As researchers, it's imperative to conduct research in ways that are extremely ethical and protect the subjects being studied. Laud Humphreys Tearoom Sex Study had an extreme lack of ethical professional behavior.
The research methods of Laud Humphreys tearoom sex study, violated numerous current research ethical practices. Humphreys deceived the men that were using the public bathroom, by allowing them to believe he was only a participant by being the “watchqueen” for disturbance by outsiders or the police. He observed human behavior without informing the participants that he was a researcher nor did he get consent of his subjects. Another clear, ethical violation was that Humphreys invaded the privacy of the participants. According to SexInfo Online (2015), after observing the men in the tearoom, “Humphreys wrote down the license plate numbers of the men whom he observed and traced them to their homes, where he had them fill out a questionnaire, pretending that it was for a general ‘social health survey.’After the study was complete, Humphreys then published his findings without the consent of any of the men involved (Sieber, 1978).
He may not have been able to acquire the accurate information about same-sex behavior in public places if he had fully disclosed his purpose, but the issue is, was it worth violating the privacy of his subjects.
Ethical Problems
As researchers, it's imperative to conduct research in ways that are extremely ethical and protect the subjects being studied. Laud Humphreys Tearoom Sex Study had an extreme lack of ethical professional behavior.
The research methods of Laud Humphreys tearoom sex study, violated numerous current research ethical practices. Humphreys deceived the men that were using the public bathroom, by allowing them to believe he was only a participant by being the “watchqueen” for disturbance by outsiders or the police. He observed human behavior without informing the participants that he was a researcher nor did he get consent of his subjects. Another clear, ethical violation was that Humphreys invaded the privacy of the participants. According to SexInfo Online (2015), after observing the men in the tearoom, “Humphreys wrote down the license plate numbers of the men whom he observed and traced them to their homes, where he had them fill out a questionnaire, pretending that it was for a general ‘social health survey.’After the study was complete, Humphreys then published his findings without the consent of any of the men involved (Sieber, 1978).
He may not have been able to acquire the accurate information about same-sex behavior in public places if he had fully disclosed his purpose, but the issue is, was it worth violating the privacy of his subjects.