Design and Conduct of Psychological Research - Coursework Example

?Running head: The Design and Conduct of Psychological Research The Extent to Which Ethical Considerations Influence the Design and Conduct of Psychological Research Insert Name Insert Grade Course Insert Tutor’s Name 08 Aug 2012 Introduction Ethical considerations greatly influence the design and conduct of psychological research through the relevant stipulations that necessitate the consideration of ethical parameters in the conduct of psychological research (Powers, 2008, 33). The processes of conducting psychological research often involve people and certain procedures may compromise the safety and dignity of people involved. As a result, ethical considerations are intended to guarantee human safety and dignity and to get rid of any processes that could be against the rights and welfare of human beings. Ethics regulate the process of research through the development of strict guidelines that direct the process of research particularly regarding the willingness of participants, their compensation as well as the awareness of risks involved in research processes. Accordingly, ethics determine where and how research takes place regarding the environment and practices involved. In essence, certain procedures of research could hamper the environment; which is directly linked to the health, welfare and dignity of human beings. Moral considerations regulate such activities and assert the rights of society and people at large from the potential harm of the processes of research (Benatar, Daar and Singer, 2005, 143). The aspect of exploitation is equally important as many psychological research processes could involve the exploitation of participants who may not be aware of the risks of processes and could also be harmed in the course of the study. Ethical considerations, therefore, define the rules governing the selection, participations, rights and remuneration (if any) of participants in psychological research (Mills, 2007, 5-8). This paper takes an analytical perspective of the extent to which ethical considerations influence the design and conduct of psychological research. Background Information Ethical concerns in research have a lengthy history and apprehension regarding the inclusion of ethical concerns in psychological research is based on certain instances whereby participants in research were subjected to inhuman treatment (Lavery, Grady, Wahl and Emmanuel, 2006, 76-78). Therefore, the development of the ethical consideration concept has a deep history in the past mistreatment of individuals who were willingly or unwillingly involved in experiments whose effects on human health and life was worse. The Tuskegee Study, which involved syphilis patients back in 1932, is a typical example of the abuse of ethics and mistreatment of participants in the course of a research process (Benatar, Daar and Singer, 2005, 143). The study involved the withholding of treatment to inspect the impacts of syphilis of patients if not treated. A number of patients suffered from the disease and others died when medicine was available. This is a perfect exemplification of the fatal and inhuman effects of research if ethical regulations are not established. In fact, in the absence of ethical consideration psychological research process can only prevail at the expense of human safety, dignity and welfare. Since research involves the collection of data through practical human processes the aspect of morality plays a significant role in establishing standards that will guide the research process to ensure that the health, welfare and life of people are protected throughout the research process. The iniquitous concentration camps in the course of the Second World War witnessed the most atrocious experiments of medical nature upon female and male adults along with children (Emanuel, Wendler, Killen and Grady, 2003, 35). The barbaric experiments included the breaking of people’s bones to the point of no healing, sterilization of females in the absence of anaesthesia, use of twins for trials in which one was subjected to pain. The main intention of these atrocities was to obtain results irrespective of the welfare and health of the people involved. In essence, the trials were ‘successful’ in producing the required results but were counterproductive because the health and lives of people were compromised (Benatar, Daar and Singer, 2005, 147). These instances represent the significance of ethical guidelines and considerations in the processes of performing research; through the exemplification of the risks involved in research especially the welfare of participants (Powers, 2008, 49). In the absence of ethical considerations psychological research processes can be avenues of discrimination, oppression, exploitation, and death. Ethics usher in a third consideration whereby every research process must respect people’s right o exist in a free and fair manner. Ethical considerations state that participants must be willingly selected and informed about the risks of the research and there must be efforts to ensure that appropriate remuneration is given to the participants if necessary. More importantly, ethical considerations seal the vacuum that could be misused by researchers through barbaric methods and experiments that harm the participants, environment, and social ideals at large (Mills, 2007, 5-8). Major standards of ethical principles regarding the utilization of people as contributors can be drawn from the Nuremberg trials that subjected the Nazi war criminals to judicial process after World War II. After the war, the gory activities were exposed and the people behind them were subjected to judicial inquiry (Powers, 2008, 46). The Nuremberg Code which was established as a moral standard during the trials became the primary symbol for subsequent ethical guidelines concerning the involvement of people as participants in experiments. Discussion regarding ethical considerations existed right from the 1930s by APA but it is only in 1953 that the organization developed its foremost moral code. This set the stage for the development of core ethical codes that guide the process of research and involvement of people as participants in research. Ethical Principles In preparation and performing Research, and in reporting Research outcomes, experimenters have to accomplish several responsibilities so as to meet the moral standards established by the APA (Lavery, Grady, Wahl and Emmanuel, 2006, 76-78). Foremost, the Research project ought to be designed so that the opportunity for misleading outcomes is minimized. Subsequently, the project is required to be considered so that it meets moral acceptability. Any reservations the investigator may have concerning questionable moral procedures ought to be resolved via peer review or via consultation with suitable parties like the IRB. Third, measures should be instituted to protect and guarantee the dignity and wellbeing of all participants, along with those who could be affected by the outcomes of the Research plan. Responsibility Psychologists, along with their aides, are responsible for preserving the self-respect and welfare of all contributors. This duty also entails shielding them from damage, unnecessary dangers, or mental as well as physical uneasiness that may be intrinsic in the Research process. Research that causes potential damage, risk, or hazard to the contributor is not permitted, unless the advantage of the Research overshadows the risks and complete informed approval is given (WMA, 2000, 12-17). Psychologists along with their associates are also responsible for carrying themselves morally and for handling the participants in a moral mode at all times. Besides, psychologists along with their assistants could barely perform those actions or undertakings for which they are properly trained. If special people are required, for instance, elderly people, clinical population or children, it is the investigator’s responsibility to confer with people having proficiency with those communities. All studies executed by psychologists and their associates ought to meet the terms of state and federal rules and regulations. For instance, if the state where research is performed proscribes the use of alcohol by people below the stated age, the research is proscribed from involving consumption of alcohol to the specified age participants (Emanuel, Wendler, Killen and Grady, 2003, 35). Inducement to Participate In case the researcher proposes financial or other enticement to participants so as to obtain contestants for the program, the same complete disclosure policy concerning the reason and nature of the research, including the application of deception, prevails as when no enticement is made (Emanuel, Wendler, Killen and Grady, 2003, 42-45). For illustration, simply because the contestant receives $5.00 for participating in a research program, the experimenter ought to still inform the contributor concerning the kind of the research, counting any risks or damage that the study could create. Also, inappropriate or extreme inducement is immoral. For case in point, if I am badly in need of contributors for a research program I cannot “kickback” the scholars in my lecture by stating that anyone who takes part will be given a mechanical grade in the class (Benatar, Daar and Singer, 2005, 134-5). Moral investigators do not manufacture or fake data in their journals. If the experimenter determines that the data issued are mistaken, it is the investigator’s task to rectify the error via retraction, a supplement, or other suitable means. As well, ethical investigators do not present the labour of others and claim responsibility, or do not succeed to give suitable credit for the labour of others via citations (Stephens, 2000, A1). Institutional Approval In America, all institutions that perform research and accept federal funding ought to have an institutional analysis board. At campuses and institutes, the IRB constitutes individuals from an extensive diversity of departments so that the panel will not have a gainful interest in any specific research project. For case in point, an IRB cannot constitute members of the Psychology subdivision only. If that was the case, then it would be supplementary difficult for it to stay neutral when appraising a specific research suggestion by a psychology subdivision faculty member (WMA, 2000, 13-14). Before conducting the research, the investigator sets up an application to be offered to the IRB for endorsement. The proposal comprises a description of the reason and nature of the research, how the contributors will be obtained and handled, and their expectations from the study. Also, a sample permission form is as well required at majority institutions (Gollogly 2006, 62). The moment IRB receives the suggestion; it is evaluated for moral considerations. For instance, does the plan have societal, educational or scientific value? If it entails some risk, is the hazard to the contributor justified by the advantage of the understanding gained? Is the projected study moral in terms of regarding the participants’ wellbeing and self-respect along with their right to confidentiality and discretion? Is deception acceptable? When in addition to how will the contestants be informed concerning the deception? (Benatar, Daar and Singer, 2005, 64). Once all the queries have been adequately responded to and the IRB has permitted the study, the researcher is typically at liberty to commence research. On the other hand, the IRB now and then rejects a research, whereby the experimenter ought to either amend the project to fulfil ethical standards or discard it altogether (WMA, 2000, 22-23). Informed Consent With regard to the APA ethical principles, certain research plans do not necessitate the informed approval of participants. Such programs may demand the use of unspecified questionnaires or effortless naturalistic examinations where the accomplices cannot be personally recognized or harmed in whichever way. Besides, archival research, which depends on published, publicly accessible data, does not necessitate informed consent (Mills, 2007, 6-9). All other study projects command the informed assent of participants, which is characteristically accomplished by having them ratify a consent form. The permission form represents numerous key standards of APA rules. The contributors are told regarding the universal nature of the study in addition to concerning any probable injury or risk that the research may cause. They are guaranteed of discretion, and they are moreover told of being free to turn down participation. Besides, they are offered the occasion to receive a statement about the outcomes of the study project (Lavery, Grady, Wahl and Emmanuel, 2006, 99-102). Use of Animals A study psychologist may prefer to conduct trials with animal subjects for numerous reasons. Foremost, some researchers suppose that by examining animal conduct, we can achieve a comprehension of human behaviour. Similarly, by understanding the effect of diverse environmental dynamics like enrichment, deprivation or cognitive stimulation on animal conduct, by extension it could as well be possible to understand the manner in which these environmental features affect human conduct (Stephens, 2000, A1). Another motive animals could be used in study is that: animal conduct is fascinating. Several psychologists are attracted in comprehending animal behaviour exclusive of extending their results to human behaviour. In this instance, researchers may study the social pecking order of herd animals, the reproductive habits of Canadian Geese or the motherly behaviour of gorillas. These examinations tend to be principally naturalistic scrutiny (Lavery, Grady, Wahl and Emmanuel, 2006, 16-25). Yet another cause for using animals is the fact that people cannot be used in certain processes and courses of research for welfare reasons. Likewise, researchers in the field of neuroscience cannot expose human beings to a range of surgical methods to determine the results of brain lesions on memory, behaviour, learning and motivation. Besides, to observe the results of rural development, after the study the animals could be sacrificed for their brains to be examined (Emanuel, Wendler, Killen and Grady, 2003, 33-41). In essence, some contend that exposing animals to processes and conditions that could not be applied on a person is immoral and ought to be put an end to. Nevertheless, as Gollogly (2006, 86), so expressively states, in the absence of animal examinations multitudes of diabetics along with cancer patients could have died because of the lack of insulin along with chemotherapy. Diseases like polio, scarlet fever and tuberculosis, along with blood pressure, would keep on claiming several lives. Similarly, numerous of the medical remedies created by the use of animal studies are also applied in treating animals. And as Gollogly, asserts, a large portion of the animals involved in research include mice, fish and rats who are specifically bred to serve research purposes. As a result, the abolition animal research would liberate these animals; rather they would cease to exist (Gollogly, 2006, 79). Ill-advised attempts to liberate the animals can further have catastrophic effects for the animals. For instance, in a recent assault on the animal study centre at the University of Minnesota, they were released on a ground near the institution. Quite a number of the animals were discovered roving by the road, barely a protected environment for animals, along with a number of rats discovered dead large (Mills, 2007, 6-7). Not considering an individuals position on animal research, it prevails and is administered by moral rules just like studies involving people as contributors. Obviously, there is no informed assent or debriefing, though the psychologist is technically under obligation to handle all animals morally as well as to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio vigilantly while development the research project (Emanuel, Wendler, Killen and Grady, 2003, 57-60). Psychological research of whichever kind is perceptibly a multifaceted activity. It is performed within a multiplicity of political, economic, legal and cultural environments that practically influence the study, its range, and its focal point. To obscure the issue further, study projects often engross practitioners from diverse arenas with their own exact priorities and methods. When compounded with the objectives and requirements of study sponsors, sometimes potentially contradictory with those of the investigators themselves, the difficulty increases. In these complex circumstances, the principled facets of the study process can simply become completely secondary contemplations in addition to even the mainly well-meaning investigators can ignore the moral aspects of the procedure (Powers, 2008, 18). Nonetheless, in all study undertakings, the reliable definition and preservation of ethical principles are of apparent importance, predominantly so in those kinds of research where people are involved (Mills, 2007, 1-10). Persons who deliver the information that shapes the foundation of this research have a genuine interest with how information is used and ought to expect a severe adherence to considerations of confidentiality provided during data collection. Breaches can create grave limitations in the capability of other future investigators to collect dependable and practical data; they can restrict access to the participants who offer the information necessary for research and access to statistical data gathered by others. Research designs along with processes that do not meet moral standards and to handle subjects with dignity, are expected to result in deceptive, inconclusive and biased outcomes. This is detrimental not just of the study participants, but also of the scientific venture and of community as a whole (Emanuel, Wendler, Killen and Grady, 2003, 54). In comparative as well as cross-national study, the problems are complicated. The data participants ought to be sure that the data they offer is handled with similar care by particular analyst implicated in the comparative research. This is in no way simple, as national study standards may diverge in their severity and numerous countries have either contradictory, or no, data security laws in force (Emanuel, Wendler, Killen and Grady, 2003, 67-70). These distinctions in research processes and in the views of both the research society and the community can make comparative psychological analysis an extremely multifaceted undertaking, and can occasionally sabotage the complete enterprise. The essential concern is obviously no longer just a technical one. Making data private through accomplishment of statistical methods, which are successful yet faithful to unique data is now ever more possible; power of secondary admittance and use via electronic janitors and monitors - the data records and data documents - is proving successful (Benatar, Daar and Singer, 2005, 136). The difficulty facing quantitative investigators occupied in cross-national study is, perhaps above all, a moral one, which will necessitate acceptance by the global research community of the requirement for common moral concerns along with the hypothesis by its associates of the role of morally sensitive investigators, dependable data collectors and thorough data stewards. The major concern is the fortification of both the liberties of the social population and of the qualified integrity of the study community (Benatar, Daar and Singer, 2005, 116). This paper has highlighted some of the moral dilemmas facing psychological researcher, reviewed various national, and worldwide, procedures with the intention of resolving them and, lastly, proposed developments that could aid the process of psychological research. Bibliography Benatar, S.R., Daar, A.S., and Singer, P.A., 2005. Global Health Challenges: The Need for an Expanded Discourse on Bioethics. PLoS Med. 2(7):e143. Emanuel, E.J., Wendler, D., Killen, J., and Grady, C., 2003. What Makes Clinical Research In Developing Countries Ethical? The Benchmarks of Ethical Research. Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Gollogly, L., 2006. Ethical Approval for Operational Research. Bull World Health Organ 2006, 84:766. Lavery, J., Grady, C., Wahl, E., and Emmanuel, E.J., 2006. Ethical Issues in International Biomedical Research: A Casebook. New York: Oxford University Press. Mills, E.J., and Singh, S., 2007. Health, Human Rights, and the Conduct of Clinical Research within Oppressed Populations. Global Health, 3:1-10. Powers, M., and Faden, R., 2008. Social Justice: The Moral Foundations of Public Health and Health Policy. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Stephens, J., 2000. The Body Hunters: As Drug Testing Spreads, Profits And Lives Hang In The Balance. Washington Post A1 2000. WMA: World Medical Association, 2000. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Medical Association, Edinburgh, Scotland. Read More