4.+Researcher's+responsibility+for+harmful+consequences

Researchers are responsible for harmful consequences of the work that they do; as a result researchers must undertake several steps in an attempt to minimize the potential harm done when they consider their research proposals. One way to do this is to make sure that the researchers are qualified to do the work that they are attempting and that their participants are recruited in an ethical way (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011). Ideally participants in research do so as volunteers, this can limit any potential harm done by coercion or undue influence. Another way to limit potential harm from a research project is through Institutional Review Boards (IRB). An IRB is a group of qualified individuals who objectively weigh the benefits of research against any potential drawbacks. In order for the proposal to be accepted, the benefits must far outweigh any drawbacks and any harm that is required for the completion of the research must be both justified and as minimal as possible.

====In the researcher’s responsibility for harmful consequences, the items to be considered when choosing a topic that may affect one’s research proposal include assessing the risks versus benefits of the research, how research participants are recruited for the research, and the consideration of certain demographics (i.e. inmates) that would be taken advantage of in the study (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011). Risk to the research participant, as defined by Cottrell & McKenzie (2011), is the “possibility that harm may occur” (p.100). Risk can be measured as either small or high, however, instance of harm may still occur. Any type of harm (i.e. financial, mental, physical, legal or social) is something the researcher should consider when choosing a research topic (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011). An example of a research assessing the risks versus the benefits of the topic to be research is looking the methodology in which information is obtained. If a researcher is studying the effects of bullying on adult individuals that have experienced bullying in their adolescent years, the researcher should take care to not create any harmful situation that would re-traumatize the participant, in order to obtain information for the study. ====

====When choosing how to recruit participants for the research, the researcher should consider is how the research will have individuals that are fully aware that they are participating in a research study and whether that participation is voluntary (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011). Using the earlier example, a research participant self-identified as someone who used to bully others as a teen should be aware that they are participating in a research that is studying their former behavior and have agreed to have their former behavior studied. A researcher should make sure that the participation of the research participant is neither coerced nor participating as a result of “threat, force or undue influence” (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011, p. 101). ====

====Finally, the researcher should be considerate when choosing a research topic that studies certain demographics (i.e. the poor) could be taken advantaged of in the study (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011). Cottrell & McKenzie (2011) discusses the necessity for researchers to be mindfully aware of their responsibility to ensure that “vulnerable groups”, such as the poor or the disabled, are participating voluntarily without being manipulated to participate (p. 102). Cottrell & McKenzie (2011) further explains that the researcher should assess ethical issues with these types of demographics by considering whether the research will have any therapeutic benefit to those participating. ====

There are a myriad of challenges for sexuality related research, I will focus on one. Because sexuality is considered such a sensitive subject by our society, almost all participants in a sexuality research study could be considered by some to be “vulnerable”. This is especially true when trying to research a particularly inflammatory subject like campus rape or pedophilia. Just as we would not want to re-traumatize an adult who had been bullied as a child, we would not want to re-traumatize a research participant who had experienced sexual abuse earlier in life. Though it is our intent to make sure the participant is fully aware that they are voluntarily participating in a research study, (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011) those participants may not anticipate the emotional investment they may undergo as a result of the study.

However, many sexuality research studies don’t involve traumatic experiences. But since the subject of sex is viewed as something that can be difficult to talk about, IRBs often assume that participants won’t want to speak about sex for any reason. “IRB members assume people don’t want to talk about these things and that was not my experience” (Irvine, 2012). The complex nature of these sexuality related subjects may make convincing an IRB to find that the benefits of a sexuality study outweigh the risks extraordinarily difficult. Irvine goes on to say that “IRBs that presume sexuality is “risky,” prohibit the production of sexual knowledge and silence the voices of diverse sexualities—knowledge which might itself challenge cultural fears about sex” (33).

In 2012, Noland published an article in the Journal of Research Practice about this very problem. He says, “As a sex researcher, like many other sex researchers, I am continuously denied approval or asked to compromise my research process so radically that the original study becomes untenable. While I fully acknowledge that the IRB is an important entity and that research subjects ought to be protected, I contend that when it comes to sensitive topics, many IRBs err on the side of caution, to the detriment of research quality.” (Noland, 2012).

Irvine also sites several examples that illustrate this challenge. She describes how IRBs deny research studies that involved a qualitative study on high-schoolers to research their sexual activity. The IRB in this situation did finally relent but insisted that every participant have a permission slip signed by their parent. Other studies approved by the same IRB for that same high school only required the permission of the principal. Another IRB denied a study that sampled women who conduct sex toy parties because it would be detrimental for those women to discuss sexual issues openly. Another study on LGBT focus groups was blocked until the researchers could guarantee that a psychologist would be on-hand at all times during the study because “GLBTQ people are mentally vulnerable and he would need to provide counseling if one of them caved in sharing his or her coming out story” (Irvine, 2012, 32). Clearly, getting the IRB approval will be one of the biggest challenges faced by sexuality researchers.

References

Cotterell, R. R. & McKenzie, J. F. (2011). Health promotion and education research methods: Using the five-chapter thesis/ dissertation model. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC

Noland, C. M. (2012). Institutional Barriers to Research on Sensitive Topics: Case of Sex Communication Research among University Students. Journal Of Research Practice, 8(1).

Irvine, J. M. (2012). How Institutional Review Boards Keep Sex in the Closet. Contexts: Understanding People In Their Social Worlds, 11(2), 28-33. doi:10.1177/1536504212446457