The issue of consent is essential for the ethical review of research involving human participants. The university`s code of conduct states that, knowingly, any research involving human participants should normally be approved. Each participant should be able to understand, from a fact sheet, what participation would mean for them. Researchers should not be forced to participate in research and some incentives can be interpreted as a constraint. However, participants in adult research may receive a small financial reimbursement for their time and expenses. Informed consent, also known as valid consent, means that potential participants can make free and informed decisions about their participation by providing them with sufficient information about the research and ensuring that there is no explicit or implied coercion. Secret research can be carried out if it can provide unique forms of evidence or if a hidden observation can alter the phenomenon studied. The IP is the person responsible for a research study. THE IP is mandatory: it is possible to obtain the agreement of the long-term participants, sometimes called “permanent consent”. There is no agreement in time. There is no need to contact human participants again when their personal data is reused for further research. Researchers have an ethical obligation to ensure that human participants are able to make informed decisions when they think about whether or not to participate in a study. If the design of the research is such that participants are not able to obtain meaningful consent before collecting data, the ethical review and approval of the protocol must always be conducted at the highest level.
With consent, participants have the right to withdraw their consent and the right not to answer certain questions. Elite interviews are interviews with high-level individuals who can be selected to be included in a research study because of their public role (for example. B government ministers) or because they have opinions about their general position (. B, for example, judges, newspaper editors). One factor that should not generally be used for decision-making is the presence or absence of a particular diagnosis. Studies show that many people with serious mental illnesses, at least outside the context of the most acute illnesses, retain the ability to understand, appreciate, appreciate, justify and express their participation in research protocols (Appelbaum, 2006; Jeste, Depp, Palmer, 2006). Particularly in the case of schizophrenia, much empirical research suggests that it is, at least in outpatients, cognitive deficits that are often associated with this disorder that most directly influence decision-making ability, not the main psychopathological symptoms (Palmer-Savla, 2007). In short, while clinical conditions are often risk factors for capacity disruption, they do not mean loss of capacity. As a general rule, you should provide written information, give participants time to review their decisions, and ask researchers to sign approval forms so that you keep a record of their consent. Here too, there may be circumstances in which parental consent could compromise research (for example.
B in research on adolescent sexuality or teen pregnancy). Under these conditions, researchers should consider the potential risk to key research participants as a priority. The general principle should be that secret research should not be conducted lightly or routinely. It is only justified if important issues are addressed and if issues of social importance that cannot be otherwise discovered are likely to be discovered. Normally, social scientists should ensure that researchers are informed and approve agreements regarding data management and security, maintaining anonymity and any risks that may arise during or outside the project itself.