Page 492 -

484 CHAPTER 15 Working with human subjects

affluence or education. Some commentators have raised the question of whether
or not informed consent is possible in the face of these disparities (Sharma, 2005),
while others have developed materials that might use field training of local field
workers to help promote research ethics in challenging situations (Merritt et al.,
2010). HCI efforts in such circumstances should carefully consider how questions
of imbalances in education and financial resources might bias research. Working
with local partners is generally a necessity, as is compliance with local regula-
tions. Although requirements will vary across contexts, project review by both the
researchers’ “home” institution and an appropriate board at the site of the study
might be necessary.

15.4 HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH AND THE PUBLIC TRUST
Human Subjects research can be alternatively rewarding and infuriating. The
distances between the excitement of a novel insight or a statistically significant
result and the frustration of dealing with participants who miss appointments or
IRBs who misinterpret studies are all often very short indeed. Although all re-
search endeavors face their share of difficulties, the bureaucratic issues in dealing
with IRBs and related paperwork are particularly problematic, as the ever-present
temptation to cut corners presents a tantalizing way out. We have all heard excuses
like “I don’t really need an IRB review for this study” or “we can reuse an existing
IRB approval.” We’ve also experienced the difficulties of securing IRB approval,
with projects delayed weeks or even months in a seemingly inscrutable bureau-
cratic process. The temptation to end run these processes may be strong, but it
should be avoided.
Although the practical costs of such approaches—including potential dif-
ficulties in publication and risk of losing grant funding—are significant, the
real problem in short-cutting human-subject protection lies in the abuse of
the public trust. Certainly, many years have passed since the Tuskegee experi-
ments, Milgram’s experiments, and Zimbardo’s prison in a Stanford psychol-
ogy building, and the overwhelming majority of scientific studies are conducted
carefully, ethically, and appropriately. However, ethical questions in research
conducted are far from fully settled. The Facebook (Kramer et al., 2014) and
OKCupid controversies (Rudder, 2014) illustrate the difficulties that research-
ers might face if they fail to consider ethical questions before they tackle novel
problems. Moving beyond individual researchers, professional norms can also
be the source of great controversy. A 2015 study commissioned by the American
Psychological Association found that changes to the APA’s ethics policies en-
acted in the early 2000s may have been conducted with undue deference to
the goals of the US Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense,
and may have provided a veneer of approval to torture practices (Hoffman
et al., 2015). The ensuing controversy led to substantial upheaval at the APA
(Bohannon, 2015).