Case Analysis (Case 1, Page 173)
The Involved Parties and the Main Moral Issue in the Case Study
The parties involved in the selected case for analysis are the researcher (the sociologist) and the members of the community that participated in the study. After working with the participants and gaining their trust while conducting the research, the sociologist decided not to report any of the participating members after discovering their involvement in the car-theft ring (Ruggierio, pg. 173).
The main moral issue in the research is deciphering whether the researcher was ethically appropriate for deciding not to report the discovery to the police. She only managed to find out about the members’ involvement in criminal activity after she developed a good rapport with the participants and earned their trust.
Analysis
As a social worker, she had obligations to the law, her superiors, and, most importantly, the participants. However, these obligations (duties) conflicted. On one hand, she was obligated to stay true to her research, seeing it through till the end. On the other hand, she had a personal, civic, and professional responsibility to report criminal activity to the police or, at the very least, her superiors. As such, the ethical conflict stems from two contradicting ethical virtues that she was obligated to uphold in her work- loyalty to her research and being trustworthy versus the civic responsibility to protect other peoples’ right to safety and property ownership by reporting the community members to relevant authorities.
Her decision was based on the subtle weighing of these virtues, albeit on an ethical scale. Her decision might be based on the concept of ‘Mutuality’ as described by Richard Burnor and Yvonne Raley’s (2010) ‘Ethical Choices: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases.’ The 250th page of the book describes mutuality as ‘a quality of relationships that intertwines, connects, and ties people through sharing of feelings, knowledge, and trust. As such, it would have been morally inappropriate for the researcher to damage the mutuality of the relationship and, in so doing, violate the good rapport that anchored her research. Mutuality enhances unity as a virtual precept of ethical professional relationships. Her discovery of their involvement in the car theft ring is a testament to the success of her research. She used trust, unity, and mutuality to discover something law enforcement officers could not discover using their training and experience. As such, it would be unjust and, therefore, morally wrong for the researcher to report the members of the community to the police.
Her decision may also be validated ethically analyzed from a consequential point of view. The circumstances not only tested her commitment to the rule of law. It also tested her commitment to her research and ethical virtues of empathy. Reporting her participants to the authority, more or less, shows she lacks care and empathy. This is an important precept for ethical, social work. The consequences of this action would be apprehension and a complete overhaul of the participants’ lives. From a professional (social work research) point of view, violating a participant’s trust translates to violating the code of ethics, which is an important professional standard. This would have a higher significant impact than not informing law enforcement on the involvement of members in stealing cars. Although car theft is a crime, the fact that it essentially does not involve direct harm to individuals or threat of death compared to more severe crimes like rape or murder means the consequences of not involving the police do not necessarily place anyone in direct harm. As such, alternative solutions like counseling and helping members find alternative sources of income would help them turn a new leaf without harming anyone (even the participants).
Professions that involve direct engagement with vulnerable members of society depend on trust. Their professional integrity is preserved through trust and the rapport of their relationship. This necessity is appreciated in law enforcement. The law, in certain cases, offers legal exemptions to such professionals from legal reproach when they fail to report criminal activity in certain extreme or sensitive situations. Rights to privacy, confidentiality, and non-disclosures are important precepts for social workers.
Conclusion: The Theory of Simplification and Over Simplification
The researcher’s decision may be summed up through the implementation of the criteria of oversimplification and simplification; according to the criteria (discussed in the seventh chapter of Ruggiero (2015, pg 91), the researcher appeared to avoid oversimplification and instead considered the potential consequences of her actions. Although she discovered their involvement in criminal activity, she did not report her participants because of the regressive and otherwise negative consequences of potentially sending them to jail instead of helping them and finishing her otherwise successful research. It would be prudent to help them desist from engaging in car theft through other empowering means. Her decision also considers the precept of mutuality with the community she was researching. Mutuality pivots successful relationships on trust and loyalty.