethics, Politics, and Social Research, ed. by G. Sjoberg ( Cambridge, Mass.: Schenk-man Publishing Co., Inc., 1967 pp. 78–114.Google Scholar
  25. 36.
    Ethics Committee of the American Sociological Association, Code of Ethics: May 1981 Revision for Consideration by the ASA Council Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association, May 3, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Hastings Center 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald P. Warwick
    • 1
  • Thomas F. Pettigrew
    • 2
  1. 1.Harvard Institute for International DevelopmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations