PS499 Unit 6 Research Ethics Paper Example

When the Researcher Is Also the Boss: A PS499 Unit 6 Research Ethics Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS499: Bachelor's Capstone in Psychology

Unit 6 Research Ethics Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, her hospital and her crew are composite; the report, code and article cited are real.

The Study and the Problem

My capstone proposes a randomized pilot comparing fifteen-minute awe walks with ordinary walks after the night shift, among about sixty environmental services workers at two hospitals in a Lansing, Michigan, health system. Participants would complete the Perceived Stress Scale and other questionnaires three times over six weeks and walk three mornings a week on paid time.

The study's central ethical problem is my position. I lead the night crew at one of the two hospitals and supervise fourteen of the workers who might take part. I approve their schedules, write their evaluations and recommend them for raises. A worker invited to join my study might feel that saying no could cost them something, even if I never intended that. This paper analyzes that problem and the others the study raises, using three sources.

Respect for Persons

The Belmont Report grounded American research ethics in three principles, named respect for persons, beneficence and justice (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Respect for persons means letting people decide for themselves and giving extra protection to those whose ability to decide freely is limited. In practice, it requires informed, voluntary consent.

Voluntariness is the principle my role threatens most. The APA ethics code speaks to this exact arrangement. Its standard on student and subordinate research participants requires psychologists who conduct research with people they supervise to take steps to protect them from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing (American Psychological Association, 2017).

A supervisor can ask politely and mean no pressure at all, and a worker can still hear an instruction.

The proposal includes several safeguards. A coordinator from nursing research, not I, will invite and enroll workers. Workers will meet the coordinator privately to discuss the study, so I will not know who considered joining or who declined. The consent form will state in plain language, in English, Nepali, French and Swahili, that participation has no effect on schedules, evaluations or pay. I will not see any individual's data or know any participant's group, and analysis will be done with coded identifiers by the coordinator and my faculty supervisor. Workers can withdraw at any time by telling the coordinator.

Informed consent also requires comprehension. Many workers speak English as a second language, and some have limited reading skills in any language. The coordinator will review the consent form aloud in the worker's preferred language, with a hospital interpreter where needed, and then ask the worker to describe, in their own words, what joining would involve before signing.

Beneficence

Beneficence asks the researcher to keep harm as small as possible and the good as large as possible. The study's risks are modest but real. Walking after a night shift could cause falls on icy paths, especially in winter, and tired workers could be at higher risk. The proposal schedules the study for late spring, routes walks on maintained paths and allows workers to skip a walk when they feel unwell. Questionnaires about stress could bring up distress; the consent form and the last page of each questionnaire will list the hospital's employee assistance program.

Confidentiality is a further concern in a small workplace. Stress scores could be embarrassing or, if seen by managers, misused. The research office's secure server will hold all data, and results will be reported only for groups, never for individuals or for the small number of workers in any one unit.

Justice

Justice concerns which people are asked to bear a study's costs and which people stand to gain from it. Night housekeepers are a low-paid, often overlooked group, and many are immigrants. Studying them raises the question of whether they are being chosen because they are convenient and easy to influence. The study is justified because it addresses their own stress, a problem the literature has neglected for this group, and because results will be shared with them first, at a shift meeting, before any presentation. The ordinary walk group, which receives less of the hypothesized benefit, will be offered the awe walk orientation after the study ends.

What Changed in the Proposal

Working through these principles changed the proposal in concrete ways. My first draft had me announcing the study at my own shift meeting and handing out consent forms, which would have put the request directly in the hands of the person who signs everyone's evaluation. It also had me leading the awe walks, which would have let me see who came and who did not. Both are gone. The coordinator now recruits, a volunteer from the day shift leads each group, and attendance records go to the coordinator rather than to me.

The first draft also planned to compare results by hospital unit, which in a small crew could have identified individuals. That comparison was dropped. I added the plan to offer the awe walk orientation to the comparison group after the study, after realizing that otherwise half of my crew would carry the burden of taking part without access to the program I expected to help. None of these changes weakens the science; several strengthen it by reducing the chance that workers report what they think their supervisor wants to hear.

Seven Requirements

Emanuel et al. (2000) proposed seven tests a study must pass to be ethical, running from whether it is worth doing and whether it is sound science, through who is chosen and whether the risks are justified, to outside review, consent and how people are treated once enrolled. The framework is useful as a final check. The study has value because it addresses a gap in research on a neglected group. It is scientifically valid because it uses a comparison walk and validated measures, and is honest about its size. Subject selection is fair for the reasons above. Risks are low and benefits plausible. The proposal will go to the health system's institutional review board before any recruitment. Consent procedures address both voluntariness and comprehension. And respect for enrolled participants includes the freedom to withdraw, protection of their data and sharing results with them.

Conclusion

The awe walk study raises ordinary research risks, such as falls, distress and confidentiality, and one unusual risk: the researcher supervises the participants. The Belmont principles, the APA standard on subordinate participants and the seven-part framework lead to the same conclusion. The study can be ethical only if recruitment, consent and data handling are taken out of the supervisor's hands, and the proposal has been changed to do exactly that.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.