Assignment Prompt & Instructions
Explore Questionable Research.
– ## L5RequiredResources.docx
– ## L5Instructions.docx
**## L5RequiredResources.docx**
**Required Resources**
·
[**The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook**](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/nu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmethods.sagepub.com%2Fbook%2Fthe-ethics-of-research-with-children-and-young-people-2e%2F)
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020).
_The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook._ SAGE Publications, Ltd.
**Read the Introduction, Chapter 2, and Chapter 3.**
**This book is a foundational text that provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical considerations in research with children. It is essential for developing a strong understanding of the broader ethical principles and practical guidance necessary for formulating key ethical questions.**
·
[**Ethical Research Involving Children: Encouraging Reflexive Engagement in Research with Children and Young People**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edswss&AN=000359323300001&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Graham, A., Powell, M. A., & Taylor, N. (2015). Ethical research involving children: Encouraging reflexive engagement in research with children and young people.
_Children and Society, 29_(5), 331–343.
**This article emphasizes reflexive engagement in research with children, which is crucial for understanding how to apply ethical considerations in practice. It aligns closely with the assignment's focus on developing and applying ethical questions.**
·
[**'Living' Ethical Dilemmas for Researchers When Researching with Children**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ981573&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Mortari, L., & Harcourt, D. (2012). “Living” ethical dilemmas for researchers when researching with children.
_International Journal of Early Years Education, 20_(3), 234–243.
**This article provides practical insights into the real-world ethical dilemmas researchers face when working with children, making it highly relevant for understanding how to navigate ethical challenges in the context of actual research studies.**
·
[**Ethical Complexities in Child Co-Research**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1203762&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Spriggs, M., & Gillam, L. (2019). Ethical complexities in child co-research.
_Research Ethics, 15_(1).
**This article addresses the ethical complexities involved in involving children as co-researchers, offering a nuanced discussion that is critical for developing ethical questions related to participatory research with children.**
·
[**A right to confidentiality or a duty to disclose? Ethical guidance for conducting prevention research with children and adolescents**](https://doc.rero.ch/record/325716/files/787_2014_Article_526.pdf)
Hiriscau, I. E., Stingelin-Giles, N., Stadler, C., Schmeck, K., & Reiter-Theil, S. (2014). A right to confidentiality or a duty to disclose? Ethical guidance for conducting prevention research with children and adolescents.
_European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23,_ 409-416.
**This article focuses on the ethical tension between confidentiality and the duty to disclose in research with children, which is a key issue to consider when developing ethical questions.**
·
[**Using Participatory Methods with Young Children; Reflections on Emergent 'Ethically Important Moments' in School-Based Research**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1268806&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Stokes, T. (2020). Using participatory methods with young children; Reflections on emergent “Ethically Important Moments” in school-based research.
_Irish Educational Studies, 39_(3), 375–387.
**This article provides a practical exploration of ethical dilemmas that arise in real-time during participatory research with young children. The concept of "ethically important moments" is highly relevant for the assignment's focus on developing and applying ethical questions to research studies. It also emphasizes the importance of reflexivity in dealing with unexpected ethical challenges, which is a critical skill to understand and apply when conducting or evaluating research with children. Since participatory research methods are increasingly common, this article offers valuable insights that can apply broadly to various research contexts involving children.**
·
[**The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research**](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html)
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2024).
_The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research dated April 18, 1979._ US Department of Health and Human Services.
**The Belmont Report is a seminal document in research ethics, outlining core principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. It provides a foundational understanding of ethical principles directly applicable to research involving children.**
**Optional Resources**
·
[**Ethical Review and Reflexivity in Research of Children's Sexuality**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ993105&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Flanagan, P. (2012). Ethical review and reflexivity in research of children’s sexuality.
_Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 12_(5), 535–544.
**While this article provides valuable insights into ethical considerations in a specific context—children's sexuality research—it is more specialized and may not apply broadly to all research involving children.**
·
[**Revisiting Ethics in Ethnographic Research with Children**](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/nu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/revisiting-ethics-ethnographic-research-with/docview/1701876011/se-2?accountid=25320)
Tulebaeva, B. (2014). Revisiting ethics in ethnographic research with children.
_Oriental Anthropologists, 14_(2), 203–216.
**This article critiques the differentiation of ethical standards based on age, suggesting that ethical principles should be consistent for both children and adults. While thought-provoking, its focus is more on critiquing existing frameworks rather than providing direct guidance for the assignment’s objectives.**
·
[**Why Do Parents Grant or Deny Consent for Adolescent Participation in Sexuality Research?**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edssjs&AN=edssjs.EAB3D102&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Moilanen, K. L. (2016). Why do parents grant or deny consent for adolescent participation in sexuality research?
_Journal of Youth and Adolescence: A Multidisciplinary Research Publication, 45_(5), 1020–1036.
**This article explores parental decision-making regarding consent in the context of adolescent sexuality research. Its focus on parental perspectives and consent is important but may be too narrow for the broader scope of the assignment.**
·
[**Justifying pediatric research not expected to benefit child subjects**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=mdc&AN=22220961&site=ehost-live&custid=natuniv)
Spriggs M. (2012). Justifying pediatric research not expected to benefit child subjects.
_The American Journal of Bioethics, 12_(1), 42–44.
**This article discusses the ethical justification for pediatric research that may not directly benefit the child participants. While relevant, its focus is quite specific and might be more applicable for examining research ethics in medical or clinical contexts.**
·
[**The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research**](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED183582.pdf)
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, B., MD. (1978).
_The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research._ **This version of the Belmont Report is the scanned document files for those who want to review the governmental report files.**
**## L5Instructions.docx**
**Questionable Research**
This subject focuses on helping you to understand the importance of ethical research. While ethical research into human behavior can benefit society, unethical research will be rejected by peer-reviewed journals and as a result, will not be disseminated. In addition to potentially harming participants, the authors will be subject to sanctions and the researchers’ potential ability to engage in future research will most likely be reduced.
In their article on the rationalization of unethical research, Paul and Brookes (2015) focus on the Tuskegee study of men with untreated syphilis and the New Zealand study of women with untreated cervical carcinoma. They note that while scientific claims were made, they were based on incomplete or misinterpreted evidence. Paul and Brookes also criticize later defenders of the study who claim that the era of the studies was one dominated by a climate of substantial scientific uncertainty. These researchers point to evidence contradicting that claim. They also point to other studies, which the original study designers misinterpreted or ignored.
Those two studies were only two of the many studies whose ethical underpinnings were questionable. Hodge (2012) describes a study that was conducted on Inupiat natives of Barrows, Alaska, age 15 and older. This was a study commissioned by the city’s Department of Public Safety with the purpose of assessing the role of alcohol use in traumatic deaths. Although the stated goal was to facilitate the design of beneficial interventions for the community, the study was criticized because of the absence of proper consent from Native youth and adults and the complete lack of Inupiat participation in the research design. As a result, the study focused on the problem of alcohol consumption and the concomitant health and social problems experienced by the Inupiat community members rather than focusing on the stated purpose of the study, the beneficial interventions.
Rosner and Markowitz (2012) discuss the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's lead abatement research project. Two African American children and their families accused the Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI), Johns Hopkins's children's clinic, and research center of engaging in unethical research on children. The KKI project had been designed to find a relatively inexpensive and effective method for eliminating or at least reducing the amount of lead in children's homes to reduce the effect of lead exposure on children's brains. The Johns Hopkins researchers had recruited 108 families with young children to live in houses with differing levels of lead, ranging from none to levels just below the existing legal limit. The researcher then measured the extent of lead in the children's blood at periodic intervals. The court of appeals found that the researchers abused a vulnerable population by intentionally exposing them to a known toxin.
Kuhs (2016) reviewed the 2011 Facebook research that assessed 700,000 users without their explicit consent. Facebook had manipulated News Feeds by reducing either negative or positive content in order to assess the impact on the users’ own behavior on the website. The study was executed with the intent of developing new knowledge. Although at the time of the study, Facebook’s Data Use Policy made no mention of the use of users’ data for research, testing, or analysis, the researchers claimed that Facebook users had given informed consent based on Facebook’s terms of use agreement. The issue then was whether Facebook users had any expectations that their information would be used for research purposes without their knowledge.
References
Hodge, F. S. (2012). No meaningful apology for American Indian unethical research abuses. Ethics & Behavior, 22(6), 431-444.
Kuhs, C. (2016, January). Notes need for informed consent in the age of ubiquitous human testing. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 49, 245-270.
Paul, C., & Brookes, B. (2015). The rationalization of unethical research: Revisionist accounts of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the New Zealand "Unfortunate Experiment". American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), e12-e19.
Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G. (2012). With the best intentions. American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), e19-e33.
The National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law on July 12, 1974. The law created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The initial function of the Commission was to identify the basic principles for ethical biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. The guidelines that follow constitute what is known as The Belmont Report. The basic ethical principles developed included respect for persons, which requires that individuals be treated as autonomous agents, and that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
While the previously discussed Facebook study is an exception, in most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for persons demands that subjects enter the research voluntarily and with adequate information. The second principle is beneficence, which requires that persons be treated in an ethical manner by protecting them from harm, respecting their decisions, and by making efforts to ensure their well-being. The third principle is justice, which emphasizes fairness in distribution of the benefits. Equals should be treated equally. To ensure compliance with these principles, informed consent is required. Informed consent requires information, comprehension, and voluntariness. In many cases, to indicate to subjects that some features will not be revealed until the research is concluded is necessary and acceptable. Even for children, respect requires giving them the opportunity to choose to the extent they are able, whether to participate in research. When parents provide consent for their children, The Belmont Report requires that they be provided an opportunity to observe the research as it proceeds and have the option of withdrawing their children, if withdrawal appears to be in the child's best interest (United States, 1978).
**Instructions**
Using the knowledge, you've gained from your research and readings, create a list of three key questions that should be asked to ensure that research involving children is conducted ethically. For example, consider whether the researchers provided follow-up services for participants experiencing distress or if the study offers direct benefits to the children involved.
Follow these steps:
1.
**Develop Your Questions**: Formulate three essential ethical questions that researchers should consider when conducting studies with children.
2.
**Select Research Studies**: Choose three original empirical research studies—either recent or historical—that involve children as participants. Be sure to select studies that involve data collection and analysis with child participants. Avoid using review articles, meta-analyses, or theoretical papers, as these do not present original research data.
3.
**Apply Your Questions**: Using the table format provided, apply your three ethical questions to each of the selected studies. Evaluate how well each study adheres to ethical standards based on your questions.
4.
**Summarize Your Findings**: After completing the tables, write a brief summary discussing your overall findings and reflections.
Here is an example of what one table might look like:
| |
| — |
| **APA Citation:** Mischel, H.N., & Mischel, W. (1983). The development of children's knowledge of self-control strategies. Child Development, 54(3),603. doi:10.1111/1467- |
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| | **Question** | **Explanation** |
| **1** | Is there evidence that parents could monitor their children and withdraw them if they appeared distress? | The children were left alone in a room and there was no indication that they were being monitored from outside the room by the parents. |
| **2** | | |
| **3** | | |
**Reference:** Be sure to include an APA formatted reference page for the studies you selected.
**Length:** Include three tables (one for each study) and a brief summary.
Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.
**## L5Instructions.docx**
**Questionable Research**
This subject focuses on helping you to understand the importance of ethical research. While ethical research into human behavior can benefit society, unethical research will be rejected by peer-reviewed journals and as a result, will not be disseminated. In addition to potentially harming participants, the authors will be subject to sanctions and the researchers’ potential ability to engage in future research will most likely be reduced.
In their article on the rationalization of unethical research, Paul and Brookes (2015) focus on the Tuskegee study of men with untreated syphilis and the New Zealand study of women with untreated cervical carcinoma. They note that while scientific claims were made, they were based on incomplete or misinterpreted evidence. Paul and Brookes also criticize later defenders of the study who claim that the era of the studies was one dominated by a climate of substantial scientific uncertainty. These researchers point to evidence contradicting that claim. They also point to other studies, which the original study designers misinterpreted or ignored.
Those two studies were only two of the many studies whose ethical underpinnings were questionable. Hodge (2012) describes a study that was conducted on Inupiat natives of Barrows, Alaska, age 15 and older. This was a study commissioned by the city’s Department of Public Safety with the purpose of assessing the role of alcohol use in traumatic deaths. Although the stated goal was to facilitate the design of beneficial interventions for the community, the study was criticized because of the absence of proper consent from Native youth and adults and the complete lack of Inupiat participation in the research design. As a result, the study focused on the problem of alcohol consumption and the concomitant health and social problems experienced by the Inupiat community members rather than focusing on the stated purpose of the study, the beneficial interventions.
Rosner and Markowitz (2012) discuss the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's lead abatement research project. Two African American children and their families accused the Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI), Johns Hopkins's children's clinic, and research center of engaging in unethical research on children. The KKI project had been designed to find a relatively inexpensive and effective method for eliminating or at least reducing the amount of lead in children's homes to reduce the effect of lead exposure on children's brains. The Johns Hopkins researchers had recruited 108 families with young children to live in houses with differing levels of lead, ranging from none to levels just below the existing legal limit. The researcher then measured the extent of lead in the children's blood at periodic intervals. The court of appeals found that the researchers abused a vulnerable population by intentionally exposing them to a known toxin.
Kuhs (2016) reviewed the 2011 Facebook research that assessed 700,000 users without their explicit consent. Facebook had manipulated News Feeds by reducing either negative or positive content in order to assess the impact on the users’ own behavior on the website. The study was executed with the intent of developing new knowledge. Although at the time of the study, Facebook’s Data Use Policy made no mention of the use of users’ data for research, testing, or analysis, the researchers claimed that Facebook users had given informed consent based on Facebook’s terms of use agreement. The issue then was whether Facebook users had any expectations that their information would be used for research purposes without their knowledge.
References
Hodge, F. S. (2012). No meaningful apology for American Indian unethical research abuses. Ethics & Behavior, 22(6), 431-444.
Kuhs, C. (2016, January). Notes need for informed consent in the age of ubiquitous human testing. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 49, 245-270.
Paul, C., & Brookes, B. (2015). The rationalization of unethical research: Revisionist accounts of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the New Zealand "Unfortunate Experiment". American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), e12-e19.
Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G. (2012). With the best intentions. American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), e19-e33.
The National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law on July 12, 1974. The law created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The initial function of the Commission was to identify the basic principles for ethical biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. The guidelines that follow constitute what is known as The Belmont Report. The basic ethical principles developed included respect for persons, which requires that individuals be treated as autonomous agents, and that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
While the previously discussed Facebook study is an exception, in most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for persons demands that subjects enter the research voluntarily and with adequate information. The second principle is beneficence, which requires that persons be treated in an ethical manner by protecting them from harm, respecting their decisions, and by making efforts to ensure their well-being. The third principle is justice, which emphasizes fairness in distribution of the benefits. Equals should be treated equally. To ensure compliance with these principles, informed consent is required. Informed consent requires information, comprehension, and voluntariness. In many cases, to indicate to subjects that some features will not be revealed until the research is concluded is necessary and acceptable. Even for children, respect requires giving them the opportunity to choose to the extent they are able, whether to participate in research. When parents provide consent for their children, The Belmont Report requires that they be provided an opportunity to observe the research as it proceeds and have the option of withdrawing their children, if withdrawal appears to be in the child's best interest (United States, 1978).
**Instructions**
Using the knowledge, you've gained from your research and readings, create a list of three key questions that should be asked to ensure that research involving children is conducted ethically. For example, consider whether the researchers provided follow-up services for participants experiencing distress or if the study offers direct benefits to the children involved.
Follow these steps:
1.
**Develop Your Questions**: Formulate three essential ethical questions that researchers should consider when conducting studies with children.
2.
**Select Research Studies**: Choose three original empirical research studies—either recent or historical—that involve children as participants. Be sure to select studies that involve data collection and analysis with child participants. Avoid using review articles, meta-analyses, or theoretical papers, as these do not present original research data.
3.
**Apply Your Questions**: Using the table format provided, apply your three ethical questions to each of the selected studies. Evaluate how well each study adheres to ethical standards based on your questions.
4.
**Summarize Your Findings**: After completing the tables, write a brief summary discussing your overall findings and reflections.
Here is an example of what one table might look like:
| |
| — |
| **APA Citation:** Mischel, H.N., & Mischel, W. (1983). The development of children's knowledge of self-control strategies. Child Development, 54(3),603. doi:10.1111/1467- |
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| | **Question** | **Explanation** |
| **1** | Is there evidence that parents could monitor their children and withdraw them if they appeared distress? | The children were left alone in a room and there was no indication that they were being monitored from outside the room by the parents. |
| **2** | | |
| **3** | | |
**Reference:** Be sure to include an APA formatted reference page for the studies you selected.
**Length:** Include three tables (one for each study) and a brief summary.
Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.
**## L5RequiredResources.docx**
**Required Resources**
·
[**The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook**](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/nu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmethods.sagepub.com%2Fbook%2Fthe-ethics-of-research-with-children-and-young-people-2e%2F)
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020).
_The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook._ SAGE Publications, Ltd.
**Read the Introduction, Chapter 2, and Chapter 3.**
**This book is a foundational text that provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical considerations in research with children. It is essential for developing a strong understanding of the broader ethical principles and practical guidance necessary for formulating key ethical questions.**
·
[**Ethical Research Involving Children: Encouraging Reflexive Engagement in Research with Children and Young People**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edswss&AN=000359323300001&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Graham, A., Powell, M. A., & Taylor, N. (2015). Ethical research involving children: Encouraging reflexive engagement in research with children and young people.
_Children and Society, 29_(5), 331–343.
**This article emphasizes reflexive engagement in research with children, which is crucial for understanding how to apply ethical considerations in practice. It aligns closely with the assignment's focus on developing and applying ethical questions.**
·
[**'Living' Ethical Dilemmas for Researchers When Researching with Children**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ981573&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Mortari, L., & Harcourt, D. (2012). “Living” ethical dilemmas for researchers when researching with children.
_International Journal of Early Years Education, 20_(3), 234–243.
**This article provides practical insights into the real-world ethical dilemmas researchers face when working with children, making it highly relevant for understanding how to navigate ethical challenges in the context of actual research studies.**
·
[**Ethical Complexities in Child Co-Research**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1203762&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Spriggs, M., & Gillam, L. (2019). Ethical complexities in child co-research.
_Research Ethics, 15_(1).
**This article addresses the ethical complexities involved in involving children as co-researchers, offering a nuanced discussion that is critical for developing ethical questions related to participatory research with children.**
·
[**A right to confidentiality or a duty to disclose? Ethical guidance for conducting prevention research with children and adolescents**](https://doc.rero.ch/record/325716/files/787_2014_Article_526.pdf)
Hiriscau, I. E., Stingelin-Giles, N., Stadler, C., Schmeck, K., & Reiter-Theil, S. (2014). A right to confidentiality or a duty to disclose? Ethical guidance for conducting prevention research with children and adolescents.
_European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23,_ 409-416.
**This article focuses on the ethical tension between confidentiality and the duty to disclose in research with children, which is a key issue to consider when developing ethical questions.**
·
[**Using Participatory Methods with Young Children; Reflections on Emergent 'Ethically Important Moments' in School-Based Research**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1268806&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Stokes, T. (2020). Using participatory methods with young children; Reflections on emergent “Ethically Important Moments” in school-based research.
_Irish Educational Studies, 39_(3), 375–387.
**This article provides a practical exploration of ethical dilemmas that arise in real-time during participatory research with young children. The concept of "ethically important moments" is highly relevant for the assignment's focus on developing and applying ethical questions to research studies. It also emphasizes the importance of reflexivity in dealing with unexpected ethical challenges, which is a critical skill to understand and apply when conducting or evaluating research with children. Since participatory research methods are increasingly common, this article offers valuable insights that can apply broadly to various research contexts involving children.**
·
[**The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research**](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html)
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2024).
_The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research dated April 18, 1979._ US Department of Health and Human Services.
**The Belmont Report is a seminal document in research ethics, outlining core principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. It provides a foundational understanding of ethical principles directly applicable to research involving children.**
**Optional Resources**
·
[**Ethical Review and Reflexivity in Research of Children's Sexuality**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ993105&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Flanagan, P. (2012). Ethical review and reflexivity in research of children’s sexuality.
_Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 12_(5), 535–544.
**While this article provides valuable insights into ethical considerations in a specific context—children's sexuality research—it is more specialized and may not apply broadly to all research involving children.**
·
[**Revisiting Ethics in Ethnographic Research with Children**](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/nu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/revisiting-ethics-ethnographic-research-with/docview/1701876011/se-2?accountid=25320)
Tulebaeva, B. (2014). Revisiting ethics in ethnographic research with children.
_Oriental Anthropologists, 14_(2), 203–216.
**This article critiques the differentiation of ethical standards based on age, suggesting that ethical principles should be consistent for both children and adults. While thought-provoking, its focus is more on critiquing existing frameworks rather than providing direct guidance for the assignment’s objectives.**
·
[**Why Do Parents Grant or Deny Consent for Adolescent Participation in Sexuality Research?**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edssjs&AN=edssjs.EAB3D102&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Moilanen, K. L. (2016). Why do parents grant or deny consent for adolescent participation in sexuality research?
_Journal of Youth and Adolescence: A Multidisciplinary Research Publication, 45_(5), 1020–1036.
**This article explores parental decision-making regarding consent in the context of adolescent sexuality research. Its focus on parental perspectives and consent is important but may be too narrow for the broader scope of the assignment.**
·
[**Justifying pediatric research not expected to benefit child subjects**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=mdc&AN=22220961&site=ehost-live&custid=natuniv)
Spriggs M. (2012). Justifying pediatric research not expected to benefit child subjects.
_The American Journal of Bioethics, 12_(1), 42–44.
**This article discusses the ethical justification for pediatric research that may not directly benefit the child participants. While relevant, its focus is quite specific and might be more applicable for examining research ethics in medical or clinical contexts.**
·
[**The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research**](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED183582.pdf)
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, B., MD. (1978).
_The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research._ **This version of the Belmont Report is the scanned document files for those who want to review the governmental report files.**
**## L5Instructions.docx**
**Questionable Research**
This subject focuses on helping you to understand the importance of ethical research. While ethical research into human behavior can benefit society, unethical research will be rejected by peer-reviewed journals and as a result, will not be disseminated. In addition to potentially harming participants, the authors will be subject to sanctions and the researchers’ potential ability to engage in future research will most likely be reduced.
In their article on the rationalization of unethical research, Paul and Brookes (2015) focus on the Tuskegee study of men with untreated syphilis and the New Zealand study of women with untreated cervical carcinoma. They note that while scientific claims were made, they were based on incomplete or misinterpreted evidence. Paul and Brookes also criticize later defenders of the study who claim that the era of the studies was one dominated by a climate of substantial scientific uncertainty. These researchers point to evidence contradicting that claim. They also point to other studies, which the original study designers misinterpreted or ignored.
Those two studies were only two of the many studies whose ethical underpinnings were questionable. Hodge (2012) describes a study that was conducted on Inupiat natives of Barrows, Alaska, age 15 and older. This was a study commissioned by the city’s Department of Public Safety with the purpose of assessing the role of alcohol use in traumatic deaths. Although the stated goal was to facilitate the design of beneficial interventions for the community, the study was criticized because of the absence of proper consent from Native youth and adults and the complete lack of Inupiat participation in the research design. As a result, the study focused on the problem of alcohol consumption and the concomitant health and social problems experienced by the Inupiat community members rather than focusing on the stated purpose of the study, the beneficial interventions.
Rosner and Markowitz (2012) discuss the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's lead abatement research project. Two African American children and their families accused the Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI), Johns Hopkins's children's clinic, and research center of engaging in unethical research on children. The KKI project had been designed to find a relatively inexpensive and effective method for eliminating or at least reducing the amount of lead in children's homes to reduce the effect of lead exposure on children's brains. The Johns Hopkins researchers had recruited 108 families with young children to live in houses with differing levels of lead, ranging from none to levels just below the existing legal limit. The researcher then measured the extent of lead in the children's blood at periodic intervals. The court of appeals found that the researchers abused a vulnerable population by intentionally exposing them to a known toxin.
Kuhs (2016) reviewed the 2011 Facebook research that assessed 700,000 users without their explicit consent. Facebook had manipulated News Feeds by reducing either negative or positive content in order to assess the impact on the users’ own behavior on the website. The study was executed with the intent of developing new knowledge. Although at the time of the study, Facebook’s Data Use Policy made no mention of the use of users’ data for research, testing, or analysis, the researchers claimed that Facebook users had given informed consent based on Facebook’s terms of use agreement. The issue then was whether Facebook users had any expectations that their information would be used for research purposes without their knowledge.
References
Hodge, F. S. (2012). No meaningful apology for American Indian unethical research abuses. Ethics & Behavior, 22(6), 431-444.
Kuhs, C. (2016, January). Notes need for informed consent in the age of ubiquitous human testing. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 49, 245-270.
Paul, C., & Brookes, B. (2015). The rationalization of unethical research: Revisionist accounts of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the New Zealand "Unfortunate Experiment". American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), e12-e19.
Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G. (2012). With the best intentions. American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), e19-e33.
The National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law on July 12, 1974. The law created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The initial function of the Commission was to identify the basic principles for ethical biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. The guidelines that follow constitute what is known as The Belmont Report. The basic ethical principles developed included respect for persons, which requires that individuals be treated as autonomous agents, and that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
While the previously discussed Facebook study is an exception, in most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for persons demands that subjects enter the research voluntarily and with adequate information. The second principle is beneficence, which requires that persons be treated in an ethical manner by protecting them from harm, respecting their decisions, and by making efforts to ensure their well-being. The third principle is justice, which emphasizes fairness in distribution of the benefits. Equals should be treated equally. To ensure compliance with these principles, informed consent is required. Informed consent requires information, comprehension, and voluntariness. In many cases, to indicate to subjects that some features will not be revealed until the research is concluded is necessary and acceptable. Even for children, respect requires giving them the opportunity to choose to the extent they are able, whether to participate in research. When parents provide consent for their children, The Belmont Report requires that they be provided an opportunity to observe the research as it proceeds and have the option of withdrawing their children, if withdrawal appears to be in the child's best interest (United States, 1978).
**Instructions**
Using the knowledge, you've gained from your research and readings, create a list of three key questions that should be asked to ensure that research involving children is conducted ethically. For example, consider whether the researchers provided follow-up services for participants experiencing distress or if the study offers direct benefits to the children involved.
Follow these steps:
1.
**Develop Your Questions**: Formulate three essential ethical questions that researchers should consider when conducting studies with children.
2.
**Select Research Studies**: Choose three original empirical research studies—either recent or historical—that involve children as participants. Be sure to select studies that involve data collection and analysis with child participants. Avoid using review articles, meta-analyses, or theoretical papers, as these do not present original research data.
3.
**Apply Your Questions**: Using the table format provided, apply your three ethical questions to each of the selected studies. Evaluate how well each study adheres to ethical standards based on your questions.
4.
**Summarize Your Findings**: After completing the tables, write a brief summary discussing your overall findings and reflections.
Here is an example of what one table might look like:
| |
| — |
| **APA Citation:** Mischel, H.N., & Mischel, W. (1983). The development of children's knowledge of self-control strategies. Child Development, 54(3),603. doi:10.1111/1467- |
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| | **Question** | **Explanation** |
| **1** | Is there evidence that parents could monitor their children and withdraw them if they appeared distress? | The children were left alone in a room and there was no indication that they were being monitored from outside the room by the parents. |
| **2** | | |
| **3** | | |
**Reference:** Be sure to include an APA formatted reference page for the studies you selected.
**Length:** Include three tables (one for each study) and a brief summary.
Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.
**## L5RequiredResources.docx**
**Required Resources**
·
[**The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook**](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/nu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmethods.sagepub.com%2Fbook%2Fthe-ethics-of-research-with-children-and-young-people-2e%2F)
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020).
_The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook._ SAGE Publications, Ltd.
**Read the Introduction, Chapter 2, and Chapter 3.**
**This book is a foundational text that provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical considerations in research with children. It is essential for developing a strong understanding of the broader ethical principles and practical guidance necessary for formulating key ethical questions.**
·
[**Ethical Research Involving Children: Encouraging Reflexive Engagement in Research with Children and Young People**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edswss&AN=000359323300001&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Graham, A., Powell, M. A., & Taylor, N. (2015). Ethical research involving children: Encouraging reflexive engagement in research with children and young people.
_Children and Society, 29_(5), 331–343.
**This article emphasizes reflexive engagement in research with children, which is crucial for understanding how to apply ethical considerations in practice. It aligns closely with the assignment's focus on developing and applying ethical questions.**
·
[**'Living' Ethical Dilemmas for Researchers When Researching with Children**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ981573&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Mortari, L., & Harcourt, D. (2012). “Living” ethical dilemmas for researchers when researching with children.
_International Journal of Early Years Education, 20_(3), 234–243.
**This article provides practical insights into the real-world ethical dilemmas researchers face when working with children, making it highly relevant for understanding how to navigate ethical challenges in the context of actual research studies.**
·
[**Ethical Complexities in Child Co-Research**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1203762&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Spriggs, M., & Gillam, L. (2019). Ethical complexities in child co-research.
_Research Ethics, 15_(1).
**This article addresses the ethical complexities involved in involving children as co-researchers, offering a nuanced discussion that is critical for developing ethical questions related to participatory research with children.**
·
[**A right to confidentiality or a duty to disclose? Ethical guidance for conducting prevention research with children and adolescents**](https://doc.rero.ch/record/325716/files/787_2014_Article_526.pdf)
Hiriscau, I. E., Stingelin-Giles, N., Stadler, C., Schmeck, K., & Reiter-Theil, S. (2014). A right to confidentiality or a duty to disclose? Ethical guidance for conducting prevention research with children and adolescents.
_European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23,_ 409-416.
**This article focuses on the ethical tension between confidentiality and the duty to disclose in research with children, which is a key issue to consider when developing ethical questions.**
·
[**Using Participatory Methods with Young Children; Reflections on Emergent 'Ethically Important Moments' in School-Based Research**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1268806&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Stokes, T. (2020). Using participatory methods with young children; Reflections on emergent “Ethically Important Moments” in school-based research.
_Irish Educational Studies, 39_(3), 375–387.
**This article provides a practical exploration of ethical dilemmas that arise in real-time during participatory research with young children. The concept of "ethically important moments" is highly relevant for the assignment's focus on developing and applying ethical questions to research studies. It also emphasizes the importance of reflexivity in dealing with unexpected ethical challenges, which is a critical skill to understand and apply when conducting or evaluating research with children. Since participatory research methods are increasingly common, this article offers valuable insights that can apply broadly to various research contexts involving children.**
·
[**The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research**](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html)
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2024).
_The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research dated April 18, 1979._ US Department of Health and Human Services.
**The Belmont Report is a seminal document in research ethics, outlining core principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. It provides a foundational understanding of ethical principles directly applicable to research involving children.**
**Optional Resources**
·
[**Ethical Review and Reflexivity in Research of Children's Sexuality**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ993105&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Flanagan, P. (2012). Ethical review and reflexivity in research of children’s sexuality.
_Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 12_(5), 535–544.
**While this article provides valuable insights into ethical considerations in a specific context—children's sexuality research—it is more specialized and may not apply broadly to all research involving children.**
·
[**Revisiting Ethics in Ethnographic Research with Children**](https://go.openathens.net/redirector/nu.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/revisiting-ethics-ethnographic-research-with/docview/1701876011/se-2?accountid=25320)
Tulebaeva, B. (2014). Revisiting ethics in ethnographic research with children.
_Oriental Anthropologists, 14_(2), 203–216.
**This article critiques the differentiation of ethical standards based on age, suggesting that ethical principles should be consistent for both children and adults. While thought-provoking, its focus is more on critiquing existing frameworks rather than providing direct guidance for the assignment’s objectives.**
·
[**Why Do Parents Grant or Deny Consent for Adolescent Participation in Sexuality Research?**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edssjs&AN=edssjs.EAB3D102&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=natuniv)
Moilanen, K. L. (2016). Why do parents grant or deny consent for adolescent participation in sexuality research?
_Journal of Youth and Adolescence: A Multidisciplinary Research Publication, 45_(5), 1020–1036.
**This article explores parental decision-making regarding consent in the context of adolescent sexuality research. Its focus on parental perspectives and consent is important but may be too narrow for the broader scope of the assignment.**
·
[**Justifying pediatric research not expected to benefit child subjects**](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=mdc&AN=22220961&site=ehost-live&custid=natuniv)
Spriggs M. (2012). Justifying pediatric research not expected to benefit child subjects.
_The American Journal of Bioethics, 12_(1), 42–44.
**This article discusses the ethical justification for pediatric research that may not directly benefit the child participants. While relevant, its focus is quite specific and might be more applicable for examining research ethics in medical or clinical contexts.**
·
[**The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research**](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED183582.pdf)
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, B., MD. (1978).
_The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research._ **This version of the Belmont Report is the scanned document files for those who want to review the governmental report files.**
**## L5Instructions.docx**
**Questionable Research**
This subject focuses on helping you to understand the importance of ethical research. While ethical research into human behavior can benefit society, unethical research will be rejected by peer-reviewed journals and as a result, will not be disseminated. In addition to potentially harming participants, the authors will be subject to sanctions and the researchers’ potential ability to engage in future research will most likely be reduced.
In their article on the rationalization of unethical research, Paul and Brookes (2015) focus on the Tuskegee study of men with untreated syphilis and the New Zealand study of women with untreated cervical carcinoma. They note that while scientific claims were made, they were based on incomplete or misinterpreted evidence. Paul and Brookes also criticize later defenders of the study who claim that the era of the studies was one dominated by a climate of substantial scientific uncertainty. These researchers point to evidence contradicting that claim. They also point to other studies, which the original study designers misinterpreted or ignored.
Those two studies were only two of the many studies whose ethical underpinnings were questionable. Hodge (2012) describes a study that was conducted on Inupiat natives of Barrows, Alaska, age 15 and older. This was a study commissioned by the city’s Department of Public Safety with the purpose of assessing the role of alcohol use in traumatic deaths. Although the stated goal was to facilitate the design of beneficial interventions for the community, the study was criticized because of the absence of proper consent from Native youth and adults and the complete lack of Inupiat participation in the research design. As a result, the study focused on the problem of alcohol consumption and the concomitant health and social problems experienced by the Inupiat community members rather than focusing on the stated purpose of the study, the beneficial interventions.
Rosner and Markowitz (2012) discuss the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's lead abatement research project. Two African American children and their families accused the Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI), Johns Hopkins's children's clinic, and research center of engaging in unethical research on children. The KKI project had been designed to find a relatively inexpensive and effective method for eliminating or at least reducing the amount of lead in children's homes to reduce the effect of lead exposure on children's brains. The Johns Hopkins researchers had recruited 108 families with young children to live in houses with differing levels of lead, ranging from none to levels just below the existing legal limit. The researcher then measured the extent of lead in the children's blood at periodic intervals. The court of appeals found that the researchers abused a vulnerable population by intentionally exposing them to a known toxin.
Kuhs (2016) reviewed the 2011 Facebook research that assessed 700,000 users without their explicit consent. Facebook had manipulated News Feeds by reducing either negative or positive content in order to assess the impact on the users’ own behavior on the website. The study was executed with the intent of developing new knowledge. Although at the time of the study, Facebook’s Data Use Policy made no mention of the use of users’ data for research, testing, or analysis, the researchers claimed that Facebook users had given informed consent based on Facebook’s terms of use agreement. The issue then was whether Facebook users had any expectations that their information would be used for research purposes without their knowledge.
References
Hodge, F. S. (2012). No meaningful apology for American Indian unethical research abuses. Ethics & Behavior, 22(6), 431-444.
Kuhs, C. (2016, January). Notes need for informed consent in the age of ubiquitous human testing. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 49, 245-270.
Paul, C., & Brookes, B. (2015). The rationalization of unethical research: Revisionist accounts of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the New Zealand "Unfortunate Experiment". American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), e12-e19.
Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G. (2012). With the best intentions. American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), e19-e33.
The National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-348) was signed into law on July 12, 1974. The law created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The initial function of the Commission was to identify the basic principles for ethical biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. The guidelines that follow constitute what is known as The Belmont Report. The basic ethical principles developed included respect for persons, which requires that individuals be treated as autonomous agents, and that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
While the previously discussed Facebook study is an exception, in most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for persons demands that subjects enter the research voluntarily and with adequate information. The second principle is beneficence, which requires that persons be treated in an ethical manner by protecting them from harm, respecting their decisions, and by making efforts to ensure their well-being. The third principle is justice, which emphasizes fairness in distribution of the benefits. Equals should be treated equally. To ensure compliance with these principles, informed consent is required. Informed consent requires information, comprehension, and voluntariness. In many cases, to indicate to subjects that some features will not be revealed until the research is concluded is necessary and acceptable. Even for children, respect requires giving them the opportunity to choose to the extent they are able, whether to participate in research. When parents provide consent for their children, The Belmont Report requires that they be provided an opportunity to observe the research as it proceeds and have the option of withdrawing their children, if withdrawal appears to be in the child's best interest (United States, 1978).
**Instructions**
Using the knowledge, you've gained from your research and readings, create a list of three key questions that should be asked to ensure that research involving children is conducted ethically. For example, consider whether the researchers provided follow-up services for participants experiencing distress or if the study offers direct benefits to the children involved.
Follow these steps:
1.
**Develop Your Questions**: Formulate three essential ethical questions that researchers should consider when conducting studies with children.
2.
**Select Research Studies**: Choose three original empirical research studies—either recent or historical—that involve children as participants. Be sure to select studies that involve data collection and analysis with child participants. Avoid using review articles, meta-analyses, or theoretical papers, as these do not present original research data.
3.
**Apply Your Questions**: Using the table format provided, apply your three ethical questions to each of the selected studies. Evaluate how well each study adheres to ethical standards based on your questions.
4.
**Summarize Your Findings**: After completing the tables, write a brief summary discussing your overall findings and reflections.
Here is an example of what one table might look like:
| |
| — |
| **APA Citation:** Mischel, H.N., & Mischel, W. (1983). The development of children's knowledge of self-control strategies. Child Development, 54(3),603. doi:10.1111/1467- |
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| | **Question** | **Explanation** |
| **1** | Is there evidence that parents could monitor their children and withdraw them if they appeared distress? | The children were left alone in a room and there was no indication that they were being monitored from outside the room by the parents. |
| **2** | | |
| **3** | | |
**Reference:** Be sure to include an APA formatted reference page for the studies you selected.
**Length:** Include three tables (one for each study) and a brief summary.
Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.
– 1
– 2