I guess I just don't find this to be particularly brilliant, groundbreaking, or worthwhile. I don't believe a high school student has the agency or proper tools to perform covert studies, much less actually manipulate her subjects -- none of whom have consented. Hence my question of ethics.

Agreed, and I don't think this study has any shot of getting published due to ethical issues nor should it be rewarded by scholarships and the like. I mean, it's interesting, but it sets a horrible precedent/example to let people shun research ethics because something is "interesting." Granted, sometime IRBs can be a bit into minutia with some things, but this level of deception and non-consent of participants is not minor, IMO.

As I said, it would never get past the IRB. but she does seem to have the agency to do it. And did so successfully.

I don't think it's shocking to anyone familiar with the issue, but I wonder sincerely if her classmates and their families rethink their attitude about teen pregnancy.
This kind of study can never have a control group. It's qualitatively reviewing her experience. Instead it would need to be repeated elsewhere with other students.

I didn't say a control GROUP, I said one individual as nearly "like" her as possible.

Obviously people are going to react differently to the pregnancy of Suzie who is in the home-ec program, not very popular, has been dating the same guy for 5 years and is wearing a promise ring, and Bonnie who is the head of every club and sport and never dates the same guy twice. She can't say "this is how people react to a pregnant student" and leave it at that.

A control person* wouldn't be relevant to that study, that's what I'm saying. If a professional were doing a similar sort of thing, it would probably involve surveying large groups of pregnant students on how their peers have reacted to their pregnancies. If a non-professional (because I don't think a professional would) were to do something closer to what the student did it would be multiple faux-pregnancies, not one pregancy/one non-pregnancy or even 10 pregancies/10 non-pregnancies.

*group here can include "one" individual, but whatever.

The more I think about this, the more shocked I am that this got approved by the administration--especially considering how incredibly wary most schools are about allowing researchers--professional, ethical, IRB-approved researchers--on their campuses.

This type of participant observation methodology is not designed to address larger patterns of behavior and generalizations. Her findings would indicate that people reacted to her, specifically, in that manner and she could posit that it is perhaps the case that there is a larger phenomenon at play for future research to examine. Her study does not test that larger phenomenon.

I disagree emphatically.

And covert observation and participant observation subjects do not give consent prior to the study. That would defeat the purpose.

***

For those who are not familiar with methodology and issues with IRB approval, here's a Cliffnotes version:

http://www.webster.edu/irb/confid.html

Observational Studies. Of all the methods used to locate suitable subjects and obtain data, covert observation and participant observation are especially likely to raise concerns about privacy. Covert observation includes the use of concealed devices to record information for later analysis (e.g., tape recording conversations or videotaping personal interactions) and concealment of the researcher (e.g., behind a one-way mirror) as the behavior of subjects is observed and recorded. In participant observation, the researcher assumes a role in the setting or group being studied. When the purpose of these methods is to gain access to information not ordinarily available to "outsiders," questions of privacy arise. (Similar issues about obtaining information not intended to be disclosed can be raised about many other forms of research that involve deception.)

Several factors may be relevant to an IRB's evaluation of such privacy questions. One is the extent to which the behavior in question is public. Covert observation of public behavior (e.g., observing pedestrians on the street) raises little if any concern about privacy; concealed observation of people in their homes would be quite another matter. Some behavior that occurs in public places may not really be public behavior if the individuals involved have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Research involving covert recording of conversations in public parks or filming of activities in public rest rooms clearly raises invasion of privacy questions. Observational studies in quasi-public places (e.g., hospital emergency rooms or state mental hospital wards) may also raise such concerns.

A question sometimes raised about the use of covert observation in research is whether an ethical issue exists if the subjects never become aware of the invasion of privacy. That is, if subjects are never aware that their behavior has been observed or recorded for research purposes, they can hardly feel embarrassed, guilty, or that their rights have been violated. On the other hand, it can be argued that an invasion of privacy is wrong, whether or not the subjects are ever aware of it. In some cases, subjects may inadvertently learn of their involvement in the research, perhaps when the study is published, and feel that they have been harmed.

LOL. Yes, that is also a point of conducting such research. Do people who already know you change their behaviors of you? If so, how so? How were you treated; and how can that possibly be compared to how others have been treated?

First, a massive amount of social psych research is explicitly based on lying to the participants/subject - consent is an issue to an extent (ie. they're being observed), but that consideration is relatively minor to my mind. Otherwise, her duplicity is actually fairly standard research protocol.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "agency" - she doesn't have to exert any sort of influence (social or otherwise) over her peers to gain valid insight. In fact, the more 'usual' she is, the better off the research outcomes might be.

Finally, she may or may not have the proper tools to actually give insight, but we won't know until the final product is produced, right?

I don't think it'll be groundbreaking in the sense that it won't earn peer review or publication or anything, but it's interesting she chose the project itself, and (to my mind) it hasn't really been studied in an academic sense. I'm interested in the results.

Considering that high school students get scholarships and college acceptance for planting a community garden, being in the school musical, being on whatever sports team, yes I think she should receive a scholarship (if there is one out there) for sociological studies.

It is not safe to assume that a well written article (once she is in college and has research mentors) will not receive peer review and publication if the methodology and findings are not crappy.

Although I agree with most of your post, I disagree that this level of deception is standard. Some deception yes, but no one here consented and there could indeed have been some harm caused. An IRB would likely not have approved the project as is, not with minors involved.

There's definitely a reason I said "lying" and not "lying to this extent", haha - but yeah, it's difficult to draw the line, and I'm glad it isn't my responsibility to do so.

True, and much like certain hazing rules, the rules are strict due to past screw ups. However revealing it was, no one really wants another Milgrim. It's a shame sometimes, you can think of some really interesting things to do, but they're entirely impossible because they're completely unethical.

The scientific mind wishes there was a way and the ethical mind slaps it and tells it to stop.