In discussions with colleagues in non-UK settings the dilemma of carrying out social science research in cultures where participants feel obliged to participate is interesting to think about ethically. By a culture of obligation I refer to situations in which the local norm is that, if a senior colleague grants permission for a researcher to carry out their research in a setting, it is expected that all members of that setting can then be approached by the researcher. Potential participants would feel obliged to participate. I have experienced such situations as a researcher and watched respondents searching for responses, maybe those that they think I as the researcher or even the senior colleague who granted the overall permission might want, hope or expect to hear. This is nothing new. The Hawthorne effect is often documented (e.g. http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/def_hawthorn.htm.Conver)sely, a respondent might provide minimal responses as they might, in other circumstances, have been disinclined to participate. Maybe they hold negative views which they might have wanted to express but didn’t feel they could under these circumstances of obligation? In any case free, open and one might say ‘honest’ responses are not always likely to be offered.

The interesting thing, from an ethical perspective, is whether and or how to overcome this bias to data collection whilst staying true to local norms. A Western researcher would think hard about how to create an environment in which respondents felt safe and free enough to contribute their perspective as openly as possible, given an acceptance of the partiality of any accounts offered by humans. Is this possible in such cultures?

Today visitors to the University from China were debating how they make sense in their lives as academics of being employees in a socialist/communist work culture whilst also being influenced by traditional Confucian thinking. Voluntary consent takes on a particular poignancy in such a culture where the sense of obligation is strong due to political imperative. However, who is to say that those contributing to research in such settings, when doing so out of a sense of duty, won’t also provide their ‘best’ responses? I am no expert in Confucian values but, even a cursory scan of explanations of Confucian thinking (e.g. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/main.html), shows the centrality of benevolence and showing ‘humanity’ to others. This therefore offers an alternative motivation for responding to a researcher’s requests to that of duty and doing as asked. Whether these influences feel complementary or contradictory is not for me to say, but I would love to hear from those carrying out research or who have acted as a respondent in such cultures as to their experiences of data collection. I appreciate that this situation is not restricted to China.