Content

Home » Publications »Human Research Ethics Handbook »Commentary on the National Statement »Research Invilving Deception of Participants, Concealment or Covert Observation

Please note:

The Human Research Ethics Handbook – Commentary on the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans has been revoked. This information is kept here for archival purposes only. For the current guidelines, Human Research Ethics Committees should refer to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007.

17. Research Involving Deception of Participants, Concealment or Covert Observation

NS 17.1

As a general principle, deception of, concealment of the purposes of a study from, or covert observation of, identifiable participants are not considered ethical because they are contrary to the principle of respect for persons in that free and fully informed consent cannot be given.

Further reference should be made to the Research Ethics Collection, ' Deception, research involving ', page E33.

[top]

NS 17.2

In some fields of research, for example the study of human behaviour, there may be exceptional circumstances where studies cannot be conducted without deception, concealment or covert observation of participants. Before approving a research proposal which involves any degree of deception, concealment or covert observation, a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) must be satisfied that:

  1. the provision of detailed information to prospective participants about the purpose, methods and procedures of the research would compromise the scientific validity of the outcome of that research;

  2. the precise extent of deception, concealment or covert observation is defined;

  3. there are no suitable alternative methods, not involving deception, concealment or covert observation, by which the desired information can be obtained;

  4. participants are not exposed to an increased risk of harm as a result of the deception, concealment or covert observation;

  5. adequate and prompt disclosure is made and de-briefing provided to each participant as soon as practicable after the participant's participation is completed;

  6. participants will be able to withdraw data obtained from them during the research without their knowledge or consent; and

  7. such activities will not corrupt the relationship between researchers and research in general with the community at large.

17.2(a)

In order to assess such a justification, the HREC will need to be fully aware of the scientific basis on which the research is based and, for this purpose, may need to draw on expert advice (see NS 2.19). The assessment will need to identify the degree of detail that would fulfil the obligation (NS 1.7) to provide information, given the nature of the research and the intended participants.

17.2(b)

This paragraph is regarded as sufficiently clear, and so no commentary has been added.

17.2(c)

An HREC will need to understand not only the goals of the research but also the methods that are normal in the relevant discipline.

17.2(d)

HRECs need to distinguish the risk of harm of participation in the research from the risk of harm posed by the intended deception, adopting a broad concept of harm, as indicated by the definition in Appendix 3 to the National Statement.

17.2(e)

The feasibility of adequate de-briefing should be regarded by an HREC as an essential feature of such protocols. It cannot be automatically assumed that debriefing will necessarily reverse any harm or remove the memory of embarrassment produced by the earlier deception. Doubts about the efficacy of de-briefing may require that an HREC asks a researcher to modify the preceding deception.

An HREC also needs to consider if an adverse impact on participants of research involving deception may be caused by subsequent disclosure of the deception to participants. HRECs may also need to consider whether counselling should be made available to such participants.

17.2(f)

HRECs should be satisfied that researchers have made provision in their research design for the possibility that participants may choose to withdraw any information obtained from them through deceptive means.

17.2(g)

The attitudes of the community at large to research in general may be adversely affected if examples of research are perceived to be tainted with untruth. An HREC will need to consider carefully how knowledge of research involving any deception will be disclosed either through its reported results or in other ways.

For a brief outline of legal issues in this area, see the Research Law Collection, ' Deception, research involving ', page L21.

For an extended discussion of this issue and examples, see also the Research Ethics Collection, ' Deception, research involving ', page E33.

[top]

 

| Handbook TOC | Abbreviations | Commentary on the National Statement |
| A Research Ethics Collection | A Research Law Collection |
| Bibliography | Appendices | Downloads |

 

Related topics

footer links