ethics in research n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Ethics in Research PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Ethics in Research

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

Ethics in Research - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on

Ethics in Research. The Ethical Standards of the American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/ethics/ (2002 Ethics code, to be effective June 1, 2003) http://www.apastyle.org

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Ethics in Research


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Ethics in Research • The Ethical Standards of the American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/ethics/ (2002 Ethics code, to be effective June 1, 2003)http://www.apastyle.org • Ethics in Cyberspace Research: Consent, Privacy and Contribution http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/ethics.html • Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research in cyberspace (a report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science) http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm

    2. Ethics for Social Scientists / psychologists* • General Standards • Evaluation, assessment, or intervention • Advertising and other public statements • Therapy • Privacy and confidentiality • Teaching, training supervision, research, and publishing • Forensic activities • Resolving ethical issues * Thanks to Lawrence R. Gordon, University of Vermont (http://www.uvm.edu/~lgordon/)

    3. Research Ethics (background) • Where it comes from • Cost-benefit considerations (Utilitarianism) • Respect for human dignity (Deontology) • Major principles underlying modern codes • Respect for persons - autonomy/consent • Beneficence - max benefit and min harm • Justice - benefits and burdens distributed fairly

    4. Ethics of Human Research • We can’t just do whatever we want! • Protocols prepared and submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval • IRB needs to give you permission to do your study

    5. What Is the IRB? • Committee responsible for reviewing all proposed research involving human participants at all schools receiving federal funds for research • Members include faculty members from different departments, at least one community member, at least one nonscientist (at least 5 total members)

    6. IRB @ MSU (UCRIHS) • At MSU, The Office of Research Ethics and Standards (ORES), houses among other things, the human subjects review • IRB at MSU is called UCHRIHS (University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects) • http://www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs/] • Contains forms, FAQ, Tutorials, Regulations and contant info.

    7. What the IRB Does • Its chief function: Considers costs and benefits of the research • Is the research question worth the use of human participants? • Because human participants do not need to participate in studies, their rights are the highest priority

    8. Issues • Voluntary participation • Informed consent • need to know what might keep them for consenting • need to be able to consent • need to know the right to withdraw • Coercion • vulnerable populations • payment/compensation

    9. Issues • Deception • Is the value of the study worth it? • Alternatives? [Must be last alternative!] • Needs to be explained ASAP [Dehoaxing] • Debriefing • Explain purpose of study • remove bad feelings [Desensitizing] • get information • thank participants

    10. Informed consent • Documented agreement with participants • clarifies the nature of the research and the responsibilities of each party • Use language that is reasonably understandable • Obtained prior to any data collection • Explain significant factors that may influence the person's willingness to participate • risks, discomfort, adverse effects, or limitations on confidentiality and other aspects about which the person may inquire. • Tell participants that they can withdraw from the research at any time • If participants are legally incapable of giving informed consent, provide an appropriate explanation, obtain the person's consent, AND obtain permission from a legally authorized person • Inform participants of how data will be used (privacy/confidentiality) • Provide an opportunity to the participants to obtain information about research findings • Give contact information for researcher and IRB official

    11. Issues • Experimenter conduct • PI has assumes all responsibility for fair treatment of participants (e.g. by assistants) • 6 P’s of conduct • Present • Prompt • Prepared • Polite • Private • Professional

    12. Submitting Protocols • Exempt from review • Expedited review • Full review

    13. Full review • Full review • study of vulnerable populations • use of physically invasive techniques (e.g. drugs, exercise, x-rays) • psychological or emotional distress • behavior manipulation (includes ALL deception) • sensitive data (with ID) (e.g. drugs, sex, crime) • videotaping (potential for ID)

    14. Expedited review • Expedited review • voice recordings (e.g. study of speech defects) • studies of behavior w/o manipulation or stress • study of existing documents that are not publicly available • use of noninvasive clinical assessments (such as weight, sensory acuity, EKG, but NOT x-rays)

    15. Exempt from review • Exempt from review • Educational practices • Anonymous survey, interview, or naturalistic observation (no identifiers) • Study of existing data, documents, or archival records that are publicly available (no ID) • Consumer surveys (ex. Quality of dining hall food)