Research Ethics Considerations

Research Ethics Considerations
Research Proposal 1
For Research Proposal 1, the learner’s proposal should be approved. A Publicly Traded Company is one that sells shares of its common stock to the public. One of the more important conditions of operating as a publicly traded company relates to the disclosure of certain information regarding operations, finances, and management to the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). The data is then made available for public perusal through such systems as the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval (EDGAR) database. Since virtually anyone can access the data, then the student is right to contend no organizational or site information is necessary (Israel, 2015).
Research Proposal 2
The learner’s proposal should not be approved. The major ethical concern here is the privacy of the organization’s data, considering that the research is sensitive, but the researcher chose to identify the organization by name. What this means is that respondents in the research effort can be identified. The researcher’s choice to use the organization’s name means that measures taken to protect research subjects from privacy invasions and possible breaches of confidentiality arising out of unauthorized re-identification is not present (Israel, 2015). The student’s choice to reveal the name of the organization thus put the research organization and its staff at risk.
Research Proposal 3
The student’s proposal should be approved because the student obtained permission from the building manager. It is the researcher’s responsibility to determine whether any permissions or approvals are necessary before accessing data (Israel, 2015). A go ahead for the research should be granted on the basis of the fact that the student elected to ask for permission before carrying out the research. Little in the way of privacy violations should be feared since the research covers a building, and the describing terms are sufficiently vague.
Research Proposal 4
The student’s research proposal should not be approved. Admittedly, the student takes special care to ensure that data in the drive is secure. However, the student does not cite any efforts to anonymize the data on the drive. Which means that if the encryption is to be broken, the identities of participants would be compromised. Also, conspicuously absent is information on who will have access to the data and how they will be able to access data (Easterby-Smith, 2004). Without the information, it is difficult to render a valid assessment of how secure the data would be.
Research Proposal 5
Direct advertising for study subjects is typically the first step in obtaining informed consent. The mistake that the student makes is to disregard a requirement to present the IRB with any direct recruitment materials that will be seen or heard by prospective subjects to solicit their participation in a research study. Similarly, it is necessary to take the participants through the informed consent form to ensure that they understand all aspects of the research and how it will affect them (Israel, 2015). A flier would not quite cut it.

References
Easterby-Smith, M. (2004). Management research. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Israel, M. (2015). Avoid harm, doing good and seeking justice. In Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance (2nd ed., pp. 123–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Israel, M. (2015). Informed consent. In Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance (2nd ed., 79–101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.