Place an order for a custom essay, research paper on this or related subject.
The research question that was paused by Milgram showed the centrality of the research that he was undertaking. Indeed, if the research questions guides any literary discourse within the framework of ethical research and human dignity not withstanding, the approach used by Milgram was sufficiently justifiable and timely, given the magnitude of the goings-on then. While the research would have raised salient human rights questions, the research and such critical researches today are dully justifiable.
It is indeed clear that the Milgram Experiment raises a number of ethical concerns; however, the critics seem to have been much lopsided in their approach and overrode the positive implications of the Milgram Experiment. The research reveals that contrary to commonly held beliefs, the personality of the sample can impact largely on the obedience of the persons and not necessarily the coercion. Besides, the research shades sufficient light on the issue that social behaviour is also critical in the obedience of the individuals.
According to Milgram the research was supported by 84% of the participants and only 1% of the participants felt deprived (Milgram, p 377). Going by this outcome it emerges that for as long as the intent of the experiment is to support the livelihood of man, then such research should be justified and given a green light. Realising that the research was intended to support survival by man, the participants felt content that they in fact participated in the research.
The research had critical human implication both on psychological reinforcement and administrative principles. Ideally, the source of the power is what reinforces the occurrence an activity. Supervision as methods of ensuring activities are carried out in the right manner is seen as very applicable and feasible without necessary intimidation. Clearly, the presence of an authoritative figure increases dramatically the compliance in the accomplishment of duties.
Shamoo & Resnik the objective of the research should guide the demonization of the research that is to be conducted (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009, p 47). Within the research proposal the researcher should cleared state the essence of the research. According to Milgram the argument that participants accepted the research participation because it had been sponsored by Yale University is cleared protracted and baseless (Milgram, p 375). If the research proves beyond doubt that the experiment is safe, research with positive human implications should be allowed to go on.
Research should always identify the research population appropriately and most importantly, the research sample selected randomly. Milgram ardently met these critical criteria and had all the research samples selected in a random manner. This shows that the research was dully empirical and scientific with objective that would help leverage scientific and psychological questions. Clearly if the supervising authority is not friendly, the execution of duties would be impeded.
The Milgram experiment shows in essence that there are very few chores that will have the least pressure; consequently, human being will always experience some pressure of some magnitude regardless of the task (Milgram, p 371). Subsequent, some pressure of pain of some level will be experienced within an experiment and for as long as the sample population are not forced and are willing, any research will be justified provided the research does pose some danger to the population.
In the words of Persaud it is possible that the variation of the situation would impact on the personality and thereby swaying the obedience level (Persaud, p 20). Besides, the obedience level would still be influenced by external and internal factors. The factors would range from temperament to the beliefs of the individual. The experiment carried out by Milgram open the discourse on the ideal determinant of character and the obedience at the workplace replete of the ethical standards. If this research was carried out today, it could have been shrouded in utter controversy; yet the lessons learnt from the research have much utility and dully in application.
If the Milgram experiment was to be carried out today, it would have fallen prey to a number of legal research requirements. Firstly, the research participants were not ardently informed on what exactly as being researched. It was incumbent on Milgram to ensure that the research had hypothesis that could be tested. Consequent, according to Blass the research participants seemed to distressed despite the fact that when asked at the end of the research, a substantive number 84% showed that they were glad that they had taken part except 1% that utterly felt deprived (Blass, p 68). Besides, the research was made to appear to the research participants that it had met the minimum research requirements.
According to Blass the use of human being in research has for example been forbidden in research by the federal government (Blass, p 402). The use of persons in the research not only went against the rights of the individual but again the ethics in research. The state of the whole research was also very questionable given that there was pain that was inflicted on the research participants. While the research was not dangerous, the infliction of pain is not justifiable under whatever circumstances. The trauma that participants experienced is exposed in their response to whether they could have continued if they were offered a chance.
Research ethics require that the research is very honest. However it is evident that the Milgram research was disguised under the name of the Yale University hence making the general public believe that the research was both legal and satisfied by the requisite authorities. Some of the information used by Milgram seems to have been fabricated falsified and misinterpreted to convince the research participants to take part in the experiment. The administration of the university seems to have equally been put in the dark over the goings-on of the research.
Bass argues that the research lacked some objectivity to a reasonable extent (Blass, 407). The decisions that were made by Milgram were utterly one-sided and done without consulting with both the administration and the research participants. The data collected from the research should be shared with the interested parties. The research method and approach exhibited by Milgram apparently seems inclined towards privacy and monopoly of the findings thereto.
The research would have not been carried out today because it because it does lack consistency of thought that would have been exhibited through the use. The sincerity shown by Milgram is far from that expected from the research ethical fraternity. The confidentiality of the research was not upheld by Milgram and this goes against the present research ethics.
In conclusion the research carried out by Milgram had critical objectives that could have been used in pursuing pertinent administrative, management and psychological issues. However, the research could not adequately measure to the standards of research and the legal requirements. While it is appreciable that the research opened research into the relationship between obedience and the presence of authority, it was utterly flawed in terms of the research ethics.
Consequently, the need for the administration of the day to be informed on the goings-on under their areas of jurisdiction is put to disrepute here. The Yale University seems to have remained in the dark as Milgram undertook a traumatising process on the research sample. This goes against the rights of the participants who were entitled to personal consent which was clearly not sought. Where an impression was created to this effect it was dishonestly presented to the participants.