home / Relationship/ Contents, purpose and ethical problems of sociological research. Ethical issues in sociological research

Contents, purpose and ethical problems of sociological research. Ethical issues in sociological research

We find ourselves in the realm of ethics when we evaluate the results of any type of activity from the point of view of their benefit or harm to society as a whole and to specific people whose interests are somehow affected. Talking about ethics means thinking about the goals of an activity, the consequences (immediate and long-term) that it may have, as well as the means that are used to achieve these goals. Science, as a special type of activity, inevitably addresses these general problems. Therefore, it is impossible to consider the methods of science only in their technical aspect. It is also necessary to take into account ethical issues that are always present in scientific research, especially if its object is people.

Science is inherently imbued with noble aspirations and humanistic ideals. Highest goal science - the search for truth. Truth is understood as some absolute value. The desire for truth, just like the desire for beauty or the desire to do good, characterizes best sides human nature. It is also obvious that true knowledge is useful and error is harmful. In its applied role, science uses the information obtained to improve people's lives. Knowledge becomes a force capable of transforming reality. But every force also contains destructive potential. Therefore, handling it requires a certain amount of caution. The extraordinary growth in the capabilities of science today has clearly outlined this aspect of scientific and technological progress.

Problems of this kind were highlighted in the most dramatic form by the history of the creation of the atomic bomb. Almost all the world's leading physicists found themselves involved in this collision in one way or another. Everyone was forced to define his position, everyone felt that he could not brush it aside and isolate himself within the framework of pure science. The line between theory and practice, between fundamental and applied research has become blurred. Research into the structure of matter, which had previously seemed so abstract, suddenly turned into acute moral dilemmas. Scientists who previously dealt with formulas and equations became conscious or unwitting participants in the creation of weapons of mass destruction of people. The question of the moral responsibility of scientists for the results of their activities has become more acute than ever.

Another aspect of the problem, perhaps less dramatic, concerns the use of research funds. These funds, often quite significant, must be used with maximum efficiency. And this, in turn, means that they should be directed to solving the most pressing problems. But who determines the relative importance of problems? Not least of all, this is done by the scientists themselves. Here they act as experts in their field. Justifying the need to conduct certain studies, they argue for their relevance both by the need to develop knowledge itself (scientific novelty) and by the expected applied results ( practical significance). Scientific objectivity and impartiality are what is required of them. However, we must not forget that a scientist is also a person. The temptation to manipulate data in your favor always exists. Science how social institution develops special mechanisms for collective control over the activities of scientists. But they cannot replace that most important mechanism, which is the conscience of a scientist.

At one time there was a joke that physicists were engaged in satisfying their own curiosity at public expense. Like any joke, it, of course, distorts the facts. But in a paradoxical form, the real problem is captured here - the problem of the relationship between the personal and the social in the activities of a scientist. We call this a scientist for whom the interests of science become higher than personal interests. More precisely, the basic values of science, social in essence, turn into deep inner convictions of a person. Science shows us examples of selfless service to its high ideals. When Giordano Bruno went to the stake, but did not renounce his convictions, he demonstrated such dedication in the name of the triumph of truth. Aristotle’s famous saying “Plato is my friend, but truth is dearer” says the same thing.

So, the responsibility of a scientist to people, to society as a whole, is one of the factors that can give rise to ethical problems. In addition, there is a scientist’s responsibility to science, to the community of his colleagues. In particular, the scientist is responsible for the strict compliance of the information reported real facts. It is impossible to fully document all the raw data on which the conclusions are based in a scientific research report. Many things have to be taken on faith. For example, if a scientific article provides generalized (averaged) data, then we usually do not dispute their reliability. We trust that the author carefully collected the source material and processed it meticulously. This does not mean that science is not able to verify the accuracy of the reported information. On the contrary, science as a collective institution is constantly engaged in critical analysis of the material at its disposal. Scientific supervisor, editor, reviewer, opponent - all these people perform exactly this function. Theory, as an integral product of past research, helps to make an indirect assessment of the validity of any additional information. Science develops mainly through evolution. Revolutions happen relatively rarely in it. Finally, practice is not only the fertile ground for science, but also the highest criterion for the truth of its conclusions. However, in each specific case we proceed from the presumption of scientific integrity of the researcher. Any deviations from accepted scientific norms are considered as actions discrediting the authority of a scientist, and gross cases are punished accordingly. For example, for deliberate distortion of facts, a researcher may be deprived of his academic title. The Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) stands guard over the moral purity of science.

Since science is a collective activity, great attention is paid to correctness in relations between colleagues. In particular, if we use the results of other researchers, we are obliged to refer to them. The use of other people's results without appropriate reference to the authors is considered a violation of scientific ethics, as plagiarism. Similar rules apply to citations. The author is responsible for the accuracy of the quotation and for indicating the source from which the quotation was taken. If quoting is carried out without following the established rules (quoted text in quotation marks, link to the source), then the author will be accused of plagiarism. The discovery of plagiarism in a dissertation, for example, is grounds for refusal to award the desired scientific degree.

So far we have talked about the ethical principles that guide science in general. The specificity of research in the social sciences adds some moral and ethical problems that researchers in the exact sciences do not face. This is due to the fact that the subject of study here is a person. Therefore, almost any research situation turns into a special type interpersonal communication and must obey its rules. A physicist, for example, studying behavior elementary particles, you don’t need to ask their permission for this. People are supposed to be treated humanely. We will return to this issue later.

For now, let us note that already research conducted on animals gives rise to special problems that are not familiar to scientists dealing with inanimate nature. Among them is the problem of vivisection, which attracted public attention and caused heated debate in the 19th century. The term vivisection (literally “live cutting”) is used to refer to experiments on animals during which they are harmed or suffer. Without delving into this complex problem, associated not only with the need to clarify the content of the concepts of “harm” and “suffering”, but with drawing a demarcation line between living and inanimate nature, between lower and higher animals, we will only note that science has developed quite clear (as far as this is possible here) principles of action in such situations. First of all, this kind of experiment is allowed only in cases where it is absolutely necessary for science. In particular, cruel experiments on animals can be justified by a reasoned argument that their results are very important for developing ways to help suffering people. For example, this is practicing the technique of a complex surgical operation or testing a new medicinal substance. But even at the same time, they try to minimize the number of experiments and the degree of suffering caused to the animal.

The problem of vivisection illustrates well the complexity of the ethical dilemmas that scientists sometimes face. A dilemma is a problem that has no optimal solution, a situation where you definitely have to sacrifice something. Social workers, in whose practice situations of this kind are encountered quite often, ethical difficulties of this type should be very familiar. Perhaps in the practice of social research extreme situations less than, for example, in the activities of a doctor. But the medical commandment “Do no harm!” remains valid here as well.

When working with people, the principle of voluntariness should be observed whenever possible. The researcher must first obtain consent to participate in the experiments. To do this, people need to explain the purpose of the research. The degree of completeness and detail of the explanation is determined by the researcher himself, based on specific conditions. Although it must be taken into account that the line between partial concealment of the true goals of the research and outright deception is very blurred, so that in practice it is sometimes difficult to decide where one phenomenon ends and the second begins. It is clear that the use of deceptive techniques is objectionable on moral grounds. However, it is sometimes necessary to resort to concealing the true purposes of research in order to obtain reliable information. We will return to the analysis of cases of this type later.

Problems with voluntary participation may arise when the researcher wants to obtain information that the person considers too intimate. A researcher interested in obtaining such information may resort to some tricks or gentle pressure. The last technique is possible because the person speaking on behalf of science is already, by virtue of this, endowed with a certain authority and a certain power. Some additional points may be added to this. For example, a teacher acts as an experimenter, and he involves his students as subjects. It is clear that in such a situation it is difficult to refuse to participate in experiments. Or take an example when a social worker collects information from his clients, who often directly or indirectly depend on him because they need help of a material or moral nature. It is very difficult to objectively determine where belief ends and pressure begins. We can only state that more or less serious moral problems arise in this case. And this must be taken into account.

It should be recognized that the researcher sometimes has to make a certain compromise, since otherwise he risks the reliability of the information received. The use of volunteers, even if technically feasible, may create some bias in the results. Let’s say we are interested in the characteristics of behavior that is taboo in a given culture, that is, strong social prohibitions and moral assessments operate in this area. In this case, people who are willing to share information about themselves will generally be less susceptible to social pressure. This will be a special category of people, different from the main mass. It is very likely that their behavior in the taboo area will also turn out to be not quite typical. Technically speaking, we will get a non-representative sample.

If the research proceeds in a nomothetic direction, that is, we are interested in some general trends, and not in the specific answers of each individual, we can arrange an anonymous survey. This guarantees non-interference in a person’s personal life, and on the other hand, partially relieves psychological pressure, which can lead to distortion of information. But some potentially important information will be lost. For example, if the same group completed two different questionnaires at different times, it would not be possible to compare individual data.

In addition to the principle of voluntary participation in research, the principle of confidentiality is also important. It means that the researcher undertakes not to disclose the information received and to use it only for scientific purposes. If it is necessary to provide data of an idiographic nature to illustrate some general position, then the real name of the subject or respondent is replaced by a fictitious one. This guarantees the anonymity of study participants. Social workers, like doctors, are familiar with the principle of confidentiality, as it is an essential element of the profession's code of ethics. In another way, it is also called the principle of non-disclosure of professional secrets. Individual data received in social research, it is also customary to refer to this category. If they are cited somewhere in the future, it is without connection with a specific person.

In works on methodology, they often refer to two well-known empirical studies where moral and ethical problems appear in their utmost nakedness. Both of these examples are from the area social psychology. In both cases, gross deception of the subjects was used, which, from the point of view of the researchers themselves, was impossible to avoid. Let us present the essence of these experiments and discuss the relevant moral and ethical aspects.

American psychologist Solomon Asch in the 50s conducted a series of classic experiments to study the phenomenon referred to as conformism. In ordinary speech, the word “conformist” is used as a synonym for the word “compromiser.” This is the name given to a person who unconditionally accepts prevailing views. In social psychology, conformity is considered in connection with the pressure that a group puts on an individual if he does not agree with its opinion. A nonconformist will be a person who holds special views, defends his own beliefs, and actively resists group pressure.

In his experiments, S. Asch simulated group pressure using a dummy group. The subject (student) was invited to the laboratory, ostensibly for experiments to study perception. Arriving at the appointed time, he found in the room three more young people unfamiliar to him, who were introduced to him as the same subjects. In fact, these were “conspirators” - people who knew the true meaning of what was happening and acted according to the instructions of the experimenter. Each of the participants in the experiment was given a card on which two segments were drawn, clearly differing in length. All the cards were exactly the same, and the real subject saw this. Then those present were asked to compare the lengths of the segments in turn. The procedure was rigged so that the real subject answered at the very end. Before him, all the “participants” of the experiment confidently called the smaller segment larger. When it was the real subject’s turn, he most often joined the group’s opinion. Although in those cases where such experiments were carried out individually, absolutely all participants, without exception, gave the correct answers. The experiment convincingly demonstrated the psychological power of group opinion, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Despite the importance of the data obtained, such an experiment raises serious ethical concerns. Indeed, a person is “led by the nose,” put in a stupid position, and turned into an object of gross manipulation. Does the purpose of the experiment justify the use of such means of obtaining data? Does a scientist have the moral right to use such methods? Accepted research standards prohibit the use of deceptive methods of obtaining information, coercion or humiliation of subjects. If, in the interests of science, it is necessary to deviate from these principles, then we need to think about how to minimize the harm caused to humans. In any case, at the end of the experiment, the person should tell the whole truth, explain what caused the need for such a reception, and, of course, apologize to him.

Another famous experiment was conducted in the early 60s by another American psychologist named Stanley Milgram. The phenomenon of subordination to power was studied; in fact, here too the subject of research was conformism, but not at the level of judgment, but at the level of action. The experiments were carried out in the laboratory. They were attended by 40 men of different ages and social status. As in the experiments described above, the subject was misled about the true purpose of the experiment: he was told that the process of learning was being studied. Everything was arranged as if the real subject was acting as an assistant to the experimenter, and the experimental subject was another person in the next room. In fact, this second person was a laboratory employee playing the role of a test subject.

The experiment proceeded as follows. The true subject was in front of a control panel on which electrical switches and indicators were located. The dummy “subject” was seated in a chair, strapped to it, and an electrode was attached to his wrist. The first subject saw all this through a window in the wall. Then the “experience” began. The real test subject had to punish the imaginary test subject for every mistake made with a blow. electric current. In reality, everything was a set-up: the dummy “subject” simply writhed, feigning non-existent pain. And the real subject was told to increase the strength of the electrical discharge each time. The device clearly marked the line beyond which the voltage reached a dangerous level. And despite this and despite the obvious signs of suffering of the “experimental”, many subjects crossed this limit, obeying the order. At the same time, it was clear that they themselves were also suffering, but did not dare to refuse.

Of course, S. Milgram's experiments were cruel. The researcher himself explained the need to study this phenomenon, pointing to the experience of the Second World War, when many soldiers and officers of the German army, in order to justify their participation in mass atrocities, referred to the fact that they were only carrying out orders from the command. But the question arises whether the study should have been conducted in this particular form. In this case, the principle of voluntary participation in the experiment was clearly violated. Another important principle was also violated, which states that the possibility of causing any harm, physical or moral, to the subjects must be excluded. Deviation from this rule is allowed only with the voluntary consent of the subjects and their full awareness of the potential threat.

We have analyzed in detail two experiments that can safely be called inhumane. They demonstrate a gross violation of accepted norms for conducting scientific research, abuse of power and authority of science, infringement of the rights and dignity of people taking part in them as subjects. The dilemma that faced S. Asch and S. Milgram was this: refuse to obtain reliable data about a socially important phenomenon through rigorous experimental means or compromise some ethical principles of conducting experiments with human participants. They took the second path, making an important contribution to science, but causing fair criticism from the scientific community for violating the researcher’s code of ethics. Most often, ethical problems arise in a less acute form. But it is precisely this circumstance that requires paying due attention to them and instilling in young researchers a heightened sense of moral responsibility.

We have already noted above that the professional duty of a scientist is to do everything possible to ensure the reliability and validity of the results obtained. This requires the researcher not only to be responsible, but also to have a high methodological culture. He must be careful in his conclusions, clearly distinguish between hypotheses, facts and their interpretation. As for the last point, the researcher is required to critically evaluate the degree of reliability of the conclusions drawn, formulate those conclusions for which the available empirical data are not yet sufficient, and point out in the form of hypotheses possible ways eliminating existing white spots. No one knows all the intricacies of a particular scientific work, all her strong and weaknesses better than the author himself. But at the same time he is an interested person. His desire to present the fruits of his labor in a favorable light is understandable. However, the scientist’s conscience must restrain him from any manipulation of the results. The interests of science must come first.

The desire to obtain absolutely reliable results forces researchers not only to condemn any deliberate distortion of facts or any tendentious interpretation of them, but also to try to eliminate any sources of involuntary distortion of information. In the social sciences, factors of this kind often lie in the researcher's situation itself. The person conducting the research expects to obtain a certain result. After all, even when planning it, he proceeds from a certain hypothesis. During the data collection process, he may unwittingly bias respondents in a certain way. By looks, voice intonation, involuntary nods, that is, the entire complex of expressive movements on which so-called nonverbal communication is based, the subject can guess what the experimenter expects from him. If we consider that the researcher usually makes efforts to gain the favor of the subject and his willingness to cooperate, it is easy to understand that the respondent, for his part, is able to unwittingly “play along” with the researcher. All these subtle points should be kept in mind.

To eliminate factors of this type, there are a number of methodological techniques. Written instructions create complete uniformity and eliminate the influence of non-verbal factors. Sometimes the researcher delegates data collection to a neutral person. The most sophisticated techniques include the so-called double-blind experiment. It is often used when testing new drugs. The fact is that the very fact of prescribing a new medicine can lift the spirit, instill in a person faith in the possibility of a cure, which in itself will already have a positive effect. This is where we deal. with the mechanism of suggestion. Sometimes doctors specifically prescribe a harmless powder (for example, crushed chalk) to a patient under the guise of an effective medicine, and the result is indeed often positive. A similar substance to special language called placebo. The type of experiment described is carried out using a placebo. One group of patients (experimental) is given a new drug, and representatives of a completely similar (control) group receive a similar-looking neutral substance (placebo). The experiment is structured so that neither the person who dispenses the medicines nor the patients themselves know which of them belongs to which group. Hence the name of the experimental design. This technique allows you to eliminate the effect of suggestion and self-hypnosis. However, another ethical problem arises: On what basis do we give some patients a chance for a cure, while depriving others of it? Once again we are faced with a dilemma: in an effort to obtain absolutely reliable information, we unwittingly infringe on someone's rights.

Scope of ethics.

General ethical problems of science:

a) responsibility to society as a whole (high moral principles and by-products, material costs);

b) responsibility to scientific community(rigging results, plagiarism);

Specific problems of social sciences (vivisection):

a) reliability of information (possible distortions);

b) consent and cooperation of the subjects;

c) confidentiality;

d) deception and cruelty.

In all research involving people, not just sociology, ethical dilemmas may arise. Medical experiments on people, including the sick and dying, have become commonplace, although it is not so easy to say whether these experiments are ethically justified. When testing a new drug, patients are deceived in the interests of effectiveness. One group of patients may receive a new drug, while another may be told that they received it when in fact they did not. A person's belief that they have been given a healing medicine can itself lead to positive health effects; this can be controlled by giving the drug to only half of the patients participating in the experiment. But will this be ethical? In this case, we are certainly approaching the limits of what is permitted; much will depend on the actual effectiveness of the drug. On the other hand, if such experiments are avoided, the effectiveness of many drugs will remain unknown.

Similar problems arise every time in sociological research in a situation where some kind of deception is used in relation to research participants. An example is Stanley Milgram's famous and controversial experiment. He set out to identify how ready people are to hurt others when receiving appropriate commands from above.

Was this deception ethically justifiable, especially since the participants interviewed found their experience unusually difficult and unsettling? The general consensus among critics of the experiment was that the study “went too far” because the technique used contained potential psychological dangers for the volunteers. However, it is unclear where the line is drawn between “forgivable” and “unforgivable” lies. Milgram's research became extremely well known, not so much because of the scam, but because of the amazing results he obtained. This study showed that many people are willing to act violently towards others if they are “ordered” to do so.

Ethical problems also arise in sociology in connection with the possible consequences of publications that use research results. Research subjects may find the results offensive, either because they are portrayed in a light they consider unattractive, or because views and behaviors that they would prefer to keep private have been made public. public life people do a lot of things that they don't want to be made public.

In most cases, despite possible hostility from both research participants and others, it is the sociologist's responsibility to make the results of the research public. Indeed, this is one of the most important contributions that sociological research can make to the development of a free and open society. As it was once noted, “good research is bound to piss someone off. Perhaps a sociologist should not be afraid of this if he research carried out competently, and the conclusions drawn are supported by clear arguments. But a sociologist-researcher must carefully assess the possible consequences of publishing his research, as well as shape, in which he represents them. Often the researcher seeks to discuss these issues with those affected by them before publication.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Similar problems arise every time in sociological and marketing research in a situation where some kind of deception is used in relation to research participants.

Ethics are the moral principles or values that guide an individual or group of individuals in their behavior.

Researchers have obligations to their colleagues, clients, and respondents; they must adhere to high ethical standards so as not to undermine either their prestige or the credibility of the information collected. Ethics also shows whether a particular action is right or wrong, good or bad.

1. Ethics of sociological research

The moral norm that a sociologist must be guided by is, first of all, objectivity (impartiality). This, however, should be followed by any researcher.

It is also important for sociologists to maintain strict confidentiality - to keep secret information that could harm people in the role of being examined.

Practical assessment must be separated from knowledge itself, which requires "intellectual honesty" to obtain. Sociology is not a moral guide, but the sociologist himself must be guided in his activities by moral principles, which is a matter of his conscience.[ 2, p. 10]

The following basic principles should be considered by the sociologist as a guide when choosing ethical behavior in various contexts.

1) Respect for human rights, dignity and individuality.

Sociologists have a responsibility to respect the rights, dignity and individuality of every person. In his professional activity they are obliged to avoid prejudice, any form of intolerance and discrimination towards gender; age; ethnic background; race; national origin; language; religion; incapacity; health status; the marital status of each person. They have a responsibility to be sensitive to cultural, individual and role differences when providing services, teaching and research to groups of people with different characteristics. In all his practical activities

sociologists must recognize the rights of others to have values, opinions, and attitudes that are different from their own.

2) Professional competence.

Social scientists are required to maintain the highest level of competence in their work; They understand that their professional capabilities have their limits, and they take on only those tasks for which they have sufficient education, skill and experience. They recognize the need to continually improve their educational level to remain professionally competent; they use appropriate scientific, professional, technical and administrative means necessary to maintain their professional activities at a competent level. They consult with other professionals to improve their work with students, research participants, and clients.

3) Honesty.

In his professional activities - in scientific research, teaching, practical work, provision of services - sociologists have a responsibility to act honestly, fairly and respect the rights and interests of each other and other people affected by their professional activities. Sociologists must build their relationships on the basis of trust in each other and in no case knowingly make statements that are misleading or deceptive.

4) Professional responsibility.

Sociologists are required to adhere to the highest professional standards and accept responsibility for their work. In their professional activities, they are guided by the fact that together they form one community and are responsible for the development of sociological knowledge and maintaining the authority of sociology in the scientific and socio-practical spheres of society. Sociologists realize

the value of the public's trust in the findings of sociology, they are interested in each other's ethical behavior, they are concerned that the actions of some of them may compromise this trust. Social scientists should strive to act collegially, but should not allow this desire for collegiality to trump their personal responsibility for ethical behavior. When necessary, social scientists should consult with colleagues to avoid violating ethical standards.

5) Social responsibility.

Sociologists must understand their professional responsibility to the society in which they live and work. They are obliged to present their knowledge and skills to the public for the benefit of society itself. While conducting research, sociologists should try to develop sociology as a science and benefit society.

Ethical standards of sociological work are fixed in a number of normative documents. For example, in the International Procedural Code of Marketing and Sociological Research ICC/ESOMAR, the Code of Ethics of the International Sociological Association (ISA), the Code of Professional Ethics of a Sociologist of the Sociological Association of Russia, the Code of Ethics of the World Research Association public opinion(WAPOR), code of ethics of the Russian Marketing Association.

Their main provisions are based on the principles of decency, honesty, social and professional responsibility of the interviewer. Respect for human rights, dignity and individuality of the respondent, the medical principle of “Do no harm” in relation to him, regarding issues of confidentiality and privacy of personal life, are the main aspects of the interviewer’s work ethics.

2. Ethical Issues in Marketing Research

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that examines human actions through the prism of their “worthiness” and “correctness” from the point of view of enduring human values.

A number of aspects of marketing research have strong ethical implications. Market research is usually conducted on a commercial basis, either by independent firms (external entities) or departments within corporations (internal entities). Most marketing research for clients by firms is conducted for profit, which sometimes forces marketers or clients to compromise on the objectivity of the research or the professionalism associated with conducting market research.

According to generally accepted views, three stakeholders are involved in the marketing research process: the customer, the performer and the public. They have certain obligations to each other and to the marketing research project itself.

ICC/ESOMAR International Code of Practice for Marketing and Social Research.

General rules:

1.Marketing research should always be conducted objectively and in accordance with generally accepted scientific principles.

2.MI must always comply with national and international legislation in force in the state included in this project.

Respondents' rights:

1. Participation is only on a voluntary basis

2. Respondents must remain anonymous

3. Researchers must ensure that this information there will be no one for any purpose unrelated to the MI, and that the recipient of the information agrees to cooperate in accordance with the requirements of the ESOMAR Code.

4. Respondents must be protected from direct harm or other undesirable effects that may arise as a result of their participation in the study. Parental consent must be obtained when interviewing children and young people. Or their guardian.

5. If the research requires the use of any technology or recording equipment, and if this does not take place in a public place, then respondents should be warned about this technology or equipment at the very beginning of the interview. In such situations, it is also not possible to reveal the anonymity of the respondent. At their request, the record or its corresponding section must be destroyed or deleted.

6. Respondents should be able to easily verify the name and details of the interviewer.

Professional responsibilities of researchers:

1. Researchers should not (intentionally or negligently) engage in conduct that could bring discredit to the marketing research profession or cause a loss of public confidence in it.

2. Researchers should not make false statements about their (their organization's) skills and experience.

3. Researchers should not unreasonably criticize or discredit other researchers.

4. Researchers should always strive to develop research of the required quality at prices adequate to this quality and take this into account in contracts with clients.

5. Researchers must ensure the safety of all research-related records in their possession.

6. Researchers should not allow the dissemination of conclusions drawn from marketing research that have not been properly supported. They should always be prepared to provide technical information to support the accuracy of any information published.

7. They should not combine with research any other work based on the use of personal information.

Mutual rights and responsibilities of researchers and clients:

The rights and obligations provided for by the code are divided into 2 categories: the requirements of the first category determine the conditions for the use of information related to the conduct of medical research and can be changed if the customer and the researcher have provided for this in the text of the contract. Unless otherwise provided, then:

1. The client does not have the right to exclusive use of the services of the researcher or his organization, in whole or in part. However, when conducting work for different clients, the researcher should try to avoid possible conflicts of interest between the services provided to these clients.

2. records remain the property of the client and should not be provided to a third party without the client's consent:

a. summary of market research, specifications and other information provided by the client;

b. research data information from the MI project (with the exception of those projects in which several clients or services took part, during which the same data became available to more than one client).

3. A number of materials available to the researcher and the client are the property of the researcher, and the client has no right to disclose their contents to third parties. This includes:

A. proposal for conducting MI, in particular its section on payment amounts. The client has the right to familiarize himself with this proposal only to the hired consultant, or if he is not working on another project. An exception is when the development of the proposal was paid for by the client;

b. report unless it is publicly available for purchase or subscription and is produced as a result of work paid for by multiple clients. Without permission from the researcher, the client has no right to disclose information;

V. Researcher's tools and other materials prepared by the researcher for the implementation of the project.

4. The storage period for work materials after completion of the project must be in accordance with generally accepted professional practice during this period at the request of the client;

5. The contractor must not disclose the client’s name to third parties, as well as any other secret information. Except as otherwise provided by law.

1. Clients bear full responsibility for the truthfulness of publications based on work materials; the form and content of publications are agreed in advance with the contractor.

2. If during the survey blocks of questions for different clients are combined in the questionnaire, the contractor will inform the client about the fact of such combination

3. The researcher should inform the client in advance or as early as possible.

In the event that any part of the work for that client must be subcontracted outside the researcher's organization (including the use of consultants). At the client's request, he must be provided with the details of such a subcontractor.

4. If the client wants to check the quality of the work performed and is ready to pay for everything, then the contractor is obliged to provide such an opportunity

5. The investigator must provide the client with all relevant technical details of any research project carried out for this client.

6. The report on the results of the performer’s work should clearly highlight:

A. information collected during the work

b. own interpretation of this information

7. Researchers should not allow their names or the names of their organizations to be used in connection with a research project as a guarantee that it is carried out in accordance with the requirements of this Code unless they are confident of this.

8. Researchers must ensure that clients are aware of the existence of this Code and the need to comply with its requirements.

Conclusion

There is no single set of rules for dealing with ethical issues. An important feature of a manager’s activity is the presence of situations from which there may not be an ethically impeccable way out: by refusing a “dubious” order, you can leave your employees without a livelihood.

You can learn ethics, and most importantly, form your own ethical convictions, only on the basis of practical experience, often at the cost of costly mistakes. Therefore, the ethical aspects of research should always be kept in mind.

Bibliography

sociological marketing ethics

1. Bakshtanovsky V.I. Applied ethics: idea, foundations, way of existence / V.I. Bakshtanovsky, Yu.V. Sogomonov // Issue. philosophy. -- 2007. -- No. 9. -- P. 39?49

2. Bakshtanovsky V.I. Professional ethics: sociological perspectives / V.I. Bakshtanovsky, Yu.V. Sogomonov // SotsIs: Sociol. research -- 2005. -- No. 8. -- P. 3?13

3. Ganopolsky M.G. Professional morality as a phenomenon of project culture / M.G. Ganopolsky, G. A. Tyumentseva // Vestn. Tyumen. state un-ta. -- 2012. -- No. 10. -- P. 76?83

4. Kotler F. Fundamentals of Marketing: Trans. from English - M.: Business book, 2003. - P. 391

5. Peshkova, E.P. Marketing analysis in the activities of the company / E.N. Peshkova - M.: Os-89, 2006. - P. 368

6. Soloviev, B.A. Marketing / B.A. Soloviev - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2003. - P. 381

7. Neshchadin A.G. Social values, business ethics, globalization processes and features of Russia // Corporate management. -- 2002. -- No. 6. -- P. 35?37.

8. Sergeeva, S.E. Effective marketing is the key to the company's success / S.E. Sergeeva // Marketing in Russia and abroad. -- 2000. -- No. 2. -- P.114?120.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The nature of professional ethics as a set of stable norms and rules that should guide the employee. Ethical principles and standards of a social worker. Typology of situations in the professional activity of a social worker.

course work, added 01/11/2011

Characteristics of the concept and basic principles of ethics psychological research- ways of preserving mental reality as a special characteristic of life, means that set and create conditions for the manifestation of autonomy, individuality of a person’s “I”.

abstract, added 06/17/2011

Fundamental documents of biomedical ethics as sources of modern moral standards for conducting experiments and clinical trials on humans and animals. The problem of the relationship between the goals and means of human research. Modifications of bioethical committees.

abstract, added 04/12/2015

Legal status and moral principles of the translator. Professional suitability requirements. Technical support for translation. Translator ethics when collaborating with colleagues and agencies. Professional ethics in relationships with the customer.

presentation, added 03/29/2019

Subject of ethics. The functioning of morality. Ethics is the science of morality and ethics. The structure of morality and its elements. Ethical teachings in the history of religions. Ethical ideas in philosophy. Development of ethics in the 20th century. Ethical problems of our time.

book, added 10/10/2008

Code of Ethics for the Modern Manager. Moral values market. Basic qualities of a manager. The ideal manager model. Realities of domestic business. Ethical principles for developing managerial authority.

test, added 09/10/2007

Moral and ethical views, as well as philosophical problems in natural science and medicine. Humanism and moral principles of medicine. Bioethics is a philosophical and scientific paradigm of healthcare. Moral and ethical problems of genetic engineering and gene therapy.

test, added 08/18/2011

Ethics social work as a science that studies the ethical principles of behavior in the performance of one’s professional duties. Analysis of the problems of forming the ethical foundations of social work. Consideration of the features of the formation of ethical consciousness.

course work, added 05/18/2014

Short story the emergence of the term “ethics”, the definition of the concept of “professional ethics of a lawyer”. General problems of morality, the relationship between ends and means. Similarities and differences between morality and law. General moral, corporate and professional ethical codes.

abstract, added 12/12/2010

General principles professional ethics based on universal human moral standards. The concept and main problems of scientist ethics. The influence of political events on the activities of literary scholars, ethical criteria for their research work.

The methods of science cannot be considered only in their technical aspect. Ethical issues must also be taken into account, especially if the target is people. We find ourselves in the sphere of ethics when we evaluate the results of activities from the point of view of their benefit or harm for society as a whole and for specific people.

Responsibility of a scientist to society and the scientific community

Science is inherently imbued with noble aspirations and humanistic ideals. The desire for truth, like the desire for beauty or the desire to do good, characterizes the best aspects of human nature. In its applied role, science uses the information obtained to improve people's lives. Knowledge becomes a force capable of transforming reality. But Every power also contains destructive potential. Therefore, handling it requires a certain amount of caution. The extraordinary growth in the capabilities of science today has clearly outlined this aspect of scientific and technological progress. Therefore, today, more than ever, the question of the moral responsibility of scientists for the results of their activities has arisen. The activities of scientists must comply with the following ethical standards:

The interests of science become higher than personal interests;

The scientist must be objective and impartial, he is responsible for the information provided;

A scientist is responsible to society for his inventions.

The specificity of research in the social sciences adds some moral and ethical problems that researchers in the exact sciences do not face. This is due to the fact that the subject of study here is a person. Therefore, almost any research situation turns into a special type of interpersonal communication and must obey its norms. A physicist, for example, studying the behavior of elementary particles does not need to ask their permission to do this. People are supposed to be treated humanely.

Animal research already poses special challenges. Among them is the problem of vivisection, which attracted public attention and caused heated debate back in the 19th century. Term vivisection(live cutting) is used to refer to experiments on animals during which they are harmed or suffer.

This is a complex problem associated both with the need to clarify the content of the concepts of “harm” and “suffering”, and with drawing a demarcation line between living and inanimate nature, between lower and higher animals. We will not consider these aspects. Let us only note that science has developed fairly clear (as far as possible) principles of action in such situations.

This kind of experiment is allowed only in cases where it is absolutely necessary for science. In particular, cruel experiments on animals can be justified by a reasoned argument that their results are very important for developing ways to help suffering people.

The problem of vivisection illustrates well the complexity of those ethical dilemmas that scientists sometimes have to deal with. A dilemma is a problem that does not have an optimal solution, a situation where something must be sacrificed.

In all cases, one should adhere to the motto “Do no harm!”

Various sociology textbooks published abroad, as a rule, contain a section devoted to the ethics of sociological research. It is advisable, however, to pose the question more broadly and consider the problem of ethics of any sociological activity, which, as noted earlier (see 4.1 and 4.2), cannot be reduced to sociological research. As for the latter, the moral norm that a sociologist should be guided by is, first of all, objectivity (impartiality). This, however, should be followed by any researcher.

It is also important for sociologists to maintain strict confidentiality - to keep secret information that could harm people in the role of being examined. To illustrate this rule, they usually refer to the study of various types of illegal behavior - homosexuality, drug addiction, prostitution, etc. It is clear that the work of a researcher cannot be identified with the work of an investigator, although there are some similarities in their work. One sociology textbook, for example, talks about inventive ways of conducting research on homosexuals. The researcher, on the one hand, was able to characterize the family life of the subjects without revealing their secrets to either loved ones or the police. On the other hand, as a result of the study, it was possible to attract the attention of public opinion to the fact of unfair assessment of the behavior of homosexuals, to prove that their behavior is not

socially dangerous and should not be criminally punishable32.

The ethics of sociological research also include questions that a sociologist has to solve when organizing research and during its conduct: what to do if people refuse to participate in experiments and answer the questions posed. When characterizing the ethics of sociological research, the following questions are also answered: if the subjects of sociological research do not realize true goal observer, is this an invasion of their privacy and to what extent is this invasion justified?

Indeed, a number of problems arise due to the fact that the source of sociological information is the person himself. And preserving his dignity, respecting his right not to give compromising information or to report information that he would like to keep secret, is the law of the sociologist. This, by the way, is one of the differences between the activities of a sociologist-researcher and a lawyer-investigator. In many cases, the sociologist's delicacy and contact become a necessary condition obtaining information.

But there is also a more complex problem, similar to those referred to when it came to social engineering activities (see 4.2.2). In applied research, a question often arises, to which it is not always possible to give a definite answer: can a sociologist give the customer (who, as a rule, is either a government representative or a manager at some level) information that will harm people and complicate their situation? (will they be fired, transferred to another job, finally closed down, etc.)? Should a sociologist proceed from the interests of the “cause” that the official who gave the order seems to serve, or is it the duty of the sociologist to proceed from the interests of the people who were surveyed? It is impossible to give a definite answer to this question.

Much depends on the method of “presenting” information, its interpretation and comprehension (we refer to the examples given earlier - see 4.2.2). It is clear that any attempts to falsify information are categorically unacceptable, even if they were guided by “good” motives and “humanistic” ideals. Nevertheless, the commandment “do no harm” is no less than

The doctor must also be guided by the sociologist. It is almost impossible to give exact recipes for how to follow this commandment in each specific case. This can be suggested by moral intuition, which a sociologist should have developed.

If you listen, however, to the classics of sociology, who knew how to think and combine civic duty with high level professionalism, then the position of Max Weber is interesting in this regard. He believed that activity in the field of sociology is inextricably linked with ethics, although sociology itself cannot serve as a moral guide, because its task is to provide unbiased knowledge. However, the sociologist must adhere to a special ethics, which M. Weber called the “ethics of responsibility.” Its essence is that it is necessary to foresee the consequences of one’s activities. M. Weber extended this principle to teaching. He believed that the only specific virtue that should be instilled in students was “intellectual honesty.” By this he did not mean to say that “pure specialists” should be trained in the most literal sense of this expression. He only wanted to emphasize that one should separate one and the other - professionalism and moral duty, because the latter is associated with deeply personal life decisions, “which each person must come to himself” and which he must find “in his own conscience”33.

So, practical assessment must be separated from knowledge itself, which requires "intellectual honesty" to obtain. Sociology is not a moral guide, but the sociologist himself must be guided in his activities by moral principles, which is a matter of his conscience. But where does the sociologist get these principles, how is his moral position formed? Philosophy plays a decisive role in this, according to M. Weber. It is precisely this that allows one to evaluate the meaning of sociological activity and to form the ability to foresee its results. We again came to where we began our acquaintance with sociology, clarifying its connections with other areas of knowledge and, in particular, with philosophy (see 1.2.2): the recognition of the importance of philosophy for sociology. For practical activities in the field of sociology it is important

SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL LIFE

the way we solve philosophical problems for ourselves: the question of meaning human life in general, the sense of sociological activity in particular.

Yet, although sociology itself does not provide moral guidance, sociological practice does contribute to the formation of a humanistic moral position. This can be explained as follows: sociologists deal with a wide variety of numerous human needs and problems; they see the scale of the spread of certain phenomena that prevent people from expressing themselves and realizing their abilities; they use methods in their work that encourage people to be frank, encourage them to see the sociologist as an intercessor, and generate hope for solving the problem.

Let us give examples to illustrate this conclusion. In the 80s, when they began to conduct various kinds of surveys, the sociological centers that conducted them received letters of gratitude for finally becoming interested in people’s opinions. ordinary people, or with detailed explanations of the positions expressed in the questionnaires, as well as recommendations on how to change the current situation. Desperate people also wrote asking for help, protection, and answers to various questions. Sociologists working in the field of labor sociology and conducting research in various work groups encountered similar situations: representatives of the enterprise personnel, especially ordinary workers, sometimes told the sociologist what they would not tell anyone else. Naturally, this cannot but find a response in the consciousness of the sociologist and cannot but influence his moral position. It can be assumed that, accordingly, sociologists, to a greater extent than representatives of other social disciplines, tend to take the position of socially disadvantaged sections of the population. As the American sociologist Herbert Gans writes, for example: “Personally, I have the impression that sociologists conducting research among representatives of the lower class are largely inclined to support them, while economists are more likely to consider them a dangerous group.”34

It is no coincidence that government officials often view sociology either negatively or warily, believing

that it is revealing, “subversive” in nature. Indeed, as a result of research, new problems are often discovered, and previously known ones can acquire a completely different meaning. Thus, the introduction of compulsory universal secondary education in former USSR(which was presented as the greatest public good) in the specific social and technical-economic conditions of the country gave rise to new problems in the sphere of labor - the reluctance of young people to work. High employment of women in national economy(which was also considered a good thing, a sign of equality), in the absence of the necessary social forms of organizing the extracurricular time of children and adolescents, contributed to the increase in the number of juvenile delinquents, etc. It was sociologists who brought to public attention the complexity of these and many other problems and forced them to re-evaluate the various large-scale decisions that had previously been made.

Representatives of the authorities demonstrate their negative attitude towards sociology precisely when the positions of sociologists do not correspond to their own positions. There is a temptation to “correct” sociological data or declare them not to correspond to reality, since “sociology in general is imperfect” or these sociologists turned out to be “not up to par,” etc. Favor for sociology is shown when the data confirm the “correctness” of the management’s views, the expediency of the “adopted course,” etc. In any case, a sociologist must defend his point of view, defend the results he has obtained, show independence and independence of judgment - this is primarily and it is not only his professional, but also his civic duty. “Intellectual honesty,” discussed above, and the ability to defend it for a sociologist is a manifestation of civic position. Moreover, this position should not depend on which political party the sociologist belongs to, or which social movements he joins.

Of course, the relationship between a sociologist and the political and economic elite of society is contradictory. On the one hand, he must show independence and independence, and on the other hand, he, of course, is dependent on " powerful of the world this." After all, the main resources (financial, political, organizational, “popularization”, etc.), without

SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL LIFE

which research cannot be carried out, much less the recommendations obtained as a result of the research cannot be implemented, are in their hands. An alternative for power structures and government funding comes from various public and private foundations, sponsors, and commercial structures. Classes in the field of sociology presuppose the ability to find a “patron” who would make it possible to maximize the “sociological resources” and individual abilities of a sociologist with the “least cost” of a moral order.

Considering the special complexity and responsibility of the work of a sociologist, the importance of moral principles and civic position for the implementation of this activity, sociological communities are trying to coordinate sociological activities. In many countries, national sociological associations create various kinds of codes that regulate the work of a sociologist, relationships within the sociological community, and the interaction of the sociologist and society. Thus, the American Sociological Association's Code of Ethics was adopted in 1971 and revised in 1989. In 1987, the “Professional Code of Sociologist” was adopted by the Soviet Sociological Association.

It is characteristic that the SSA code began with the following provision: “a sociologist in his daily activities is guided primarily by state interests”35. The Code contained rules regulating research activities sociologist, conducting scientific discussions and polemics, the attitude of the sociologist to other ideas and people, to scientific publications and relationships with the subjects. Responsibility for violation of the professional code of sociologists was also determined. A Council of Professional Ethics was also created under the Presidium of the SSA, which was designed to consider cases of violation of the code and give them an appropriate assessment.

After the collapse of the USSR, the need arose to create codes that would regulate the activities of sociologists within the relevant country. Thus, the Institute of Socio-Political Research Russian Academy sciences, on the basis of the American “Code of Ethics”, “Work Rules and Ethical Standards” have been prepared, which can be dis-

viewed as a draft of a new sociologist's code for the Russian Federation; Siysk scientists. Here the center of gravity has been shifted from responsibility to the state to social responsibility. In preparing yourself for future sociological work, you should remember the words addressed by Wright Mills to young people: “Let me remind you, my young reader, that the thinkers whom you reverence with such admiration life and work were not separate. They took their interpenetration very seriously, allowing them to enrich each other. Although, of course, for ordinary people, life and work are separate. You have to make sure that you have the exceptional ability to plan your life path that he will prove to be a reliable support for the Gvorchesgwu. Learning is a choice of how to live, and at the same time it is a choice of career. Do you know that an intelligent person forms| himself as and at the same time as he improves! in skill? To realize your potential and implement-| To achieve the opportunities that fate throws at him, scientists construct their own character, which is the core of his best qualities as a professional"37.

Contents, purpose and ethical problems of sociological research. Ethical issues in sociological research

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Password recovery