Question Number: 439

Education Discussion Ethical ConcernsEthical ConcernsIn the human services field, ethical concerns and dilemmas are very common. Human services professionals interact with a diverse clientele; therefore, they must be aware of a variety of issues including multicultural differences, consent and confidentiality procedures, appropriate relationship boundaries, and conflicts of interest. For each of these considerations and issues, there are related ethical considerations when working with every population. Ethical concerns and considerations are escalated when the target population (clients) for a program is considered at risk or vulnerable in any way. It is the responsibility of human services professionals to protect, inform, and otherwise respect their clients.Because of the importance of addressing ethical concerns, the National Organization for Human Services (NOHS), the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and other professional organizations have developed comprehensive codes of ethics. In this Discussion, you will explore ethical issues that may arise in the human services field, and you will consider how the NOHS code of ethics can help to guide the actions of human services professionals experiencing ethical dilemmas.To prepare for this Discussion: Review the selected readings in your course text, focusing on the types of information that might be gathered for measuring needs. Reflect on the potential ethical issues that could arise when gathering information from at-risk populations and how you can guard against unethical behavior or processes. Review the article “Ethical Guidelines for Designing and Conducting Evaluations of Social Work Practice,” focusing on the difference between social science research activities and evaluations of social work practice. Think about the important role of human services professionals in designing ethical programs that not only assist clients but also protect them from unethical practices. Review the article “Applying Ethical Standards to Research and Evaluations Involving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations.” Think about how the population you are working with influences what is considered to be ethical. Review the article “Choosing a Truly External Evaluator,” focusing on the responsibility of the social service professional to ensure ethical behavior from all parties involved in a program. Review the article “Toward a More Public Discussion of the Ethics of Federal Social Program Evaluation.” Consider the potential consequences of failing to outline specific ethical standards. Review the information found on the NOHS website. Think about the importance of having such detailed standards and how you could use them in decision making. Select an at-risk population that is of interest to you. Reflect on the types of ethical decisions you might face when working with members of this population.With these thoughts in mind: Do a brief description of the at-risk population you selected. Then explain at least two ethical concerns you should be aware of when working with this population. Finally, explain how you might address these concerns. Justify your response using the NOHS code of ethics.Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social ServicesISSN: 1053-8720 (Print) 1540-4056 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgls20Applying Ethical Standards to Research andEvaluations Involving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, andTransgender PopulationsJames I. Martin MSW, PhD & William Meezan MSW, DSWTo cite this article: James I. Martin MSW, PhD & William Meezan MSW, DSW (2003) ApplyingEthical Standards to Research and Evaluations Involving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and TransgenderPopulations, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 15:1-2, 181-201, DOI: 10.1300/J041v15n01_12To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v15n01_12Published online: 22 Sep 2008.Submit your article to this journalArticle views: 1038Citing articles: 16 View citing articles Applying Ethical Standardsto Research and EvaluationsInvolving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,and Transgender PopulationsJames I. MartinWilliam MeezanSUMMARY. This manuscript examines the application of ethical standards to research on LGBT populations and the evaluation of programsand practices that impact them. It uses social work’s Code of Ethics (National Association of Social Workers, 1996) and psychology’s EthicalPrinciples of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 1992) to examine specific ethical issues as they pertainto research involving LGBT populations. It notes that when conductingstudies with these populations, researchers may need to take additionalJames I. Martin, MSW, PhD, is Associate Professor, Shirley M. Ehrenkranz Schoolof Social Work, New York University, New York, NY. William Meezan, MSW, DSW,is Marion Elizabeth Blue Professor of Children and Families, University of Michigan,School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI.Address correspondence to: Dr. James I. Martin, Shirley M. Ehrenkranz School ofSocial Work, New York University, 1 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10003(E-mail: james.martin@nyu.edu).[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Applying Ethical Standards to Research and Evaluations InvolvingLesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations.” Martin, James I., and William Meezan. Co-publishedsimultaneously in Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services (Harrington Park Press, an imprint of TheHaworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 15, No. 1/2, 2003, pp. 181-201; and: Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations (ed: William Meezan, and James I. Martin) Harrington Park Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2003, pp. 181-201. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for afee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mailaddress: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com]. 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 181measures to protect participants from harm and to ensure the relevanceand usefulness of their findings. In addition, heterosexist and genderistbiases are examined as ethical issues, as is the tension between scientificobjectivity and values in research involving LGBT populations. [Articlecopies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]KEYWORDS. Ethics, research, professional codes of ethics, researchbias, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgenderCournoyer and Klein (2000) defined professional ethics as principles ofconduct, based on a specific set of values, that guide appropriate professionalbehavior. Because personal and professional values inform nearly everychoice made when engaging in both research and practice, the main professional organizations for social workers and psychologists have codified theircore values into specific standards of ethical conduct. They are the NationalAssociation of Social Workers’ (NASW) Code of Ethics(1996) and the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologistsand Code of Conduct (1992). Although the standards of these two organizations are not exactly the same, they have many similarities.Members of NASW and APA are expected to abide by their respectiveCodes when engaging in research and practice. Adherence to these Codes, andthe standards that derive from them, are expected to protect the public from potential harm when receiving services and participating in research and evaluation studies.Hardly any of the numerous elaborations, explanations, and applications ofethical standards in social work and psychological research (e.g., Kendler,1993; McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986; Padgett, 1998; Reamer, 1998; Royse,Thyer, Padgett, & Logan, 2001) identify the unique ethical dilemmas that mayarise in the conduct of research with lesbian, gay, or bisexual populations orexplain the application of ethical standards in these situations (see Herek,Kimmel, Amaro, & Melton, 1991; Martin & Knox, 2000; Woodman, Tully, &Barranti, 1995). None examine the application of ethical standards to researchinvolving transgender populations.Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations are marginalized inAmerican society, and their members are at risk for experiencing violence, discrimination, and exploitation in a variety of contexts (Herek, Gillis, Cogan, &182 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender PopulationsGlunt, 1997; Hunter, Shannon, Knox, & Martin, 1998) and the subsequent negative effects of these experiences (Clements-Nolle, Marx, Guzman, & Katz,2001; Diaz, Ayala, Bein, Henne, & Marin, 2001; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan,1999; Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1995; Meyer, 1995; Savin Williams, 1994).Because research involving LGBT populations always occurs within this context, there may be greater potential for exploitation and harm to participantsand the communities they represent in these studies than in studies of less vulnerable and marginalized populations. These dangers are likely to be magnified in studies of “deviant behaviors” or social problems (e.g., alcoholism anddrug abuse, intimate partner violence, HIV behavioral risk patterns) in LGBTpopulations. Therefore, the lack of attention in the literature to the ethical dilemmas encountered in research involving LGBT populations, or the elaboration of guidelines for protecting members of these populations in the course ofresearch, is extremely troubling.There is an ample history of medical and social science research involving LGBT populations that have violated contemporary ethical standards.Murphy’s (1992) review of the strategies used to attempt to change the sexual orientation of men and women includes accounts of numerous studiesthat caused physical harm to their participants. For example, Nazi physiciansstudied the effectiveness of castration and subsequent hormone injections inextinguishing homoeroticism among male prisoners (Plant, 1986). Bremer(1959) reported on castration among 244 men, and concluded that although itsucceeded in reducing sex drive it was not effective in changing homoeroticorientation. Owensby (1941) studied the use of pharmacologic shock in “correcting” the homosexuality of 15 men and women. Several studies (e.g.,Callahan & Leitenberg, 1973; McConaghy, 1976; Tanner, 1974) have examined the effectiveness of behavior therapy in changing sexual orientation, including covert sensitization paired with contingent electric shock andapomorphine therapy, which may cause vomiting or erection depending ondosage and method of use.There is no evidence that physical harm was caused to participants in theBieber et al. (1962) study of the effectiveness of several years of psychoanalytic treatment on changing men’s sexual orientation. However, the treatmentbeing evaluated might have harmed participants psychologically by encouraging them to maintain futile efforts toward changing their sexual orientation,and by reinforcing guilt and shame regarding their sexual feelings. For example, after many years of psychoanalytic treatment, Duberman (1991) discussedwith his psychiatrist the difficulty he had in accepting the perspective of gayliberation. He stated “I suspect it’s the extent of my brainwashing–too manyyears hearing about my ‘pathology,’ and believing it” (p. 193).In addition, by claiming success in changing men’s sexual orientation basedon questionable methodology, Bieber et al. (1962) undoubtedly contributed toJames I. Martin and William Meezan 183discriminatory societal attitudes and public policies. In particular, this study,which claimed that 27 of 106 participants changed their sexual orientation toexclusively heterosexual, used a questionnaire that the participant’s psychoanalyst completed; there was no self-report of either sexual behavior or fantasyincluded in the measurement package.Perhaps the best known example of research that risked harming membersof an LGBT population is Humphreys’ (1970) Tearoom Trade. This study’sdesign involved an elaborate deception in which men’s same-gender sexualbehaviors in a public restroom were observed and recorded. Subsequently, theauto license plates of these men were used to obtain their home addresses.They were then asked to participate in an interview in that setting, using falsepretenses to help ensure their cooperation.Because Humphreys did not obtain informed consent from participants, andespecially because of the extensive deception used in all phases of the research, the men’s participation in this research must be considered to havebeen involuntary. In addition, the study participants’ privacy was obviouslyinvaded. However, the researcher did not breach the participants’ confidentiality, and there is no evidence that any of them experienced actual harm. In fact,the study was noteworthy for bringing same-gender sexual behavior amongmen out of the closet in a scientifically neutral, non-condemnatory manner.In other studies of LGBT populations, the extensive measures taken toprotect confidentiality reflected the magnitude of the danger participantswere thought to face. For example, Hooker (1957) interviewed gay participants in her home, rather than in her university office, fearing that no onewould take part in her study without such protection–study participants werewell aware that their lives could be seriously damaged if their confidentialitywas breached. Hooker (1993) recalled that one of them “called me long distance at frequent intervals to ask whether his tapes had been erased” (p. 451).Some studies have caused harm to LGBT communities, rather than to theirindividual participants, because of the way in which their results were used.For example, Herek (1998) noted that although researchers have generally ignored the studies conducted by Cameron and his colleagues (e.g., Cameron &Cameron, 1996; Cameron, Proctor, Cobum, & Forde, 1985), these studies“have had a more substantial impact in the public arena, where they have beenused to promote stigma and to foster unfounded stereotypes of lesbians andgay men as predatory, dangerous, and diseased” (p. 247). According to Herek,Cameron’s studies were used to promote and defend Colorado’s Amendment2, an initiative that would have prevented any level of that state’s governmentfrom prohibiting discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual residents. Instriking down this law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it violated the Equal184 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender PopulationsProtection Clause of the United States Constitution (FindLaw Resources,n.d.).This article will use the standards for evaluation and research (sec. 5.02) ofthe NASW Code of Ethics as a framework for examining ethical conduct withLGBT populations. Only those standards that are particularly applicable toLGBT populations will be examined. The article will also make reference toselected standards in the APA Code of Conduct, and it will include ethical issues that are not directly addressed by either ethical code.ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR RESEARCHStandard 5.02(a). Social workers should monitor and evaluate policies,the implementation of programs, and practice interventions.Standard 5.02(b). Social workers should promote and facilitate evaluation and research to contribute to the development of knowledge.Since the 1970s, monitoring and evaluating practice interventions and programs have become increasingly important aspects of social work practice. Withthe exception of some AIDS service organizations, LGBT community organizations tend to be grassroots enterprises that rarely receive funding from government agencies. When social workers are involved with such organizations,either as board members or employees, they should spearhead or encourage program monitoring and evaluation efforts. In addition, the lack of outcome information for social work interventions, as noted by Reamer (1998), is particularlyserious for interventions with LGBT clients. Evaluations of programs and interventions, especially if they are published, can help to ensure that LGBT community organizations are accountable to their members and clients, and thatopenly lesbian or gay and to the nondiscrimination policies of the educationalinstitutions that employ them. But social work research on bisexual andtransgender populations continues to lag far behind (Martin & Hunter, 2001).Unfortunately, professional social workers may not keep up with advancesin professional knowledge (Barker, 1990). This situation is particularly disturbing for LGBT persons in need, given the lack of information about LGBTpopulations that many social work students report receiving in their graduateprograms (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997). In other words, social workers may notlearn much about these populations while getting their social work degrees,and they might not learn much more after they graduate.Standard 5.02(d). Social workers engaged in evaluation or researchshould carefully consider possible consequences and should followguidelines developed for the protection of evaluation and research participants. Appropriate institutional review boards should be consulted.Research can result in both positive and negative consequences to its participants and the populations they represent. Similarly, evaluations can result inboth benefits and costs to any of the program’s stakeholders. Researchers mustthink very seriously about these potential consequences, especially when participants or stakeholders are members of vulnerable LGBT populations. Inother words, social work research must be socially responsible (Padgett,1988).One important consideration in this regard is the way in which others mightuse research or evaluation findings. For example, the U.S. Secretary of Healthand Human Services (HHS) recently ordered an audit of HIV preventiongrants and the programs to which they have been awarded. This review was apparently prompted by an HHS report criticizing the San Francisco Stop AIDSProject, which serves a large gay population, for the use of “obscenity” and forencouraging sexual activities (Erickson, 2001). One possible use of this auditwould be to withhold or withdraw funds from HIV prevention programs forgay and bisexual men. Evaluations of such programs are not inherentlyheterosexist, but when they are conducted within a hostile political contextthere is ample reason for concern. Padgett (1998) suggested that researcherstake care to “frame the presentation of the [study’s] results and discuss theirimplications” (p. 43) in ways that minimize the possibility that others couldmisuse them to harm the participants, the groups they represent, or those whoserve them.When psychologist Evelyn Hooker planned her study testing the assumption of psychopathology among gay men (Hooker 1957), she could not haveknown that it would eventually lead to the declassification of homosexuality186 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populationsby the American Psychiatric Association. Surely she considered the possibilityof some benefit to the larger population of gay men if her sample was found tohave no more psychopathology than nongay men (as it did). But if the samplewere found to have more psychopathology, it might have closed off the possibility of other research on “normal male homosexuals” (Hooker, 1993, p. 451),especially considering the extremely hostile political and social environmentin which the study was conducted.Since 1974, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), charged with ensuring theprotection of research subjects from harm, have been mandated for all organizations that receive federal funds and conduct behavioral or biomedical research. The federal regulations that mandate and govern IRBs are detailed in45 CFR 46 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997). Needs assessments, program monitoring and evaluations, and single system studies ofclient outcomes are not included in the definition of “research,” according tothe federal regulations.Thus, agencies engaging in these activities, but not research leading togeneralizable knowledge, are not required to have IRBs (Cournoyer & Klein,2000). Few LGBT community agencies conduct “research” as defined by federal regulations, and thus they rarely have their own IRBs. In the event thatsuch agencies receive federal funds for “research,” they must either createtheir own IRB or find an existing one that is willing to review their proposaland monitor the project. Thus, one benefit of agencies partnering with facultymembers for research projects is the use of a university IRB.However, best ethical practices suggest that agencies should submit proposals for evaluation studies to either an internal or external review committee.Taking such measures will help to ensure that these studies follow appropriatetreatment protocols and abide by all appropriate ethical standards.Fundamentally, IRBs base their decisions regarding proposed research according to a risk/benefit ratio in which the potential harms or costs to participants are weighed against the potential benefits to them or to society in general(Royse, 1999). In cases in which the risks appear to outweigh the potentialbenefits, IRBs will typically require a redesign of the study so that the potentialrisks are reduced or avoided (Sieber & Stanley, 1988). For example, theymight require a debriefing to alleviate emotional distress engendered by participation in the study (Monette, Sullivan, & DeJong, 1998). Or they might require that the consent form used in the study include a fuller description of thepotential risks of participation.There are no specific federal regulations for research involving LGBT populations. In fact, IRBs might be more likely to reject research proposals dealing with socially sensitive topics (Sieber & Stanley, 1988) such as sexualorientation or gender expression. According to Ceci, Peters, and PlotkinJames I. Martin and William Meezan 187(1985), such rejections reflect the sociopolitical ideologies of IRB committeemembers. Researchers proposing studies involving LGBT populations mustunfortunately be wary of IRB reviews conducted in institutions that do not forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender expression.Standard 5.02(e). Social workers engaged in evaluation or researchshould obtain voluntary and written informed consent from participants,when appropriate, without any implied or actual deprivation or penaltyfor refusal to participate; without undue inducement to participate; andwith due regard for participants’ well-being, privacy, and dignity. Informed consent should include information about the nature, extent, andduration of the participation requested and disclosure of the risks andbenefits of participation in the research.Standard 5.02(h). Social workers should inform participants of theirright to withdraw from evaluation and research at any time without penalty.One of the main concerns of IRBs is whether studies have appropriate andsufficient procedures to ensure participants’ voluntary informed consent. TheHumphreys (1970) study of men’s sexual behavior in public restrooms is oftenidentified as an example of research that violated the principle of voluntary informed consent. As described above, while the confidentiality of the study’sparticipants was never violated, their dignity and self-determination certainlywere, and permission to intrude on their privacy was never obtained throughinformed consent procedures.While, in general, research should be conducted only with people who haveconsented to participate, this principle can be ethically circumscribed in waysthat may afford the research participant even greater protection. Martin andKnox (2000) recommended that gay and lesbian (bisexual and transgendershould be added) research participants should remain anonymous, and notedthat written consent does not afford them this added protection. They suggested that, when possible, anonymous surveys using self-administered questionnaires or phone interviews, in which consent is implied rather than written,should be used. In this way, people who wish to be excluded from the studywould not fill out and return the questionnaire or complete the interview. However, use of this procedure needs to be accompanied by assurances that participants are not coerced or highly vulnerable to exploitation (Royse et al., 2001).Thus, given the vulnerability of LGBT populations, the use of implied consentshould be carefully scrutinized to make sure participants are not exploited orsubject to coercion.188 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender PopulationsIn addition to these points, the APA Code also states that informed consent procedures should “use language that is reasonably understandable toresearch participants” (Sec. 6.11(a)). Researchers should not assume thatGLBT participants are all well-educated, middle-class, English-speaking individuals. Forms should be in participants’ native language, and they shouldbe written at a reading level that is not too high. According to the National Institutes of Health Office of Human Subjects Research (2000), consent formsshould generally be written below a high school graduate’s level of comprehension. As such, they should not contain words with more than three syllables, scientific terms, or lengthy sentences. In addition, consent proceduresshould avoid language that is likely to offend or be misinterpreted by prospective participants. For example, using the term “homosexual” instead of “gayand lesbian,” or referring to both gay men and lesbians as “gay,” could be offensive to some participants.The APA Code also warns psychologists not to use inducements for participation in studies that are excessive or inappropriate. Such inducements couldhave a coercive effect on prospective participants (Sec. 6.14(b)), which wouldundermine informed consent procedures. Researchers must be particularlycareful about excessive monetary inducements when prospective LGBT participants, especially youth, are financially unstable or impoverished.As indicated by 5.02(h), the consent form must inform participants of theirright to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Related to thispoint, the form should explain that refusal to participate in a study, or a decision to withdraw from it, will not result in differential treatment by any agencyassociated with the study.Under these procedures, participants could decide that their discomfortwith, or other negative reactions to, the study outweighs any benefits they hadexpected to receive when they first agreed to participate. For example, LGBTparticipants could become uncomfortable with what they perceive to be the biased or heterosexist language, or assumptions used on a questionnaire or in aninterview. Or they might find that a questionnaire takes much longer or is moredifficult to complete than they had expected. An explicit statement regardingparticipants’ right to withdraw minimizes the possibility that they will feel coerced to remain in the study against their wishes.Standard 5.02(f). When evaluation or research participants are incapable of giving informed consent, social workers should provide an appropriate explanation to the participants, obtain the participants’ assent tothe extent they are able, and obtain written consent from an appropriateproxy.James I. Martin and William Meezan 189Because people younger than 18 cannot legally give consent in the U.S.,studies of LGBT youth must involve additional measures to assure that theirparticipation is voluntary. Participants under the age of consent must give written “assent.” But this does not substitute for the written consent of their parentsor guardians, which researchers must also obtain whenever possible. However, obtaining consent from parents or guardians can be dangerous when theunderaged participants are LGBT. As noted by Elze (this volume), 45 CFR46.408(c) allows minors to participate in research without parental or guardianconsent if obtaining it would compromise their safety or welfare. This is mostlikely to be the case among youths living in abusive households or those whohave not disclosed their sexual orientation to parents or guardians. In suchcases, researchers can use independent advocates to assure participants’ rights(e.g., D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993). Alternatively, IRBs can declare sponsoring agencies to be acting in loco parentis by allowing youths to participatein a study (e.g., Rosario, Hunter, & Gwadz, 1997).Standard 5.02(g). Social workers should never design or conduct evaluation or research that does not use consent procedures, such as certainforms of naturalistic observation and archival research, unless rigorousand responsible review of the research has found it to be justified because of its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and unless equally effective alternative procedures that do not involve waiverof consent are not feasible.Social work ethics do not prohibit the use of naturalistic or participant observation. But because these methods involve nondisclosure and perhaps deception, they conflict with the ethical principles of self-determination andprivacy. Researchers planning to use these methods must justify them on thegrounds of the expected value of the study and its findings, the lack of alternative methods (Cournoyer & Klein, 2000), and the assurance that no harm willbe caused to the unsuspecting participants. As suggested by Padgett (1998), researchers should obtain permission from the appropriate gatekeepers beforeengaging in research in agency settings, particularly when using these methods. Doing so is especially important when the research sites are LGBT agencies, since many of their stakeholders are likely to be suspicious of beingexploited by researchers or harmed by research findings. Failing to do sowould probably doom the project and make it more difficult for other researchto occur in that setting. The APA Code is more explicit about this point, statingthat prior to conducting a study psychologists should provide host institutionsand organizations with complete information in order to obtain their approval(Sec. 6.09).190 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender PopulationsStandard 5.02(i). Social workers should take appropriate steps to ensurethat participants in evaluation and research have access to appropriatesupportive services.Standard 5.02(j). Social workers engaged in evaluation or researchshould protect participants from unwarranted physical or mental distress, harm, danger, or deprivation.Researchers should not design studies in which participants are knowinglyharmed, particularly when such harm or distress is not scientifically justified.In such cases, the risk/benefit ratio of the research, mentioned above, cannot bejustified.Although participants in social work research are unlikely to experiencephysical harm, psychological harm can occur. As Padgett (1998) noted, interviews that touch upon painful life events may generate considerable emotionand even distress. And studies using self-administered questionnaires do notensure the absence of harm or distress. For example, studies asking participants to recall incidents of intimate partner violence among lesbian or gay couples, or of hate violence among transgender individuals, could re-traumatizeparticipants by focusing their attention on reactions to events that they havenot yet resolved.In the event that participants do experience psychological distress, researchers are ethically obligated to provide them with, or refer them to, supportive services. When participants are members of LGBT populations,researchers must be particularly careful that such services are culturallycompetent. Even in the largest cities, culturally competent services fortransgender participants might not be readily identified. Finding appropriateresources even for lesbian, gay, and bisexual participants could be difficultoutside of major cities. But without the presence of such services, a study thatposes even minor risk for causing psychological harm or distress to its LGBTparticipants should not go forward.Standard 5.02(l). Social workers engaged in evaluation or researchshould ensure the anonymity or confidentiality of participants and of thedata obtained from them. Social workers should inform participants ofany limits of confidentiality, the measures that will be taken to ensureconfidentiality, and when any records containing research data will bedestroyed.Standard 5.02(m). Social workers who report evaluation and researchresults should protect participants’ confidentiality by omitting identifying information unless proper consent has been obtained authorizingdisclosure.James I. Martin and William Meezan 191Because of the heightened importance of confidentiality in studies of LGBTpopulations, researchers conducting studies in which participation is not anonymous must take all possible steps to ensure that the identities of participantsare never revealed. Such breaches of confidentiality could occur if proper precautions are not taken or if a court issues a subpoena for the research data.Researchers should take several measures to protect participants’ identitiesand the confidentiality of the data collected from them. They should replaceparticipant names with identification numbers on questionnaires as soon aspossible. They should prevent unauthorized access to data files by using password protections. Diskettes, completed questionnaires, tapes, and client or researcher logs should be secured in a locked file cabinet to which only theresearcher has the key (Reamer, 1998).With the exception of consent forms, all materials that would make identification of participants possible should be destroyed prior to publishing databased on the study. Consent forms should be maintained securely and in such away that they cannot be linked to individual participants through the presenceof a corresponding identification number. After removing any information thatcould identify participants, researchers should keep data for five years in caseany questions arise regarding the analysis or the conduct of the study.When conducting longitudinal studies, researchers must maintain the “translation” of identification codes to participants’ identities in a separate lockedfile cabinet. An alternative strategy requires participants to make up their ownunique identification code, which they will remember throughout the course ofthe study. This strategy eliminates the need for a “translation” file altogether.To prevent the possibility that sensitive data could be subpoenaed, researchers should obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality from the U.S. PublicHealth Service before they begin collecting data. When a Certificate of Confidentiality is granted, the researcher cannot be compelled to identify participants by any judicial or legislative body. Certificates may be issued forresearch on sensitive topics, particularly those having to do with mental healthand HIV/AIDS. Studies do not have to be federally funded in order to qualify(Levine, 1991).Standard 5.02(n). Social workers should report evaluation and researchresults accurately. They should not fabricate or falsify results and shouldtake steps to correct any errors later found in published data using standard publication methods.There may be a heightened danger of intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting, fabricating, or falsifying findings when the researcher is strongly192 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populationsmotivated to find certain results. According to Martin and Knox (2000), “researchers with strong political or personal views supporting or opposing[LGBT people] should refrain from engaging in research on [them] unless theyare willing to accept that the results might not support their views” (p. 52). Inaddition, researchers conducting evaluations of programs within an LGBTcommunity of which they are also a member might experience internal or external pressure not to report negative findings.Another section of the NASW Code states that social workers should “honestly acknowledge the work of and the contributions made by others” (Sec.4.08(a)), and take “responsibility and credit . . . only for work they have actually performed and to which they have contributed” (Sec. 4.08(b)). In addition,the APA Code states that psychologists must never misrepresent data as beingoriginal if it has been published previously (Sec. 6.24). Social workers mustmeet this additional ethical standard when publishing in APA journals.Standard 5.02(o). Social workers engaged in evaluation or researchshould be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest and dual relationshipswith participants, should inform participants when a real or potentialconflict of interest arises, and should take steps to resolve the issue in amanner that makes participants’ interests primary.According to Woodman, Tully, and Barranti (1995), lesbian researchersconducting studies in the communities in which they live may encounter ethical dilemmas involving dual relationships. For example, a researcher might bethe “therapist, professor, friend, co-worker, or teammate” (p. 62) of one ormore study participants. This ethical challenge might also occur in transgenderor bisexual communities, which can be quite small even in major cities, or inclose-knit communities of gay men. Woodman et al. (1995) suggested expanding the sampling frame to include participants outside the researcher’s community as a way of lessening this ethical challenge. However, this strategywould not remove the possible problem of having dual relationships with atleast some of the study’s participants.The current version of the NASW Code of Ethics, which was published afterthis strategy was proposed, is quite clear that social workers should avoid alldual relationships in research. It is extremely difficult to guarantee either the participants’ privacy or the confidentiality of the information provided when thereis a dual relationship with the researcher. In addition, participants could easilyfeel coerced to involve themselves in the study, and the information they providemight very well be contaminated by an acquiescent response bias.The safest solution to these issues would be to scrupulously avoid recruitingparticipants with whom there is any possibility of a dual relationship. These include persons with whom the researcher has a social or familial relationship, orJames I. Martin and William Meezan 193patrons of a bar the researcher frequents. In the same vein, evaluators employed within an agency should be careful not to recruit their own clients asstudy participants.Standard 5.02(p). Social workers should educate themselves, their students, and their colleagues about responsible research practices.Although this standard does not state explicitly that “responsible researchpractices” should include cultural competence regarding the populations understudy, the APA Code directs psychologists to “consult those with expertiseconcerning any special population under investigation or most likely to be affected” (Sec. 6.07(d)) when planning and conducting a study. This is a goodguideline for both LGBT and non-LGBT researchers when studying LGBTpopulations. Because these populations are so diverse, even researchers withextensive personal or professional knowledge are unlikely to be expert aboutevery LGBT subgroup. For example, one might have expertise concerning gaymen but not lesbians, lesbians but not women of transgender experience, orAfrican American but not Mexican American bisexual men. In many cases experts could be members of the community one wishes to study, as they werefor McClennen (this volume). Beyond relying on such experts for educationabout the population of interest, some authors (e.g., Bowman, 1983; Green &Mercer, 2001; Renzetti, 1995) recommend involving them on a more ongoingbasis throughout all phases of the research process: planning, implementation,data collection, and the interpretation of findings, and in the disseminationprocess.OTHER ETHICAL ISSUESIn addition to these specific standards for ethical research and evaluation,there are two additional ethical issues that researchers conducting studies onLGBT populations must consider. They concern biases at all stages of the research process and the tension between objectivity and values in scientific research.Heterosexist and Genderist Biases in ResearchAlthough the NASW Code does not specifically address the problem of biases in research, it contains several statements that do so indirectly. In particular, Sec. 6.04(c) states that “social workers should promote conditions thatencourage respect for cultural and social diversity within the United States and194 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populationsglobally,” and Sec. 6.04(d) states that “social workers should act to preventand eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against anyperson, group, or class. . . .” The APA Code states explicitly that “psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases . . . and they do notknowingly participate in or condone unfair discriminatory practices.”The APA’s Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns (1991) asserted thatprofessional writing “should be free of heterosexual bias” (p. 974), and it provided several strategies for meeting this expectation. One was that stigmatizing or pathologizing language should be avoided, including language thatcommunicates assumptions of psychopathology or moral turpitude. Anotherwas that any groups to which comparisons with lesbians or gay men are madeshould be parallel (e.g., lesbians should be compared to heterosexual women,when appropriate, not to “the general public” or “normal women”). The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001) containsmore extensive guidelines for reducing the use of biased language in research.Biases represent shared assumptions among members of particular groupsof people (McHugh et al., 1986) which can affect research at any stage of theprocess (Martin & Knox, 2000), often unintentionally. For example, manypeople assume that gender is binary. This assumption, labeled here as“genderist,” might lead to research that negatively impacts transgender populations. Perhaps most obviously, demographic questions that ask whether participants are male or female (with no alternative category) communicate thisbias, especially when the study makes comparisons between male and femaleparticipants. Similarly, studies communicate heterosexist biases when theyfail to ask about participants’ sexual orientation or assume that people’s marital status is equivalent to their relationship status.Biases can also enter the research process in less obvious ways: in the theories underpinning the study; the framing of the research questions; the sampling strategy; the construction or selection of measurement instruments;and the analysis of data (Herek et al., 1991; Martin & Knox, 2000). Extending the examples provided by Herek et al. (1991), research questionshave heterosexist or genderist biases if they ignore the existence of LGBTpeople, devalue or stigmatize them, or assume that negative characteristicsobserved in them are caused by their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.To reduce the possibility of heterosexist and genderist biases in studies, researchers should take care not to use samples that lack representativeness ordiversity, or data collection instruments that assume heterosexuality or binarygender. In addition, they should never report results without sufficiently acknowledging their limitations, or without anticipating and confronting ways inwhich the popular media or public might distort or misinterpret them.James I. Martin and William Meezan 195CHOOSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONAccording to Yegidis and Weinbach (2002), research problems for whichthere is little potential for positive utilization of the findings or recommendations should be a low priority in social work. In addition, the NASW Codestates that helping people in need, addressing social problems, and challenging social injustice are primary ethical principles in social work. These principles should guide social work research as well as practice. Therefore,social workers who conduct research that may hurt people in need, or supportexisting social injustices, are acting contrary to the profession’s ethical principles. However, Rubin and Babbie (2001) warned that such strong ethical imperatives may be counterproductive, biasing research and distorting truth.The tension between research as a method for advocating for moral principles and research as a value-free quest for truth is longstanding (see Kendler,1993), and it periodically erupts when research challenges existing norms orexacerbates conflicts between opposing groups of people. Because issues ofsexual orientation and gender expression often serve as social and politicalflashpoints, research on LGBT populations can easily fan the flames of this divide.One recent example from psychological research concerns the debate surrounding Rind, Tromavitch, and Bauserman’s (1998) meta-analysis of studiesof the effects of child sexual abuse on college-age young adults and Rind’s(2001) later examination of the effects of gay and bisexual adolescents’ sexualexperiences with men. In the earlier paper, Rind and his associates concludedthat child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause lasting harm, particularlyamong boys. Furthermore, they recommended that the term “abuse” should beused for sexual encounters between adolescents or even younger children onlyif the “young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it” (p. 35).This paper set off a professional and political firestorm that involved critiques on both methodological and moral grounds (e.g., Dallam et al., 2001;Ondersma, 2001), attacks in the media, a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives condemning the article, and a resolution by the American Psychological Association explaining that it remained strongly against child sexualabuse. Rind (2000) charged that critics of the study conflated morality withscience.Rind published the second paper (Rind, 2001) in the midst of this conflict. Itshowed that, contrary to young women, who more consistently experience sexwith an older person as traumatic, gay male adolescents and young adults frequently recalled early sexual experiences with older men as consensual andpositive; many reported that they had actually initiated them. Rind suggested196 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Populationsthat the pathologizing and criminalizing of all sexual interactions betweenadult men and adolescent boys might be far more harmful to young gay and bisexual men than the sexual experiences themselves.This paper is likely to anger many groups of people, including mainstreamGLBT organizations, which have long since distanced themselves from advocates of “man-boy” sexual contact, child welfare organizations that are committed to protecting children from abuse, police, and many legislators. Somepeople might even assert that this study should not have been conducted because the subject is simply taboo, or because it might provide “ammunition”for opponents of LGBT rights. However, others might argue that assumptionsabout the negative impact of sexual experiences between boys and adult menare heterosexist in that they presume that all children are heterosexual, and thatthe process of sexual development among gay and bisexual boys–if it is different from that of heterosexual boys–must be bad. Therefore, using scientific research to examine these assumptions would be consistent with social work’sand psychology’s ethical principles.CONCLUSIONResearchers must be careful to adhere to the ethical principles of their profession when conducting research on LGBT populations, especially becausesuch studies always occur within a complex, changing, and often hostilesociopolitical environment. A primary purpose of these principles is to protect research participants from exploitation and harm. Because of theirmarginalized and devalued position in society, LGBT populations are particularly vulnerable to these harms. This article explained specific ways in whichstandards having to do with research in NASW’s Code of Ethics (NASW,1996), and to a lesser extent APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists andCode of Conduct (APA, 1992), may be applied in research on LGBT populations. In many cases, such research requires additional measures in order to ensure the safety of participants and the relevance and usefulness of the study’sfindings.REFERENCESAmerican Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists andcode of conduct [Online]. Retrieved March 14, 2002, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code.html#6.21.American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.James I. Martin and William Meezan 197American Psychological Association Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns (1991).Avoiding heterosexual bias in language. American Psychologist, 46, 973-974.Barker, R.L. (1990). Continuing education: A neglected component of competentpractice. Journal of Independent Social Work, 4(3), 1-5.Berkman, C.S., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in social workers. Social Work, 42, 319-332.Bieber, I., Dain, H.J., Dince, P.R., Drellich, M.G., Grand, H.G., Gundlach, R.H.,Kremer, M.W., Rifkin, A.H., Wilbur, C.B., & Bieber, T.B. (1962). Homosexuality:A psychoanalytic study. New York: Basic Books.Bowman, P.J. (1983). Significant involvement and functional relevance: Challenges tosurvey research. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 19(4), 21-26.Bremer, J. (1959). Asexualization: A follow-up study of 244 cases. New York:Macmillan.Callahan, E.J., & Leitenberg, H. (1973). Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 60-73.Cameron, P., & Cameron, K. (1996). Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to pupils?Journal of Psychology, 130, 603-613.Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Cobum, W., & Forde, N. (1985). Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted diseases. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.Ceci, S.J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values andHerek, G.M. (1998). Bad science in the service of stigma: A critique of the Camerongroup’s survey studies. In G.M. Herek (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on lesbianand gay issues: Vol. 4. Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudiceagainst lesbian, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 223-255). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., & Cogan, J.C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crimevictimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 67, 945-951.Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., Cogan, J.C., & Glunt, E.K. (1997). Hate crime victimizationamong lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12,195-215.Herek, G.M., Kimmel, D.C., Amaro, H., & Melton, G.B. (1991). Avoiding heterosexistbias in psychological research. American Psychologist, 46, 957-963.Hershberger, S.L., & D’Augelli, A.R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental Psychology, 31, 65-74.Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31.Hooker, E. (1993). Reflections of a 40-year exploration. American Psychologist, 48,450-453.Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places.Chicago: Aldine.Hunter, S., Shannon, C., Knox, J., & Martin, J.I. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexualyouths and adults: Knowledge for human services practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Kendler, H.H. (1993). Psychology and the ethics of social policy. American Psychologist, 48, 1046-1053.Levine, C. (1991). AIDS and the ethics of human subjects research. In F.G. Reamer(Ed.), AIDS & ethics (pp. 77-104). New York: Columbia University Press.Martin, J.I., & Hunter, S. (2001). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in social work: A comprehensive bibliography with annotations. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.Martin, J.I., & Knox, J. (2000). Methodological and ethical issues in research on lesbians and gay men. Social Work Research, 24, 51-59.McConaghy, N. (1976). Is a homosexual orientation irreversible? British Journal ofPsychiatry, 129, 556-563.McHugh, M.C., Koeske, R.D., & Frieze, I.H. (1986). Issues to consider in conductingnonsexist psychological research. American Psychologist, 41, 879-890.Meyer, I.H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Healthand Social Behavior, 36, 38-56.Monette, D.R., Sullivan, T.J., & DeJong, C.R. (1998). Applied social research: Toolfor the human services (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Morrow, D.F. (1996). Heterosexism: Hidden dimension in social work education.Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 5(4), 1-16.Murphy, T.F. (1992). Redirecting sexual orientation: Techniques and justifications.Journal of Sex Research, 29, 501-523.James I. Martin and William Meezan 199National Association of Social Workers (1996).Code of ethics.Washington, DC: Author.National Institutes of Health Office of Human Subjects Research (2000). Guidelinesfor writing informed consent documents [Online]. Retrieved March 15, 2002, fromhttp://ohsr.od.nih.gov/info/finfo_6.php3.Ondersma, S.J., Chaffin, M., Berliner, L., Cordon, I., Goodman, G.S., & Barnett, D.(2001). Sex with children is abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromavitch, and Bauserman(1998). Psychological Bulletin, 127, 707-714.Owensby, N.M. (1941). The correction of homosexuality. Urologic and CutaneousReview, 45, 494-496.Padgett, D.K. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges and rewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Plant, R. (1986). The pink triangle. New York: Henry Holt.Reamer, F.G. (1998). Ethical standards in social work: A critical review of the NASWCode of Ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.Renzetti, C.M. (1995). Studying partner abuse in lesbian relationships: A case for theFeminist Participatory Research Model. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,3(1), 29-42.Rind, B. (2000). Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation ofthe attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrity of science. Sexuality and Culture, 4(2), 1-62.Rind, B. (2001). Gay and bisexual adolescent boys’ sexual experiences with men: Anempirical examination of psychological correlates in a nonclinical sample. Archivesof Sexual Behavior, 30, 345-368. Retrieved March 8, 2002, from http://proquest.umi.com.Rind, B., Tromavitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 22-53. Retrieved March 8, 2002, from http://www.psycinfo.com/ftdocs/bul/1998/july/bul124122.html.Rosario, M., Hunter, J., & Gwadz, M. (1997). Exploration of substance use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of AdolescentResearch, 12, 454-476.Royse, D. (1999). Research methods in social work (3rd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Royse, D., Thyer, B.A., Padgett, D.K., & Logan, T.K. (2001). Program evaluation: Anintroduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research methods for social work (4th ed.). Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.Savin Williams, R.C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Associations with school problems, runningaway, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 261-269.Sieber, J.E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research. American Psychologist, 43, 49-55.Tanner, B.A. (1974). A comparison of automated aversive conditioning and a waitinglist control in the modification of homosexual behavior in males. Behavior Therapy, 5(1), 29-32.200 Research Methods with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender PopulationsU.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997). Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects [Online]. Retrieved March 14, 2002, from http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.102.Woodman, N.J., Tully, C.T., & Barranti, C.C. (1995). Research in lesbian communities: Ethical dilemmas. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 3(1), 57-66.Yegidis, B.L., & Weinbach, R.W. (2002). Research methods for social wor