Introduction

The implications of unethical survey conduct are very similar to that of a product that is not considered fit for purpose. The consumer (in this case, the data) is left feeling hard done by, and the reputation of the individual or organization can be tarnished. An extreme example of this is the medical negligence cases resulting from incorrect diagnoses of patients. For example, someone who was diagnosed in an incorrect way because of a doctor-administered survey would feel hard done by, knowing that the source of the data was not an honest representation of reality. This would surely have a negative effect on the patient’s opinion of the doctor.

To deliver real value, surveys should be conducted within a healthy ethical climate. To have a true understanding of how important this is, let’s contrast it with medicine. If a doctor desperately wanted to obtain prescriptions, is it feasible to suggest that he would begin to diagnose patients improperly and administer unneeded medications? This is synonymous with those who conduct surveys without care for the quality of the data received. High-quality products and services are an asset to consumers, just as effective and accurate data is an asset to researchers. To disregard the honesty provided by a random sample to save on the cost is a false economy, as inaccurate data can often lead to costly rework.

Cambridge Analytical Scandal

At the time of the scandal, Facebook did not have enforceable policies about data collection through third-party apps, so this event was not technically illegal. Despite this, the scandal caused severe damage to Facebook’s reputation on the grounds of respecting user privacy. In response to growing public pressure, Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica from operating on its platform, and demanded certification from CA and all other parties obtaining user data that the data had been destroyed. Failure to comply would result in legal action against them (Hinds et al.2020). This event sheds light on the importance of law in data collection and protection. The company set up a research website that used a Facebook app to collect data from participants. After it was revealed that around 270,000 people had given the app permission to use their personal data, the app also collected data from their Facebook friends, resulting in the accumulation of data from millions of users (Salinas, 2018).

The data was used to create targeted political advertisements that were displayed on Facebook. The advertisements were designed to induce and exploit fear and anger, and included anti-establishment messaging. It is believed that the effectiveness of the ads led to the result of the 2016 United States Presidential Election (Fowler et al., 2021). This is a clear example of unethical surveying having a severe impact on democracy.

Other Examples of Inappropriate Survey Use

Invalid surveys include those produced for dubious reasons/motives. An example is the employee attitude surveys in which management has preconceived ideas as to the results and hopes that the survey will simply confirm their beliefs. If not, they will select a different sample (non-random) or manipulate the data until it confirms what they originally thought.

There are examples where a survey of job satisfaction was manipulated until the results showed that the people who left the company did so for reasons unrelated to job satisfaction. Manipulation of the survey begins by changing the questions. Another example of this kind of practices is in a survey where the respondents were college students. The survey was to measure several forms of procrastination and the results showed that procrastination was inversely related to grade point average (GPA).

However, high GPA students tended not to procrastinate in getting in touch with the various departments, and so the researchers claimed that this group did not see short-term procrastination behaviour as hindering long-term goals. A different example would be those arguing that smoking does not kill people and should be legalized would not create a survey proving that smoking has a direct link to death in fear that it would prove their opponents right. Instead, inappropriate examples would be those who blame adverse health issues on a person’s race or national origin. This only serves to perpetuate racial or ethnic discrimination and add to the harm and stress of the affected group.

Ethically, manipulating survey results undermines the integrity of data collection processes, betraying the trust of participants who expect honesty and transparency. Such practices can skew the results, leading to decisions based on inaccurate or misleading information, which can have far-reaching effects, such as impacting democratic processes or misrepresenting employee sentiments within a company.

Socially, these manipulations can erode public trust not only in surveys but also in the institutions that rely on them. This distrust can extend to academic research, governmental agencies, and private businesses, as people become sceptical of the motives behind data collection and the authenticity of the information presented.

Legally, while some manipulations might not breach specific laws directly, as was initially the case with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, they can lead to legal reforms. These incidents prompt stricter regulations and enforcement around data privacy and the ethical use of information, as seen with the heightened scrutiny and regulatory pressure post-scandal.

From a professional standpoint, entities that engage in or condone such practices risk damage to their reputation and credibility. This can result in significant professional setbacks, including legal actions, loss of professional licenses, and a decline in business or operational viability. Moreover, industries find themselves compelled to adopt more rigorous standards and oversight mechanisms to prevent such unethical practices in the future.

Conclusion

This study concludes that it is no longer possible to accept the various inappropriate uses of surveys. Society has advanced to a stage of limited resources, and we can no longer allow misuse and waste of respondents’ time. The consequences of unethical survey practices underscore the importance of adhering to high ethical standards in all aspects of data handling and usage. Ensuring the integrity of data collection and analysis not only protects the rights and trust of individuals but also maintains the legitimacy and reliability of the institutions involved.

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].