Program Planning And Ethics Based On What You Have Learned

Program Planning And Ethicsbased On What You Have Learned From Your Re

Program Planning and Ethics Based on what you have learned from your readings in Comparative Approaches to Program Planning pertaining to the “when†and “which†questions, what ethical considerations will you face, or have you faced, as you craft your proposal for the final capstone project? How have you addressed these ethical concerns? Resources Required Text Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (2016). Practical research: Planning and design (11th ed.). Retrieved from Chapter 12: Mixed Methods Designs Netting, F.E., O’Conner, M.K., & Fauri, D.P. (2008). Comparative approaches to program planning (1st ed.). Retrieved from Chapter 5: Knowing When to Use Which Planning Approach Required References Creswell, J. (2010). What has given rise to the interest in mixed methods research today? Videos available in the library via Sage Research Methods Online (SRMO). Creswell, J. (2010). When should I choose a mixed methods approach? Videos available in the library via Sage Research Methods Online (SRMO). National Public Radio. (2002). Remembering Tuskegee. Retrieved from: Leithead, A. (2011, August 17). Stanford prison experiment continues to shock. Retrieved from: BBC. (n.d.). The Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Retrieved from: Buys, J., & Louw, J. (2012). A process evaluation of a supervisory development programme. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 1-13. Directorate for Education and Human Resources. (2010). The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Chapter 7. Retrieved from:

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Effective program planning requires not only strategic considerations about the timing and selection of approaches but also profound ethical reflection. Drawing from the comparative approaches to program planning outlined by Netting, O’Conner, and Fauri (2008), and the principles elucidated by Leedy and Ormrod (2016), this paper examines the ethical considerations faced during the development of a final capstone project proposal. Specifically, it explores the dilemmas encountered when deciding the timing (“when”) and methodology (“which”) approaches, and how these influence ethical decision-making processes. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the importance of addressing ethical concerns proactively and demonstrates commitment to conducting responsible research aligned with contemporary standards.

Understanding the “When” and “Which” Questions in Program Planning

In program planning, the “when” question pertains to the optimal timing for implementing particular strategies, whether at specific project phases or in response to contextual factors (Netting et al., 2008). Conversely, the “which” question involves selecting the most appropriate approach among various methods such as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods designs (Leedy & Ormrod, 2016). Both questions require careful deliberation because they significantly impact the ethical landscape of a project. For example, choosing a delayed implementation might risk neglecting urgent needs, while prematurely deploying interventions could violate participant rights or cultural norms. Similarly, selecting an inappropriate research approach may compromise data integrity or harm vulnerable populations.

Ethical Considerations in Program Planning

The core ethical considerations linked to these planning decisions include ensuring participant safety, respecting autonomy, maintaining confidentiality, and avoiding harm (Creswell, 2010). When determining “when,” researchers must consider whether the intervention aligns with the community’s readiness, avoiding exploitation or injurious actions. For example, in a community-based project, rushing to implement without adequate stakeholder engagement could undermine trust or cause unintended harm (NPR, 2002). Conversely, delaying necessary actions might exacerbate issues or diminish benefits, raising questions about moral responsibility.

Regarding “which” approach, ethical issues revolve around the choice of methods that uphold the integrity of data and protect participants. Mixed methods research, which combines qualitative and quantitative data, offers comprehensive insights but also poses challenges regarding consent, confidentiality, and the potential for bias (Creswell, 2010). Ensuring transparency and obtaining informed consent are paramount, particularly when dealing with sensitive populations, exemplified by studies like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, which infamously violated ethical standards (BBC, n.d.).

Addressing Ethical Concerns

To address these ethical challenges, my approach emphasizes adherence to established guidelines such as the Belmont Report and institutional review board (IRB) protocols. Prior to engaging with participants, I plan to obtain IRB approval, ensuring the project complies with ethical standards for research involving human subjects. This includes ensuring voluntary participation, detailed informed consent, and confidentiality protections.

Furthermore, I recognize the importance of cultural competence. For instance, in contexts resembling the Tuskegee study, where distrust was rooted in ethical breaches, I would incorporate community engagement and transparency to foster trust and respect (Leithead, 2011). Respecting participant autonomy involves clearly communicating the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the project, and providing options to withdraw at any time. To prevent harm and protect vulnerable populations, I will implement safeguarding measures in data collection and analysis.

The selection of a mixed methods approach also raises ethical considerations about data triangulation and the responsible reporting of findings. I will ensure that data is accurately represented and interpreted, and that dissemination respects community sensitivities. Ethical use of data, especially when dealing with sensitive or stigmatized populations, demands meticulous attention to confidentiality and data security.

Practical Strategies for Ethical Program Planning

Implementing ethical strategies involves continuous reflection and responsiveness throughout the project lifecycle. This includes conducting pilot studies to identify potential ethical issues early, engaging stakeholders in decision-making, and fostering an environment of openness and accountability. For example, I will develop protocols for handling sensitive information and respond promptly to any ethical dilemmas that arise.

Additionally, ongoing ethical training for the research team will ensure everyone understands their responsibilities regarding participant rights and data integrity. Regular audits and consultations with ethics boards will serve as safeguards to uphold high standards of research conduct.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ethical considerations are integral to all phases of program planning, especially when deliberating “when” and “which” approaches. Addressing these concerns requires a proactive and principled approach, guided by established ethical frameworks and a commitment to responsible research conduct. By prioritizing participant safety, transparency, and cultural sensitivity, I intend to craft a proposal that not only advances knowledge but also respects the dignity and rights of participants and stakeholders involved. Ethical program planning, therefore, is not merely a procedural requirement but a moral imperative that underpins the legitimacy and success of any research endeavor.

References

1. Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
2. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Practical research: Planning and design (11th ed.). Pearson.
3. Netting, F. E., O’Conner, M. K., & Fauri, D. P. (2008). Comparative approaches to program planning. SAGE Publications.
4. National Public Radio. (2002). Remembering Tuskegee. Available at https://www.npr.org/2002/07/26/1156337/remembering-tuskegee
5. BBC. (n.d.). The Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/health-21296987
6. Leithead, A. (2011, August 17). Stanford prison experiment continues to shock. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/17/stanford-prison-experiment
7. Buys, J., & Louw, J. (2012). A process evaluation of a supervisory development programme. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 1-13.
8. Directorate for Education and Human Resources. (2010). The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Chapter 7.
9. Resnik, D. B. (2015). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
10. Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2015). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford University Press.