1. Approaches to Social Research
Week 3, day 1
Topics: Logic of Causal Models & Research Ethics
K. Lerum, Spring 2012

2. Review from last week Review & additional info related to week 2
Becker’s distinction of “makers” vs. “users” of representations
How does this distinction play out in the soccer study discussed last Thursday? (for this also look at comments section in the CNN version of the story)
Other questions from last week?
Review from last week

3. more important terms Operationalization
Variables (independent, dependent)
Statistical relationships (positive, negative, spurious)
Unit of Analysis
more important terms

4. Operationalization: transforming an abstract concept into concrete, empirical indicators.
When one does this, one is also turning a concept into a variable
Example: what is the relationship between one’s position in the sex industry (x) and job satisfaction (y)
Both concepts need operationalization
(Write on board w/ research wheel)
operationalization

5. A name for something that is thought to influence (or be influenced by) a particular state of being in something else. Variables are associated with causal models.
Always contains within it a notion of degree or differentiation (variables must vary)
Ex: If you want to study the relationship between sex (gender) and crime, then sex is a variable
However if you want to study only women or only men, then sex is not a variable.
What is a “Variable”?

6. Variables, cont. Two main types of variables
Independent (x) (cause)
Dependent (y) (effect)
In a causal model, variation in x is thought to cause variation in y
Ex 1: variation in gender (x) explains variation in crime (y)
Ex 2: variation in hours spent studying (x) explains variation in grades (y)
(graph: remember: “X to the left, Y to the sky”)
Variables, cont.

7. Statistical relationships
Statistical relationships are commonly described as “positive” or “negative”.
These terms have nothing to do with the “quality” of the relationship; rather, they refer to the direction of the relationship.
Positive: an increase in x causes and increase in y (e.g. studying  grades)
Negative: an increase in x causes a decrease in y
Statistical relationships

8. Spurious relationships
A relationship is spurious when the observed relationship between x and y is false. The observed relationship is actually caused by a third variable (ex: shoe size and reading).
Identifying possible spurious relationships important for distinguishing between correlation & causation
One indication of spuriousness is that once you add another variable (e.g. age), the significance between the first two variables disappears.
Spurious relationships

9. A unit of analysis is the entity (object or event) under study
Examples: individual, group, organization, nation (this may also map onto “macro”, “meso”, and “micro” levels of analysis)
In previous examples (gender & crime, studying & grades) the individual is the unit of analysis.
If we were to compare the average GPAs of several universities, the university is the unit of analysis.
Do work sheet #1
Unit of Analysis

10. Introduction to research ethics
NEXT I will:
Provide a basic overview of ethical guidelines in academic/scholarly/scientific research, including:
How and why these guidelines evolved (e.g. cases of ethical violations; concerns about lawsuits; increasing bureacratization/professionalization of research).
Where, why, and for whom these guidelines are not applied (e.g. industries and institutions outside of academia)
examine and comment on one historical ethics violation case
Introduction to research ethics

11. See: the Belmont Report http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html
Contemporary research standards guided by three ethical principles, as articulated in the Belmont Report:
Respect for persons
Research subjects must be treated as “autonomous agents.”
Research subjects with “diminished autonomy” must be given extra protection.
(Key strategy: Informed consent)
Beneficence
Do no harm
Maximize benefits and minimize harms
(Key strategy: Careful Assessment of Risk and Benefits)
Justice
Equitable distribution of research costs and benefits (Which individuals and/or groups ought to receive benefits from the research? Which individuals and/or groups ought to bear the burdens of research? )
(Key strategy: Careful Selection of Subjects that considers both individual and collective benefits and burdens)
See: the Belmont Report

12. Protected
• Pregnant Women,
human fetuses, and
Neonates
• Prisoners
• Children
Vulnerable
• Decisionally- impaired
• Elderly
• Economically disadvantaged
•Culturally disadvantaged
• Native Americans /
Alaskan Natives
Protected & vulnerable populations, according to IRB (Institutional Review Board) standards

13. Laud Humphrey’s “Tearoom trade”
Laud Humphrey’s “Tearoom Trade” is often cited as one of several notorious studies which pressured research Universities to construct tighter ethical requirements for its researchers.
Tearoom Trade won “the prestigious C.Wright Mills Award from the Society for the Study of Social Problems in 1970” (p. 9 Nardi). 
Laud Humphreys was “an ordained Episcopal priest who ran several parishes before returning later in life to get a sociology degree “ (p. 6, Nardi,
See: Peter Nardi, “The Breastplate of Righteousness” Twenty-five years after Laud Humphreys’ Tearoom Trade” 1995, Journal of Homosexuality.)
Laud Humphrey’s “Tearoom trade”

14. Humphrey’s Data/Findings
“Tearooms” (anonymous public sex environments for men common in urban areas around the country have very defined organizational “rules”
several types of tearoom participants w/ several established roles
“Of the 50 tearoom participants interviewed, 54% were currently married and 8% were divorced or separated. Only 14% could be classified as typical of someone involved in the gay subculture and another 24% were single but closeted and marginal to any gay community.
Of those who were currently or formerly married or were “closet cases”, about 42% were Roman Catholics, and many came from predominantly lower socio- economic statuses
Approx 10% were current military personnel (the nearest base was 25 miles away) and 60% were veterans.
The “closet queens” and married men were politically and socially conservative, based on scores on a liberalism scale (where the gay participants scored out of 37, marrieds scored 12.1, and closeted men scored 14.5)” (Nardi, p. 6).
Humphrey’s Data/Findings

15. Humphrey’s interpretations
Many of these men were donning a “breastplate of righteousness” – “a protective shield of superpropriety with a shining quality – a refulgence– blinding the audience to certain of the wearer’s practices …” (p. 6 Nardi).
This activity consensual, highly organized, not hurting anyone. Sexual disease risk low since most activity was oral. Very unlikely that people not “in the know” could be “recruited” or seduced.
The main problem here is the police, sodomy laws, homophobia, and people who don’t understand.
Through observing these men in their home environments, he came to “the impression that ‘the Bible on the table and the flag upon the wall’ may be signs of secret deviance more than of ‘right thinking’”, “Humphreys notes that they lived in the neatest homes, drove the newest and cleanest cars, were the most well groomed and wore the best clothes, saw devoting time to homes and families as their top priority, and were more involved in authoritarian-oriented religions, such s Catholicism.” (p. 7 Nardi)
Through observing these men in their home environments, he came to “the impression that ‘the Bible on the table and the flag upon the wall’ may be signs of secret deviance more than of ‘right thinking’”, “Humphreys notes that they lived in the neatest homes, drove the newest and cleanest cars, were the most well groomed and wore the best clothes, saw devoting time to homes and families as their top priority, and were more involved in authoritarian-oriented religions, such s Catholicism.” (p. 7 Nardi)
Humphrey’s interpretations

16. Covert participant observation in tearooms and various subcultural gay parties
Humphreys took role of “watch queen”
In-depth interviews with a handful of subjects (who knew the nature of his research)
Formal survey interviews with 100 tearoom participants who Humphreys traced through matching license plates to police records, and then added to a separate existing study on social health. He and one research assistant then interviewed these subjects under the guise of this other study.
Humphrey’s methods

17. Ethical considerations
Humphreys’ Ethical Justification:
no one was hurt, no one’s identity revealed
everyone in tearooms was covert in their identity
same methods used in other cases (e.g. census bureau data collected for one purpose but people use it for a variety of purposes)
no other way of gaining access to this population. Those he interviewed from a “known” research position were not representative of the sample.
real harm comes via police action/repressive social norms that alienate, stigmatize, and oppress men who have sex with men.
Legal/Ethical threats:
Legal threat: There was a “call to revoke Humphreys’ degree by the Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis, on the grounds that he committed a felony by observing and facilitating fellatio” (p. 4, Nardi) [NOTE: since anti-”sodomy” laws were declared unconstitutional in (Lawrence v. Texas), this legal critique would no longer stand].
Most critiques by researcher peers focused/focus on the privacy rights of non-consenting participants.
Ethical considerations

18. How does Humphrey’s “tearoom trade” study measure up next to the Belmont Report principles?
Given today’s increased ethical regulations (at least at research institutions like UW), how might you conduct research around the concept of the “breastplate of righteousness”?
Questions for you