Reference no: EM131111017

PLEASE RESPOND AND ANSWER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OR POST STATEMENTS. MUST BE 150 WORDS (PLEASE), WRITE IN 3RD PERSON. ONLY ONE REFERENCE CAN BE USED FOR EACH ANSWER. MUST BE 150 WORDS (PLEASE), WRITE IN 3RD PERSON.

DQ 1. Drawing upon your knowledge from LDR 800 Ethical Dilemmas and Stewardship, studies and literature research you have completed, and the readings and lecture in this module, reflect upon the role of ethics in the research process.

a) Discuss ethics concepts and principles that could apply to the conduct of your dissertation study.

b) Explain any concerns/uncertainties you have regarding ethical conduct during dissertation research.

DQ 2. What are some of the ethical issues that can arise during a research study? What tools are available to research institutions to assure ethical compliance of the researchers?

Lecture

Research Ethics

Introduction

The research process must follow a systematic procedure and a prescribed set of rules. This is important as one goal of research is generalizability, meaning that the results can hopefully be applied to a different population. Thus, when a consistent set of rules and guidelines are followed, the chances that the researcher will collect valid and reliable data increases. Likewise, when a replicable and valid study is conducted, the results and conclusions will also be valid. Before doctoral learners begin data collection for their dissertation research, these rules and procedures must be firmly ingrained in their minds. This lecture will outline operating legal, ethical and philosophical principles, and rules of research, which will help the doctoral learner conduct a valid and reliable study.

Legal Principles

Many research studies involve human participants, so specific legal principles are required to protect the confidentiality ofand to ensure the safety of the participants in the study. The National Research Act of 1974 created a Commission designed to identify ethical principles for research that is conducted on human participants (Mertler and Charles, 2005). Specifically, the Act ensures that respect is shown for all persons, meaning that they must voluntarily participate in research. Additionally, the researcher must obtain the informed consent of people who participate in the study and must ensure that they fully understand the purpose of that study. Thus, the Act protects these individuals from physical, emotional and mental harm; this is called the principle of beneficence (Babbie, 2010). In a similar vein, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), also passed in 1974, requires that the identity and anonymity of human participants in research be maintained (Babbie, 2010). Thus, all data has to be free of any information that may reveal the identity of participants. All educational institutions and most organizations have some type of review board, called an Institutional Review Board (IRB) whose function is to examine research proposals and ensure that these procedures are followed. At GCU, all doctoral learners must submit their proposals to the IRB, who will review the work before permission is granted for the learner to conduct research. Additionally, all doctoral learners must seek permission from the organization they will use for data collection before data collection commences. Most organizations have specified procedures that must be followed.

Ethical Principles

In addition to legal principles, the researcher must also follow moral or ethical rules and procedures when conducting research as well. These principles may not be explicitly specified in law, but all researchers must engage in ethical and moral conduct in order to produce credible and valid work. First, the principle of beneficence refers to the fact that research should provide some benefit to the "human condition" (Mertler and Charles, 2005, p. 11). This means that the purpose of research should be to advance conditions and knowledge in the specific field of study and to provide opportunities for the larger human population. In turn, the goal of research should never be to harm participants, blame or find fault, or to suppress progress in the field (Babbie, 2010). Additionally, the principle of honesty may seem rather obvious, but refers to the fact that the researcher is obligated to report the actual results of the study, regardless of whether they were what were expected or wanted. It is very tempting to change results or to "fix" data in order to make the study seem more appealing, but the researcher can risk professional and academic damage if the data is not reported exactly as obtained. This is why the procedure must be replicable and so specific that the study would be repeated and similar results would be obtained. A third moral principle that must be followed during the conduct of research is that of accurate disclosure. This means that participants who are selected and/or volunteer to participate in a research study must be informed of the procedures or tasks that they will engage in during data collection. Elements of informed consent include telling the participants the identity of who is conducting the study, why they were selected for recruitment, the time commitment, the benefits that can be expected, any potential risks and how they will be addressed; answering any questions the participants may have; and ensuring that they fully understand that their participation is voluntary (Rudestam and Newton,2007). Accurate disclosure, though, does not always mean full disclosure. Sometimes if participants are apprised of all of the details of the research study, it might invalidate the results. For instance, some participants may try harder during tasks or respond in a specific way with the expectation of preferential treatment, and thus would make the data less reliable and valid. Thus, following specific procedures and employing ethical conduct during research will ensure the credibility of the doctoral learner and also increase the reliability and validity of the study.

Philosophical Principles

The researcher and doctoral learner must also adhere to certain philosophical assumptions when conducting a research study (Mertler and Charles, 2005). First, the topic of the research must have a level of importance, meaning that it represents a worthwhile effort that will add to the existing body of knowledge in the field and does not represent something that the researcher wants to do purely for their personal reasons. It is disrespectful to involve humans in research when it is not valid, may be socially harmful or produces erroneous data (Rudestam and Newton,2007). The study must be worth the time, effort and resources that are expended, both in terms of time and money. The principle of generalizability refers to the idea that the results of a study can be applied to other situations, populations or settings (Mertler and Charles, 2005). While generalizability is not a goal of all research, especially qualitative research, the results still must be important enough that a practitioner can take these results and use them to improve practice or conditions in their own setting. Likewise, research should be replicable, meaning that the audit trail or procedures are so detailed and specific, that another researcher could repeat the research and obtain similar results (Mertler and Charles, 2005). This lends to the credibility of the topic and project. Thus, the doctoral learner must be careful to keep accurate and detailed results during the entire course of their research study. Quantitative research also deals in probabilities as it rarely yields hard and fast answers. Thus, quantitative studies will have an established level of probability that will show that when a study is repeated numerous times, the results would almost always be the same (Mertler and Charles, 2005).

Procedural Principles

Research should also follow procedural rules, meaning that the selected topic is worthy of study, that the records are as clear and concise as possible, that the information yielded would be credible, and alternative explanations have been addressed (Mertler and Charles, 2005). All doctoral learners should define researchable topics, meaning that a topic is worthy of study, data is available that can be collected to answer the research questions, the topic is within the learner's scope of influence, and research can be practically conducted within the scope and timeframe of the degree program. Some studies seem grand, but if it takes 5 years to complete, it may not be realistic for a doctoral learner due to time and resources. The principle of parsimony refers to the fact that research questions should be clear and concise and that data can be efficiently collected to provide answer to those questions (Mertler and Charles, 2005). Credibility covers several areas, meaning that the topic must be important and researchable, all rules of research must be followed, valid and reliable data must be collected, appropriate methods of data analysis must be applied, and the conclusions presented must be clearly and accurately reported (Mertler and Charles, 2005). Doctoral learners and researchers can guarantee that others will scrutinize their findings, so they should address rival explanations, or take measures to forestall critics and possible interpretations. Thus, a section in the final report should contain a discussion that the procedures were followed accurately, any limitations or unexpected events that were encountered during data collection are presented as well as bias and that any alternate possibilities for the obtained results are addressed (Mertler and Charles, 2005).

Additional procedural guidelines must be followed when research involves human subjects. In 1978, the Belmont Report was published by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research("The belmont report," 1979). The Belmont Report outlines three basic ethical principles necessary for all research that involves human subjects. As stated earlier in this lecture, these include respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (NIH, 1979). The Report also provides guidelines regarding how these principles are applied in research. There are some situations in which practice and research overlap. Thus, external and objective review of research procedures is required when human subjects are used in some aspect of that research. All researchers need to be aware of the fact that any time human subjects are involved in research studies, the participants' welfare and rights must be protected. Additionally, participants must give their informed consent, if necessary. Humans should not experience any unreasonable physical, mental or emotional risks associated with their participation in research. If there is risk involved, the necessity and importance of the research must outweigh the risks to the participants. Additionally, the researcher should be qualified to conduct research on human subjects ("The belmont report," 1979).

The National Research Act Public Law 99-158 (Animals in Research, 1985)was passed in 1985 to further ensure the protection of humans who participate in research. This law requires that research which involves human subjects must be approved by an Institutional Review Board. An IRB is a review body established by institutions and organizations to protect human subjects who participate in research. Research that involves human subjects can qualify for three different types of reviews: exempt, expedited, or a full review. The depth of the review depends on the level of risk that the participants may encounter during the conduct of the study.

Exempt research must pose only minimal risk, if any, to participants (GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB), 2011). Most exempt research studies involve the use of anonymous and existing data or specimens. In exempt studies, information can never be linked to participants. Exempt studies will also not involve any special populations such as the mentally retarded, children, prisoners, or pregnant women (GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB), 2011). One example of exempt review is that which is conducted in an educational setting that involves normal educational practices such as classroom management strategies("Protection of human," 2005).

In some studies where there is no more than minimal risk, the research may qualify for an expedited review (GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB), 2011). Most studies that meet the criteria for an expedited review involve the use of confidential records, data or specimens that exist during the time the review is conducted (GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB), 2011). Studies that involve surveys, interviews of observations of public behavior by the researcher may be eligible for expedited reviews . Expedited reviews can also be conducted when research has been previously approved (less than one year has passed) and there are minor changes in the study.

A full IRB review is required on research studies that involve increased levels of risk to humans or, those studies involving vulnerable populations (GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB), 2011). This may include a significant level of emotional or psychological risks or research conducted on protected populations such as children or mentally ill individuals that poses more than minimal risk (HHS, 2099).

Conclusion

After this rigorous presentation, a doctoral learner may wonder if he or she is able to conduct genuine research. However, it is done every day. Rest assured that faculty and staff at GCU have the learners' best interests at heart, and remember that doctorally-prepared faculty have completed a dissertation study and many are active researchers themselves; therefore, they are willing and able to provide guidance and advice to the novice researcher and doctoral learner.

References

Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
Grand Canyon University. (2011). GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB) General Information. Retrieved from https://dc.gcu.edu/irb/irbstart.

Merter, C. and Charles, C. (2005). Introduction to educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson Publishers.

National Institutes of Health, Office of Human Subjects Research. (1979). Thebelmont report ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved from website: https://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html

National Institutes of Health, Office of Human Subjects Research. (2005). Protection of human subjects. Retrieved from website:

https://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html

Rudestam, K. and Newton, R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process. Los Angeles, CA: Sage

Publications.

U. S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. (1985). Animals in research. Retrieved from website: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references /hrea1985.htm