Marketing Research: Privacy of the Respondent - Case Study Analysis

This assignment delves into a marketing research case study focusing on the ethical implications of respondent privacy. It examines the moral obligations of researchers towards both clients and participants, particularly concerning the disclosure of sensitive information. The paper explores the potential detrimental effects of breaching confidentiality, such as loss of trust and damage to the firm's reputation. It then proposes feasible alternatives for resolving conflicts, including establishing clear policies and seeking alternative solutions that protect both parties' interests. The assignment concludes by suggesting how the involved parties, Elspeth and Franklin, should ultimately resolve the issue, emphasizing the importance of balancing client needs with ethical responsibilities and participant privacy, potentially through internal investigations or obtaining consent before sharing information. The paper references relevant academic sources to support its arguments.

Running head: MARKETING RESEARCH (PRIVACY OF THE RESPONDENT)
MARKETING RESEARCH (PRIVACY OF THE RESPONDENT)
Name of the Student
Name of the Course
Course number
Name of the Instructor
Date

1MARKETING RESEARCH (PRIVACY OF THE RESPONDENT)
Question 1. What are Elspeth's moral obligations to Peggy? To the client?
The research specialist of a firm that deals with the marketing researches has several
moral obligations towards the clients who choose to volunteer in the study and other
researches. The companies share the information of their clients with their partners and their
affiliates (Harwood, Turnock & Ashleigh, 2014). This requires the customer to opt out of the
condition if he or she does not want to get involved into the issues. It is seen at times that the
companies do sell the information of their clients to the other companies in the market. This
is unethical on the part of the concerned company that is conducting the survey to pass on
information about their clients without their knowledge (Shely, 2014). These unauthorized
disclosures of information may prove to be roots for problematic conditions in the future
activities of the company.
In this particular case study, it is seen that the participants of the focus group had been
informed that the client for whom the study was being conducted would have access only to
the first names of the participants (Thomas, 1992). Thus, revealing their full name and other
credentials would be considered to be a breach of the confidentiality of the focus group
participant. This would be considered to be an unethical practice on the part of the researcher.
The client was sincere in the its intentions of avoiding the circumstances that one of the
participants of the focus group, Peggy had mentioned during the session that was conducted
on the group.
Question 2. What detrimental effects could result from providing Peggy's last name to
the client?
A number of detrimental effects may arise if the associate research specialist of the
marketing research firm that had been hired by a law firm revealed the full name of the
participant of the focus group on which the study had been conducted. Firstly, it would have

2MARKETING RESEARCH (PRIVACY OF THE RESPONDENT)
resulted in the condition of a breach in the agreement between the focus group participant and
the marketing research firm. The firm had revealed to the participants of the focus group that
they would not reveal the information regarding the participants to their client. The
participants however had a knowledge on the fact that they were being observed by the client
as well as the members of the research firm.
The project coordinator of the marketing research firm, Franklin however felt that the
client concern may have been sincere. The client might have actually wanted to improve their
services in order to avoid the complains like the one that was put forward by Peggy, a
participant in the focus group on which the study was conducted. In spite of all these
possibilities, the revelation of the full name of the participant may lead to the breach of
confidentiality on the part of the marketing research firm. The breaches in the confidentiality
of the participant may lead to the loss of the goodwill of the concerned company, which may
in turn result in the loss of clients of the marketing research firm.
Question 3. What are some feasible alternatives Elspeth and Franklin should consider?
The confidentiality breach may be avoided by setting some policies that the concerned
company should follow. It may not be possible to follow a written code of conduct on a
regular basis, but the company should establish some principles that would help them to sail
through the situations where there may be chances of having a dilemma on the proper course
of action (Petrova, Dewing & Camilleri, 2016). There are two ways to deal with a case where
the requested action of a supervisor may pose an ethical problem to the company. The
concerned person may in that case choose either to refuse the request or to comply with it
(Kaiser, 2012). The person may also choose to search for an alternate way to deal with the
request keeping in mind the requests of both the parties (Griffith, 2015).

3MARKETING RESEARCH (PRIVACY OF THE RESPONDENT)
There may be some feasible alternative that may be considered by the associate
research specialist, Elspeth and the project coordinator, Franklin who was the immediate
supervisor of the research specialist. In order to maintain the confidentiality in the case of this
participant of the focus group, Peggy, the company may ask the law firm to conduct an
internal survey on the case that Peggy had mentioned so as to confirm the truthfulness of the
statement. The marketing analysis firm may refuse to share the information of the participant
citing the fact that it might result in the breach of the confidentiality that the firm had
promised to the participants.
Question 4. How should Elspeth and Franklin ultimately resolve this issue?
In order to resolve this issue, Elspeth and Franklin may adopt the ways that have been
discussed above. They may either accept the demands of the law firm and provide them with
the details of the focus group study participant, Peggy. This may lead to the breach of
confidentiality on the part of the marketing research firm towards Peggy. The firm may on
the other hand reject the request that was made by the law firm. This may lead to the loss of a
client for the company but the company will remain true to the ethical practices (Ahmad,
Bosua & Scheepers, 2014).
The only way out keeping in mind the loyalty towards both the client, in this case the
law firm, and the respondent, in this case the participant of the focus group study, the
marketing firm may suggest the law firm to conduct an internal enquiry regarding the case
regarding which the participant had complained. This would help the marketing firm retain
the client. This step will also help the marketing firm retain its goodwill by maintaining the
ethical standards of the company (Dolgoff, Harrington & Loewenberg, 2012). Elspeth and
Franklin may try to talk to the concerned participant and ask for her permission to divulge her
details to the law firm in order to help them in their internal survey and thereby help them to

4MARKETING RESEARCH (PRIVACY OF THE RESPONDENT)
improve their services towards their own clients. This would help the marketing firm remain
ethical in their dealings with both the law firm as well as the participant in the focus group
study.

5MARKETING RESEARCH (PRIVACY OF THE RESPONDENT)
References
Ahmad, A., Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2014). Protecting organizational competitive
advantage: A knowledge leakage perspective. Computers & Security, 42, 27-39.
Dolgoff, R., Harrington, D., & Loewenberg, F. M. (2012). Brooks/Cole Empowerment
Series: Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice. Cengage Learning.
Griffith, R. (2015). Understanding the Code: scope of the duty of confidentiality. British
journal of community nursing, 20(6).
Harwood, I. A., Turnock, S. R., & Ashleigh, M. J. (2014). When bubbles burst: mimetic
insights into minimising confidentiality breaches. European Management
Journal, 32(1), 84-90.
Kaiser, K. (2012). Protecting confidentiality. The Sage handbook of interview research, 457-
464.
Petrova, E., Dewing, J., & Camilleri, M. (2016). Confidentiality in participatory research:
Challenges from one study. Nursing ethics, 23(4), 442-454.
Shely, L. C. (2014). Confidentiality in the IT Age. Fam. Advoc., 37, 38.
Thomas, J. (1992). Marketing Research (Respondent Privacy). Claiborne Robins School Of
Business, University Of Richmond.