Toward an Ethical Reflective Practice of a Theory in the Flesh: Embodied Subjectivities in a Youth Participatory Action Research Mural Project

The focus of this paper is to demonstrate how embodied subjectivities shape research experiences. Through an autoethnography of my involvement in a Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) after-school program with low-income and working-class youth of Color from predominantly Latinx communities I examined my embodied subjectivities, via an ethical reflective practice, as these surfaced in the research context. Autoethnography is presented as a tool to facilitate an ethical reflective practice that aligns with heart-centered work. Drawing from an epistemology of a theory in the flesh (Anzaldúa & Moraga, 1981), embodied subjectivities are defined by the lived experiences felt and expressed through the body, identities, and positionalities of the researcher. The article concludes with implications for the development of community psychology competencies that attend to the researcher's embodied subjectivities.

Good ethics can sometimes mean better science: research ethics and the Milgram experiments

All agree that if the Milgram experiments were proposed today they would never receive approval from a research ethics board. However, the results of the Milgram experiments are widely cited across a broad range of academic literature from psychology to moral philosophy. While interpretations of the experiments vary, few commentators, especially philosophers, have expressed doubts about the basic soundness of the results. What I argue in this paper is that this general approach to the experiments might be in error. I will show that the ethical problems that would prevent the experiments from being approved today actually have an effect on the results such that the experiments might show less than many currently suppose. Making this case demonstrates two conclusions. The first is that there are good reasons to think that the conclusions of many of Milgram's commentators might be too strong. The second conclusion is a more general one. The ethics procedures commonly used by North American research ethics boards serve not only to protect human participants in research but also can sometimes help secure, to an extent, the integrity of results. In other words, good ethics can sometimes mean better science.

Ethical issues in field research: balancing competing values

An ethical issue becomes a dilemma when the psychologist is pulled in different directions by competing values. This paper will focus on the conflict between experimental and ethical values inherent in field research. The problem has special significance in community psychology, which gives priority to studying, in natural settings, those affected by social problems. An example is given of research that required observation of family interaction in the homes of convicted child abusers. The case demonstrates that the value of ecological validity often conflicts with the need to protect privacy and obtain uncoerced consent. Other ethical constraints, including the duty to report lawbreaking and to protect the public from harm, may threaten research validity.

Ethical considerations in social psychological research: is the bogus pipeline a special case?

The ethics of using deception in research are discussed, and Aguinis and Handelsman's (1997) arguments that research using the bogus pipeline (BPL), in particular, is unethical are reviewed and critiqued. Stances that view any deception research as unethical may be reasonable, and lead to the conclusion that BPL research is unethical. However, if the position taken is that deception research may be ethically acceptable, then there is not basis for concluding that BPL research is intrinsically unethical. The same considerations that are taken into account when deciding whether any deception in research is ethical apply to decisions about the ethical appropriateness of using the BPL.

The unique ethical challenges of the bogus pipeline methodology: let the data speak

Sigall (1997) asserted that the bogus pipeline (BPL) methodology is not a uniquely deceptive technique and, therefore, does not pose unique ethical challenges for social psychology researchers. We argue that empirical research is needed to clarify the controversial issue of the ethics of using the BPL. Results of such a research program will provide guidance for researchers as well as institutional review boards regarding conditions under which the use of the BPL may or may not be ethically justified.

Ethical Issues in the Use of the Bogus Pipeline1

This article addresses the ethics of utilizing the bogus pipeline (BPL) procedure in social psychological research. A debate is presented between 2 positions: One challenges the use of the BPL based on ethical principles, and the other confronts these challenges. The debate addresses the void in previous BPL literature regarding concerns about the ethics of using this technique, and raises awareness about potential ethical dilemmas faced by BPL users. The BPL is discussed from utilitarian and deontological ethical perspectives.