Situation
During the course of research on a college student population, which was approved by a local institutional review board (IRB), a woman student, Jean Langlais, is murdered. The police sergeant, Jim Chona, believes she met the perpetrator at the bar where John Cultu conducted months of observations and numerous interviews. Sergeant Chona hears from local bar patrons about the research and calls Dr. Cultu in for an interview. Chona presents a physical and psychological profile that very accurately reflects one of his informants. Dr. Cultu taped an interview with this informant two weeks prior to the murder, and that taped interview contains only demographic and attitudinal information. The “suspect” makes no explicit references to murder or a threat of murder, but does imply that he has substantial hatred for young women who frequent bars. The police want access to Dr. Cultu’s research materials. Does he cooperate with the police? At what level?
A year later, DNA evidence confirms Dr. Cultu’s suspicions and he is again asked, but not subpoenaed, to provide the interview information on the “suspect”.
Questions
- Does a subpoena supersede the promise of confidentiality?
- Does threat of contempt of court supersede that promise?
- Is there a point at which the risk to others supersedes the informant’s promise of confidentiality? Where is this point?
- Should you maintain your field notes and tapes in such a manner that they can be moved from legal judicial purview?
Discussion
There are two basic, ethical issues here. The first is how to construct consent forms that anticipate these kinds of situations. If the subject area of the research is such that the research can expect the threat or potential of threat to others, then consent forms should inform respondents of the limits of the promise of confidentiality. A consent form might worded to allow the researcher some latitude in regards to potential harm to others; this might balance the “no harm” to respondents with the goal of forestalling harm to others, as well. This will undoubtedly influence the willingness of some respondents to participate, particularly research projects which involves high probabilities of respondent violence. If Dr. Cultu’s research was directed at some other topic, for example, male and female roles in the contemporary bar scene, he was unlikely to expect this kind of issue. Second, in any case, this is a health and safety issue that targets the future possibility of harm to others from a research respondent. Ethical practices require that in unusual health or life-threatening circumstances, sociologists take steps to protect others even in the face of guaranteeing confidentiality. Legal dictates, such as the threat of contempt of court, does not supersede confidentiality agreements; rather the ethical issues are at the center of whether to turn materials over to the legal system.
