The ethics of Research

Negotiating
There is an art and a science to research. Indeed, that would be the focus of the first assignment and discussion for this class. One of the primary challenges when it comes to research is gaining the necessary access to the participants. There are ethics and considerations for both the studiers and the studied. This initial discussion post will address all the above. While it would be optimal in many cases to gain access to study subjects without them knowing about what is being looked at or them being concerned about privacy and other issues, these are considerations that must be addressed ethically.
In looking at the six-step checklist and other concerns, there are several things that become obvious and apparent. One thing would be what is commonly known as the Hawthorne effect. Indeed, there are concerns to be dealt with when it comes to the people being researching having any idea why they are being assessed. Of course, lying to them or otherwise concealing what is going on is generally not acceptable. However, the subjects knowing what is being studied can skew the results because they know what is being watched (Paradis & Sutkin, 2017). For example, someone being watched regarding whether they have racist or stereotypical viewpoints might make it a point to avoid saying controversial things. This can happen in a way that far exceeds the care they might take in real life, racist or not. Since that can affect the results, that is a real issue. There is also the issue of when the studied person is not of sound mind or health. Just a few examples that come to mind is when people are mentally ill or when they are near death. Examples of the former would include those that are schizophrenic, those that are prone to violence and those that are simply not lucid. There are ways to anonymize the data and otherwise get the proper consent. However, there are legal and ethical hoops that must be jumped through. This is true now matter now necessary or ethical the research happens to be (Fernandez, O’Rourke & Beskow, 2015).
There are obvious and apparent obstacles that will be in the way of the author of this response. However, the ones noted above are perhaps some of the less obvious ones. There are other concerns such as desired study subjects being in disparate locations. Another issue would be if the subjects are confined or located in an institution with restrict access of any sort. People in a mental ward or students at an elementary school immediately come to mind. Even so, there are ways to surmount those obstacles. There just needs to be a fierce adherence to ethics, procedure and doing things in the right and most diligent way.
Now that the above has been answered to, what follows are the specific answers to the checklist. The points of contact would be the medical or other people that would have to sign off on any access to be gained to the subjects and their relevant data. Any requests would be done in a formal and written nature, rather than verbal or informal. The following outline details who would be acceptable:
1) Head of Nursing
2) Head of Administration
3) Chief Legal Officer
4) Chief Research Officer
The proper discussion and dialog with these “gatekeepers” is important. They have to be convinced that the study will be done legally, ethically and properly. They have to know that the law will be followed and that the goals of the study are proper. With that said, the proper and likely participants would be as follows:
A. People in need of an intervention
B. People who have been part of prior interventions and succeeded
C. People who have been in prior interventions but have failed
D. People that will be good for a “control group”




















References
Fernandez, C. V., O'Rourke, P. P., & Beskow, L. M. (2015). Canadian Research Ethics Board
Leadership Attitudes to the Return of Genetic Research Results to Individuals and
Their Families. Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(3), 514-522.
doi:10.1111/jlme.12293
Paradis, E., & Sutkin, G. (2017). Beyond a good story: from Hawthorne Effect to reactivity in
health professions education research. Medical Education, 51(1), 31-39.
doi:10.1111/medu.13122