What is it called when the researcher participates in the study?
|
In an article published in 1995 I suggested that medical researchers would do well to follow the example set by the British Psychological Society. After noting that psychologists owe a debt to those who agree to take part in their studies, who therefore deserve to be treated with the highest standards of consideration and respect, the society recommended that the term “subject” should be abandoned and replaced by “participant.” Show I applaud the BMJ’s prompt and positive response to Boynton’s suggestion. The journal will find that the term “participants” works well for those types of research (such as controlled trials) in which active involvement of the people being studied is required, although some may prefer the word “volunteers” to describe participants in non-therapeutic research. Choosing appropriate terms to describe people who were not actively involved in the research being reported (for example, because they were dead) presents a greater challenge. “Patients” may be appropriate in some circumstances, but not all. Maybe organisations like Consumers for Ethics in Research could help researchers and medical journals by suggesting appropriate terminology across the whole spectrum of research designs. References1. Boynton PM. People should participate in, not be subjects of, research. BMJ. 1998;317:1521. . (28 November.) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 2. Consumers for Ethics in Research. Newsletter 1989;No 1. 3. Chalmers I. What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? BMJ. 1995;310:1315–1318. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4. British Psychological Society. Code of conduct and ethical principles. London: BPS; 1991. p. 5. [Google Scholar]
1999 Apr 24; 318(7191): 1141. Many people are not “participants” in sense that this term was initially definedWilliam Jackson, Medical writer Disclaimer The Old Chapel, High Street, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0EX moc.loa@nilCJFW Copyright notice Editor—The BMJ’s decision to use the term “participant” instead of “subject” for a patient taking part in a clinical trial is well intentioned but may cause confusion. I am currently writing about a multinational trial involving over 7000 patients, 800 clinical investigators, 40 clinical monitors, 6 regional coordinators, 6 members of the steering committee, and many other staff in local and regional centres and at the trial headquarters. All these people are “participants” in the trial. The issue is to find a term that separates those who are randomised from those who care for them and handle the resulting data. This applies to all trials, whether or not those who are being studied have played any part in their design. As most clinicians will testify, the term “patient” no longer implies passivity. Is either “subject” or “participant” really a better alternative to the use of this long established term in most clinical research reports? In some studies “patient” is inappropriate, as those under investigation are not unwell. In this case, although I do not like the term “subject” (with its implications of subservience), it does have a clarity that is lacking from the term “participants.” An alternative for use in many circumstances might be “volunteers.” In truth, many of the implications of the term “subject” remain accurate for most clinical trials in which most subjects (and, indeed, many other participants) are not, and never can be, “active participants in the process of deciding what research should take place, commissioning research, interpreting the results, and disseminating the findings.” It is laudable to suggest that every trial should be designed with consumers in mind but unrealistic to suggest that every patient or volunteer can be a full participant in that sense. Authors must not be encouraged to claim that such participation has taken place when it has not. The BMJ’s new policy may do this. References1-1. Boynton PM. People should participate in, not be subjects of, research. BMJ. 1998;317:1521. . (28 November.) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1-2. Standing Advisory Group on Consumer Involvement in the NHS Research and Development Programme. Aims and values. Leeds: NHS Executive; 1998. [Google Scholar]
1999 Apr 24; 318(7191): 1141. Pharmaceutical companies should follow medical profession’s leadDavid Carvel, Locum general practitioner Disclaimer 13 Edgemont Street, Glasgow G41 3EH moc.evresupmoc@levrac Copyright notice Editor—We live in an increasingly accountable and politically correct age. Everything we write or say has to be quantified and qualified, particularly in the medical press. When the ABC of Sexual Health was recently published in the BMJ the journal occasionally warned on its front cover that it contained sexually explicit material. Minerva for some time now has required submissions to her page to “include signed consent to publication from the patient.” This even applied apparently when the subject was a 3500 year old Egyptian mummy with aspergillosis. “Subjects” are now to be called “participants.” In addition, authors have to declare competing interests and to state sources of funding. Admirable requirements indeed. To maintain these high standards of accountability I propose that the pharmaceutical industry should come into line with the medical profession. This could be achieved by requiring all pharmaceutical advertisements that contain photographs of “patients” to carry a declaration that the subject (or participant) indeed did, or does, have the stated disease or ailment; is not an actor or actress; and has benefited from using the stated product. Furthermore, the person in the photograph should have agreed to be depicted in the given context, and financial incentives should be declared. Adverts often show happy faces (often, curiously, of young and attractive people) and some show “before and after” photographs. Perhaps pharmaceutical companies are aware of the current discrepancy between their and medical literature’s accountability; cartoons are increasingly being used, and one company has a long association with a clown (the ultimate anonymisation?). If the pharmaceutical industry came into line with the medical profession the discrepancy between the scientific evidence of a product’s efficacy and the image or photograph displayed might remain. The image, however, would be authentic and more credible; most of all, the drug company would be more accountable. What is it called when a researcher is a participant?The participant observation method, also known as ethnographic research, is when a sociologist actually becomes a part of the group they are studying in order to collect data and understand a social phenomenon or problem.
What are people participating in a study called?A research subject is an individual that participates in research. Information (or 'data') is collected from or about the individual to help answer the question under study. Sometimes research subjects are referred to as human subjects, research participants or study volunteers.
What is it called when an investigator participates in observation?Participant observation is one type of data collection method by practitioner-scholars typically used in qualitative research and ethnography.
When a researcher observes yet participates in the group she is studying it is called?In participant observation , researchers become active participants in the group or situation they are studying. Participant observation is very similar to naturalistic observation in that it involves observing people's behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs.
|
