I pressed post before finishing, sry.

Another link on that site, Lexi is to the Conflict of Interest policy.

http://research.unimelb.edu.au/integrity/conduct/conflict

It says the following categories exist:

" Where the research is sponsored by a related body.

Where the researcher or a related body may benefit, directly or indirectly, from any inappropriate dissemination of research results (including any delay in or restriction upon publication of such results).

Where the researcher or a related body may benefit, directly or indirectly, from the use of University resources.

Where the researcher conducts a clinical trial which is sponsored by any person or organisation with a significant interest in the results of the trial.

Where private benefits or significant personal or professional advantage are dependent on research outcomes."

It gives the example of a researcher being employed by a firm that may benefit commercially, but there is much more to it than that.

What of the social researcher who seeks government grants to establish a not-for-profit employing her or her friends using her own purported results to justify it?

What of the social researcher who has made a career out of trying to prove that violent behaviour is the sole preserve of men? What chance do you think there is that such a person will ever produce a dissenting report?

It concerns me that the ethics departments of some of our unis, especially UniSA, seem far less concerned about the ethics of social research than the scientific type. As a result, very flawed reports are allowed to be propagated as unimpeachable research. It devalues the institution.

Antiseptic:

Of course you've raised some valid points. The sociologist unlike the natural scientist, is part of the very subject he or she is tudying. The geologist may be interested in establishing the composition of a particular rock sample but is unlikely to be emotionally involved in the findings. The sociologist, who may be studying such issues as race relations or poverty, may find it much more difficult to maintain a detached attitude, and can even become passionately involved in the outcome of the study as you point out. The researcher may identify strongly with the problems and experiences of the subjects, and there is a risk that the process of investigation and interpretation will be distorted as a result.

Part of the problem is that the sociologist's subject matter (as "All" pointed out in an earlier post) presents research problems of a kind that natural scientists rarely have to deal with. The sociologist's subjects are not inanimate objects or unreflecting animals. They are people who are self aware, who have complex individual personalities, and who are capable if choosing their own course of action for both rational and irrational reasons.