UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES, CSSP

THE FORUM OF ABSENTEES: Ruminations on the Ethics in Sexuality Research A Thinkpiece for ANTHRO 287 Sex & Culture Under the Instruction of Dr. Solidad Dalisay

Dominique Angela M. Juntado PH.D Anthropology 2011 781 83

07-18-2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE FORUM OF ABSENTEES: Knothi Seuton

Ruminations on Ethics in Sexuality Research

01 01 02 05 07

Ethical & Methodological Conflicts The Political Economic Facet Some Notes Concerning Confidentiality, Consent & Informed Consent

SELECTED ARTICLES

09 09

Ethical and Methodological Conflicts in Sexuality Research

By Leena Abraham

Alternate Ethics, or Telling Lies to Researchers

By Laura Maria Agustin

14

University Investigates Ethics of Sex Researcher

By The Washington Times

15

Anjelica Kieltyka Responds to Baileys Book on Transsexualism by the National Academies

By Lynn Conway

17

Anjelica Kieltyka Files a Formal Complaint with the Vice-President of Research Of Northwestern University Regarding the Research Conduct of JM Bailey
Correspondence By Anjelica Kieltyka

19

REFERENCES

22

At present, I find myself lacking the proper intellectual courage to be true to my thoughts. Ethics in research is a cold and intimidating topic, and more so the case with mainstream sexuality research. But perhaps I should treat this submission as something to return to at the end of the semester to see if my cerebrations have evolved in any way. In recognition of the broadness of this subject, I intend for this thinkpiece to delve on the intertwine of ethics with data-gathering procedures.

Knothi Seuton. I say, before you can critique a work (on sexuality research), you
must know how to critique your thoughts first. By habit, I grade myself as novice in sexuality research, firstly because I fit the description that Leena Abraham [2001] provided. I am wontedly absorbed in the conceptualization of the study as well as in the selection of methodology. And talking to myself through electronic ink regarding the subject of logistics and parameters made me giddy (this part I just added myself as I have the habit of keeping a research diary, but Abraham did mention logistics). I felt as if each research paper I crafted was an attempt to make a cerebral work of art --- on these grounds, I am guilty as charged. It was only of last semester that I have truly begun to mull over a commonly discoursed issue under ethics. Ethics didnt end with Informed Consent, a concept which has at times been turned on its head [See the J.M. Bailey case, where one part concerns whether or not no consent is failure of informed consent]. A distant cousin to consent is Comfort, if the question is structured properly so that people can talk openly about certain experiences or subjects. Of my limited experience in the academe, I have not yet conducted a research that genuinely involved personally dealing with groups of people and interacting with them. I have conducted numerous interviews before, and these were semi-structured, on considerably conservative topics. My preferences were more on the side of the visually hermeneutical. This activity permits me, at present to learn from the research experiences of others. Im treating Leena Abrahams conversation piece as something similar to a research diary. I found it sincere and frank, in the sense that it was straight-forward. I dont know if it is because she was still in the process of developing herself as a researcher in the field of sexuality studies. But I highly appreciated it. Her work is more inclined on the Medical Anthropological. Considering the mood and style, I found it appropriate to use Abrahams article first to set the foundation of this inked discussion. My impression of Agustins [2004] entry is that it seems to be written in the voice of a Political Science major, considering the thrusts of the paper teetering on the political and the economic dynamics of the researcher-

respondent relationship. She described how the actors are driven by their self-interests that they want to achieve, which sounds classically realist. And if I may say so, it is just like an allusion to a game of chess. Sure enough, Agustins vista, compared to Abraham is on the field of Development Studies. Data-related fears are not new, but Agustin advances a formal conceptualization of one of them --- having been coined as Alternate Ethics, she shifts the attention to a side of the research relationship that has not usually or really been given any choice about participation. She writes predominantly assuming the mindset of the respondent who is perfectly mindful of the delicateness there is in the relationship between researcher and respondent and how this relationship can be used to achieve certain ends, even if it means passing a lie as data. Though her discourse is based on research experience concerning sex workers, her observations and postulates that she had derived also apply to other respondents from different industries. The third and fourth voices in this paper is perhaps more suitable to be called a collectivity of voices, as it is a Washington Times entry paired with loose leaves from Lynn Conways transsexual activism online diary that has to do with an investigation into the controversial book authored by internationally, formerly respected researcher J. Michael Bailey discussing transsexuality. The Bailey case offers an interesting glimpse into the ethics of confidentiality and consent. I hope to be able to place my authors in an artificial conversation with each other in the pages that follow.

Ethical and Methodological Conflicts. Leena Abrahams [2001] treatise, if examined

in the context of theoretical significance, to begin, brings into light a commonly overlooked aspect of the focus group discussion. She mentions the issue of over-reporting and underreporting as a possibility, which is driven by variations of cultural dictation. To continue, there is the re-visitation of the main questions of concerns as regards appropriateness of language, prejudices, sensitivities towards anxieties, the proper conduct of probing, as well as the dilemma of giving to respondents for their participation --- these, naturally on the part of the researchers. And despite having attended a two-day research seminar, the only useful tips they could be provided with that had to do with the subject of ethics, had reeked strongly of cultural relativism. Laura Agustins [2004] entry complements Abraham in the sense that she offers to the virtual roundtable another side of the discussion. The Researched (as she would surely call them) also have a methodology as well as a set of ethics to match when it comes to entertaining researchers. As Abraham stressed the value of researchers maintaining ethics in methodologies, Agustin expressed her disbelief in this classic premise (as she imagined herself in the shoes of respondents), dismissing it as (and I shall say it in my terms) a fancy2

pants-university-culture way of saying honor system. How would the researcher indeed know if his or her respondent is telling the truth? The following line is very valid as she questions the honesty of the respondents: Why, after all, should people who are being

treated as objects of curiosity tell the truth?...The assumption is that once research begins, researchers will cooperate, freely telling researchers what they want to know. Recognizing
the absence of a universal set of ethics, its a big possibility that the respondents would lie or not tell the whole truth to the researchers. To place a contrast to Abraham in terms of the featured research tool, it was unclear if Agustin was referring to the autobiography or the interview, or perhaps a mix of both. At this point, two things have occurred to me: On the first, having mulled over the words culture and methodology, I found myself suddenly anchored to the thought of how the social sciences are by nature Eurocentric or should we say inclined to the Western (traits), and consequently the same could be said about the first and succeeding research manuals. Perhaps there are some tools which could not be successfully employed, depending on cultural setting and orientations of respondents (Are they restrained when it comes to speaking of certain subjects? Whats restraining them? How should this be respected? How limited or free is their conscience to honestly, willingly, participate?). On the subject of Ethics, Ive always held this opinion comfortably and on my own free intellectual will without the need to cite authors, the most of Ethics (especially when it has anything to do with research.. After all, what is research but a skillful arrangement of questions and answers on a subject) is also western-oriented. I had this hunch before I even encountered Bok [1984] in Agustins work. I remember how it is easily intertwined with Morals, so they are easily mistaken for one another, and considering incorrect use often times interchanged. Ethics may be based on logical reasoning, and so this would bring in a possibility for flux. My personal thoughts concerning the nature of morals is that they are faith-inspired and culturally instilled, where people either conform to these types of rules set in a society or they dont. A person always has ethics, but may or may not have morals. Perhaps Abraham was discussing more the idea of morals and methods rather than ethics. Agustin asked whether or not failure to tell the truth to researchers is something unethical. She addresses this herself simply saying that the answer would be affirmative if there is the satisfaction of two requisites: First, the person faced with that question believes in the existence of some universal standard of ethics, and second, that he or she believes that it is better to be ethical than not. And again, we see the imperfection of this stance because we are familiar with the nature of Ethics.

I was able to interpret a second form of Lie where its telling has more to do with catering to the interests of the researchers. There are, in my opinion researchers who enter the field with expected answers. Not that there is anything new to this, rather its an issue where they want to indirectly put words in their respondents mouthes. The example given involved a Dominican woman who told Agustin that her line of work is of her preference, and not majorly of other causes such as poverty. She confided having been forced to lie because the nature of this information was not the sort that social workers wanted to hear. That they felt sorry for her. There seems to be some fear of differing answers, which I find quite ironic --- one of the interests of the disciplines in the Social Sciences is the inspection into the diversity of nouns, and answers are of no exception to this rule. In the methods class I had attended last semester, it had been stressed that different answers and results deserve their merits and attention, most especially so if a thesis is rejected. A research that does end (theory-wise) as planned is always a good addition to the shelves because it counts as proof of a non-validity of something, so this never renders any research as wasted. Why is this forgotten among some scholars? I honestly dream to see an effective research methods manual for each nationality, discussing compatible tools as well as a comprehensive section about attitudes and tendencies of the researched (for the Ethics side) written by a person of that nationality, free of charge, available online at least and for free circulation. This should be done all in the name and for the love of correct research. Agustin, like Abraham, had observed the level of circumspection exercised by most of their respondents. Agustin saw this on two aspects. First, she commonly found that cultural background influenced respondents degrees of communicativeness and secrecy when it came to certain information. However, the difference had to do with attitudes rather than cultural dictates like in Abraham [2001]. Her example was a Columbian woman who spoke of another Columbian woman but from a different region --- it was believed that those from this region are incapable of keeping secrets. As for the second, secrecy (true in both sex work and general respondents) is an impulse based on security as instinct. This is based on an inevitable trust issue, as the respondents do recognize that research is a common term spread wide amongst different institutions, and the last thing they would ever want is to get in trouble. This is extremely more so with people in the sex industry. This touches on the tendency to exercise profiling on the part of respondents. In my limited experience, I think that this example is perfectly illustrative of the difference between ivory tower and nongovernmental personalities. Respondents attempt to catch auras and roughly read them as part of their self-security measures. 4

Going back to Abraham, her segment on the questions of concerns, I am reminded of a suggestion I had raised in a theory class some two semesters ago: A three-unit (?) crash

course in diplomatic relations with no frills, just learning the practical approach towards how
to treat and or avoid potentially tense situations and how to find the right answers without offending anyone. Within the scope of Diplomatic knowledge is a somewhat quicker ability to discern what parts of a culture to be interacted with should be remembered, taken strictly, taken lightly. Further, it would include the impartment of what I personally like to call quick thinking skills when it comes to overcoming language barriers which may occur on the field. Diplomacy, to my mind, complements being a researcher because the person conducting the study: (1) represents his or her field; (2) research is a diplomatic assignment which is

volatile; (3) it assists in a better developed know-how in terms of better blending with the people --- as it is discussed that there is not only the otherization of the culture/respondent,
but of the researcher as well in the eyes of the people he is interacting with. Inclusive of blending strategies is proper dress and easy pick-up of language styles. And last but not least, (4) knowledge of diplomacy includes a different take on the notion of gift-giving and

modified-barter when it comes to interaction with a particular set of respondents which would
prove useful. Abraham did point out that respondents tend to expect something from the researcher in return. Some diplomatic know-how would assist in the resolution of the morality issues behind it, perhaps touching on the material character of the gift to determine appropriateness, for one example. It may also simultaneously provide a decent address to what Abraham raised as the possible alteration of the nature of data resulting from anticipated rewards. Theres always a question of protocol so that this could be solved.

The Political Economic Facet. Abraham touched briefly on the existing, if I may say
sense of elitism, between the two different natures of research: Ivory-Tower and NGO output. These can be both accomplished with a social science scope, but the latter antagonizes the former as it does not address the immediate needs of respondents. NGO involvement in research introducing the component of Intervention was, according to Abraham, more of a political game having to do with large international funding. Intervention addressed the immediate health-related needs of the respondents in a given country, promising health services and other benefits free of charge. Additional effects this poses includes the possible thwarting of efforts of small-budget studies conducted by individuals in lesser recognized institutions. She was also able to successfully make concise the description of the theme of the power struggle existing between these two researchpersonality factions. In verbatim, Is this a way to make ivory tower research redundant, and

to promote NGO research? The common critique being posed to most social science
5

research was that most of it do not get translated into the direct benefits of its respondents. Her example was voting behavior and employment outcomes. The lack of interest in similar subjects, I believe, is traced to an under to undeveloped political culture. It savors of a sense of citizen immaturity, most especially so if people are only forced to consider the results of the study out of insistence from a particular known agency. I was also pleased with how she highlighted a detail which is at times overlooked:

Intervention component is particularly characteristic of large projects we also know that conditionalities (hidden or explicit) are attached to large-scale funding, whether for development projects or research.
My spontaneous impression upon reading the last paragraph describing Intervention was that setting aside the economic part of the equation, there is this continued bratty sense of competitiveness on the part of science-based research versus the social sciences. Here are two fields who are trying to teach each other how a research should be done --- I cannot say strongly that the social sciences are also bullies in this course elitism, I have not yet come across material where they have antagonized the hard sciences in any way. But to be on the neutral side, which I must take, this would be just like adhering to the principle It is better for an innocent man to go to jail than for a guilty man to walk free. The idea of particular methods and approaches, it must be taught, that these vary in terms of strengths and weaknesses, most especially it must be raised that there is the issue of compatibility of the tool with not just the people being studied but also the type of research. There is indeed the need to revisit constantly whether the research agendas and objectives do indeed go well with the method. There is really nothing new here ----But I am wondering why there are some researchers who tend to forget that. There are indeed countries where the disciplines are presently still in the struggle for formal recognition of intellectual equality and respect. While Abraham provided a look at the issues in the competition between researcher factions, Agustins discussion is more on the mainstream exemplification of political economy concerning the researcher and the researched. Secrecy has always been by nature political for the most notable reason that intelligence is power --- Bok [1984] cited by Agustin [2004] emphasized that the ability to hold back information (in the case of respondents, about themselves) or to channel it has an effect on how one is seen by others. And to not be able to keep things secret is equated to being out of control over how others perceive the person. This, again according to Bok, would mean vulnerability to coercion. I agree fully with that postulate. Its been tried and tested. To my mind, what further stretches the political scenario of research is the lie itself and or the employment of doublespeak strategies and weasel words --- which are of course known to compose a question-dodging 6

strategy. Its a method of answering questions without really addressing them, and the success of it critically has to do with a sense of confidence, like there is indeed a point to what theyre saying or most importantly, create the illusion that what theyre saying is true (or makes sense..). I agree with Agustin when she said that there is really no way to tell if a respondent is lying unless you ask him or her a series of the same question but in different structure. But why lie? Going back to Bok on the idea of image shaping, the respondent can manipulate the researcher into helping the respondent get particular benefits which are perks of the study or goods and services within the power of the researcher (say healthrelated treatment and such). The respondent could weave a story which justifies his or her qualifications and need which must be satisfied. It is all a matter of telling a convincing, sad story. Its the aesthetics of the lie which turns it into a (perverted) art. This can be counted as a purposive form of overstatement which is comparative to Abrahams research experience. I would like to attempt to make a (bold) statement on the idea of emotions --- Sadness is compelling because its very human. The human take on sadness has to do with depth, it is instinctive because it is accompanied by easily visible bodily responses. I am presently not sure as to why I am equating sadness with a degree of frankness, but I feel it is valid enough. I feel like I can pull this stunt considering that this is a critical paper, not a research paper. This may partly account for why sadness and reason behind sadness is not questioned, not interrogated. There is this instinct to help, if one sees this sadness in any acquaintance. It is this complementary feature of civility that defines the end of sadness (all emotions have periods) and makes sadness human. I would like to think that there is a more innocent sibling to the Lie, and that would be the act of omitting information. This is still in the context of attempting to create image, and its purpose is has to do with qualification still so that the respondent could be offered the perks of the study and or other similar things. Omission, to my mind is practiced by those who are not sure if they should mention a particular detail. Omission could as well be like a level of specialization --- either the respondent has not yet mastered the art of lie-telling or the respondent would still like to maintain some degree of honesty? Is there a way to avoid being lied to? There is no supreme advice on this, but Agustin recommended the forming of a closer relationship between the researcher and the researched via Participant Observation over a duration of at least a year.

Some Notes Concerning Confidentiality, Consent & Informed Consent.

The

segment is perhaps the simplest, most forward part to this paper. Invoking the research diary of Abraham, she noted how their confidentiality strategy proved difficult and 7

impractical in the long run. They used serial numbers instead of the names of their respondents. They experienced instances where they needed more information after the transcriptions, but they could not go back to gather it. There were also cases where unanticipated responses from an exploratory study were in need of follow-up. Agustin being consistent with the Lie concept, she states that respondents do not really care about confidentiality and (informed) consent because the nature is to simply lie. In the United States in 2003, J. Michael Bailey faced the fire for his published notorious treatise which garnered intense negative feedback, particularly from among the community of transsexual women. His book entitled, The Man Who Would Be Queen received criticism that it was transphobic [Conway: 2008], as well as a piece of pseudoscientific literature which was responsible for the defamation of the lives and identities of some of his respondents in the book. There is a good reason why I had placed the word in quotation marks --- One of the charges Bailey faced was a (western research) ethics breach where he had failed to obtain the informed consent of research subjects for his book. Charlotte Anjelica Kieltyka was formerly a Northwestern psychology student who was born male, had sex-change surgery in 1991 and now describes herself as lesbian. She was one of his respondents whom he had given the pseudonym Cher Mondovi and she also served as the poster child for Autogynephilia [Letter to Conway from Kieltyka 04 May 2003]. His intellectual relationship with Kieltyka has old roots. Kieltyka filed a formal complaint to the Vice-President of Research of the Northwestern University regarding Baileys research conduct. In the letter, she mentions that publisher of the book, the Joseph Henry Press of the National Academies described the work as based on Baileys original research when he actually had made use of Kieltykas case notes. Further, the five respondents were bought by Kieltyka to Baileys acquaintance for the sole purpose of obtaining letters of approval for Sex Reassignment Surgery, as this was a requirement under the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. He had to an extent lied about his role and intention in providing the letters --- he had turned these applicants into research subjects. There were more issues to this case, but this excerpt fits fine in the scope of this conversation paper. Even if there was the usage of pseudonyms, we learn that informed consent is still necessary. It is not a simple case of, as we say in Tagalog, Bato-bato sa

langit ang matamaan --- SAPUL! I kind of feel as if I am leaving this bit needing for more
input, but frankly I would like to hear what my classmates think.

Until August
8

Ethical and methodological conflicts in sexuality research Issues Med Ethics.2001 Jan-Mar;9(1) Leena Abraham This essay is based on issues relating to a study of sexuality among low-income college students in Mumbai. Low-income students were made the focus because: existing urban studies are on English speaking students in 'elite' colleges; sex education programmes had not really started in 'non-elite' colleges, and these students' behaviour could be affected by their lack of resources. Data were collected during 1996-1998, from four colleges catering to low income students in the city. Boys and girls in the eleventh standard in high school and in third year undergraduate college were interviewed. In the first phase, qualitative data were gathered using 10 focus group discussions and interviews with 87 students. This was used to design a survey which used a self-administered questionnaire. A total of 966 students participated in the survey. A novice in sexuality research may not seriously consider the ethical dimensions of such an enquiry. S/he is usually more concerned about conceptualising the study, choosing the appropriate methodology, and working out the logistics involved in executing the study. The question that haunts the researcher is: "Will people talk about their sexual experiences, especially about taboos such as premarital sex?" Having no prior experience in such research, I too was troubled by this question when starting off, but I was not unduly worried because sexual experiences were only one part of my study which was meant to explore a range of issues related to sexuality- sexual socialisation, knowledge and attitudes to sex, peer socialisation, erotic exposure and so on. I reassured myself that if people did not share their sexual experiences with me, I still would have a lot of useful data to analyse. Besides, the refusal to respond tells you whether a group is willing to disclose personal information. It can also tell us the strengths and weaknesses of methodologies for sexuality research. A review of existing sexual behaviour studies showed that a percentage of young people report premarital sex and that more young men report pre-marital sex than young women. Some authors attributed this gender difference to over-reporting by boys and under-reporting by girls, but did not state the evidence for this belief. They apparently assumed that girls refrained from admitting pre-marital sex, fearing the possible negative consequences of such a disclosure. On the basis of my study, I now believe that fewer girls than boys actually engage in pre-marital sex, in order to avoid various negative consequences: a 'bad name' for themselves and their families, the possibility of future marital discord and domestic violence, and so on. While one must be aware of the possibility of over-reporting and underreporting, it may be best to base one's beliefs on sufficient evidence. At the beginning of the study, therefore, I was mainly concerned about the methodological aspects of gathering reliable data, and how to gain students' confidence and trust. However, I was not fully prepared for the consequences of people disclosing their personal experiences. While methodological aspects of the research were considered in detail, the ethical aspects were considered only briefly. This has changed in the last five years. Sexuality research has tackled many methodological issues and is now discussing the ethical dimensions more seriously. Our experiences may be useful to ongoing discussions. The research team's concerns Our first concern was to deal with the methodological and ethical problems at our end: Are we comfortable asking those questions? Is our language appropriate? What are our prejudices? Are we sensitive to young respondents' anxieties? How much should we probe into their lives? Working on these was a protracted exercise. The research team consisted of young men and women just out of post-graduate or undergraduate courses - almost a sub-sample of our study sample, similarly biased and ill informed on sex and sexuality. But they were very enthusiastic and, above all, well informed about the social and cultural milieu in which the study was located. Prior to data collection, we had meetings on the objectives, methodologies and

logistics of the study. We spent considerable time talking about sex and sexuality, clarifying misconceptions and filling in information gaps. We also held a two-day workshop on conducting group discussions, interview techniques and note taking and transcribing. The only ethical issue that the workshop resource people discussed was to 'respect' and be 'sensitive' to the respondent's views. More detailed discussion on ethical issues should have been an integral part of that workshop. The returns of research Although ethical issues were not at the forefront of our research concerns, they kept cropping up. During our meetings, research staff raised the question of appropriateness of our research. They perceived it a one-sided relationship in which respondents 'give' and the researchers 'take'. Are we providing them nothing in return? they asked. In the tradition of social science research that I was trained in, researchers did not provide anything in return to respondents. The returns of research were not perceived in terms of their immediate benefits. Benefits accruing from such research would result from a lengthy process: research findings would enhance our understanding of society, which circulates to benefit the whole group. In other words, the job of the researcher is to generate critical 'knowledge' that has some value for society as a whole. Such arguments were not acceptable to my young staff. They raised several questions: Why should people spend their time and put themselves at risk talking to you if you are not going to give them anything in return? Is it morally correct? It is only natural that they expect something from you. Intervention research Looking for a solution to this dilemma, I came across several research protocols prepared by international agencies in the area of health research, advocating what they call 'an intervention component' as part of the study itself. This intervention could be by way of services provided after the completion of the study, or basic services such as health care, counselling, awareness programmes or IEC materials provided during the study itself. Our study was one of four studies on adolescent sexuality in India, funded by Rockefeller Foundation. The others were conducted by agencies already providing services, for whom the studies were to feed into their services, making 'intervention' the overall aim. Our study was to generate understanding that would feed into programmes organised by various agencies, both government and non-government, for youth groups, especially school- or college-based programmes. The 'intervention component' is increasingly becoming part of research conducted outside traditional social science research institutions such as universities and special centres. I believe that this 'new perspective in research' arose in the context of two developments. First, voices were raised against the use of the bulk of research funds on researchers' comforts even as the respondents lived in abject poverty or in stigmatised conditions. Second, as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) became increasingly involved in research, some of them criticised 'ivory tower' research in favour of more humane research that took into account some of respondents' immediate needs. My gut feeling was that this trend of 'built-in intervention' has more to do with the politics of large international funding for research in poor countries. While this approach seems logical and also reflects some ethical concerns, I am not sure of its methodological appropriateness or its resolution of ethical issues. Could it amount to an inducement to participate? And could the anticipation of a reward, however small, alter the nature of data? I am still not sure. Social science research has generally held that data gathering should avoid any form of inducement as it can seriously affect the data. However, researchers are expected to intervene in life-threatening situations and other serious crises involving respondents, their immediate families, or the community, and not remain 'dispassionate observers' to 'document the outcome'. It seems ethically correct to provide services to respondents suffering from reproductive tract infections in a study of reproductive health. But what do we do in studies of voting behaviour, or of employment outcomes? Much social science research is seen as a collaborative effort of the researcher and the researched. It is true that research findings often do not get translated into benefits for the respondents. In many cases, no one pays heed to the

researcher's findings or the respondents' interests, unless the researcher is backed by influential agencies. However, the 'intervention component' may thwart the efforts of small-budget studies carried out by individuals in lesser-known institutions. Is this a way to make 'ivory tower' research redundant, and to promote NGO research? (Of course, I do not hold that all institution-based research is 'relevant' and I do believe that some NGOs are doing 'very useful' research.) The intervention component is particularly characteristic of large projects. By now we also know that conditionalities (hidden or explicit) are attached to large-scale funding, whether for 'development projects' or 'research'. A related question is: how is intervention designed? Do we ask the respondents what they need, or do we decide what to give? What if they really need something which we cannot give? What if there are conflicting demands? What if most respondents are not particularly concerned about the rewards? Such issues in sociological research on sexuality become difficult to resolve, while it may be easier to do in a more specific health research project. After much discussion within the group we decided that we would try 'to do something for the students', based on our financial and other capacities as well as students' demands. In order not to let it influence respondents' decisions to participate, we decided not to announce any intervention but informed those who asked about it. The study's returns may not benefit all respondents equally - or for that matter any of them. However, it may have more significant indirect effects. To illustrate, we were surprised when the principal of one of the colleges was quick to grant permission to conduct the study. Later, he mentioned that an unmarried student who became pregnant had been "dismissed" from the college at the management's behest, an action he felt was "unfair" to the student. He felt sex education could help prevent unwanted pregnancies, but needed concrete findings to convince the management of its need. Here we saw some benefits accruing from our study, perhaps not to the participants specifically but to the students in general. After the study, our efforts have been to communicate the findings to parents at large, educators and other agencies, in the hope that it will benefit young people. One organisation finds the study useful in its programmes for youth in a rural setting. These issues of `benefits and relevance' need to be brought to the centre of social research, particularly because of the blurred boundaries between types of research - market research, action research, intervention research, theoretical research and so on. The agencies and players in these types of research have different agendas and objectives. We tried to meet an obligation to 'pay back' in different ways. Wherever possible, we tried to provide information on specific topics, and specific services to those respondents who asked. We also asked the students if they wanted a programme organised for them, and if so, what the content should be. Some wanted a meeting with an 'outside expert' to answer their personal queries. This was arranged and the students seem to have found it useful. Confidentiality It was not difficult to convince the research staff of the importance of data confidentiality and protecting respondents' identity, but I soon realised that this was not enough. Most research reports only state that 'confidentiality of the data' was assured but do not speak of how they did this. I realised that these young researchers were discussing 'interesting details' with their peers and family members, disclosing the identity of the college. At the same time, college authorities were pressurising them to divulge the names of other colleges where the study was being conducted and the staff felt it was 'okay' to share the information between colleges. 'Leakages' occurred despite many efforts, particularly in the initial stages of the study till the staff became habituated to 'guard it as a secret'. It was also difficult to ensure that trained staff who leave the study for better jobs, continue to maintain confidentiality. Respondents' identities were easier to maintain as we did not ask their names and their interviews were linked only to a code number. However, another problem arose here: after the transcriptions, I needed more information in some cases, but could not go back to gather it. In an exploratory study unanticipated responses come up which need to be followed up.

Informed consent This seemingly straightforward ethical requirement turned out to difficult to implement. One practice suggested for literate populations is to obtain respondents' signatures on informed consent forms. Our research population consisted of highly literate college students (16-22 years), but getting their signatures on consent letters seemed to go against our assurance of protecting their identities. The most convincing way we could assure protection of their identities was by not recording their names anywhere. Instead, informed consent was operationalised as follows: In order to recruit students for focus group discussions, members of the research team addressed classes, informing them about the study's objectives and our organisation. A meeting was announced for those willing to participate in the discussions. On the appointed day, many students did not turn up: the reasons given by those present were that some changed their minds, some were absent, and some were not free. We restated the purpose of research and who we were, and how we would maintain confidentiality. We said if they wished to discontinue, they could do so. We began the group discussions a few days later, by which time some more students had dropped out. Once the group discussions began, the participants stayed on through the multiple sessions conducted with each group. This two-layered recruiting procedure may have helped ensure the ethical requirement of informed consent. But from a sociological angle, I would have been equally interested in talking to those who wished to stay away from the discussions. Such a self-recruitment procedure is methodologically weak as it tends to leave out important groups, compromising the validity of data. The objective of an exploratory study is to arrive at a general understanding of the issue, for which it is important to have as many diverse experiences and representations as possible. Similarly, in individual interviews and in the survey, students were informed of the survey's objectives and nature, the confidentiality of the data gathered and also about us. Their willingness to participate was taken as their consent. However, some of those interviewed did not wish to answer some of the questions and they were not probed. Then, in the self-administered questionnaire, students chose not to respond to some of the questions, and the no response was recorded. On the whole, once they opted to participate the 'no response rate' was low. Looking back, I wonder if our over-enthusiasm to ensure that the students' participation was completely voluntary ('choice' is something which they are not used to in an institutional context) actually provoked some students' curiosity and generated peer pressure leading to their participation. Some students asked to be included in the study as their friends had been interviewed. Does this violate the rule of `informed consent'? There could also have been herd behaviour: "Others are doing it, so I must do it too..." Our understanding is that these young people are not used to being given choices. Once college authorities permit an activity by an external agency, it is expected that students cooperate. Of course, students do subvert authority. Besides, any activity that is not `compulsory' is generally not seen as an important activity by students. Even before we talked about the study, many asked, "Is it compulsory?", and some lost interest when told it was voluntary. The value of `voluntarism' was obviously in conflict with the culture of authoritarianism in our educational institutions. Recently someone asked me how consent was obtained from students under the age of 18. I had not thought about it in such strict legal terms. All were treated equally except that younger (high school) students were given a more detailed explanation. Should we have intervened? There were two instances when girl respondents refused to answer questions of sexual experience in a manner which suggested that they had traumatic experiences. The interviewer respected their 'choice' and merely recorded her observations. Later we wondered whether we should have probed further and at least offered to help them. As a researcher I felt that we should have made efforts to collect more sensitive information. Perhaps neither an institutional setting like a college nor a family setting is a suitable location for such data gathering.

Conclusion Looking back, I feel that important ethical and methodological issues are meshed together especially in areas such as sexuality research. Attempts to protect individual rights may compromise the quality of information, and vice versa. How do we deal with such issues? They cannot be dealt with separately, but should become part of methodological training and debates in social sciences.

Alternate Ethics, or: Telling Lies to Researchers Laura Mara Agustn Research for Sex Work, June 2004, 6-7.

On the subject of ethics in sex work research, we usually think of the insensitivity and careerism of researchers whose interest is in obtaining information they will take credit for. I want to point to another problematic angle: the issue of whether those being researched are honest with researchers. Why, after all, should people who are being treated as objects of curiosity tell the truth? We are all so surrounded by research projects that they seem to be a natural part of life, but what is research for? While often presented as pure advancement of knowledge, research is often integral to peoples jobs, whether they work in government, NGOs or universities, and the audience for whatever they find out is first and foremost whoever paid for the research. Institutional research projects are required to explain the investigators ethical responsibility to the people researched. But the assumption is that once research begins, researchees will cooperate, freely telling researchers what they want to know. Since this side of the research relationship has not usually been given any choice about participating, it has also not been required to agree to an ethical standard of behaviour. Since no universal ethics exists, it is no criticism to say that research subjects simply may not tell (all) the truth to researchers. Sad stories, omissions and outright lies When a person working in an irregular trade is approached by a professional-looking person from the straight world, and is not a paying customer, he or she is naturally viewed with suspicion. In the worst case, the visitor may be working for the police; in the best case, be someone giving out free condoms or needles. Of course, researchers have to find a way to gain access to their subjects, making friends with the head of an NGO or a bar or convincing a doctor of their good intentions, and thus may be introduced as an ally. This goes for those conducting any kind of research using any kind of methodology. But even if the person comes with a good introduction, how does it feel to have him or her move toward you with the intention of asking personal questions? In most cultures, such a situation does not occur naturally. A Nigerian sex worker in a Spanish park once commented on outsiders asking questions:
I dont understand what theyre doing, they dont have anything to offer. The others that come are doctors, they give us medicine, exams. But these want to talk, and I dont have any reason to talk to them.

It has long been recognised that people who are considered victims or deviants are likely to tell members of the mainstream what they believe they want to hear. Given that so much research with sex workers has focused on their personal motivations (wanting to know why they got into sex work, which is assumed to be bad), its not surprising that many make their present circumstances appear to be the fatal or desperate result of a

past event. After all, if we were forced to be what we are now, we cannot be blamed for it. One Dominican woman told me:
All those social worker types feel sorry for me. They dont want to hear that I prefer to do this work, so I tell them I have no choice. They want to hear that I was forced to do this, so thats what I tell them. Anyway, I was, because my family was poor.

Ethics or self-protection? There are other reasons to tell sad stories. When behind the research project sex workers know that a certain health-care service may be at stake, or that only if they can present convincingly as victims will they get help, it is not surprising if they tell stories that serve their own interests. Or, in the case of research for health promotion, workers may not want to talk about their own failures to use condoms or their own getting drunk who does, after all? Or, in the case of research on trafficking, sex workers may not want to admit they thought boyfriends really cared about them, when it turned out they were only using them, or admit they paid people to concoct false travel documents for them. It really doesnt matter whether their answers will be treated confidentially, because they simply may not want to talk about such intimate matters. To put it another way, keeping secrets may help sex workers gain independence or control over projects to help them. Talking about sexual risks with people who think its wrong to ever take any risks may cause them to treat you as irresponsible. Admitting the desire to stay in sex work after getting out of the clutches of abusers can render you ineligible for victim-protection programmes. The best policy may be to omit certain information from responses or to put on the expected front. There are deeper reasons to keep personal secrets, too:
To be able to hold back some information about oneself or to channel it and thus influence how one is seen by others gives power. . . To have no capacity for secrecy is to be out of control over how others see one; it leaves one open to coercion. (Bok 1984: 20)

But there are also researchers who second-guess peoples responses. Negre i Rigol tells about an interview with Leonor, who presents her own entrance into sex work as a rational choice. When she starts to talk about other girls who were raped and coerced, the interviewers realise perfectly that Leonor is telling them about her own life for the first time (Negre 1988: 39). Here interviewers are presented as omniscient, capable of seeing through lies. If Leonor saw this interpretation of her words, she might decide not to talk with interviewers any more. Ways around the problem? No formula exists for avoiding these problems. Some people believe that using insiders to contact the target group is the solutionpeople who have shared the same life of those under research. It sounds better, having a sex worker do the interviewing of other sex workers, but other differences between insiders can be more important than whether they have worked or notclass, colour, nationality. A Colombian woman once commented to me on a Colombian peer interviewer:
I wouldnt tell her anything, shes from Cali. You know how those women are.

One researcher I know says she is perfectly aware that sometimes people are lying (or at least hiding something), and she tries to find out the truth by going back to the same point on different occasions to see if the cloudiness clears up. Or, she may check one persons story against anothers to see if they coincide. To her, its a question of instinct:
Its not so different from daily life, you ask yourself every day if people are telling you the truth and you acquire mechanisms for selecting information.

Researchers need to understand that if their access to those researched comes from a particular agency then informants may be less than candid about that agency, or if access comes from a friend of a friend, who is the madam of a club, then those that work for the madam will probably not share their complaints about her with you. The best way to avoid being lied to is to spend long amounts of time with the people under research. Participant observation for at least a year is a standard technique of anthropological ethnography:
. . . my practice of noting conversations greatly helped me to establish how clients and sex workers lied to me about factual matters. I found that initially people lied to me considerably concerning where they lived. For a considerable amount of time Rita, one of my main informants, lied to me about her role as a madam. . . It would seem that Rita did not want me to know that she was charging the other sex workers to use the flat because she did not want me to think that she exploited them. (Hart 1998: 67)

Beyond truth Is a failure to tell the truth to researchers unethical? Only if you believe that some universal standard of ethics exists and that it is better to be ethical than not. The version of ethics that is usually referred to in research is, like so much else, a thoroughly western one. But we should remember that other ethics exist and refer to values that make sense within particular cultures and subcultures. And, in fact, keeping secrets can be seen as another system of ethics (Bok 1984). One of my favourite pieces of research was carried out in New York crack houses. The tape-recorded conversations of Puerto Rican crack dealers leave no doubt about their version of ethics: selling drugs, ripping people off and even rape come across as logical within their extremely disadvantaged world system (Bourgois 1995). At the same time, dealers own positive values, such as the search for respect, come across, too. Of course, do we know that they told the truth to the researcher? We can only guess.

Bok, Sissela. 1984. Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bourgois, Philip. 1995. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hart, Angie. 1999. Buying and Selling Power: Anthropological Reflections on Prostitution in Spain. Boulder [Colorado]: Westview Press. Negre i Rigol, Pere. 1988. La prostitucin popular: Relatos de vida. Barcelona: Fundaci Caixa.

University investigates ethics of sex researcher - Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/nov/24/20031124-103155-...

You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.

Comments (0) Share Tweet Email Print MORE Text Size: + / 0

By The Washington Times Monday, November 24, 2003 Northwestern University is investigating charges of ethics violations by a psychology professor whose federally funded research has been criticized by House Republicans. Professor J. Michael Bailey has been accused of failing to "obtain the informed consent of research subjects" for his book about transsexuality, "The Man Who Would Be Queen." The university is "proceeding with a full investigation" of Mr. Bailey, C. Bradley Moore, Northwestern's vice president for research, wrote in a Nov. 12 letter to Anjelica Kieltyka. Ms. Kieltyka complained to the university that the professor used her and others as "guinea pigs" for his research and described them without their consent in his book. A former Northwestern psychology student who was born male, Ms. Kieltyka had sex-change surgery in 1991 and now describes herself as a lesbian. Ms. Kieltyka said Mr. Bailey's book describes her, using the pseudonym "Cher," as the "poster child" for one of his theories about transsexuality. Neither Mr. Bailey nor Northwestern officials have made any public statement about the ethics investigation, and did not respond yesterday to requests for comment. In December, Rep. Dave Weldon, Florida Republican, condemned as "disgusting" Mr. Bailey's study of women's sexual arousal that received a $147,000 grant from a division of the National Institutes of Health. Women were paid as much as $75 each to "watch a series of commercially available film clips, some of which will be sexually explicit, while we monitor your body's sexual arousal," according to a flier seeking volunteers. Mr. Weldon and other House Republicans have accused NIH of diverting taxpayer dollars away from potentially life-saving research to pay for such sex studies. In July, the House narrowly rejected an amendment by Rep. Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania Republican,

1 of 2

7/14/2012 10:53 PM

University investigates ethics of sex researcher - Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/nov/24/20031124-103155-...

that would have blocked NIH funding for four sex research projects. Mr. Toomey could not be reached yesterday for comment on Northwestern's ethics investigation of Mr. Bailey. Ms. Kieltyka said she met Mr. Bailey while working in the 1990s as an advocate for individuals seeking sex-change treatment. She said Mr. Bailey agreed to interview several Chicago-area transsexuals and help them qualify for sex-change surgery (two letters of approval from psychiatrists or clinical psychologists are required prior to surgery). But Ms. Kieltyka said Mr. Bailey did not tell the women they would be featured in his book. "We didn't even know we were guinea pigs," Ms. Kieltyka told the Daily Northwestern, the university's newspaper. Another of Mr. Bailey's subjects, who remains anonymous, wrote in a July letter to the university that when the professor interviewed her in 1998, her "sole purpose of meeting with Dr. Bailey was to obtain the most important [approval] letter for my [sex-change] surgery," and was never aware that the professor intended to use her as a research subject. "Bailey is an embarrassment to the entire field of academic psychology," said Lynn Conway, a computer scientist and University of Michigan professor who helped initiate the investigation of Mr. Bailey's work. Ms. Conway, who underwent sex-change surgery in 1968, called Mr. Bailey "the Milli Vanilli of sex research."

2 of 2

7/14/2012 10:53 PM

Anjelica Kieltyka Responds to Bailey's Book

As told to and reported by Lynn Conway
Copyright 2003-2004, by Lynn Conway and Anjelica Kieltyka All rights reserved

FOREWARD by Lynn Conway I first met Anjelica Kieltyka by e-mail, on May 4, 2003. Whilst in the midst of the Bailey book controversy, she wrote to me and introduced herself as the woman named "Cher" in Bailey's book. In her remarkable e-mail, she revealed her angst at being used as the "poster-child for autogynephilia" which she insists is an incorrect representation of her own true identity as a lesbian transsexual woman. Anjelica and I began a series of e-mails and then telephone interviews, and she has agreed to help make her story, her views and her writings available openly to the community through this webpage. I will be helping her via interviews, interview reports, her photos and her own writings to present "her side to the story" via this page and my "Bailey Investigation Page". Since then we've followed up by my visiting her in Chicago, and I also met there with several of the other young trans women whom she has been mentoring and whom Bailey used as research subjects. We'll open this page by simply displaying two of Angelica's early e-mails to me, along with some photos of her. (Note that the "...."'s in these e-mails are Anjelica's own style of streaming thoughts together, and do not represent selective quoting). These items in themselves should give the community deep pause for thought about Bailey's theories and about how they were generated. For more about Anjelica's response to Bailey's book, see the links below and stay tuned for more information in the "breaking news" as time goes by. Also see "Anjelica Kieltyka's art and writings" on Andrea James website, where Andrea explains among other things that: "Anjelica contacted Bailey in the mid-1990s after seeing him on television talking about transsexualism. She hoped to explain how she viewed her own life trajectory and to share her theories about gender variance with someone she saw as a respected authority. This led to a long-standing relationship where Anjelica would get further validation and attention by performing in front of Bailey's classes on sexuality. Anjelica would in turn provide Bailey with access to young transwomen she was mentoring, as well as older transgenderists she knew through a local support group. Bailey would then see these women in a clinical or lab setting, and he would socialize with the young, attractive ones at nightclubs. Anjelica has since filed a formal complaint with Northwestern University for the inaccurate and lurid misuse of her biographical information in that book. She has also reported that Bailey admitted to fabricating a key final scene in his book."

Date: Sun, 04 From: Charlotte Anjelica Subject: Bailey, Cher and me

May Kieltyka

2003

11:06:15 -0500 <c-kieltyka@northwestern.edu>

Dear Lynn, I am the Anjelica Kieltyka that Mike Bailey acknowledges in his book's preface as "[teaching] me a great deal by being honest and open"......I am also "Cher Mondovi" of whom he writes : " Finally, I would never have thought of this book without Leslie Ryan and Cher Mondovi, both courageous women, in their own, different ways." .....It is unfortunate that I could not teach him better or that he failed to see and understand what I showed him. I had introduced myself to him almost 10 years ago and have since then, continued to work with him, argue with him, learn from him, teach him, fail to teach him, respect him (still do-in spite of our disagreements) and lecture in his class room ( often in rebuttal to him, Blanchard and Lawrence and their misinterpretation of fetish behavior that they coined "autogynephilia"). It is most unfortunate that he used me and my case history as the "poster child for autogynephilia"...using all of my case study (under the pseudonym of "Cher") to support his chapters on "autogynephiliacs"... Unfortunate because here was an opportunity to break away from, rather then give further support to a dead "Freudian" mixture of onanism, narcissism and paraphilic transvestite fetishism. I refused to join this bandwagon of Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence, to which I would also add Zucker and Bradley of the Clarke Institute. Upon seeing an early draft on the chapters about transsexuals, (about 2 years ago !! ) I tried even then to show him that he was misinterpreting my sexual behavior/experiences/case history and as a last resort requested that if he was going to use it in this autogynephilic context, to change my name....What is unfortunate in one respect, is quite fortunate in another..... Just as John Money's "pet" case study grew up to bite him in the ass , my case study as "Cher" , as the linch-pin ("lynch"-pin..."give him enough rope and he'll hang himself") or cornerstone in this "autogynephilic" house of cards will have a similar result when it is pulled out from this flimsy construct of theirs....It would take the likes of Dr. Milton Diamond (ironically, the same psychologist who revealed the truth behind the classic Money case.) or someone of equal credentials to work with me .....I would be as open with them as I had been with Dr. Bailey.....I would be more then happy to be part of any panel discussion, lecture , etc. that would lead to a better understanding of transsexuals, especially those that are " Lesbians who were trapped in men's bodies" ....Please call me or e-mail me your phone number and I'll call you...I talk better then I type....I have included a few of my photograghs/self portraits.... Sincerely yours, Charlotte Anjelica Kieltyka, aka. Cher...........P.S. " I'm just a fool whose intentions are good ....O Lord, Please don't let me be misunderstood "......Eric Burden of " The Animals" Charlotte Northwestern University, c-kieltyka@northwestern.edu Anjelica Evanston, Kieltyka USA

IL.

Source: LYNN CONWAYS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT INTO THE PUBLICATION OF J. MICHAEL BAILEYS BOOK ON TRANSSEXUALISM BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Anjelica.html

Anjelica Kieltyka files a formal complaint with the Vice-President of Research of Northwestern University regarding the research conduct of J. Michael Bailey July 3, 2003
July 3, 2003 C. Bradley Moore, Office of the Northwestern Rebecca Crown 633 Evanston, Illinois 60208-1108 Dear Dr. Moore: I wish to file a formal complaint regarding the research conduct of Professor J. Michael Bailey. I find that I was a participant in a research study without being informed of that status. Dr. Bailey has recently published a book, The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (2003), in which he describes results of his research. The publisher, the Joseph Henry Press of the National Academies, describes the work as "based on his original research". The book contains numerous observations and reports of interviews with me. I am the Anjelica Kieltyka he acknowledges "...introduced me to the Chicago transsexual community and taught me a great deal by being honest and open." (p.xii). More importantly, under the pseudonym of "Cher", I was his main contact with transexual women, and recruited five out of six of his (transexual) research subjects in his "recent research" (p. 177). "...most of the homosexual transsexuals I have met, I met through Cher", who is the other type of transsexual (p. 177). I was the only one labeled autogynephilic: "...Cher is autogynephilic" (p. 147). At the time I was unaware that I or they were subjects of a research study, and I did not receive, nor was I asked to sign, an informed consent document. The fact is I had brought these five young Latina Transexual women to Dr. Bailey for the sole purpose of obtaining letters of approval for Sex Reassignment Surgery, (SRS), as required by the Standards of Care (SOC) of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA). I initiated these interviews with Dr. Bailey over a period of years, approximately 1994 - 1998. I was acting within my role as a Transexual Women's Advocate, and as such had accompanied many of these and other transexual women to Cook County Hospital, Howard Brown Health Center and Horizon Community Services. Vice Vice Center, Clark President President for for Room Research Research University 2-223 Street

At no time were any of us aware of our status with Dr. Bailey as research subjects, nor were any of us asked to provide written informed consent. My role as Transexual Women's Advocate, (my major connection with these women other then friend and mentor) was never mentioned by Bailey in his book. He also failed to mention his major role as doctorate level (SRS)letter provider, as outlined by the HBIGDA Standards of Care. He implies, throughout the book, that he is well versed in all the aspects of transexual diagnosis and sex-reassignment procedures, yet fails to mention anywhere in the book the major part he played in those procedures. His role in providing the (SRS) letters was the impetus for me to bring the transexual women in for interviews, not as a recruiter for research subjects. Although I was a Northwestern student at that time, I am not an academic, and did not realize until recently that your office has an interest in the protection of human subjects. I was unaware at the time of my protections, and I am unhappy and most concerned with the presumptions and misinterpretations he has made of my life in his book. My "case history" was so intrinsic to the value of the book that a whole chapter was devoted to it (pp. 145-156). Many of my opinions, observations and insights concerning the other transsexual women research subjects appear throughout the remainder of the book. Because of the grave import and consequences his misuse of my life might have on other transexual women, when first shown an early draft of the book he was writing, (that I thought was journalistic in nature), based on interviews with me and the other (SRS) candidates, I repeatedly requested he reconsider the conclusions he arrived at. I considered these to be profound misinterpretations and a major misunderstanding of what I had told him in our interviews. What little information I got from the draft about the other transexual women's interviews, I also deemed inaccurate and told him so. He refused to change anything except to provide me with a pseudonym. My only recourse, he implied, was "to agree to disagree" about everything else, and he then wrote about me as "Cher". More recently in 2001, I participated in a laboratory study conducted by Dr. Bailey, and at that time I did sign a consent form. That was the first time I was informed that I was participating in a research study and was asked by Dr. Bailey to sign a consent form. Because I was still a transexual advocate, with my connections with the broader "trans-community", I only then knowingly recruited transexual research subjects and got paid for doing so. I ask that there be a formal investigation into Dr. Bailey's conduct in the research reported in his book. If, as I expect, he is found to be in violation of University and federal policies, I expect the University to respond appropriately. I also would like a prompt response to my complaint. If that is not forthcoming, I shall initiate a formal complaint with the Office of Human Research Protection and consider both civil and criminal actions. Sincerely,

C. Anjelica Kieltyka

C. Anjelica Kieltyka cc. Henry Bienen, President Lawrence B. Dumas, Provost

Source: LYNN CONWAYS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT INTO THE PUBLICATION OF J. MICHAEL BAILEYS BOOK ON TRANSSEXUALISM BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Anjelica/Complaint.html

Note concerning the credibility of case reference: Lynn Conway is a computer scientist, an electrical engineer, and an inventor. She is a research manager and engineering educator who is an activist for the transgender community. Conway is also a transsexual.

REFERENCES

Print Material Abraham, Leena, Ethical and Methodological Conflicts in Sexuality Research, in Issues Med Ethics.2001 Jan-Mar;9(1), Agustin, Laura Maria, Alternate Ethics, or: Telling Lies to Researchers, in Research for Sex Work, June 2004, 6-7. Bok, Sissela, Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Webpages LYNN CONWAYS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT INTO THE PUBLICATION OF J. MICHAEL BAILEYS BOOK ON TRANSSEXUALISM BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Anjelica Kieltyka Responds to Baileys Book on Transsexualism by the National Academies http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Anjelica.html accessed 18 July 2012 at 0130 HRS. Anjelica Kieltyka Files Formal Complaint to the Vice-President of Research of Northwestern University Regarding the Research Conduct of J. Michael Bailey http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Anjelica/Complaint.html accessed 18 July 2012 at 0135 HRS.

Washington Times, University Investigates Ethics of Sex Researcher, 24 November 2003. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/nov/24/20031124-103155-... Accessed on 07/14/2012 at 2253 HRS.