prpnw

http://cmroberts87.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/%e2%80%9cis-it-possible-to-prove-a-research-hypothesis%e2%80%9d/#comment-20

http://prpdh.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/%e2%80%9cwhat-role-does-the-null-hypothesis-really-play-in-the-scientific-process%e2%80%9d/#comment-20

http://scarlettrose23.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/are-ethical-guidelines-there-to-be-broken/#comment-42

http://kfh1991.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/qualitative-research-isnt-as-scientific-as-quantitative-methods/#comment-22

Thanks 😀

Before the British Psychological Society adopted the ‘Code of Conduct’ in 1985 research had no guidelines or restrictions. Researchers were essentially allowed to do what they wanted without the concern for participant’s welfare. The introduction of ethical considerations has been a controversial topic and I am going to discuss this in my blog.

The Code of Conduct concentrates on four ethical principles: responsibility, respect, competence and integrity. It stresses the importance of protecting the participants who take part in the experiments.

The Code of Conduct has had a large influence on psychological research for example experiments that took place 50 years ago would not be allowed to be carried out today. In many ways this is for the better. Experiments like Zimbardo’s Standford Prison experiment (1971) caused participants harm in the way that they were subject to torture and psychological distress so much so that the experiment had to be stopped. Without the input from the British Psychological Society experiments like these would still be able to continue despite the lack of rigour surrounding participant’s interests.  If the Code of Conduct didn’t exist, surely people would stop volunteering and signing up to participant in experiments if there was a risk of harm. Isn’t it the researcher’s job to look after their participants anyway? They are enabling you to carry out the experiment after all.

Although there are clearly many benefits to having ethical considerations and guidelines some feel like it has become a hindrance when carrying out research. It can be argued that it restricts experiments and limits its findings. For example take the guidelines for deception, isn’t this a little hard to follow? We need to deceive participants to a certain degree in order to keep the aims of the study under wraps. If Milgram’s (1963) shocking experiment hadn’t used deception (the deception was pretending the participants were actually being shocked) the only way around it would be that shocks were actually given! Surely that is much worse than being deceived?

In conclusion I think that the Code of Conduct is an extremely important and essential set of guidelines for all researchers. If they hadn’t been put into place, experiments like Zimbardo’s may still be being carried out as the idea of right and wrong (in respect to experiments) won’t have been challenged before. Researchers need to actively accept their responsibility to protect participants and carry out ethical pieces of research.