What are the ethical guidelines in sociology?

Ethical Guideline 1 The aim of the Association to support the development of a democratic, egalitarian, peaceful and hospitable Europe should be reflected in the inclusive means we in the ESA adopt and use to achieve this end.

Ethical Guideline 2 The aim of the Association to develop sociological understanding of both the diversity and the complexity of existing European societies should be reflected in norms of social investigation that take into account the experiences and perspectives of others according to our own non-discriminatory ethic.

Ethical Guideline 3 To this end the ESA holds that its members, conference participants and partners are not to be discriminated against in any way, direct or indirect, including boycott of themselves or their institutions, based on their ethnic, national, gender, age, religious, disability, political or sexual orientation backgrounds.

Ethical Guideline 4  The ESA with its membership takes a stand against sexual harassment, revictimization, and second-order sexual harassment.

Ethical Guideline 5 The ESA encourages critical reflection on the institutional and disciplinary ethical processes and guidelines for the conduct of research, publication, peer review, teaching and consultancy that are to be found in our international and national professional organisations, universities and journals. The ESA affirms the moral responsibility of individual sociologists to take the ethical principles of professional associations, including the ESA, into account in their own professional activities. This includes a responsibility to work towards the development of institutional settings that are themselves conducive to behaviour consonant with the spirit of these Guidelines.

Ethical Guideline 6 The aim of the Association to facilitate sociological research, teaching and communication among sociologists should be based on the exclusion of political, sectional or personal criteria, on a strong defence of academic freedom and of the all-inclusiveness of the global community of scholars, on open and respectful forms of communication and dialogue among scholars, and on the protection of genuine and considered scholarly criticism.

Ethical Guideline 7 The aim of the Association to foster collaborative relations between sociologists and other scholars and scientists should be based on our valuation of other disciplines for their contribution to sociological knowledge and understanding and on maintaining open, inclusive and accessible networks in which scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds can thrive and develop interdisciplinary research and cooperation.

Ethical Guideline 8 The aim of the Association to raise the profile of sociology in the cultural, political and scientific life of Europe requires that there is high respect for evidence, scholarship, informed debate and deliberative democracy within Sociology and strong support for the intellectual value and social usefulness of Sociology as an academic discipline and as a body of professional expertise. We support the reflection of these values in European policy and funding decisions.

Ethical Guideline 9 The aim of the Association to defend the interests of sociology in European research and academic institutions should be based both on protecting its scholars and practitioners from the unfair, prejudicial or discriminatory exercise of power and on enhancing the good name and reputation of the discipline. Sociologists should normally take active steps to avoid harm to research participants and others affected by their work.

Ethical Guideline 10 The aim of the Association to contribute to more just, reflective and open social relations between people within Europe and on Europe’s borders should be based firstly on respect for the full and equal participation of all European sociologists in the activities of the Association, from richer and poorer countries and from East and West; secondly on making ourselves open and hospitable to sociologists beyond Europe or not considered ‘European’; thirdly on fostering a critical outlook that resists Eurocentric prejudices about the superiority or primary importance of Europe; and fourthly on recognising European contributions to the conception and development of a democratic, human rights culture and of ideas of global justice.

Ethical Guideline 11 The Association is committed to helping and enabling PhD students and early career scholars, researchers and professionally associated sociologists to develop their work, make their voices heard and gain the recognition they are due. The unfair procurement of advancement or employment is to be avoided. Equally the ESA is committed to recognising scholars later in life, including those outside institutional employment.

Ethical Guideline 12 Where individuals or parties within ESA feel themselves to have been wronged or unjustly marginalised, the ESA is committed to addressing their concerns and if possible resolving conflict in a timely, just and open fashion.

Ethical Guideline 13 The ethical principles of the ESA are open to scrutiny and criticism by members and non-members of the Association and to revision and addition through the normal democratic procedures of the Association.

Sociologists conduct studies to shed light on human behaviors. Knowledge is a powerful tool that can be used to achieve positive change. As a result, conducting a sociological study comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility. Like all researchers, sociologists must consider their ethical obligation to avoid harming human subjects or groups while conducting research.

Pioneer German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) identified another crucial ethical concern. Weber understood that personal values could distort the framework for disclosing study results. While he accepted that some aspects of research design might be influenced by personal values, he declared it was entirely inappropriate to allow personal values to shape the interpretation of the responses. Sociologists, he stated, must establish value neutrality, a practice of remaining impartial, without bias or judgment, during the course of a study and in publishing results (Weber, 1949). Sociologists are obligated to disclose research findings without omitting or distorting significant data.

Is value neutrality possible? Many sociologists believe it is impossible to retain complete objectivity. They caution readers, rather, to understand that sociological studies may contain a certain amount of value bias. This does not discredit the results, but allows readers to view them as one form of truth—one fact-based perspective. Some sociologists attempt to remain uncritical and as objective as possible when studying social institutions. They strive to overcome personal biases, particularly subconscious biases, when collecting and analyzing data. They avoid skewing data in order to match a predetermined outcome that aligns with a particular agenda, such as a political or moral point of view. Investigators are ethically obligated to report results, even when they contradict personal views, predicted outcomes, or widely accepted beliefs.

The American Sociological Association, or ASA, is the major professional organization of sociologists in North America. The ASA is a great resource for students of sociology as well. The ASA maintains a code of ethics—formal guidelines for conducting sociological research—consisting of principles and ethical standards to be used in the discipline. These formal guidelines were established by practitioners in 1905 at John Hopkins University, and revised in 1997. When working with human subjects, these codes of ethics require researchers’ to do the following:

1. Maintain objectivity and integrity in research
2. Respect subjects’ rights to privacy and dignity
3. Protect subject from personal harm
4. Preserve confidentially
5. Seek informed consent
6. Acknowledge collaboration and assistance
7. Disclose sources of financial support

Unfortunately, when these codes of ethics are ignored, it creates an unethical environment for humans being involved in a sociological study. Throughout history, there have been numerous unethical studies, some of which are summarized below.

Figure 2.11 Participants in the Tuskegee study were denied important information about their diagnosis, leading to significant health issues. (Credit: Centers for Disease Control)

The Tuskegee Experiment: This study was conducted 1932 in Macon County, Alabama, and included 600 African American men, including 399 diagnosed with syphilis. The participants were told they were diagnosed with a disease of “bad blood.” Penicillin was distributed in the 1940s as the cure for the disease, but unfortunately, the African American men were not given the treatment because the objective of the study was to see “how untreated syphilis would affect the African American male” (Caplan, 2007)

Henrietta Lacks: Ironically, this study was conducted at the hospital associated with Johns Hopkins University, where codes of the ethics originated. In 1951, Henrietta Lacks was receiving treatment for cervical cancer at John Hopkins Hospital, and doctors discovered that she had “immortal” cells, which could reproduce rapidly and indefinitely, making them extremely valuable for medical research. Without her consent, doctors collected and shared her cells to produce extensive cell lines. Lacks’ cells were widely used for experiments and treatments, including the polio vaccine, and were put into mass production. Today, these cells are known worldwide as HeLa cells (Shah, 2010).

Milgram Experiment: In 1961, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment at Yale University. Its purpose was to measure the willingness of study subjects to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. People in the role of teacher believed they were administering electric shocks to students who gave incorrect answers to word-pair questions. No matter how concerned they were about administering the progressively more intense shocks, the teachers were told to keep going. The ethical concerns involve the extreme emotional distress faced by the teachers, who believed they were hurting other people. (Vogel 2014).

Philip Zimbardo and the Stanford prison experiment: In 1971, psychologist Phillip Zimbardo conducted a study involving students from Stanford University. The students were put in the roles of prisoners and guards, and were required to play their assigned role accordingly. The experiment was intended to last two weeks, but it only last six days due to the negative outcome and treatment of the “prisoners.” Beyond the ethical concerns, the study’s validity has been questioned after participants revealed they had been coached to behave in specific ways.

Laud Humphreys: In the 1960s, Laud Humphreys conducted an experiment at a restroom in a park known for same-sex sexual encounters. His objective was to understand the diversity of backgrounds and motivations of people seeking same-sex relationships. His ethics were questioned because he misrepresented his identity and intent while observing and questioning the men he interviewed (Nardi, 1995).