Informed Consent

The chapter begins by illustrating the reasons for the success of informed consent and ethical committees in many countries of the world. It briefly describes (a) the historical, political and economic factors which explain the spread of these practices; (b) the philosophical premises on which they rest; (c) the consequences that their diffusion entails for the work of social scientists (particularly for those who work with interviews). It also seeks to show that, whilst it is true that the institution of informed consent has by now spread throughout the world, it is not applied in the same way everywhere; and not everywhere does it have the same meaning. In Italy, for example, it is largely a procedural ‘fiction’ in the fields of both social research and clinical practice; a ‘myth’ to which lip service is paid but which is completely ignored in practice.
The chapter then shows (drawing on a survey of a large number of empirical studies) the numerous complications that arise when informed consent is applied more rigidly (risks of bureaucratization, distortion in the complex relationships between researchers and participants in the research, researcher deresponsibilization, increased objective difficulties in bringing the research to conclusion, etc.) and the possible alternatives that may be envisaged. The chapter’s central argument is that an approach centred on the active interview and on empowerment requires strong investment in the ethics of research. Yet the procedural, individualistic, deontological view of informed consent rarely satisfies this need. Throughout the chapter, an attempt is made to adopt a comparative perspective which takes account of the great diversity among the cultural settings in which social research is today conducted.