Ethics in Research

The key ethical principles that underlie any research endeavor have taken a long winded road to their current state. The general consensus at present is that research has to be voluntary, have no likelihood of causing the test subjects undue harm, and should be governed by informed consent. Barring these, there is an inherent likelihood that research, even where it is well meaning, could result in serious harm to the research subjects. The emergence of the push for ethics in research emerged in the Nuremberg code which stipulated the way research subjects ought to be treated. The code was in response to the treatment of research subjects in German concentration camps during the Second World War. Since, more principles and guidelines as well as legislation has been enacted to ensure that all research adheres to the ethical standards that have been set.

Employees are required by their organization to participate in a study. Failure to do so could result in retaliation by management.

One of the primary principles on which ethical research is grounded on is that of voluntary participation. Participation in any research activity should be completely voluntary, and one is expected to participate in it of his or her own free will. Voluntary participation extends to even after one has signed the consent forms, and is actively participating in the research. If, for example, after one is in the process of participating in a research project, and some concerns come up that had not been previously evident or the participant had simply not thought of, they are free to opt out at any time. The signing of the consent form is not supposed to force one to participate, particularly where they are uncomfortable or unwilling to do so. Similarly, if the research involves answering questions, the study subject is not constrained in any way to answer any individual question that they are uncomfortable with. It should be noted that opting out of the research process does not constitute grounds for the termination of any services that were previously being enjoyed, like treatment for example.

While the reasons for this particular principle are self-evident, there is a tendency for the rule to impede some forms of research. If the research is supposed to study people in their natural environment, while taking part in their normal activities following their regular processes. The need for participation in research to be voluntary would imply that the persons are aware that they are taking part in a study. As a consequence, the relevant parties usually act in a way that is not normal or consistent to their normal behavior when they know they are under study. This evidently presents a major challenge when undertaking a study of human behavior. To ensure that participants of a research process take part in it regardless, a number of measures can be applied. The most highly regarded way of ensuring participation has been found to be the communication to the test subjects of how important the research is, and the potential gains that the research is likely to result in.

Participants are told that there will be no physical harm resulting from participation. However, some of the questions participants are asked could bring up emotional issues.

The participation in any research process should come with the surety of no harm on the physical person of the research participant. While this is widely accepted, and often implemented, usually it is at the expense of emotional well-being of the study subjects. Protection of participants in a research experiment from emotional harm is just as important if not more so. In this regard, a key goal of undertaking a research study should involve the identification of all possible forms of harm that could come to the research subject, and ensuring that they are eliminated, or at the very least the subjects are made aware of them so that they can choose freely. In doing so, even the process of informed consent that is sure to follow, and is essential in all forms of research, is guided by a well-informed basis and thus offers better impetus for participation in the research process.

Research in a variety of contexts qualifies as being sensitive. Sensitive in this instance refers to the research being on private or personal content, sacred or stressful content, or involving discussions which tend to elicit emotional reactions in the part of the study subjects for example sex and death. Any such research should be clearly structures so as to ensure the general well-being of the respondents, not just from physical harm. Safety protocols should be in place to ensure that the rights of the respondents are taken care of, and due regard and importance is accorded to their emotional well-being. Pursuant to such considerations, subjects that tend to touch on sensitive issues or that are likely to have an emotional toll have to be addressed effectively. Quite often, part of the concerns that result in emotional responses touch on the details of the research becoming public knowledge. To ensure that this specific cause of emotional strain is addressed, it is essential to include privacy considerations in the research process.

People are not clear what is expected of them when they agree to participate in the study.

Participation in any research question should be guided by informed consent. The premise for this is that participation, which as has been identified has to be voluntary for a credible research process, cannot be said to have taken into account the research participants consent into account. The Nuremberg code which forms the basis of ethics in research states in part that “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” The pertinent detail is not just that consent has to be given, but that the respondent in the research has to have sufficient information to make a valid choice. Failure to provide the necessary information is tantamount to not having obtained consent since the details of the research were not clearly specified.

In order for a research to claim to have given the participants relevant information necessary for them to make their decision, several key factors have to be looked at. The main areas that have to be addressed in any such document that perceives to give respondents information on the research should include the following: A detailed explanation of what the study entails, including any procedures and how well grounded they are in common practice. A detailing of the risks involved and possible discomfort. In cases where the risks involved may be serious, information on compensation and treatment options should be disclosed as well. A disclosure on any alternative procedures that may serve the same purpose, especially in treatment based research. A statement on the confidentiality report of research data. A contact person who can be reached for more details on the research, and finally a statement that outlines that participation is voluntary and the respondents may discontinue participation at any time. A research with such considerations in place is likely to have adequate considerations on informing the respondents prior to them consenting to research.

Participants’ e-mail addresses are requested as a way to give credit to students.

Participation in any form of research or study is no grounds for breach in personal privacy. All persons are entitled to control what people know about them, or the level of information about them that is in the public domain. The only limitation here apparent is that an individual’s public utterances, actions and location may constrain this. Barring instigation by the research subject, no information about him should be available in the public domain as a result of their participation in the research. Even where research has to disclose findings of the study, which is almost always the case, the researchers should ensure that no personally identifiable information makes way into the public domain. In this regard, the release of research subject’s email is a total violation of the principle on privacy of respondents. The more reason to do this stems from the fact that research is likely to involve private or emotionally sensitive issues that the respondent would most likely want kept private.

Additional considerations on privacy emerge when discussing issues that may involve a degree of risk. If say research was being carried out on aspects of crime, and the respondents were likely to be targeted on account of the information they share, it is entirely likely that privacy concerns causes fundamental changes in the design structure of the research. In such cases it is not uncommon for the research to not have signed forms of consent, as this would expose the respondents to being targeted. Evidently, privacy in research has been given prime importance, even over process. This underpins the importance of ensuring that respondents in a research process have prior knowledge on how their information will be used or control on the degree to which it is shared. Doing this ensures that the data does not in any way come to affect the privacy, security, safety, emotional well-being, or lives of the respondents.

A study looking at whether people can tell when a stranger is lying is being conducted. Therefore, some participants will be told lies about the study.

Deception in research takes many forms. The most common of these involve the withholding or intentional sharing of misinformation in research. Some researchers observe that their research may call for or require that lies are told to the respondents so as to maintain objectivity in research. Some of the forms of research that would call for such lies would include research on human behavior for example, or research on lying as in this example. Ethical practice, however, calls for honesty between both the experimenter and participant in an experiment. The only time that it may be permissible to lie to respondents in a research or academic study has been identified to be when the experiment is extremely important to human well-being or is likely to result in advancement. A caveat to this exists as well. It is generally understood that a researcher should not lie to a respondent when the lies are likely to pose significant risk to the person of the respondent.

The question of lying or deception in research has been covered as part of the Milgram experiments which involved lying to a group of teachers that shock was administered to a student whenever he got the spelling of a word wrong. The observable effects were that most participants were severely depressed and the revelation that the student was an actor merely playing his part did not do much to assuage their stress-related physiological effects. The take-away from the experiment was that there was no justifiable basis for lying to respondents, and deception in research is unacceptable. In this particular instance, there appears to be no major advancement in human research arising from the study, nor is there a clear demonstration that the experiment is important for human well-being. Consequently, lying under these circumstances may not be entirely necessary. Provided the respondents are honest with the researchers, the results are likely to be just as accurate.

Ted Talk Review: How Schools Kill Creativity – Sir. Ken Robinson.

The Ted Talk on How Schools Kill Creativity, presented by Sir Ken Robinson is about the value that is placed on education in research. The talk host Sir Robinson contends that all children are born with an extraordinary level of creativity, but as they age, they grow out of it largely as a result of the penalizing of mistakes. Sir Robinson’s observations is that creativity is as important a goal for education as literacy, and should, therefore, be given the same status or level of importance. The aim that the host has in giving the talk is communicating the value of fostering creativity in children. Sir Robinson notes the highly regarded truth on the importance of human creativity, and the value that creativity has in life. He points to the unpredictability of the future, and the fact that one cannot accurately predict what the future holds. Sir Robinson’s argument is that if education is supposed to help prepare us for the future, a future which we cannot grasp, then creativity is just as important as literacy if not more important. The reason, he maintains, is that creativity is better suited to prepare us for the unknown future that is ahead.

The delivery of the talk is flawless. He adopts a humorous tone while at the same time managing to communicate the importance of his subject matter. Sir Robinson’s talk is well-researched and follows clear logic. His credibility is also bolstered by his status as a well-known and highly-regarded educator and a former University professor. He makes jokes to illustrate his humor, and make the subject more grounded so that the audience can relate. Sir Robinson makes use of credible sources to support his argument, and demonstrate the need for an education overhaul. Perhaps the greatest strength in his delivery comes from how he seamlessly manages to convey his message across, while demonstrating the value of creativity in the process.