Applied Social Research Human Services

Question: Discuss about the Applied Social Research for Human Services. Answer: Introduction: The aim of this concerned discourse is to make an in depth discussion about the ethical and professional issues and breaches in the context of social research. For this distinct purpose, the essay is going to select one particular provided case study and thereafter illustrating and analyzing the issues related to ethics. In time of discussing the main ethical breaches and codes of ethics for research, the assignment has intended to follow the guidelines set by NHMRC (National Health and Medical Council) for National statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Therefore, the following discourse will discuss the case study in the context of ethical issues, which will be followed by the illustration of code of ethics coined by NHMRC. The discourse has selected the very first case study that displays the unethical yet harmless act of Hannah who is engaged in evaluating her counseling programs and processes. According to the case study, the individual is operating the designed research by applying her tactics to get relevant data from her clients without informing them about it. As per Hannahs justification, her act is probably unethical though they are harmless and are capable of bringing benefits for the future clients. Hannahs act is justified if it can be viewed through the code of ethics propagated by NHMRCs first section. The first section talks about the values between a researcher and the participants of the research, which indicates that aspects like beneficence and justice should be considered with highest priority (Miller et al., 2012). After understanding Hannahs activity, it can be said that she is giving importance towards the aspect of benefit though highly breeching the ground of ethical equality. B ased on section 1.7 a), the design of a research should minimize the premises of risk while part b underpins that researcher needs to clarify both the benefits and risks related with the research for the participants (Faden et al., 2013). Hannah justification and her activity matches well with the initial principles of NHRMC. However, if the case can be illustrated by judging section two of NHMRC, the case study has not indicated that whether Hannah is taking advice from any authoritative person or not. According to the section two of NHMRC, the risks of a conducted research is justified only when the research possesses potential benefits (Harriss Atkinson, 2013). Additionally, if the research is meant for, making potential benefits though involves risks; the researcher needs to gain consent from the participant population (Lange et al., 2013). Following the doctrine that says risks are acceptable if the research has the capability to make benefits, Hannahs research procedures according to her justification are found to be justified. On the contrary, her act could not be justified ethically, if it is observed through the one of the most significant principles of NHMRC. One of the most important doctrines of NHMRC says a researcher needs to have a confirmation letter or consent of willingness from the par ticipants prior to conduct a research in case it possesses any risk (Punch, 2013). Nevertheless, in case of considering the breeches made by Hannah, it could be said initially that, she has breached the very code of ethics set by the HSRC (Human sciences research council). According the code of ethics established for the purpose of research, a researcher is obliged to respect the power of autonomy of the participants of the research (Faden et al., 2013). It means that a research should take consent of the participants of the research (Seidman, 2013). Unfortunately, Hannahs act of not taking consent from her clients and not even informing them about it proves to be a serious matter of ethical breech. Moreover, according to the fundamental principles of HSRC, if a research involves any child or individual below the age level of 18, the researcher would be obliged to take legal consent from the guardian of the person (Monette et al., 2013). However, the case study has not mentioned whether Hannahs clients are all above the age of 18 or not. Nevertheless, if it can be assumed that her clients involve both young and adult section of the society, then Hannahs act seems to have crossed both the legal and ethical ground. Various times it seems that researchers prefer to stay reluctant about to respect towards a fact that individual clients has the right to refuse to participate in the research (Punch, 2013). Considering this context, the case study seems to be a piece of evidence indicating that in reality researchers perform such an act of ignoring this particular right of individuals. She has not taken anyones consent as she believes that it may influence or show partiality to the outcome. According to the code of ethics formulated by HSRC, Hannahs act is strongly proven to be an ethical breech. However, Hannahs opinion that the act of informing clients may hinder the process of getting authentic result should also be taken into consideration. It is because, according to the concept of NHMRC, one of the main values of research and the relationship between a researcher and a research participant is beneficence (Harriss Atkinson, 2013). There are chances of showing partiality if a researcher proceed s by taking consent from each of the clients. It is because, in that scenario, the researcher would get several opinions, which can potentially make negative impact on the research process (Miller et al., 2012). On the other hand, clients may show disagreement about taking part in the research, which could also make problem for obtaining a fruitful result. Nevertheless, the code of conducting any research regarding the metal health says that the patients possess the right to take participation in the time of taking any crucial decision regarding them (Marshall Rossman, 2014). The research taken by Hannah could not be called an act of decision-making. However, her decision that the research has potentiality to prove fruitful for the clients is indeed a decision, which should have been discussed by her existing clients. Therefore, it can be deducted from the entire discourse that a research should always be done after taking confirmation from them who are going to be involved in the method. Furthermore, the essay points out that Hannah has crossed the line of ethical codes and has strongly breeched by not taking consent or approval from her clients. References Faden, R. R., Kass, N. E., Goodman, S. N., Pronovost, P., Tunis, S., Beauchamp, T. L. (2013). An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics.Hastings Center Report,43(s1), S16-S27. Harriss, D. J., Atkinson, G. (2013). Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2014 update.International journal of sports medicine,34(12), 1025-1028. Lange, M. M., Rogers, W., Dodds, S. (2013). Vulnerability in research ethics: a way forward.Bioethics,27(6), 333-340. Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B. (2014).Designing qualitative research. Sage publications. Miller, T., Birch, M., Mauthner, M., Jessop, J. (Eds.). (2012).Ethics in qualitative research. Sage. Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J., DeJong, C. R. (2013).Applied social research: A tool for the human services. Cengage Learning. Punch, K. F. (2013).Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage. Seidman, I. (2013).Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers college press.