Inappropriate Use of Surveys and Ethical Design
Reflective Piece (Reflective Activity 2)

What?

This reflective activity asked me to examine the inappropriate use of surveys, using the Cambridge Analytica case as a high profile example, and to consider how similar ethical issues appear in more ordinary survey practices. Rather than focusing only on large scale data misuse, I chose to critique a real workplace self assessment questionnaire used by the Sustainable Economies Law Center. The aim was to analyse how survey design choices can influence responses, shape behaviour, and raise ethical concerns even when the stated purpose is developmental rather than exploitative.

In my submission, I examined the questionnaire’s structure, wording, rating scales, anonymity provisions, and overall respondent burden. I drew on established survey methodology literature to identify specific weaknesses, such as long and priming introductions, inconsistent scale direction, double barrelled questions, and unclear boundaries around confidentiality. I also considered how these design choices could affect candour, data quality, and trust within the organisation, particularly when sensitive topics like stress, workload, and wellbeing are involved.

So what?

Working through this task made me reflect on how easy it is to overlook ethical issues in surveys when intentions appear positive. Unlike the Cambridge Analytica case, where misuse was deliberate and commercially motivated, this questionnaire was designed for reflection and development. Yet analysing it closely showed that ethical risk does not only come from malicious actors. It can also emerge from poor design, unclear communication, or a lack of awareness about how people actually experience surveys.

One of the most important realisations for me was how power and visibility affect honesty. Asking people to reflect on stress, performance, and wellbeing while requiring them to identify themselves and storing responses in a shared folder creates pressure, even if no harm is intended. This made the link to Cambridge Analytica clearer for me. In both cases, individuals are encouraged to share personal information without fully appreciating how it may be interpreted, reused, or influence decisions about them. The scale and stakes differ, but the ethical principle is the same, trust can be quietly undermined.

Now what?

Going forward, this activity will shape how I approach surveys and questionnaires in both academic and professional contexts. I am now far more attentive to how questions are framed, how much effort is demanded from respondents, and whether anonymity and purpose are genuinely clear rather than implied. I am also more cautious about assuming that transparency alone is enough. Clear boundaries around access, use, and consequences matter just as much.

This reflection reinforced that ethical survey practice is not only about avoiding obvious misuse of data. It is about respecting participants’ time, emotional safety, and expectations. Whether a survey is used for research, assessment, or internal development, the same responsibilities apply. By paying attention to design details and power dynamics early, it is possible to avoid the kinds of harm, mistrust, and backlash seen in cases like Cambridge Analytica, even on a much smaller scale. This has made me more confident in questioning survey practices that appear harmless on the surface but raise ethical concerns when examined more closely.

References

• Confessore, N. (2018) ‘Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The scandal and the fallout’, The New York Times.
• Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D. and Christian, L.M. (2014) Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Menold, N. (2018) ‘Design aspects of rating scales in questionnaires’, Mathematical Population Studies, 25(2), pp. 63–65.
• Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J. and Rasinski, K. (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.