Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Two arguments for 'covert methods' in social research.

C D Herrera1

  • 1Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University.

The British Journal of Sociology
|July 21, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Protection of human subjects and scientific progress: can the two be reconciled?

The Hastings Center report·2006
Same author

The search for meaningful comparisons in boxing and medical ethics.

Journal of medical ethics·2004
Same author

Universal compulsory service in medical research.

Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2003
Same author

Ethics, deception, and 'Those Milgram experiments'.

Journal of applied philosophy·2002
Same author

Research ethics at the empirical side: Research Ethics: A Psychological Approach, edited by Barbara Stanley, Joan Sieber, and Gary Melton; Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology, by James Korn.

Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2001
Same author

Reconsidering the pseudo-patient study.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2001
Same journal

Family Rituals in the Hungry Ghost Festival: Spirituality and Multiplex Beliefs in China.

The British journal of sociology·2026
Same journal

Opportunities and Alliances: The Relational Dynamics of Criminal Collusion in Latin America.

The British journal of sociology·2026
Same journal

The Normative Turn: Back to Hobhouse?

The British journal of sociology·2026
Same journal

Subjective Social Inequalities, Lay Perceptions of Merit and Puzzles of Explanation.

The British journal of sociology·2026
Same journal

Criminal Records as Classification Situations.

The British journal of sociology·2026
Same journal

Producing Fraud at the Welfare-Migration Nexus: Migrant Families and Children's Social Care.

The British journal of sociology·2026
See all related articles

Social researchers sometimes omit informed consent in covert studies, citing subject protection or societal deception. However, these justifications inadequately address risks and ethical concerns, increasing worries about bypassing informed consent in research.

Area of Science:

  • Social Sciences
  • Research Ethics

Background:

  • Covert participant-observation studies are sometimes used in social research.
  • Researchers may omit informed consent, citing reasons like protecting subjects or arguing their deception mirrors societal norms.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the justifications provided for omitting informed consent in covert social research.
  • To examine the ethical implications and potential risks associated with covert research methods.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of common defenses used to justify the omission of informed consent in participant-observation.
  • Ethical critique of covert research methodologies and their comparison to everyday deception.

Main Results:

  • The defenses for omitting informed consent in covert studies often overlook significant risks to participants.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos

  • Arguments that covert methods are morally equivalent to societal deception are unconvincing.

    • Conclusions:

    • The justifications for covert research without informed consent are ethically insufficient.
    • The practice raises significant concerns regarding research ethics and the researcher's authority to bypass informed consent.