Ethical Standards In Social Work
Research is vital as the foundation of evidence-based practice, which is imperative within social work to help the promotion of well-being, maintain dignity and overcome difficulties. Ethical standards form a fundamental part of social work practice and, likewise in research, it must reflect the same ethical principles which puts participants’ best interests as its core. These promote values which are essential when working with marginalised groups within society, including establishing trust, accountability, mutual respect and fairness (Resnik, 2011). This essay not only discusses the importance of complying with ethical standards within research, but it also analyses several key aspects which need fulfilling during both the design and conducting
…show more content…
stages to ensure research that supports ‘ethically sound’ social work values.
Social work practice values were instigated by the church and charities who believed there was a moral obligation to provide care to less fortunate people (Payne, 2005).
Even in early social work it was considered that support had increased effectiveness because values and ethics, such as respect, dignity and justice, encouraged positive frames of mind, and therefore personal well-being (Reamer, 2013:167). This ideology grew to the level encapsulated within modern day guidelines which puts service users’ best interests at the heart of practice. Not only do social workers safeguard service users from risk of harm, but they address issues which may damage personal health. The ultimate aim is to help users develop, physically, emotionally and mentally, and be better equipped to live content and potentially independent lives where they are capable of solving future issues themselves. Person-centred care is effective as it empowers the service user by getting them involved in the support process, for example, by asking what they hope to accomplish; listening to their concerns; allowing choices and, in line with best interests, acting on as many as possible. This type of practice shows people respect; that their dignity and privacy are paramount, whilst equally too is the right to make their own decisions after being provided adequate information. These experiences lead to increased confidence, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Whilst also establish new found skills, such as independence, resiliency and effective coping strategies (BASW, 2012; HSPS; 2008; TCSW,
2012).
To be seen as credible, social work must produce and refer to research which reflects similar values, yet this was difficult as other disciplines considering ethical standards to be of lesser importance. The Nuremberg trials (1947) highlighted medical research undertaken during the war where basic principles were not practiced; evidence proved that research was not only conducted without people’s permission, but they were treated like guinea pigs and subjected to substantial suffering and harm (Weindling, 2001). According to Vollman and Winau (1996), medics excused their actions as common practice by citing that no restrictions governing research existed; consequently, this event evidenced a need to apply ethics within research to regulate studies and offer subjects a degree of protection. Weindling (2001:38) states that the introduction of The Nuremberg Code (1947) ‘reaffirmed the legitimacy of clinical research’ by addressing issues which became apparent during the trials, including stipulations which stressed participants should not be exposed to risk of harm but, if it occurred, safeguards should be in place to minimise its impact (HHS.gov, 2005). The Nuremberg Code is actually the ‘origin of consent’ (Weindling, 2001), yet because it lacked legal backing and with its associations with war crimes it had minimal effect on practice (Goodyear et al, 2007). Later research studies confirmed that the set ethical ‘code of conduct’ was barely abided by, thus subjects’ health and rights were still disregarded. Two significant cases infamous for emphasising this are Milgram’s (1963) obedience experiment and Zimbardo’s (1971) Stanford Prison Study.
Milgram (1963:371) believed that for many, obedience may be ‘a deeply ingrained behaviour tendency’ that is uncontrollable and which overrides an individual’s humanity, including both morals and emotions. To test his hypothesis, Milgram conducted an experiment where participants were instructed to press a sequence of buttons that gave electric shocks, which increased in strength, to another person each time questions were incorrectly answered. Milgram observed, that even though victims did not deserve shocks, 65% of individuals inflicted them, even though they could hear and see the pain they caused, and only a fraction had marginal concern (Milgram, 1963). Blass (1991) reports this study has been praised for its confirmation that people can treat others badly in response to authority figure requests (Reicher and Haslam, 2011), yet it could be suggested that such behaviour is to gain the approval of the more powerful person. This study is renowned for criticisms regarding the numerous breaches in ethical considerations, including subjects being deceived. Deception is evident throughout the study as, not only did participants believe it was a study into memory and learning, but the role selection was rigged, whilst subjects were also lied to, and were told that shocks result in no lasting damage (Milgram,1963).
An element of deceit may have been necessary in the research to ensure valid results, yet it should be balanced and based on the subjects’ best interests, and exclude variables relating to long-standing damage. Within research, participants are supposed to be protected from harm and safeguards evident to minimise potential problems, yet this study did neither as it stressed that participants’ well-being was only checked prior leaving the laboratory (Milgram, 1963). Additionally the experiment also fails to take into account risks which subjects are exposed to as Blass (1991) confirms that a victim complained about his heart, but this was not addressed. A further issue raised was that within research participants have the ‘right to withdraw’ if they desire. In this particular case a person’s request was disallowed, even though he specifically asked to leave. Participants were not in a position to be able to make an informed decision as to whether they wished to participate as the researchers were dishonest regarding the procedure and purpose, nor did they make the subjects aware of their rights. Lastly, this study demonstrates lack of respect for parties involved as not only does it view those who were dispensing shocks as ‘naive’ but it states that they were ‘ordered’ (Milgram, 1963).
stages to ensure research that supports ‘ethically sound’ social work values.
Social work practice values were instigated by the church and charities who believed there was a moral obligation to provide care to less fortunate people (Payne, 2005).
Even in early social work it was considered that support had increased effectiveness because values and ethics, such as respect, dignity and justice, encouraged positive frames of mind, and therefore personal well-being (Reamer, 2013:167). This ideology grew to the level encapsulated within modern day guidelines which puts service users’ best interests at the heart of practice. Not only do social workers safeguard service users from risk of harm, but they address issues which may damage personal health. The ultimate aim is to help users develop, physically, emotionally and mentally, and be better equipped to live content and potentially independent lives where they are capable of solving future issues themselves. Person-centred care is effective as it empowers the service user by getting them involved in the support process, for example, by asking what they hope to accomplish; listening to their concerns; allowing choices and, in line with best interests, acting on as many as possible. This type of practice shows people respect; that their dignity and privacy are paramount, whilst equally too is the right to make their own decisions after being provided adequate information. These experiences lead to increased confidence, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Whilst also establish new found skills, such as independence, resiliency and effective coping strategies (BASW, 2012; HSPS; 2008; TCSW,
2012).
To be seen as credible, social work must produce and refer to research which reflects similar values, yet this was difficult as other disciplines considering ethical standards to be of lesser importance. The Nuremberg trials (1947) highlighted medical research undertaken during the war where basic principles were not practiced; evidence proved that research was not only conducted without people’s permission, but they were treated like guinea pigs and subjected to substantial suffering and harm (Weindling, 2001). According to Vollman and Winau (1996), medics excused their actions as common practice by citing that no restrictions governing research existed; consequently, this event evidenced a need to apply ethics within research to regulate studies and offer subjects a degree of protection. Weindling (2001:38) states that the introduction of The Nuremberg Code (1947) ‘reaffirmed the legitimacy of clinical research’ by addressing issues which became apparent during the trials, including stipulations which stressed participants should not be exposed to risk of harm but, if it occurred, safeguards should be in place to minimise its impact (HHS.gov, 2005). The Nuremberg Code is actually the ‘origin of consent’ (Weindling, 2001), yet because it lacked legal backing and with its associations with war crimes it had minimal effect on practice (Goodyear et al, 2007). Later research studies confirmed that the set ethical ‘code of conduct’ was barely abided by, thus subjects’ health and rights were still disregarded. Two significant cases infamous for emphasising this are Milgram’s (1963) obedience experiment and Zimbardo’s (1971) Stanford Prison Study.
Milgram (1963:371) believed that for many, obedience may be ‘a deeply ingrained behaviour tendency’ that is uncontrollable and which overrides an individual’s humanity, including both morals and emotions. To test his hypothesis, Milgram conducted an experiment where participants were instructed to press a sequence of buttons that gave electric shocks, which increased in strength, to another person each time questions were incorrectly answered. Milgram observed, that even though victims did not deserve shocks, 65% of individuals inflicted them, even though they could hear and see the pain they caused, and only a fraction had marginal concern (Milgram, 1963). Blass (1991) reports this study has been praised for its confirmation that people can treat others badly in response to authority figure requests (Reicher and Haslam, 2011), yet it could be suggested that such behaviour is to gain the approval of the more powerful person. This study is renowned for criticisms regarding the numerous breaches in ethical considerations, including subjects being deceived. Deception is evident throughout the study as, not only did participants believe it was a study into memory and learning, but the role selection was rigged, whilst subjects were also lied to, and were told that shocks result in no lasting damage (Milgram,1963).
An element of deceit may have been necessary in the research to ensure valid results, yet it should be balanced and based on the subjects’ best interests, and exclude variables relating to long-standing damage. Within research, participants are supposed to be protected from harm and safeguards evident to minimise potential problems, yet this study did neither as it stressed that participants’ well-being was only checked prior leaving the laboratory (Milgram, 1963). Additionally the experiment also fails to take into account risks which subjects are exposed to as Blass (1991) confirms that a victim complained about his heart, but this was not addressed. A further issue raised was that within research participants have the ‘right to withdraw’ if they desire. In this particular case a person’s request was disallowed, even though he specifically asked to leave. Participants were not in a position to be able to make an informed decision as to whether they wished to participate as the researchers were dishonest regarding the procedure and purpose, nor did they make the subjects aware of their rights. Lastly, this study demonstrates lack of respect for parties involved as not only does it view those who were dispensing shocks as ‘naive’ but it states that they were ‘ordered’ (Milgram, 1963).