It seems to be a rather unfortunate situation. However, your idea to input
additional information into the Discussion Section of your research to avoid any
general maleficence to the nursery's reputation, staff, and the families who
attend will be advantageous; I think it's a good idea. You also reference
Principle E: Respect for Person's and Dignity as well as Section 4.07: Use of
Confidential Information, both of which I agree do apply in this situation and
I'm glad you addressed.
To reference your next proposal, you advocate that more demographic
information coalesces on a broader spectrum which would, in turn, aid with
protecting the identity of the nursery staff and the families who are involved.
As well as, changing the publication to a broader title, allowing the location for
the "inferior" nursey to remain all that more anonymous.
I think the best option is to combine the two separate alternatives you've
developed. By doing so you can maintain anonymity and confidentiality, while
simultaneously avoiding unintentional maleficence or harm to the nursery. This
way, additional information is provided and accounted for and the individuals
involved, as well as the reputation of the nursery, will remain intact.
I would be happy to assist you with your ethical issue in your research. c I can
see how wanting to be truthful about your research data as stated in the Code
of Conduct 8.10 Reporting Research (APA, 2016) while still maintaining General
Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (APA, 2016) of not causing harm
to your research participants. Both of the options you have presented would be
a feasible solution to your problem.
Research is meant to discover meaningful information for both current and
future issues and ideas, but not at the expense of the parties involved in
accordance with General Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility (APA, 2016). c
The second solution you presented would be the best answer for both your
research and the nursery schools who participated in your research project. You
would still be able to report your data but preserve the anonymity and
reputation of everyone involved. c You also would be in keeping with Principle E:
Respect for People's Rights and Dignity and 4.07 Use of Confidential
Information for Didactic or Other Purposes in the Code of Conduct (APA,2016). c
I hope I have been of assistance to you.
Objectively, in this post, ethically viable options are analyzed with a dedication
to the process. When the specialist cares and prioritizes the interest of the
patient and their family instead of rushing in and utilizing data to create some
brilliant analytical materials, this deserves a particular appreciation. Plus, the
solution preserving confidence and not harming the facility and the specialists’
reputation sound valid and backed up, mainly because of reference to the
professional, ethical code and a classic do not harm principle (American
Psychological Association, 2017). This one points to the author’s highly
empathetic and still qualified perspective.
Following these guidelines when researching publication can genuinely facilitate
the process. Subsequently, it may engage the professional audience to dive into
the new publication completed considering all required boundaries (Willis, 2019;
Kern et al., 2020). In such a thoughtful perspective, I discern the reflection of
such a Biblical principle as a Golden Rule, presented in the words of Jesus
Christ as said in the Gospel of Matthew 7:12 (NIV): “So in everything, do to
others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the
Prophets.” Undoubtedly, approaching the research project with an empirical
component and adequate reassurance about confidence may elevate chances
that other authors will behave in the same professional way when one’s interest
as a person, a specialist, or a writer will be exposed.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists
and code of conduct.
http://www.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ethics/code/index.html
Kern, M. L., Williams, P., Spong, C., Colla, R., Sharma, K., Downie, A., ... & Oades,
L. G. (2020). Systems informed positive psychology. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 15(6), 705-715. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1639799
“Matthew 7:12 - New International Version.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A12&version=NI
V
Willis, R. (2019). Observations online: Finding the ethical boundaries of
Facebook research. Research Ethics, 15(1), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1747016117740176
