For this Discussion, review the media titled Research Ethics. Keeping in mind that titles and research practices in South Africa may differ from those in other locales or academic environments, consider some of the ethical dilemmas faced by the narrator, Kevin Williams. Then read Decoding the Ethics Code,Chapter 11. Select one of the “poor outcome” cases (located in the gray sidebar boxes and indicated by a checked “x” in the small boxes next to each example).
Post by Day 3 a brief summary of the “poor outcome” case you selected. Then explain the ethical principle(s)/codes the researcher violated and how. Also, suggest one strategy the researcher could have implemented and explain how this might have helped resolve the ethical dilemma. Also, comment on whether the dilemma would change if either the participant or the researcher is located outside of the United States. Finally, describe any outcomes the suggested strategy might cause, including additional dilemmas, and explain why.
Be specific and include reference to the Learning Resources in your response.
This page contains the Learning Resources for this week. Be sure to scroll down the page to see all of this week’s assigned Learning Resources. To access select media resources, please use the media player below.
Required Resources
Readings
- Bersoff, D. (Ed.). (2008). Ethical conflicts in psychology (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Chapter 8, “Academia: Research, Teaching, and Supervision” (pp. 385–454)
- Fisher, C. B. (2012). Standards on research and publication. In Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists (Updated 2nd ed. pp.205–245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Decoding the Ethics Code, 2nd Edition by Celia B. Fisher. Copyright 2012 by Sage Publications, Inc. – Books. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc. – Books via the Copyright Clearance Center. - Research Ethics Planning Worksheet. (n.d.). Retrieved from the Center for Research Support at http://researchcenter.waldenu.
edu/ - Mouse over the tab entitled Office of Research Ethics and Compliance (IRB)
- Click on Application and General Materials
- Click on the link to worksheet.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont Report. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humans
ubjects/guidance/belmont.html
Media
- Center for Faculty Excellence: Institutional Review Board: Frequently asked questions. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://crq.adobeconnect.com/i
rb/ - Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2012). Research ethics. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 11 minutes.
Optional Resources
Note: Be sure to extend your knowledge of this week’s topic to your own specialization. Conduct your own research by reviewing the journals, websites and other publications of your specific specialization. Websites tend to have the most current information.
Answer preview
An essential approach that the researcher should have used is the consent paradox that offers informed consent in the deception study. In this strategy, leads to the invention of a moral paradox which creates a compromising situation that allows individuals to establish whether they would want to take part in the deceptive study. The reason is that the informed consent in the consent paradox motivates the individuals to make logic decisions. The strategy helps the researcher to justify his/her intent to protect the welfare and the rights of the research participants. Such rights include the autonomy of the individuals that are to take part in the study. Generally, participants believe that they have the liberty to decide the experimental procedures they can be exposed. However, in the real sense, individuals may not have decisional control over what they are likely to experience from any of the experimental procedures. Therefore, this strategy would have solved the ethical dilemma since as stated, the consent paradox would have given the university students informed consent about the underlying consequences for taking part
[1040 Words]