Legal Issues in Social Work Research

  • Sana Loue


Many social workers are involved in the conduct of research. This chapter provides a review of the legal obligations that are most likely to arise in the context of conducting social work research. Because legal and ethical obligations are often interwoven, the chapter also discusses related ethical issues.


  1. Annas, G. J. (1992). The Nuremberg Code in U.S. courts: Ethics versus expediency. In G. J. Annas & M. A. Grodin (Eds.), The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human rights in human experimentation (pp. 201–222). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Appelbaum, P., Roth, L., Lidz, C., & Bensen, P. W. W. (1987). False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report, 2, 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson Fontes, L. (1998). Ethics in family violence research: Cross-cultural issues. Family Relations, 47(1), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auriti, E. (2013). Who can obtain access to research data? Protecting research data against compelled disclosure. NACUA Notes, 11(7). Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Attorneys. Accessed 19 December 2016.
  5. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clinical Tools, Inc. (2006). Guidelines for responsible data management in scientific research. Office of Research Integrity, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed 15 March 2017.
  7. Corti, L. (2000). Progress and problems of preserving and providing access to qualitative data for social research: The international picture of an emerging culture. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(3). Accessed 15 March 2017.
  8. De Craemer, W. (1983). A cross-cultural perspective on personhood. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly: Health and Society, 61(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denny, C. C., & Grady, C. (2007). Clinical research with economically disadvantaged populations. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dresser, R. (2001). Advance directives in dementia research: Promoting autonomy and protecting subjects. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 23(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fedock, G. L. (2017). Women’s psychological adjustment to prison: A review for future social work directions. Social Work Research, 41(1), 31–42.Google Scholar
  13. Fienberg, S. E., Martin, M. E., & Straf, M. L. (1985). Sharing research data. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Flory, J., & Emanuel, E. (2004). Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding of informed consent for research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(13), 1593–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fraser, M. W., Galinsky, M. J., & Richman, J. M. (1999). Risk, protection, and resilience: Toward a conceptual framework for social work practice. Social Work Research, 23(3), 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gattis, M. N., & Larson, A. (2017). Perceived microaggressions and mental health in a sample of Black youths experiencing homelessness. Social Work Research, 41(1), 7–17.Google Scholar
  17. Grady, C. (2001). Money for research participation: Does it jeopardize informed consent? American Journal of Bioethics, 1(2), 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grady, C. (2005). Payment of clinical research subjects. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 115(7), 1681–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1998). Assessing competence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Groza, V. K., Bunkers, K., & Gamer, G. (2011). Ideal components and current characteristics of alternative care options for children outside of parental care. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 76(4), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes, C. (2011, September 2). IRA researchers at Boston College file suit against US govt. Irish Central. Available at: Accessed 19 June 2014.
  22. Heaton, J. (2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 33(3), 33–45.Google Scholar
  23. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2014). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  24. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. (n.d.). Accessed 15 March 2017.
  25. Kipnis, K. (2001, March). Vulnerability in research subjects: A bioethical taxonomy. In Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Vol. II: Commissioned papers and staff analysis (pp. G-1–G-13). Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  26. Kipnis, K. (2003). Seven vulnerabilities in the pediatric research subject. Theoretical Medicine, 24, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Largent, E. A., Grady, C., Miller, F. G., & Wertheimer, A. (2012). Money, coercion, and undue inducement: A survey of attitudes about payments to research participants. IRB, 34(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  28. Levine, R. J. (1988). Ethics and regulation of clinical research. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Levine, C., Faden, R., Grady, C., Hammerschmidt, D., Eckenwiler, L., Sugarman, J., & Consortium to Examine Clinical Research Ethics. (2004). The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. American Journal of Bioethics, 4(3), 44–49.Google Scholar
  30. Loue, S. (2011). “My nerves are bad” (“Mis nervios estan malos”): Puerto Rican women managing mental illness and HIV risk. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Luna, F. (2009). Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 2(1), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maschi, T., & Youdin, R. (2012). Social worker as researcher: Integrating research with advocacy. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  33. Mauthner, N. S., Maclean, C., & McKee, L. (2000). “My dad hangs out of helicopter doors and takes pictures of oil platforms”: Children’s accounts of parental work in the oil and gas industry. Community, Work, and Family, 3, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Messing, J. T., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Cavanaugh, C. E., Glass, N. E., & Campbell, J. C. (2013). Culturally competent intimate partner violence risk assessment: Adapting the danger assessment for immigrant women. Social Work Research, 37(3), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Association of Social Workers. (2002). Social work profession. Accessed 14 March 2017.
  36. National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics. Accessed 7 July 2014.
  37. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1998). Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  38. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [DHEW Pub. No. OS 78-0012].Google Scholar
  39. National Institutes of Health. (2003a, February 26). Final NIH statement on sharing research data [NOT-OD-03-032]. Accessed 15 March 2017.
  40. National Institutes of Health. (2003b, March 5). NIH data sharing policy and implementation guidance. Accessed 15 March 2017.
  41. Neukrug, E. S. (1991). Computer-assisted live supervision in counselor skills training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 132–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nuremberg Code. (1946). In K. Lebacqz & R. J. Levine. (1982). Informed consent in human research: Ethical and legal aspects. In W.T. Reich (Ed.). Encyclopedia of bioethics (p. 757). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Office of Research Integrity, United States Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Responsible conduct in data management. products/n_illinois_u/datamanagement/dotopic.html. Accessed 06 May 2017.
  44. Parry, O., Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (1997). The structure of PhD research. Sociology, 31, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parry, O., & Mauthner, N. S. (2004). Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data. Sociology, 38(1), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sieber, J. E. (1989). Sharing scientific data I: New problems for IRBs. IRB (IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research), 11(6), 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, R. C., Mead, D. E., & Kinsella, J. A. (1998). Direct supervision: Adding computer-assisted feedback and data capture to live supervision. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. South African Data Archive. (n.d.). Accessed 15 March 2017.
  50. United States Copyright Office. (2012). Copyright basics [Circular 1]. Washington, DC: Author. Accessed 07 May 2017.
  51. United States Copyright Office. (2016). Copyright registration of books, manuscripts, and speeches [FL-109]. Accessed 06 May 2017.
  52. United States Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Summary of the HIPAA privacy rule. Accessed 23 March 2017.
  53. Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2010, July 22–24). Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. A position statement developed at the Second World Conference in Research Integrity, Singapore. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  54. Weinstock, R., Bonnici, D., Seroussi, A., & Leong, G. S. (2014). No duty to warn in California: Now unambiguously solely a duty to protect. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42(1), 101–108.Google Scholar
  55. Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2008). What should research participants understand to understand they are participants in research? Bioethics, 22(4), 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Medical Association. (2013). Helsinki Declaration—Ethical principles for biomedical research involving human subjects. Accessed 14 March 2017.

Legal References


    1. Abdullahi v. Pfizer, 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
    2. Davis v. Lhim, 124 Mich. App. 291 (1983), aff’d on rem 147 Mich. App. 8 (1985), rev’d on grounds of government immunity in Canon v. Thumudo, 430 Mich. 326 (1988).Google Scholar
    3. Earle v. Kuklo, 26 N.J. Super. 471 (App. Div. 1953).Google Scholar
    4. Ewing v. Goldstein, 120 Cal. App. 4th 807 (2004).Google Scholar
    5. Ewing v. Northridge Hospital Medical Center, 120 Cal. App. 4th 1289 (2004).Google Scholar
    6. Jablonski v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
    7. McIntosh v. Milano, 168 N.J. Super. 466 (1979).Google Scholar
    8. People v. Newman. (1973). 298 N.E.2d 651 (App. Div.).Google Scholar
    9. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976).Google Scholar
    10. Thompson v. County of Alameda, 27 Cal. 3d 741 (1980).Google Scholar


    1. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–191.Google Scholar
    2. Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 241(d).Google Scholar

    U.S. Regulations

    1. 68 C.F.R. Part 46 (2009).Google Scholar
    2. 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 (2013).Google Scholar
    3. 45 C.F.R. § 164.508 (2013).Google Scholar


    1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sana Loue
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Medicine, Department of BioethicsCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations