SCS 100 Learning Block 2 Short Answer Rubric Respond

Scs 100 Learning Block 2 2 Short Answer Rubricprompt Respond To The F

Respond to the following short answer prompt: Imagine you are a lead social science researcher and are responsible for approving students’ proposed research studies. Review the three sample proposals below and provide brief feedback to summarize any ethical concerns you have related to each of the proposals, based on what you know about ethical codes and expectations in the social sciences.

1. Proposal 1: Racial Predisposition – The aim of this study is to examine the direct link between race and violent criminal activity. In this study, I plan to prove the direct and positive correlation between race and incidence of committing violent crimes. This will then prove that race is the strongest indicator of tendency toward violent crimes.

2. Proposal 2: Electroshock Therapy – In this study, I will examine the effect of electroshock therapy on undesirable behavior in human subjects. This study will administer electrical shocks to human subjects as a disciplinary measure when undesirable behavior is observed. The goal of the study is to determine whether the electroshock therapy is a suitable treatment for resolving disciplinary issues in preteens and adolescents. If this therapy is found to be effective, it will be prescribed to resolve disciplinary issues in preteens and adolescents.

3. Proposal 3: Health Problems, Diet, and Socioeconomic Status – This study aims to examine the relationship between health problems (diabetes, heart disease, and obesity), diet, and socioeconomic status. It is proposed that people of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to encounter these problems. Research will be conducted on human subjects where data are collected on diet (the types of food consumed along with money spent on food), and this will be related to the overall health of individuals in the study. The results and findings of this research will be published publicly so others can see the risks of consuming cheap, low-quality food.

Paper For Above instruction

Ethical Considerations in Social Science Research Proposals

Greetings, as a lead social science researcher tasked with evaluating student proposals, it is essential to scrutinize each study for potential ethical issues grounded in established ethical codes, such as the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles and Codes and other relevant guidelines. Ethical considerations serve to protect participants' well-being, uphold integrity, and ensure social responsibility in research. Analyzing the three sample proposals provides insight into key ethical concerns, which I will discuss individually.

Proposal 1: Racial Predisposition and Crime

This proposal aims to establish a correlation between race and violent crimes, implying a causal or predictive relationship based solely on racial identity. The primary ethical concern here pertains to the potential reinforcement of racial stereotypes or biases, which can perpetuate discrimination and social stigmatization. According to ethical standards, research must avoid contributing to racial prejudice or misinterpretation (American Psychological Association, 2017). Such a study risks dehumanizing groups and possibly inciting racial profiling if not carefully framed and contextualized. The researcher must ensure that the study emphasizes that any correlation does not imply causation or inherent predisposition, and must be cautious about how findings are communicated to prevent misuse. Additionally, safeguarding participant confidentiality and ensuring that the study does not stigmatize vulnerable populations are paramount. Ultimately, unless the research has a clear social justice purpose and incorporates rigorous safeguards, pursuing such a study raises significant ethical questions concerning respect for persons, justice, and beneficence.

Proposal 2: Electroshock Therapy as a Disciplinary Measure

The second proposal involves administering electrical shocks to human subjects to assess the therapy's effectiveness in managing undesirable behavior among preteens and adolescents. This proposal exhibits a profound ethical violation related to the use of harmful and invasive procedures without therapeutic or clinical justification. According to the APA Ethical Principles (2017), research involving physical harm or pain must have a compelling scientific purpose, potential benefits outweighing risks, and should adhere to the principle of nonmaleficence. Subjecting minors to electrical shocks as a disciplinary measure clearly contravenes fundamental ethical standards, as it constitutes physical abuse and neglect of moral obligations to do no harm (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Furthermore, consent issues are critical; obtaining informed consent from parents or guardians and assent from minors becomes complex when the procedure is ethically unacceptable. Approving such a proposal would likely violate core principles of ethical research, including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Ethically, the proposed methodology must be rejected or substantially revised to consider accepted therapeutic practices and prioritize participant safety and rights.

Proposal 3: Socioeconomic Status, Diet, and Health

The third study aims to explore correlations between socioeconomic status, diet, and health outcomes like diabetes and obesity, with intentions to publish publicly the findings on the risks associated with low-quality food consumption. From an ethical standpoint, this proposal appears to align more closely with accepted standards, assuming proper safeguards are in place. The study involves human subjects and data collection on sensitive personal information, raising concerns about confidentiality, privacy, and informed consent, which must be rigorously maintained (American Sociological Association, 2018). Researchers should ensure voluntary participation and transparent communication about how data will be used, stored, and published. Public dissemination of findings carries the risk of stigmatizing economically disadvantaged groups; thus, researchers must frame results responsibly, avoiding language that could reinforce stereotypes or biases. Additionally, the study must be designed to minimize potential harm, such as social stigmatization or discrimination, and include considerations for beneficence—ensuring that the research aims to improve understanding and support health equity. Proper ethical oversight, IRB review, and community engagement are essential components of ethically conducting and publishing this type of research.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ethical evaluation of these proposals illuminates the importance of safeguarding human rights, promoting social justice, and avoiding harm. Proposal 1 potentially fosters harmful stereotypes if misused; Proposal 2 involves clearly unethical procedures violating fundamental principles; and Proposal 3, while more ethically acceptable, still requires careful attention to issues of confidentiality, bias, and responsible dissemination. As a responsible researcher, it is crucial to recommend revisions or rejections where ethical standards are compromised, ensuring that social science research continues to uphold the highest ethical principles.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• American Sociological Association. (2018). Ethical Standards. https://www.asanet.org/ethics
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). The ethics of research with human subjects. Oxford University Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
• Fisher, C. B. (2017). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Sage Publications.
• Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social science and human service students. Sage Publications.
• World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191-2194.
• Levine, R. J. (2016). Ethics and regulation of clinical research. Yale University Press.