The Seduction of Ethics forms part of a trilogy on ethics in research. Walking the Tightrope (UTP, 2002) was an edited volume that deals with qualitative research. The Ethics Trapeze was an edited collection of 14 papers about ethics and humanities researchers that appeared in The Journal of Academic Ethics (2006).
The journey towards writing The Seduction of Ethics started with one question: is it true that there has been a decline in social research since the introduction of national ethics codes governing research as many social scientists claimed? My journey ended in quite a different place than where it started. Social research is on the increase, in fact. But I also learned that the distinctive features and methods among the disciplines are disappearing as a result of the application of ethics codes. The social sciences have become pauperized and their methods homogenized. It is a worrisome trend that the richness and depth of social research might become a thing of the past. One might also claim, ironically, that quality-performance reviews in universities are pushing researchers into doing more and faster research–a highly competitive model of research where rank and money triumph over the slow gestation of research filled with insights and wonderment. Doing research has become a pressure cooker and some would claim that research-ethics codes contribute to that pressure. Social researchers are also caught in the cross-hairs of an ethics codes primarily driven by bio-medical paradigms of how research should be done. Unlike the courts, decisions of ethics committees are not publicly available. The pattern of how to work with ethics committees starts anew for researchers with each fresh application, whether novice or veteran. A stab in the dark, some would say.
Whether ethics committees should remain is something for the reader to decide. It is, however, quite unlikely that they will disappear in the foreseeable future. Members of ethics committees face a lack of proper resources and must deal with disgruntled and unhappy researchers. However, they are keenly committed to the tasks entrusted to them, but they are also volunteers who must make meaning of their own struggles.
What would happen if ethics committees began treating researchers in the same manner as they expect researchers to treat their research participants? Would that turn the trend around? Or can researchers buck the trend by adopting strategies that quietly undermine the demands of ethics committees? Is it possible to resist the seduction of ethics? Or does resistance come at too high a price? These questions are played out each day as ethics committees and researchers painfully acknowledge the role of power and knowledge that guide the work of ethics committees.
