14.6 Critical, ethical, and cultural considerations

As we’ve said at the outset, experiments, and especially true experiments, have long been seen as the gold standard to gather scientific evidence. When it comes to research in the biomedical field and other physical sciences, true experiments are subject to far less nuance than experiments in the social world. This doesn’t mean they are easier—just subject to different forces. However, as a society, we have placed the most value on quantitative evidence obtained through empirical observation and especially experimentation.

Major critiques of experimental designs tend to focus on true experiments, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but many of these critiques can be applied to quasi-experimental designs, too. Some researchers, even in the biomedical sciences, question the view that RCTs are inherently superior to other types of quantitative research designs. RCTs are far less flexible and have much more stringent requirements than other types of research. One seemingly small issue, like incorrect information about a research participant, can derail an entire RCT. RCTs also cost a great deal of money to implement and don’t reflect “real world” conditions. The cost of true experimental research or RCTs also means that some communities are unlikely to ever have access to these research methods. It is then easy for people to dismiss their research findings because their methods are seen as “not rigorous.”

Obviously, controlling outside influences is important for researchers to draw strong conclusions, but what if those outside influences are actually important for how an intervention works? Are we missing really important information by focusing solely on control in our research? Is a treatment going to work the same for white women as it does for indigenous women? With the myriad effects of our societal structures, you should be very careful ever assuming this will be the case. This doesn’t mean that cultural differences will negate the effect of an intervention; instead, it means that you should remember to practice cultural humility implementing all interventions, even when we “know” they work.

How we build evidence through experimental research reveals a lot about our values and biases, and historically, much experimental research has been conducted on white people, and especially white men.^[1] This makes sense when we consider the extent to which the sciences and academia have historically been dominated by white patriarchy. This is especially important for marginalized groups that have long been ignored in research literature, meaning they have also been ignored in the development of interventions and treatments that are accepted as “effective.” There are examples of marginalized groups being experimented on without their consent, like the Tuskegee Experiment or Nazi experiments on Jewish people during World War II. We cannot ignore the collective consciousness that situations like this can create about experimental research for marginalized groups.

None of this is to say that experimental research is inherently bad or that you shouldn’t use it. Quite the opposite—use it when you can, because there are a lot of benefits, as we learned throughout this chapter. As a social work researcher, you are uniquely positioned to conduct experimental research while applying social work values and ethics to the process and be a leader for others to conduct research in the same framework. It can conflict with our professional ethics, especially respect for persons and beneficence, if we do not engage in experimental research with our eyes wide open. We also have the benefit of a great deal of practice knowledge that researchers in other fields have not had the opportunity to get. As with all your research, always be sure you are fully exploring the limitations of the research.

===

TO INSERT:

An example of potential cultural bias comes from a study aimed to assess the impact of an intervention on mothers of newborn children in Bihar, India. The researchers were mostly affiliated with a prestigious university in the global north/west and did not appear to belong to the culture. They employed household surveys to mothers having children between the ages of 0-11 months to understand their reproductive health practices and neonatal needs. The questionnaire asked questions on “taboo” topics such as contraceptive use and breastfeeding when the women were in a shared space with their elder in laws. This could have left the women vulnerable to ostracization and abuse.  This could raise two issues: research design which inadvertently harms the population it is meant to study, and in case the women answer, the responses may not be very reliable to the extent the women altered their responses to conform to cultural expectations.

Reference = Darmstadt, G. L., Weng, Y., Pepper, K. T., Ward, V. C., Mehta, K. M., Borkum, E., Bentley, J., Raheel, H., Rangarajan, A., Bhattacharya, D., Tarigopula, U. K., Nanda, P., Sridharan, S., Rotz, D., Carmichael, S. L., Abdalla, S., Munar, W., & Ananya Study Group (2020). Impact of the Ananya program on reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition in Bihar, India: early results from a quasi-experimental study. Journal of global health, 10(2), 021002. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.10.021002

===

TO DO – INSERT INFORMATION ABOUT PRE-REGISTERING CLINICAL TRIALS IN THIS SECTION; DISCUSS FINAL RULE AND HOW IT MAY NOT APPLY TO SW RESEARCH BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF OPEN SCIENCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN RESEARCH MAY STILL PROPEL SW RESEARCHERS TO PRE-REGISTER; SOME HELPFUL LINKS – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012369215389157?via%3Dihub AND https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/background#WhatIsThePurpose

Pre-registering trials

Outline

1.How to register: Follow link above

2. Necessity for registration: Accountability, transparency, avoiding duplication, registry of trials to aid further research

Accountability: a) Ethical approval of protocol/design

1. b) Little scope for manipulation
2. c) Journals/publishers ensure consistency

Transparency: Consistency with pre-data collection/analysis research questions/hypothesis, source of funding is available

Duplication/registry of trials: registries help further research through reference and helps to prevent duplication. Research is also categorized.