Ethical Treatment of Participants - Literature review Example

Ethical Treatment Of Participants Ethical Treatment Of Participants Ethics has become a fundamental aspect of research as there has been a growing need to protect the rights of the subjects that are involved in research projects. According to Wang (2013), whenever data or any information is being gathered from the people in an experiment or survey the rights of the respondents who participate in the exercise needs to be safeguarded at all costs. Research needs to be designed in a typical manner in that all the activities and provisions in that particular study does not cause any form of harm, pain, discomfort or inconveniences to the participants. Since the members are generally selected out of free will and they are not usually paid for their involvement in the research the outcomes of the research should be designed in manner that it produces benefit to the subjects rather than physical harm or discomfort so as to encourage future participation in similar projects. Gurak and Lay (2002) illustrate that the research should be fashioned in a manner that it produces social value to the individual participants and the society in general. The objective or rather the goal of the research should be aimed at improving the well-being of the members or the community in general by coming up with new knowledge or practices that will improve their average lives. In technical research projects the information that is gathered should increase the current understanding of the subject under study so as to provide a breakthrough for future efforts in the same discipline and by so doing the society would have benefited as the new knowledge will open up opportunities for new developments to come up that will be aimed at alleviating the lives and well-being of the society in general. However, Courage and Baxter (2004) reiterate that it is unethical for research to put the lives or rather the general well-being of the participants at risk when it does not produce substantial benefits to the subjects or the community. The balance between the members benefit from the research work, and the risks they are exposed to should be in a manner that the threats do not outweigh the overall benefits that will be accrued from the study. He goes on to argue that a research that undertakes to explore a subject or a research question that is already known or rather repeats what has already been done is unethical in nature since it would be endangering the participants into a project that has already been undertaken and thus the benefits from the research will be insignificant to the participants and the community. Similarly, Gurak and Lay (2002) further affirm the sentiments of Courage and Baxter, (2004) by stating that any research whose outcomes does not bring any meaningful benefits to the participants while exposing some sort of risk to their lives is unethical since it is of no social value to the society and can be simply be described as an exploitation of the subjects that are recruited to participate in that study (Gurak and Lay, 2002). According to Oliver (2010) any form of research that is undertaken by incorporating the efforts and time of external participants should be scientifically valid to uphold its ethical obligation to the participants. The study should be designed in a manner that it produces information that is useful and thus enhancing the knowledge base that is already in public domain thus improving the exploration in that particular discipline for the benefit of the society. Research projects generally consume substantial amounts of time and resources and thus a study that is not scientifically valid means its results are of no benefit to the society and, in essence, the project will be wasting time and resources. The rights of the participants needs to be upheld at all times and thus a research should clearly set out its hypothesis or rather the research question that is under investigation so as the participants are aware of what is the primary intention of the study thus decide whether to participate of not. Typical research methods involve the selection of a sample space from which the results of the study will be utilized to make a collective decision that will affect a larger population. Oliver (2010) states that to ensure the validity and integrity of the results from research work the process of the study should be extended enough to include various dynamisms that might occur in the research environment as well as incorporate a wide selection of participants so as to receive varied views that will assist to enhance the general integrity of the outcomes. It is common knowledge that the outcomes of any particular research should be reproducible in nature in the sense that if a different study undertakes a similar project he/she will be able to come up with similar or close results. To achieve that aspect, all forms of bias should be avoided right from the process of selecting participants to the methodologies that will be implemented in that research work. Any research that is biased is regarded to be scientifically invalid since in one or more circumstances the ethical obligation of the research was violated (Oliver, 2010). Murphy (2003) asserts that fair selection methods should be employed to ensure ethical treatment of participants in research exercises. Fairness should be exhibited in both the process of recruiting and selecting the subjects who will be incorporated into the research process. It implies that fair practice should be manifested to both the actual participants in the study as well as the people who will benefit from the results of the study. If a researcher decided to use a random or rather a biased method to select his/her sample space he/she might leave out potential subjects who would have been best fit to answer the research question and by doing so he/she will disadvantage them as they will not receive any benefit that might have been associated with participating in the study. Relatively, the people who were selected to participate will not give the required information may because they will have limited knowledge of the subject under study and thus in the long run the outcomes of the study will be jeopardized thus disadvantaging the people who will depend on the outcomes as they will receive a raw deal since the integrity of the results will be in question. According to Long and Johnson (2007), there is no individual party or group that has the right to participate in any specific research; similarly, no group of persons should be barred from participating in a study based on their age, gender, race or political affiliation without proper and concrete scientific reason. The researcher should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the inclusion of those groups of persons will jeopardize or significantly influence the outcomes of the research to a point that the integrity and validity of the results will be affected. Participation in research work should be open by designing a particular method that will be utilized to select the sample space in an open and credible manner. That notwithstanding, not everyone qualifies to participate in a research the participants are chosen based on the fact that they are best fit to comprehend the research question and thus give informed response as required by the provisions of the study (Long and Johnson, 2007). Shelley, Yore, & Hand (2009) argues that researchers that use only participants who can be easily convinced into taking part in the study are not fair and thus undermines the general principle of ethics to the participants. At times, research work involves complicated concepts that only require competent members for it to fulfill its objective. Thus, it is a commonplace that many people will be scared away from participating in the research after the details of the study have been explained to them. The researchers will have a rough time in convincing potential subjects into taking part in the study. Thus, at times they will opt to utilize vulnerable groups or rather people who can be easily convinced into taking part in the research irrespective of whether they possess the required skills and knowledge about the topic under study. For instance, initially prisoners were typically utilized as the main subjects for research works that involved sensitive matters since the other people scared away from such studies. It is prudent that the outcomes of such studies will be biased since the sample space has been chosen without any definite criteria and also the capabilities of the participants in handling the research hypothesis is under question. The results that will be obtained from such a study will not depict the exact situation on the ground and thus their integrity and validity will be questionable as they will not be reliable to the people whom they are intended for. As much as the process of selecting the sample space for research work is open to anybody, the researcher should lay out some conditions that ought to be fulfilled by the potential subjects to ensure only competent or rather people will a knowledge background in the discipline qualifies to participate. For instance, a study that intends to investigate the opinions of people towards a particular matter should not recruit subjects who are mentally unstable since their opinions will be vague as they cannot make sound decisions (Shelley, Yore, & Hand, 2009) Wang (2013) illustrates that in order to uphold ethical treatment of participants in research work the should be a favourable risk-benefit ratio between the potential risks that the participants will be exposed to as well as the benefits that are expected to be accrued by those very members or the society in general. A study can only be termed to have upheld ethical treatment of the members if the benefits that they ought to receive from the research far outweigh the risk in terms of physical pain, inconveniences, discomfort or any aspect of loss that might befall the subjects while undertaking the activities of the research. The burden of the study should be designed to be as low as possible so that the research process can be made enjoyable to the subjects. In an event that the participants tend to suffer while attending to research obligations, they will tend to offer biased information or decisions that will not depict their rational judgment and thus affect the overall results of the study. Thus, the comfort of the subjects should be emphasized to ensure they are free and at ease to offer credible responses that will enhance the overall integrity of the research. Ideally, is a research for instance a medical research that involves testing certain clinical aspects can be conducted by utilizing one tune of human blood the researcher should not recruit more than one participants or rather use more than one tube of blood since it will not be necessary and he/she will be inflicting unnecessary risks to the subjects. Alone the research works should be premised on the principle of reducing the risks involved in the process while maximizing the overall benefits that the questions ought to receive or enjoy the study. However, the benefit is not implicit to the participants only; it can be efforts to transform the overall well-being of the society through breakthroughs in new knowledge that will form a basis for new developments in the society (Wang, 2013). According to Rogelberg (2007), research can be ethical despite not offering health benefits to the people that take part in it. He argues that the benefits of studies should be the premised on the social values that research work brings to the immediate society in which they are conducted. Social values imply the results of the result are in one way or the other going to uplift or rather alleviate the overall well-being of the members of that society including the actual participants of the study. In some instances, the benefits cannot be felt directly by the community but does not make the studies to be unethical since they may be investigating certain concepts that will act as foundations for more elaborate studies in the future whose outcome will be beneficial to the people. However, some types of research especially those that involve sensitive issues pose a lot of strain to the participants. The subjects will typically fell duped or rather exploited if they do not get any tangible benefit out of those studies. For instance, if a study undertakes to investigate the efficacy of a certain drug that is new in the market it will have to test it on particular individuals. However, those people will have problems with the risk they ought to go to just in case the drug back fits or does not work as expected. Similarly, their private information will have to be shared with the public thus escalating the scope of their concern. Despite the well-being that they will be guaranteed the other issues in the research will cause stress and discomfort to the subjects that might make them boycott any future research works that they might be suitable to offer informed opinions (Rogelberg, 2007). Ferderman, Hanna, & Rodriguez (2003) reiterate that despite research works fulfilling their ethical obligations in their practices participants will be more willing to be involved in research works that have been reviewed and approved by independent bodies such as the Institutional Review Board to offer independent analysis on the overall conduct of the study. It is prudent that a researcher might structure his/her study in a manner that makes it convenient to fit his/her interest but, on the other hand, makes it riskier for the subjects who will be involved. Thus to build social trust in any particular research it is prudent to seek independent review of third parties as people will be more willing to participate in research that has been audited and approved by IRB than they will be willing to participate in one that has not been approved by that body. The reason behind this is that social trust will develop as the participants are sure that if a study has been approved then in conforms to all basic requirements and thus they will be minimal risks that will be involved. Relatively, outcomes from approved research works will be highly accepted by the general public due to the sense of societal trust that will be instilled in people by the fact that that the study approved by an independent review (Ferderman, Hanna, & Rodriguez, 2003). Kimmel (2007) illustrates that informed consent is a core element in upholding the ethical obligation of a research towards its participants. The subjects that are recruited to participate in research should be informed on all relevant details about the study and given an opportunity to make a decision. Informed consent is the act by which an individual agrees to undertake the activities of research, after all; its provisions have been explained to him/her. According to Grodin and Glantz, (1994) informed consent has four critical elements that are necessary for safeguarding the rights of the subjects. To begin with the potential participant should be competent to handle the research requirements in the sense that he/she should possess the prerequisite knowledge as far as the subject under investigation is concerned. It is crucial since by having the required knowledge the opinions of the participants will be valid and thus depended upon for decision-making purposes. Additionally, the subject must be mentally stable to make sane decisions and also be informed of all facts about the study. In that light, the researcher needs to exhibit full disclosure on all relevant information concerning the research. It involves all the probable risks and benefits as well as any other information that the participants needs to understand before commencing the activities of the study. A research will only be ethical if it undertakes full disclosure to its potential subjects and allows them to make informed consent before selecting and recruiting subjects to undertake its activities. The decision to participate in the study should be based on the issues alone as should come out of a voluntary will. The researcher should not coerce or utilize undue inducement to dupe subjects into participating in the study. Those acts amount to gross misconduct on the part of the researcher a violation of the rights of the participants. Potential participants below eighteen years should not be allowed to participate since they are not liable by law to make informed consent. However, assent from their parents or guardians will be required if the study targets that group of the population. Relatively, people who are mentally insane or depict any form of mental instability should not be allowed since their opinions do not represent what they feel about any subject (Kimmel, 2007). Buie and Murray (2012) argue that the researcher should maintain a high degree of respect to the participants by always checking on their well-being as the research progresses. All unfolding events and information should be communicated to the subjects including the possibility of new risks coming up in the process of undertaking the project. The participants should be allowed to drop out of the study’s activities at any time that they feel so as no undue pressure needs to be mounted on the subjects as it will influence the overall outcome of the research. Since the participants are more of partners in the research process the outcomes and results of the research should be shared with them to appreciate their participation and as a way of demonstrating the ethical obligation of the research to their well-being. References Buie, E., & Murray, D. (2012). Usability in government systems: User experience design for citizens and public servants. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Kimmel, A. J. (2007). Ethical issues in behavioral research: Basic and applied perspectives. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub. Ferderman, D. D., Hanna, K. E., & Rodriguez, L. L. (2003). Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington (D.C.: National Academies Press. Grodin, M. A., & Glantz, L. H. (1994). Children as research subjects: Science, ethics, and law. New York: Oxford University Press. Wang, S. (2013). Technology integration and foundations for effective leadership. Hershey, Pa: IGI Global (701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033, USA. Gurak, L. J., & Lay, M. M. (2002). Research in technical communication. Westport, CT: Praeger. Courage, C., & Baxter, K. (2004). Understanding your users: A practical guide to user requirements methods, tools, and techniques. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Oliver, P. (2010). The students guide to research ethics. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. Murphy, T. F. (2003). Case studies in biomedical research ethics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Long, T., & Johnson, M. (2007). Research Ethics in the Real World: Issues and solutions for health and social care. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Shelley, M. C., Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. B. (Eds.). (2008). Quality research in literacy and science education: international perspectives and gold standards. Springer Science & Business Media. Rogelberg, S. (2007). Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Read More