Informed consent requires that research staff and participants should be given appropriate (a) information about the research (b) in a comprehensible manner (c) without duress or inappropriate inducement. Show The information should include: the research procedure, the purposes, risks and anticipated benefits, alternative procedures (where therapy is involved), and a statement offering the participant the opportunity to ask questions and to withdraw at any time from the research. Where a person is not receiving treatment but is a pure volunteer, the standard of disclosure may be expected to be higher. The extent and nature of information should be such that persons, knowing that the procedure is neither necessary for their care nor perhaps fully understood, can decide whether they wish to participate in the furthering of knowledge. Even when some direct benefit to them is anticipated, the participants should understand clearly the range of risk and the voluntary nature of participation. Comprehension entails that the manner and context in which information is conveyed is as important as the information itself. For example, presenting information too quickly or in a format that is confusing may adversely affect a participant's ability to make an informed choice. Because a participant's ability to understand is a function of intelligence, rationality, maturity and language, it is necessary to adapt the presentation of the information to the participant’s capacities. Investigators are responsible for ascertaining that the participant has comprehended the information. Special provision may need to be made when comprehension is severely limited – for example, by conditions of immaturity or mental disability (e.g., infants and young children or those with mentally disabilities). Participants must have the opportunity to choose to the extent they are able, whether or not to participate in research. This situation also requires seeking the permission of other parties in order to protect the participants from harm and represent their best interests. Voluntariness requires that a participant make their decision without duress or other undue influence. Coercion occurs when an overt threat of harm is intentionally presented by one person to another in order to obtain compliance. Undue influence, by contrast, occurs through an offer of an excessive, unwarranted, inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to obtain compliance. Also, inducements that would ordinarily be acceptable may become undue influences if the participant is especially vulnerable. Unjustifiable pressures usually occur when persons in positions of authority or commanding influence – especially where possible sanctions are involved – urge a course of action for a participant.
Principles for Research Ethics Although the environment surrounding psychologists and researchers is changing, becoming more open and transparent, people in these roles continue to face many ethical requirements, such as meeting professional, institutional and federal standards when conducting research involving human participants. Here are five principles from the American Psychological Association (APA) to help psychologists and researchers follow an ethical path. 1. Be upfront about intellectual property.Because authorship is such a prevalent part of being a psychology researcher, claiming credit and getting published can be a highly competitive proposition. In addition, contributions from students and other researchers often occur organically and direction can change quickly, which has the potential to lead to the awkward dilemma of attributing credit where credit is due. That’s why the APA recommends that researchers discuss publication credit upfront with students and others. Some people are uncomfortable bringing it up — it’s like talking about money — but if everyone knows the plan and intention from the beginning, disputes are less likely to result as the research progresses. Putting a publication plan in writing is even better because then everyone involved has something to refer to and evaluate throughout the research process. Basic logic is at the core of the APA’s Ethics Code, which stipulates that psychologists and students alike only take credit for work they have actually performed or substantially contributed to. Simply having a high-level institutional position does not garner authorship. The work has to be yours to take credit for it. 2. Be aware of your influence and role.In the field of research and psychology, there is are a lot of opportunities for people in power to play multiple roles, but they need to be cognizant of how that might have adverse effects. For example, a psychologist who recruits his or her students or clients as participants in a research study might not attain the most unbiased and objective results. Or a researcher who serves as both a mentor and a lab supervisor needs to remember not to influence students. If psychologists find themselves in situations where they are playing multiple roles and, in turn, somehow harming others or stunting the research process, they must remedy the situation immediately in compliance with the APA’s Ethics Code. 3. Observe informed-consent rules.The consent process, when followed correctly, allows individuals who participate in research to be fully aware of what the research is for and what their involvement will entail. It reveals everything about the research — from its purpose, risks and benefits to expected duration, incentives and confidentiality parameters. If researchers don’t follow informed-consent rules intentionally because they are gathering spontaneous behavior, for example, they are required to offer a full debriefing afterward, and they should encourage participants to confirm their consent. All researchers should follow informed-consent rules, including avoiding offering excessive incentives, which could coerce participation and derail research efforts. 4. Uphold confidentiality and privacy rights.Confidentiality and privacy are critical in the field of psychology. They offer safety and peace of mind to research participants, allowing researchers to ethically pursue the information they’re after. Researchers need to take the time to explain confidentiality to research participants so they understand what is protected and what protection is limited. It is also in a researcher’s best interest to get to know federal and state laws around privacy rights and his or her specific research endeavor because laws and rights can vary. To uphold confidentiality and privacy rights, researchers should take measures that ensure security, such as storing records in a secure area with limited access, and they should become technologically savvy so that the Internet is not a weak spot with the potential to compromise their participants’ confidentiality. 5. Know and use ethical resources.Researchers have several resources available to them if they have questions about ethics or face ethical dilemmas. The Belmont Report and the APA’s Ethics Code are two reliable, long-standing options that offer general principles and specific guidance for research efforts. Another resource researchers often have but might overlook is their institutional review boards.
There are a number of ethical principles that should be taken into account when performing undergraduate and master's level dissertation research. At the core, these ethical principles stress the need to (a) do good (known as beneficence) and (b) do no harm (known as non-malfeasance). In practice, these ethical principles mean that as a researcher, you need to: (a) obtain informed consent from potential research participants; (b) minimise the risk of harm to participants; (c) protect their anonymity and confidentiality; (d) avoid using deceptive practices; and (e) give participants the right to withdraw from your research. This article discusses these five ethical principles and their practical implications when carrying out dissertation research. When you look at these five basic ethical principles, it may appear obvious that your dissertation should include these. However, there are many instances where it is not possible or desirable to obtain informed consent from research participants. Similarly, there may be instances where you seek permission from participants not to protect their anonymity. More often than not, such choices should reflect the research strategy that you adopt to guide your dissertation. Broadly speaking, your dissertation research should not only aim to do good (i.e., beneficence), but also avoid doing any harm (i.e., non-malfeasance). Whilst ethical requirements in research can vary across countries, these are the basic principles of research ethics. This is important not only for ethical reasons, but also practical ones, since a failure to meet such basic principles may lead to your research being (a) criticised, potentially leading to a lower mark, and/or (b) rejected by your supervisor or Ethics Committee, costing you valuable time. In the sections that follow, we discuss the five of the main practical ethical principles that stem from these basic principles. Each of these basic principles of research ethics is discussed in turn:
Dissertation research should not harm participants. Where there is the possibility that participants could be harmed or put in a position of discomfort, there must be strong justifications for this. Such scenarios will also require (a) additional planning to illustrate how participant harm (or discomfort) will be reduced, (b) informed consent, and (c) detailed debriefing. There are a number of types of harm that participants can be subjected to. These include:
Typically, it is not harm that we need to think about since a researcher does not intentionally go out to cause harm. Rather, it is the risk of harm that you should try to minimise. In order to minimising the risk of harm you should think about:
We discuss each of these ethical principles in the sections that follow, explaining (a) what they mean and (b) instances where they should (and should not) be followed.
One of the foundations of research ethics is the idea of informed consent. Simply put, informed consent means that participants should understand that (a) they are taking part in research and (b) what the research requires of them. Such information may include the purpose of the research, the methods being used, the possible outcomes of the research, as well as associated demands, discomforts, inconveniences and risks that the participants may face. Whilst is it not possible to know exactly what information a potential participant would (or would not) want to know, you should aim not to leave out any material information; that is, information that you feel would influence whether consent would (or would not) be granted. Another component of informed consent is the principle that participants should be volunteers, taking part without having been coerced and deceived. Where informed consent cannot be obtained from participants, you must explain why this is the case. You should also be aware that there are instances informed consent is not necessarily needed or needs to be relaxed. These include certain educational, organisational and naturalistic research settings. We discuss these in more detail under the section: Avoiding deceptive practices.
Protecting the anonymity and confidentiality of research participants is another practical component of research ethics. After all, participants will typically only be willing to volunteer information, especially information of a private or sensitive nature, if the researcher agrees to hold such information in confidence. Whilst it is possible that research participants may be hurt in some way if the data collection methods used are somehow insensitive, there is perhaps a greater danger that harm can be caused once data has been collected. This occurs when data is not treated confidentially, whether in terms of the storage of data, its analysis, or during the publication process (i.e., when submitting your dissertation to be marked). However, this does not mean that all data collected from research participants needs to be kept confidential or anonymous. It may be possible to disclose the identity and views of individuals at various stages of the research process (from data collection through to publication of your dissertation). Nonetheless, permissions should be sought before such confidential information is disclosed. An alternative is to remove identifiers (e.g., vernacular terms, names, geographical cues, etc.) or provide proxies when writing up. However, such a stripping of identifiable information may not always be possible to anticipate at the outset of your dissertation when thinking about issues of research ethics. This is not only a consideration for dissertations following a qualitative research design, but also a quantitative research design [for more information, see the article: Research strategy and research ethics]. For example: Therefore, you need to consider ways of overcoming such problems, such as: (a) aggregating data in tables and (b) setting rules that ensure a minimum number of units are present before data/information can be presented. A further alternative is to seek permission for access to data and analysis to be restricted to the published material, perhaps only allowing it to be viewed by those individuals marking your work. If the work is later published, adjustments would then need to be made to protect the confidentiality of participants. There are also a wide range of potential legal protections that may affect what research you can and cannot perform, how you must treated the data of research participants, and so forth. In other words, you don?t simply have a duty to protect the data you collect from participants; you may also have (in some cases) a legal responsibility to do so. Since this varies from country-to-country, you should ask your dissertation supervisor or Ethics Committee for advice (or a legal professional).
At first sight, deceptive practices fly in the face of informed consent. After all, how can participants know (a) that they are taking part in research and (b) what the research requires of them if they are being deceived? This is part of what makes the use of deceptive practices controversial. For this reason, in most circumstances, dissertation research should avoid any kinds of deceptive practices. However, this is not always the case. Deception is sometimes a necessary component of covert research, which can be justified in some cases. Covert research reflects research where (a) the identity of the observer and/or (b) the purpose of the research is not known to participants. Cases where you may choose to engage in covert research may include instances where:
Let's take each of these in turn: It is not feasible to let everyone in a particular research setting know what you are doing By feasibility, we are not talking about the cost of doing research. Instead, we mean that it is not practically possible to let everyone in a particular research setting know what you are doing. This is most likely to be the case where research involves observation, rather than direct contact with participants, especially in a public or online setting. There are a number of obvious instances where this may be the case:
Clearly, in these cases, where individuals are coming and going, it may simply be impossible to let everyone known what you are doing. You may not be intentionally trying to engage in deceptive practices, but clearly participants are not giving you their informed consent. Overt observation or knowledge of the purpose of the research may alter the particular phenomenon that is being studied Where observations or a participants? knowledge of the true purpose of the research have the potential to alter the particular phenomenon that you are interested in, this is a major concern in terms of the quality of your findings. Therefore, when you think about whether to engage in covert research and possibly deceptive practices, you should think about the extent to which this could be beneficial in your dissertation, not research in general; that is, everything from the research paradigm that guides your dissertation through to the data analysis techniques you choose affect issues of research ethics in your dissertation [see the article: Research strategy and research ethics]. Imagine some of the following scenarios where covert research may be considered justifiable:
Whilst such covert research and deceptive practices, especially where used intentionally, can be viewed as controversial, it can be argued that they have a place in research.
With the exception of those instances of covert observation where is not feasible to let everyone that is being observed know what you are doing, research participants should always have the right to withdraw from the research process. Furthermore, participants should have the right to withdraw at any stage in the research process. When a participant chooses to withdraw from the research process, they should not be pressured or coerced in any way to try and stop them from withdrawing. If your supervisor and/or Ethics Committee expect you to complete an Ethics Consent Form, it is likely that you will have to let participants know that they have the right to withdraw at any time [see the article: Ethics consent form].
Now that you have read these basic principles of research ethics, you may want to understand how the research strategy you have chosen affects your approach to research ethics [see the article: Research strategy and research ethics]. You will need to understand the impact of your research strategy on your approach to research ethics when writing up the Research Ethics section of your Research Strategy chapter (usually Chapter Three: Research Strategy). |
List discuss and analyze the ethical responsibilities of conducting research with human participants
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketajaman Inc.
