THE ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF ADAPTATION OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL APPROACH IN THE FIELD OF IMPACT EVALUATION FOR HUMANITARIAN PROJECTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejsss.v6i2.1007کلمات کلیدی:
randomized controlled trial, impact evaluation, humanitarian projectsچکیده
Conducting and communicating research is a responsible intellectual job. A researcher would go analysing immense literature and would search for valid evidence. Prior to narrating an authentic statement. Correspondingly while selecting a method for study it is vital to opt for an approach that is ethically suitable in a defined context. While applied on a set of a populace, generally denoted to as a sample and/or universe. Therefore, social research would be a more laborious task. Hence, the social context is ever-changing in terms of time and space. Diverse methods of social research are being invented yearly. To compete with consistently changing social phenomena and needs of evidence. Operational research, evaluation, and screen monitoring are the most prominent approaches of modern social research. Hence, these naïve approaches of social research would undergo learning and adaptation. Community development projects and retrospective studies thereof are also being synthesized, with existing methods of social research. An identical practice is an adaptation of the Randomized Controlled Trial hereinafter (RCT) approach to conduct impact evaluations of humanitarian and development projects. Hitherto, RCT was being widely used by health researchers as a clinical research approach. Hence, an adaptation of this clinical research approach for field studies, particularly for the evaluation of humanitarian projects. Those are being implemented to provide survival support to vulnerable communities. It would require this approach to undergo some ethical adaptations. This research paper is developed to commence a wider literary discourse on requisite ethical adaptations for RCT to use in the evaluation of humanitarian projects. This research paper brings the findings from desk and field. To discuss key questions; where and how we can use RCT, and what ethical adaptations are necessary not to be forgone? This discourse is established on the usefulness of RCT, ethics of social research, ethics of evaluation, and humanitarian principles. The overarching purpose of this research paper is to facilitate the adaptation of RCT in the field of impact evaluation. While considering the ethical principles of the development sector and evaluation.
Article visualizations:
مراجع
Bhide, A., Shah, RS., G. (2018). A simplified guide to randomized controlled trials.
Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology AOGS; 97, 380-387. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13309.
BMZ Strategy Paper 6. (n.d.). Strategy on Transitional Development Assistance: Strengthening Resilience-Shaping Transition. Retrieved from https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/strategiepapier335-06-2013.pdf
Carley, K. (1993). Coding Choices for Textual Analysis: A Comparison of Content Analysis and Map Analysis. Sociological Methodology, 23, 75-126.
Cheema, A.R., Mehmood, A. & Imran, M. (2016). Learning from the past Analysis of disaster management structures, policies and institutions in Pakistan. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25, (4), 449 – 463. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DPM-10-2015-0243.
FAO in Emergencies. (n.d.). Guidance Note: Accountability to Affected Populations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/emergencies/docs/Guidance%20Note_Accountability_Publi.pdf
Given, L. M. (2008). Retrieved from The Sage Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Research.
Goldstein. M. (2018, April 18). The history of randomized control trials: scurvy, poets
and beer. Retrieved form
Harald. S., Geoffrey. N., Isabelle. T. (2005). Randomized Controlled Trials. American journal of roentgenology. 183, (6), 1539-1544. doi: 183. 1539-44. 10.2214/ajr.183.6.01831539.
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage, UK.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars: AISHE-J, 8, (3), 3351-3361. doi: http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335.
Mathison, S. (2007). Ethical Issues in Evaluation. International Symposium on Evaluation, National Autonomous University of Mexico. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7116611/Ethics_in_Evaluation
Mehta, M. (2007). Gender Matters Lessons for Disaster Risk Reduction in South Asia. Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
OCHA. (2017). Global Humanitarian Review for 2018.
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, (2), 697-698.
Prakash, A., Acharya, A. S., & Nigam, A. (2012). Indian Journal of Medical Specialties: 3 (2), 198-202.
Sobočan, A. M., Bertotti, T., Strom G. K. (2018). Ethical considerations in social work research. European Journal of Social Work: European Journal of Social Work: 2-14. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1544117
Stolberg, H. O., Norman, G., Trop, I. (2004). Fundamentals of Clinical Research for Radiologists. AJR: 183. 1539-1544.
Swath, J. M. (2015). Monographic issue the profile of disaster risk reduction in Pakistan and institutional response. 2, (1), 1-55.
Syed, A. S. & Gonszalez P. A. (2014). Flood disaster profile of Pakistan: A review. Science Journal of Public Health. 2, (3), 144-149. doi: 10.11648/j.sjph.20140203.11.
The Sphere Handbook (2018). Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. Retrieved from https://spherestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Sphere-Handbook-2018-EN.pdf
UNHCR. (2018). Global Trends; Forced Displacement in 2018.
Wagner, H. M. (1982). Principles of Operations Research, with Applications to Management Decisions. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.
White, H., Sabarwal, S., & Hoop, T. (2014). Randomized Controlled Trials. UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/brief_7_randomized_controlled_trials_eng.pdf
