Introduction

Unethical conduct in surveys carries implications comparable to those of selling a product not fit for purpose. Much like dissatisfied customers who feel short-changed by poor-quality goods, participants providing their data can feel similarly let down, potentially harming the reputation of the individual or organisation responsible. A particularly stark example of this is medical negligence stemming from incorrect patient diagnoses. Imagine a scenario where a patient is wrongly diagnosed based on flawed survey methods administered by a doctor. The patient would rightfully feel aggrieved, knowing their diagnosis was based on misleading data, inevitably leading to a loss of trust and confidence in the medical professional.

For surveys to offer genuine value, they must be carried out ethically. To appreciate the importance of ethical surveys, consider a medical analogy: would we find it acceptable if a doctor deliberately misdiagnosed patients simply to prescribe unnecessary medications? This behaviour parallels conducting surveys without regard for data quality. Just as reliable products and services benefit consumers, accurate and trustworthy data benefit researchers and decision-makers. Cutting corners on the integrity of survey samples to reduce costs represents a false economy, often resulting in costly mistakes and additional work to rectify flawed conclusions.

Cambridge Analytical Scandal

At the time of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook did not have enforceable rules governing data collection through third-party applications, so the practices involved were not technically illegal. Nevertheless, the scandal severely damaged Facebook’s reputation regarding user privacy. Under intense public scrutiny, Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica’s access and required certifications from them and other parties confirming the destruction of harvested user data, threatening legal action for non-compliance (Hinds et al., 2020). This case vividly highlights the crucial role laws play in protecting data privacy.

The scandal originated from a research website that used a Facebook application to collect personal data from participants. Although approximately 270,000 users gave consent, the app also collected data from their Facebook friends, ultimately compiling personal information from millions of unsuspecting users (Salinas, 2018).

This vast dataset was then exploited to create politically targeted adverts designed specifically to provoke and amplify fear and anger, often through anti-establishment narratives. The effectiveness of these manipulative tactics is believed to have significantly influenced the outcome of the 2016 United States Presidential Election (Fowler et al., 2021). This situation serves as a clear and unsettling example of how unethical surveying methods can profoundly affect democracy.

Other Examples of Inappropriate Survey Use

Surveys become invalid when conducted with questionable intentions. A common instance is employee attitude surveys where management already expects certain outcomes and hopes surveys will merely confirm their biases. If the initial results fail to match their expectations, management might resort to selectively choosing participants or manipulating data until the results align with their original assumptions.

There have been cases where job satisfaction surveys were deliberately altered until the data suggested that employees leaving the company did so for reasons unrelated to their satisfaction at work. Such manipulation often begins by changing survey questions. Another instance occurred in a study surveying college students on procrastination, which found procrastination negatively correlated with grade point average (GPA). However, high-achieving students tended to promptly interact with administrative departments, leading researchers to misleadingly claim these students saw short-term procrastination as unimportant for long-term goals.

Additionally, consider those advocating the legalisation of smoking who might avoid conducting surveys linking smoking directly to mortality, fearing negative results. More troubling are surveys designed to attribute adverse health outcomes to a person’s race or ethnicity, further reinforcing harmful racial or ethnic stereotypes and adding unnecessary stress and discrimination to affected groups.

From an ethical perspective, manipulating survey data compromises the integrity of data collection, betraying participants’ trust in honest and transparent processes. Such unethical practices distort findings, leading to decisions based on incorrect or misleading information, potentially affecting democratic processes or misrepresenting employee sentiments.

Socially, manipulated surveys can severely erode public trust, casting doubt not only on survey methodologies but also on institutions relying on these data sources. This scepticism can extend broadly to academia, government, and private enterprises, creating an environment of suspicion concerning motives and data authenticity. Legally, although some data manipulation might initially escape legal action—as exemplified by the Cambridge Analytica case—it can subsequently drive legal reforms. Incidents like these often prompt stricter regulatory oversight and legislation governing data privacy and ethical use.

Professionally, individuals and organisations engaging in or condoning unethical survey practices risk severe damage to their reputations. The consequences include potential legal repercussions, loss of professional accreditation, decreased consumer confidence, and diminished operational success. Such episodes often compel entire industries to adopt stricter standards and improved oversight mechanisms to prevent future unethical practices.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is no longer acceptable to overlook or tolerate the unethical use of surveys. Society today operates in a context of limited resources, and it is important that the time and trust participants invest are respected and valued.

The consequences of unethical surveying practices underline the importance of maintaining high ethical standards in data collection and analysis. Upholding data integrity not only safeguards individual rights and trust but also sustains the credibility and legitimacy of the institutions involved.

Moving forward, institutions must prioritise ethical practices by implementing robust guidelines, providing continuous training on ethical standards, and ensuring transparency in their processes. Such measures will help rebuild public trust, reinforce the integrity of research outcomes, and contribute positively to societal well-being.

Finally, fostering an ethical culture around surveys and data collection is not merely beneficial—it’s essential for sustainable, responsible, and credible research in the future.

References:

Confessore, N. (2018). Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far. The New York Times. [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html [Accessed 30 Apr. 2024].

Erika Franklin Fowler, Franz, M.M. and Ridout, T.N. (2021). Political Advertising in the United States. Routledge.

Hinds, J., Williams, E.J. and Joinson, A.N. (2020). ‘It wouldn’t happen to me’: Privacy concerns and perspectives following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 143(2020), p.102498. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102498.

Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V. and Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, [online] 15(3), pp.261–266. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg031.

Salinas, S. (2018). Facebook says the number of users affected by Cambridge Analytica data leak is 87 million. [online] CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/04/facebook-updates-the-number-of-users-impacted-by-cambridge-analytica-leak-to-87-million-.html [Accessed 30 Apr. 2024].