Federal prosecutors, at the request of the British government, have told Boston College to hand over records relating to interviews with former members of Protestant and Roman Catholic paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland — part of the college’s Belfast Project.
Researchers had assured the interview subjects that the their identities would remain confidential, but, unfortunately — depending on your perspective — oral historians have no special right to keep information relating to possible crimes secret, observes the Chronicle of Higher Education.
…Boston College, and other institutions in similar predicaments, could potentially shape First Amendment law by pushing back hard against the government’s subpoenas. “Journalists are willing to go to jail to protect sources,” he tells the Chronicle. “What will Boston College do?”
Via Ideas Market.
If you run surveys dealing with war, violence and crime, this should be alarming to you and your human subjects committee.
2 Responses
I did find this alarming. However, after some thought I am not sure what to make of it. I think this research ethics question is similar to “Should Catholic priests in confession booths breach confidentiality to divulge information to authorities that could be used to prevent or seek justice for crimes?” and to “Should therapists/counselors breach confidentiality to alert authorities as to threats or confessions of violence against others?” I don’t pretend to know the answers to these questions and however unfortunate, I can see the multiple perspectives at play in the Boston College matter.
At the end of the day, we do have to keep the science moving forward. In keeping with honor and honesty, if we say we’re going to maintain confidentiality or destroy data, we probably should do so, if for nothing other than a framework of consistency in the social sciences. Without a consistent degree of trust, prospective human subjects probably won’t have any incentive to participate in the research process for fear of reprisal or violations of their privacy.
To many people, I’m sure research (and ethics therein) take a backseat to security and justice. I guess the best we can hope for is that people will keep asking the question and engaging in dialog.
This is why the IRB requires you to have that line describing how you will destroy your data when you are finished with your research… Sounds like that is no longer a throw-away sentence.