| Course | EDP 820 Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Doctoral research ethics plan |
| Length | About 1,064 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 820 Module 8
Studying Pressure Without Adding to It: An Ethics Plan for Research With Graduate Students
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 820: Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Studying Pressure Without Adding to It: An Ethics Plan for Research With Graduate Students
After the department's review of its ethical climate, Maya, the doctoral student introduced earlier in this course, proposed a study for a research methods project: a survey of graduate students across the university about pressure to produce results, followed by interviews with twenty volunteers. The study asks sensitive questions, including whether students have witnessed or engaged in questionable research practices. Maya, her study and the university are fictional. This paper sets out the ethics plan.
Framework
Emanuel et al. (2000) proposed that ethical research must meet seven tests. It must ask a worthwhile question and be designed to answer it. It must recruit people fairly and keep risks in proportion to benefits. It also needs independent review, real consent and respectful treatment of participants until the end. Although developed for clinical research, the requirements apply to psychological research and provide a structure for the plan.
| Requirement | Application to the study | Safeguard | Responsible |
|---|---|---|---|
| Value | Understanding research pressure can inform policy | Findings shared with graduate school | Maya and advisor |
| Validity | Mixed methods; validated pressure scale | Pilot survey with five students | Maya |
| Fair selection | Risk of pressure if recruiting in own department | Recruit university-wide; exclude own department from interviews | Maya |
| Risk-benefit | Distress; risk of disclosing misconduct | Skip options; resources; disclosure protocol | Maya and advisor |
| Independent review | Board review | Full board review given sensitivity | Board |
| Informed consent | Sensitive questions; limits of confidentiality | Consent conversation; three-question check | Maya |
| Respect | Identifiability in small departments | Coarsened data; altered quotations; restricted access | Maya and data manager |
Consent Built on Understanding
Flory and Emanuel (2004) found that extended discussion with a member of the study team improved participants' understanding more consistently than enhanced forms or multimedia. The survey will open with a one-page summary in plain language, stating the purpose, the sensitive questions, the right to skip any question and the limits of confidentiality. Before each interview, Maya will talk through the study for ten minutes and ask three questions to check understanding: what the study is about, what happens if they mention misconduct and how they can withdraw.
Disclosures of Misconduct
Participants may describe questionable practices they witnessed or took part in. The consent process will state that Maya will not report individuals, but that if a participant describes ongoing serious misconduct that endangers others, she will discuss reporting options with them, including the university's confidential research integrity office, and will not pressure them to report. This approach respects autonomy while recognizing the history examined in earlier modules, in which silence allowed harm to continue.
Distress
Interviews may bring up distressing experiences. Participants can pause or stop, and Maya will provide information about the counseling center and the graduate ombudsperson. Her advisor will be available for consultation after each interview.
Privacy
Rocher et al. (2019) showed that a few demographic attributes can identify most people in supposedly anonymous data. In graduate programs, populations are small: a student's department, year and gender may identify them. Survey data will record broad field, not department, and year ranges, not exact years. Interview quotations will be edited to remove identifying details, and participants will be offered the chance to review quotations attributed to them before publication. Raw data will be stored on an encrypted university server with access limited to Maya and her advisor and deleted after five years.
What Earlier Modules Contribute
Each part of the course shapes some element here: Kitchener's principles in balancing autonomy and harm; the research on ethical fading in fixing the analysis plan before data are seen; the leadership and climate analyses in recruiting outside Maya's department, where power relations could affect participation; and the history of research ethics in taking independent review seriously.
Recruitment Without Pressure
Recruitment will run through the graduate school's general email list, not through advisors or department chairs, since students might feel pressure if their advisor forwarded the invitation. Participants will receive a small gift card. No one in a supervisory role will know who participated. These steps apply the lesson of the leadership modules: power relations shape what people feel free to do.
Piloting
Before the full study, five graduate students from outside the departments likely to be studied will complete the survey and a practice interview and comment on whether any question felt intrusive or unclear. The pilot will also test whether the consent check questions are understood.
Adverse Events
Any adverse event, such as a participant's serious distress or a breach of confidentiality, will be reported to the advisor within one day and to the review board within five working days, following the board's procedures. Maya will keep a log of all events, including minor ones, which she will review with her advisor monthly.
Sharing Results With Participants
Participants will be offered a short summary of findings, written in plain language, at the end of the study. Respect for enrolled subjects, in the framework of Emanuel et al. (2000), extends beyond data collection to acknowledging participants' contribution and letting them see what it produced. The graduate school will receive recommendations based on the findings, with no identifying details.
Timeline
The plan has three stages. Before data collection, Maya will pilot the instruments and submit the protocol for full board review. During data collection, she will log events and meet her advisor every two weeks. After data collection, she will strip identifying details, share the summary with participants and destroy contact information within one month. Each stage has a named person responsible, so the plan does not depend on memory or good intentions.
Why the Topic Raises the Stakes
A study of research pressure carries a particular irony: if it were run carelessly, it would reproduce the problems it studies. Participants are asked to trust Maya with accounts of their own and their colleagues' conduct, in a community where reputations matter. The safeguards here are stricter than a minimal plan would require because the information is sensitive and the population small. Emanuel et al. (2000) described ethical requirements as universal but their application as dependent on context, and this context calls for more care, not less.
Conclusion
Emanuel and colleagues' seven requirements structure the plan, Flory and Emanuel's evidence shapes a consent process built on conversation and Rocher and colleagues' findings shape privacy protections suited to small populations. The plan aims to study research pressure without adding to it.
References
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701
Flory, J., & Emanuel, E. (2004). Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. JAMA, 292(13), 1593-1601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593
Rocher, L., Hendrickx, J. M., & de Montjoye, Y.-A. (2019). Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models. Nature Communications, 10, Article 3069. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10933-3
What the EDP 820 Module 8 instructions ask for
The final module of EDP 820 typically asks for an ethics plan for a research study. Follow your Aspen course's Module 8 instructions; the study is a composite. Describe the study briefly. Apply a framework for ethical research to each element. Design consent, risk management, privacy protections and procedures for adverse events. Assign responsibilities. Draw on the course's earlier topics, such as principles, leadership and history. Use APA 7, and write the plan so that a review board could approve it and a research team could carry it out. Include procedures for adverse events and difficult disclosures, and name the person accountable for every safeguard.
How this EDP 820 Module 8 example is built
Maya, the composite doctoral student, proposes surveying and interviewing graduate students in her own university about pressure to produce results. Emanuel, Wendler and Grady's seven requirements frame the plan. Flory and Emanuel's findings support a consent conversation and a check of understanding. Rocher, Hendrickx and de Montjoye's findings show why interview details could identify participants in a small department. A seven-row table maps safeguards to requirements, including recruitment outside Maya's own department, a protocol for disclosures of misconduct or distress and reporting that removes identifying details from quotations. Sections address recruitment without pressure, the pilot test, adverse event reporting and how findings will be shared with participants.
Where the marks sit in the EDP 820 Module 8 rubric
A strong ethics plan applies a framework to every element of a study and anticipates specific risks. This example uses all seven requirements, designs consent with evidence and plans privacy protection for a small population where re-identification is a real risk. It addresses a difficult issue: what to do if participants disclose research misconduct. Responsibilities are assigned. The plan draws together earlier topics, from power and fair selection to the history of review. The plan addresses recruitment pressure, piloting, adverse events and sharing results with participants, so it covers the whole life of the study rather than only approval. Each safeguard is tied to a requirement and a responsible person, making the plan usable by a board and a team. The links to earlier modules show that research ethics draws on everything else in the course.
EDP 820 Module 8 help from the desk
Ethics plans often list standard protections without tailoring them. Apply each requirement to the specific study. Anticipate risks particular to the topic and population. Plan for difficult disclosures. Protect privacy beyond removing names, especially in small populations. Assign responsibilities and timelines so the plan can be carried out. Cover the whole life of a study, from recruitment and piloting to sharing results. Plan for adverse events, with a reporting route. Assign each safeguard to a person. Tie the plan to principles and to history so reviewers understand why each safeguard exists, and write it in plain terms that participants could understand too.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 820 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 820 Module 1: Ethical Principles and Professional Standards
- EDP 820 Module 2: Ethical Judgment and Decision Making
- EDP 820 Module 3: Ethics in Leadership
- EDP 820 Module 4: Organizational Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 5: The History of Research Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 6: Institutional Review and Informed Consent
- EDP 820 Module 7: Protecting Research Participants
- EDN 810 Module 3: Evaluating Resources and Capabilities
- EDP 812 Module 5: Workplace Stress and Strain
- EDO 818 Module 2: Frameworks for Comparing Cultures
- EDO 810 Module 1: The Study of Organizations
EDP 820 Module 8 questions, answered
What does EDP 820 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 820 ends with an ethics plan for a research study, so a plan applying a framework to consent, risk, privacy and responsibilities is typical. Check your Module 8 prompt for the required elements.
What should a research ethics plan include?
Social value and validity, fair recruitment, a risk-benefit assessment, independent review, informed consent, privacy protections, procedures for adverse events and respect for participants throughout.
How can researchers protect participants' identities in small populations?
Beyond removing names, coarsen or remove identifying details, alter quotations and restrict data access, since a few attributes can identify people.
Where can I find a free EDP 820 Module 8 sample paper?
The whole plan is on this page: seven requirements applied to a study of graduate students, consent built on conversation and data protection against re-identification.
What should a researcher do if a participant discloses misconduct?
Plan in advance: explain the limits of confidentiality in consent, offer information about reporting routes and follow the institution's policy without pressuring the participant.