Deconstructing Historical Research

Deconstructing Historical Research

You will examine historical research in psychology and its impact. Een when conducted unethically, this research may provide insights into the evolution of ethical standards and the consequences of past practices. It helps us understand the progress in protecting human rights and guides the development of more ethical research methods today, such as the use of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) for approval when conducting research.

Since most current research requires Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, it generally complies with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2016). However, this was not true of research conducted before the ethical principles were developed. Many of the studies, which would now be considered unethical (e.g., Milgram’s Obedience Study), have contributed to general knowledge. This is also true in the research on children.

IRBs are regulatory committees with a mandate to approve, oversee, and maintain ethical standards for human subjects’ research. IRBs apply specific regulatory criteria, which must be met before studies involving human subjects can begin. According to Blackwood et al. (2015), IRBs cannot approve a study unless the risks to subjects are minimized, and the risks are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. In addition, subject selection must be equitable. Voluntary informed consent must not only be sought, but it must be documented appropriately. The consent must include eight basic elements including risks and benefits of the study as well as procedures that will be used to maintain the confidentiality described in a way that is understandable to prospective subjects. Lentz, Kennett, Perlmutter, and Forrest (2016) expand on the informed consent form adding such issues as the research procedures, including those that are experimental, relative to visits required for standard care as well as reasonably foreseeable risks/discomforts, compared to standard of care.

Beginning January 19, 2020, U.S.-based institutions are required to use a single IRB for National Institute of Health funded multisite studies (The Central IRB, 2017).

Be sure to review the resources carefully. You are expected to apply the information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.

References

American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association.

Blackwood, R. A., Maio, R. F., Mrdjenovich, A. J., VandenBosch, T. M., Gordon, P. S., Shipman, E. L., & Hamilton, T. A. (2015). Analysis of the nature of IRB contingencies required for informed consent document approval. Accountability In Research, 22(4), 237-245.

Lentz, J., Kennett, M., Perlmutter, J., & Forrest, A. (2016, July). Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: Recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 49, 65-69.

The central IRB rule is still on -- For now: It's becoming more challenging. (2017). ED Legal Letter, 28(7), 116-117.

Assignment: Analyze Historical Research Studies

Instructions

For this assignment:

Describe and Analyze: Begin by separately describing and analyzing the two famous studies: Little Albert and The Strange Situation. Focus on identifying and discussing any potential ethical violations in each study.

Modify for Replication: Consider whether these two studies could be modified for replication in today's context. Explain how each study could be ethically adjusted to align with current standards while still maintaining its research objectives.

Evaluate Justification: Reflect on whether the knowledge gained from these studies justified the methods used. Take into account both the ethical concerns and the contributions to the field of psychology.

Develop Informed Consent Documents: On a separate page, create an Informed Consent document for each study as if they were to be conducted today. Ensure that these documents reflect current ethical standards, including details on participant rights, risks, and benefits.

References: Support your assignment with at least three scholarly resources. You may include seminal articles and additional appropriate scholarly sources. Websites are not considered scholarly sources and should be used sparingly. If you do reference a website, ensure it is from a reputable organization (e.g., .org, .mil, .gov, .edu).

Length: The analysis should be 3-4 pages, not including the title and reference pages. Additionally, create two separate Informed Consent documents, one for each study, which are not included in the page count.

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.

Deconstructing Historical Research

You will examine historical research in psychology and its impact. Een when conducted unethically, this research may provide insights into the evolution of ethical standards and the consequences of past practices. It helps us understand the progress in protecting human rights and guides the development of more ethical research methods today, such as the use of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) for approval when conducting research.

Since most current research requires Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, it generally complies with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2016). However, this was not true of research conducted before the ethical principles were developed. Many of the studies, which would now be considered unethical (e.g., Milgram’s Obedience Study), have contributed to general knowledge. This is also true in the research on children.

IRBs are regulatory committees with a mandate to approve, oversee, and maintain ethical standards for human subjects’ research. IRBs apply specific regulatory criteria, which must be met before studies involving human subjects can begin. According to Blackwood et al. (2015), IRBs cannot approve a study unless the risks to subjects are minimized, and the risks are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. In addition, subject selection must be equitable. Voluntary informed consent must not only be sought, but it must be documented appropriately. The consent must include eight basic elements including risks and benefits of the study as well as procedures that will be used to maintain the confidentiality described in a way that is understandable to prospective subjects. Lentz, Kennett, Perlmutter, and Forrest (2016) expand on the informed consent form adding such issues as the research procedures, including those that are experimental, relative to visits required for standard care as well as reasonably foreseeable risks/discomforts, compared to standard of care.

Beginning January 19, 2020, U.S.-based institutions are required to use a single IRB for National Institute of Health funded multisite studies (The Central IRB, 2017).

Be sure to review the resources carefully. You are expected to apply the information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.

References

American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association.

Blackwood, R. A., Maio, R. F., Mrdjenovich, A. J., VandenBosch, T. M., Gordon, P. S., Shipman, E. L., & Hamilton, T. A. (2015). Analysis of the nature of IRB contingencies required for informed consent document approval. Accountability In Research, 22(4), 237-245.

Lentz, J., Kennett, M., Perlmutter, J., & Forrest, A. (2016, July). Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: Recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 49, 65-69.

The central IRB rule is still on -- For now: It's becoming more challenging. (2017). ED Legal Letter, 28(7), 116-117.

Assignment: Analyze Historical Research Studies

Instructions

For this assignment:

Describe and Analyze: Begin by separately describing and analyzing the two famous studies: Little Albert and The Strange Situation. Focus on identifying and discussing any potential ethical violations in each study.

Modify for Replication: Consider whether these two studies could be modified for replication in today's context. Explain how each study could be ethically adjusted to align with current standards while still maintaining its research objectives.

Evaluate Justification: Reflect on whether the knowledge gained from these studies justified the methods used. Take into account both the ethical concerns and the contributions to the field of psychology.

Develop Informed Consent Documents: On a separate page, create an Informed Consent document for each study as if they were to be conducted today. Ensure that these documents reflect current ethical standards, including details on participant rights, risks, and benefits.

References: Support your assignment with at least three scholarly resources. You may include seminal articles and additional appropriate scholarly sources. Websites are not considered scholarly sources and should be used sparingly. If you do reference a website, ensure it is from a reputable organization (e.g., .org, .mil, .gov, .edu).

Length: The analysis should be 3-4 pages, not including the title and reference pages. Additionally, create two separate Informed Consent documents, one for each study, which are not included in the page count.

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.