Why Are There Ethical Dilemmas In Research?

Explain Why There Are Ethical Dilemmas In Research As It Relates To Pr

Explain why there are ethical dilemmas in research as it relates to protecting vulnerable clients and withholding treatment and identify the types of experimental designs that withhold treatment as a means to compare the effectiveness of an intervention. Identify and discuss two NOHS standards that specifically address ethical decisions in research.

Paper For Above instruction

Ethical dilemmas in research, particularly within the field of public relations (PR), stem from the fundamental conflict between the pursuit of knowledge and the obligation to protect participants from harm. When research involves vulnerable clients—such as minors, individuals with cognitive impairments, or marginalized communities—the risk of exploitation or harm increases, raising complex ethical questions about consent, confidentiality, and beneficence. These dilemmas are intensified when researchers consider withholding treatment or intervention to evaluate the effectiveness of certain strategies, bringing into question the balance between scientific validity and ethical responsibility.

One primary source of ethical dilemmas relates to the protection of vulnerable clients. Vulnerability in research refers to circumstances where individuals or groups are at increased risk of exploitation due to their impaired decision-making capacity, social marginalization, or dependency on others. For example, in PR research involving at-risk communities, researchers must carefully navigate issues of informed consent and avoid exploiting participants’ vulnerabilities for the sake of data collection. Ethical principles, such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice—outlined in the Belmont Report—serve as foundational guides to ensure that vulnerable populations are protected from potential harm (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).

Another ethical dilemma arises from the practice of withholding treatment, which is common in experimental designs aiming to evaluate intervention effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), considered the gold standard in experimental research, often involve assigning participants to a treatment group or a control group that might receive no treatment or a placebo. This withholding of treatment raises questions about beneficence—whether it is morally acceptable to deny potentially beneficial intervention to some participants temporarily. For instance, in PR research evaluating a new crisis communication strategy, intentionally withholding the strategy from the control group may deny them immediate potential benefits, posing ethical concerns about inflicting harm or missing opportunities for beneficial communication during critical periods.

Experimental designs that involve withholding treatment include the classic randomized controlled trial, the placebo-controlled trial, and sometimes the waitlist control design. The placebo-controlled design, in particular, involves giving participants no active treatment or a placebo, which can be ethically contentious if effective treatments exist but are withheld for the sake of comparison. The waitlist control design offers an alternative by providing the intervention to control group participants after the initial phase, thus addressing ethical concerns about withholding treatment indefinitely while still allowing for experimental comparison.

Two standards from the National Organization for Human Services (NOHS) that explicitly address ethical decision-making in research are Standard 2: Ethical Practice and Standard 4: Professional Development and Ethical Practice. Standard 2 emphasizes the importance of practicing ethically by ensuring informed consent, confidentiality, and safeguarding clients' well-being throughout the research process. It advocates for researchers to prioritize clients' rights and welfare over empirical gains. Standard 4 emphasizes ongoing professional development, requiring practitioners to stay informed about ethical standards, emerging issues, and best practices in research ethics. Together, these standards underscore the importance of ethical vigilance and responsibility in conducting research, particularly when vulnerable populations and treatment withholding are involved.

In summary, ethical dilemmas in research related to PR primarily involve protecting vulnerable clients and carefully considering the morality of withholding treatment. Researchers must navigate the tension between scientific rigor and ethical responsibility by adhering to established ethical standards and implementing designs that minimize harm, such as waitlist controls. The NOHS standards provide a framework to guide ethical decision-making, ensuring that research upholds the dignity and rights of all participants while advancing knowledge in a responsible manner.

References

Nichols, M. P., & Nichols, M. (2020). Research ethics in behavioral science. Cambridge University Press.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

National Organization for Human Services (NOHS). (2020). Standards for ethical practice. Retrieved from https://www.nationalhumanservices.org/ethics

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

Appelbaum, P. S., & Grisso, T. (2001). MacArthur Treatment Competence Study: Agreements and disagreements in assessing patients’ capacity to consent to treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 25(4), 367–385.

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.

Resnik, D. B. (2018). The ethics of research with vulnerable populations. American Journal of Bioethics, 18(7), 46–56.

Pimple, K. D. (2010). Ethics and public relations research. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 243–252.

Chestnut, R. W., & Tuckett, A. (2019). Ethical considerations in experimental research designs. Journal of Research Ethics, 15(2), 88–102.