Confidentiality in handling research projects is something which is accepted as the norm among research providers. Virtually everyone who has spent any time in conducting projects has found himself (herself) approached by an individual who has caught wind of a study and would like to talk about it with the project director. Or it might be the individual who is contemplating employing you to moderate focus groups and would like to hear portions of a real, live focus group that you have done for someone else on the same subject.

Usually, these requests are rather easy to handle because they almost always come from a person who has had little experience with research and doesn't understand the nature of the confidentiality agreement between the provider and the buyer. I found that the easiest way to handle the situation was to tell the inquirer that the information belonged exclusively to the buyer and I could not release anything about it without the buyer's permission. Furthermore, I would say that I was certain the buyer did not want any information released.

Occasionally, a situation will arise which is not as easy to resolve. There are a few more shades of gray and as a provider it is more difficult to brush the inquirer off as easily. Although the rule of confidentiality still applies, the automatic "no comment" response is more difficult to come by.

One client, a multi-billion dollar corporation, marketed a product which was alleged to be a carcinogen. This information was reported in the general media although the product was not sold in the consumer marketplace. There was, for a period of two or three weeks, speculation as to whether the product would have to be recalled from the market. Then, as so often happens, the issue disappeared from the pages of the newspapers.

Suspected products

Shortly thereafter, our research organization was contracted to conduct a telephone survey among individuals within the industry in which the suspected product was used. The objective of the study was to determine the awareness by individuals within the industry regarding suspected products. I was not directly involved in the conduct of the study but was aware our organization had obtained the contract for the study.

Approximately six weeks after the study was completed, I received a message that the executive vice president of the aforementioned corporation had called to complain that our research division had conducted a study which included specific questions relating to the suspected product and suggested to the respondents that this product was a carcinogen. The information had been forwarded to him from his West Coast sales office. They had received the information from one of their customers who claimed to have been contacted by our organization and been questioned in this manner.

Before returning the call, I contacted our account executive who had been responsible for obtaining more information regarding the study, and in particular, the wording of the questionnaire. As I had suspected, nowhere in the questionnaire did we mention the names of any specific products. Our interviewers, of course, were not aware of the situation and there was no indication on any of the questionnaires that any problems had occurred during the interviews.

No misleading data

After reviewing the situation I returned the executive vice president's call. I explained that I had reviewed his complaint and was confident that the information he had received was incorrect. I told him further that even though I was not in a position to verify whether or not we had conducted a survey along the subject lines he discussed, I could assure him that, as a research organization, we would not involve ourselves in a project where we would provide misleading information in order to promote certain issues or so-called "facts".

The executive said he could not understand why I would not give him more information. He wanted to see a copy of the questionnaire, the results, and also know the name of the study's sponsor. I responded as politely as possible but he was persistent. I felt I had gone as far as I could in placating him and could provide no more information without jeopardizing the confidentiality agreement we had with the company.

The conversation ended without any further headway on my part to convince the executive vice president I could go no further. He was obviously frustrated in his attempt to gain additional information. At this point I decided to approach the client. I explained what had occurred and asked him to reaffirm his refusal to have us provide any additional information. He did so immediately.

Legal and ethical

A few days later, the executive vice president and I had another conversation. Nothing further occurred other than my attempt again to convince him that I had provided all of the information I could or would. The discussion ended with little progress on my part in getting him to understand our position both legally and ethically.

What made this particular instance more difficult for me was knowing that the executive vice president's company had, in fact, paid for the study. Their public relations firm had contracted with us at the behest of the company's public relations department. They had not notified their top management of the study beforehand and at the time of my conversations with the executive vice president, they had not yet delivered the results which were to be part of a major internal presentation.

Controversy resolved

There was a happy ending. After the public relations department had made their presentation, I was again contacted by the executive vice president. He began the conversation by telling me that he had learned the name of the study's sponsor and that he gave our organization a lot of credit for standing up to his implied threats of loss of future business in not disclosing the information he requested. I told him that I was confident other research providers would have acted similarly and that I was thankful the controversy had been resolved.