Read The Five Research Synopses And Decide Whether To Approv

Read The Five Research Synopses And Decide Whether To Approve Or Rejec

Read the five research synopses and decide whether to approve or reject the submission based on ethical research practices and standards, including alignment of the proposal elements. 2- Make a clear determination of whether you would approve or disapprove the proposal, based on the information provided in the synopses, provide an explanation to support your decision making sure to use appropriate sources. Your paper should be no more than 800 words for the entire assignment (title and reference pages are excluded).

Paper For Above instruction

The evaluation of research proposals is a critical component in ensuring ethical standards, methodological appropriateness, and the protection of participant rights. Analyzing the five synopses presented, I will assess each one’s alignment with research ethics and standards, providing a reasoned decision on whether to approve or reject each proposal.

Proposal Synopsis One

This proposal seeks to explore the relationship between a small business leader’s age, gender, years of experience, and business success, using a quantitative method with multiple linear regression. The data will be collected via an online survey targeting small business owners who have filed for bankruptcy in the past five years.

From an ethical standpoint, several issues arise. First, the sampling frame—owners who have filed for bankruptcy—raises potential sensitivity concerns, as bankruptcy can be a stigmatized and personal issue. Ensuring confidentiality and anonymity is paramount to protect participants. Second, the use of online surveys is common; however, it must be ensured that participants provide informed consent, understand their voluntary participation, and are aware of how their data will be used (Coughlan et al., 2020). Third, there is no indication that the researcher plans to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, which is essential when dealing with sensitive data, particularly on personal financial struggles.

Given the sensitive nature of the subjects and the potential for distress, the proposal warrants careful ethical review. While the research question is relevant, the researcher must implement rigorous safeguards. Therefore, I would tentatively reject this proposal until the researcher provides detailed informed consent procedures, confidentiality safeguards, and proof of IRB approval.

Proposal Synopsis Two

This proposal aims to explore how leaders in the food service industry promote employee engagement through a qualitative case study utilizing triangulation of interviews, focus groups, and web page reviews. The researcher has obtained organizational permissions and participant consents.

This study appears ethically sound, as consent has been secured, and data sources are appropriate. The qualitative design aligns well with understanding leadership practices and employee engagement, and triangulation enhances validity (Patton, 2015). The focus on employee retention is significant given high turnover rates in the industry (Kok et al., 2017). Ethical considerations include ensuring participant anonymity and voluntary participation, as well as safeguarding sensitive organizational information.

Since permission and consent are secured, and data collection methods are appropriate, I would approve this proposal. It adheres to ethical standards, and the methodology is suitable for addressing the research question.

Proposal Synopsis Three

The learner proposes a quantitative correlational study using publicly available archival data from the S&P 500, explicitly stating no permissions are required. The study involves organizations identified by name.

While using publicly available data reduces ethical concerns, naming organizations explicitly poses privacy and confidentiality issues, especially if the data could potentially harm their reputation. Ethical research practice recommends anonymizing identifiable information to prevent undue harm or bias (Resnik, 2018). Even if data are publicly accessible, identifying organizations by name in research publications without explicit consent might be problematic.

Therefore, I would reject this proposal unless the researcher anonymizes the data, removing identifiable organization names, thus aligning with confidentiality standards. The absence of IRB review is less problematic here due to the public nature of data, but ethical best practices favor anonymization.

Proposal Synopsis Four

This qualitative phenomenological study seeks to explore employees’ lived experiences regarding the lack of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities within a hospital, with permission from the hospital’s marketing director.

This proposal appears ethically sound, assuming the researcher obtains informed consent from participants, guarantees confidentiality, and clarifies the voluntary nature of participation. Phenomenological research aims to understand personal perceptions, making ethical considerations around respecting participant autonomy and minimizing harm essential (Van Manen, 2016). The organization’s permission indicates institutional approval, and the hospital staff are likely to be willing subjects when privacy is protected.

Given these points, I would approve this proposal, provided the researcher rigorously follows ethical procedures regarding informed consent, data confidentiality, and voluntary participation.

Proposal Synopsis Five

The learner proposes a qualitative case study on leadership skills for entrepreneurs in the technology industry, identifying issues with leadership failure affecting business sustainability beyond five years. The researcher states that data collection has already begun through interviews, even though the proposal is under review.

This scenario violates ethical research conduct principles. Ethical standards necessitate that research activities, especially data collection, are approved before they commence (American Psychological Association, 2020). Continuing data collection without prior IRB approval can compromise participant rights and data integrity, and may be regarded as ethical misconduct.

Therefore, I would reject this proposal. The researcher must cease data collection immediately and submit the project for IRB review to ensure compliance with ethical protocols before proceeding further.

Conclusion

In summary, proposals two and four demonstrate adherence to ethical standards and methodological suitability, warranting approval. Proposal one raises confidentiality and sensitivity concerns, necessitating further safeguards before approval. Proposal three, despite using public data, requires anonymization to protect organizational identities. Proposal five breaches ethical standards by beginning data collection prematurely, requiring cessation and resubmission for approval. Ensuring rigorous ethical review and adherence to research standards not only protects participants but also upholds the integrity of scholarly work.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA.
• Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2020). Conducting a research interview. ERPIC.
• Kok, J., Vredenburgh, D., & Kim, J. (2017). Employee retention in the hospitality industry. Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 53-55.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). Ethical dilemmas in research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(4), 241-245.
• Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. Routledge.