The ethics of the research that helps us understand Larry Craig
A footnote to the bizarre tragicomedy in which Larry Craig now appears is a doctoral dissertation from the 1960s by a researcher named Laud Humphreys. While a grad student at Washington University in St. Louis, Humphreys conducted an ethnography of men who had sex with men in public bathrooms. His research was later published as a book, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Humphreys' study revealed a complicated subculture, one that was shocking to many people and challenged stereotypes: many of the men were married, didn't identify as being gay and had a socially and politically conservative public persona.
The methods Humphreys used to obtain this information have become a text book case of unethical research. Humphreys did tell some of his subjects about his research, but he also secretly followed other subjects and interviewed them at their homes under the guise of a "social health survey." It's the kind of stuff you'd never get by an IRB. Of course, Humphreys didn't have to -- IRBs didn't exist when he conducted his study.
So, what should we make of all this today? To some, Humphreys is a person to admire, flaws and all. His research helps us better understand the (maybe not so) bizarre situation surrounding Larry Craig. And the concept of a man who doesn't identify as gay, yet still has sex with men, has become important to public health campaigns and studying the epidemiology of sexually transmitted infections. But there's still that residue of research impropriety. What, if anything, do we do about that? Is it enough to acknowledge the mistakes and vow to do better?
-Greg Dahlmann
image: Amazon - "Mike's Library"
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
Dishonesty can generate better data. While recognising that these techniques are no longer acceptable I do not think we should avoid continuing to benefit from the data so long as this will not cause further/extra harm to the victims.
- by emily on Sep 7, 2007 at 2:34 PM | link
I basically agree with the prior commentary; use the prior research albeit
ethically or unethically conducted.
As to causing further harm, I do not think that Humphrey's research harmed anyone
although it may have harmed himself in the long term. I say this in the context of having been a friend of Laud's. Of course, sociologists and psychologists have been
unrestrained in using Milgram's research finding in the classroom. Milgram was always in my classroom for my 35 plus years of teaching.
- by barry dank on Sep 8, 2007 at 2:24 AM | link
It does seem that the possible damage from Humphreys' research methods is very much on the low end of the scale (it's no comparison to incidents such as Tuskegee). I just wonder if we have a responsibility to mention how the data was collected when we use it.
Barry, it's interesting that you bring up Milgram -- he is a staple of psychology classes. Thinking back to the few that I took in college, I can't remember whether the instructors ever talked much about the relative ethics of Milgram's methodolog. It may have been something as small as a mumbled, "You could never do this today, but... "
- by Greg on Sep 10, 2007 at 12:24 PM | link
I was certainly taught Milgrim both as a case of deception with consequences as well as a study on authority (in the early nineties). however I have gone on to other facilities to find that some forms of deception, and weak/inadequate protection of anonymity, are still pretty widespread in psych research.
- by emily on Sep 10, 2007 at 2:44 PM | link