Critical Analysis of ONE Scholarly Article
Instructions in Word Document
Example of Critical Analysis of Scholarly Articles:
Critical Analysis of the Scholarly Articles Do the Effects of Early Severe Deprivation on Cognition Persist Into Early Adolescence?
Findings from the English and Romanian Adoptees Study and Recovery in Socially Deprived Young Children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project are scholarly articles that attempt to distinguish the influence of physical and social depravation on psychological development in the early years of life (Beckett, Maughan, Rutter, Castle, Colvert, Groothues, & … Sonuga-Barke, 2006). Do the Effects of Early Severe Deprivation on Cognition Persist Into Early Adolescence? Findings from the English and Romanian Adoptees Study stated that most studies that attempted to distinguish the influence of physical and social depravation on psychological development in the early years of life has used case studies and control comparisons for ethical reasons (Beckett et al., 2006). Thus, the only reason this study is acceptable is due to the circumstances in which it arose. The fall of the CeauSescu regime yielded conditions that enabled the study of the influence of depravation on psychological development in the early years of life (Beckett et al., 2006). In my opinion, there are no ethical concerns in this particular study because the children benefited from the adoptions. According to Leary (2012), researchers have two responsibilities: to deliver information that increases our understanding of the behavioral process and leads to the progression of human or animal welfare, and to protect the welfare of the humans or non-human participants being studied. The information obtained from the study would benefit our understanding of the effects of deprivation on the early stages of life, and the welfare the children are also protect because the children are benefiting. Contrarily, the Recovery in Socially Deprived Young Children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project conducted a randomized trial that compared abandoned children raised in institutions to abandoned children placed in institutions and then moved to foster care, and were well aware that humans require a specific set of conditions that many institution settings do not offer (Nelson, Zeanah, Fox, Marshall, Smyke, & Guthrie, 2007). Based on the responsibility that researchers have to protect the welfare of the humans or non-human participants being studied (Leary, 2012) this research is unethical. To observed children in institutions and to randomly assign children to institutions or foster care children for the purpose of research is unethical. The primary support for this research is the information it could yield in regards to comprehending the influence of early deprivation on psychological development, however this does not outweigh the importance of protecting the welfare of children. In my opinion, ethical concerns emerge when the welfare of humans are not placed above the information that can be obtained from research to increase our comprehension of any notion. Moreover, the fact that children are not able to provide researchers with informed consent raises ethical concerns, which leads to questions regarding compensation, privacy and confidentiality, and of course the harm. The harm that the children could experience does not outweigh the benefits, especially when the consequences that the children may endure in institutions are well-known. Essentially, the benefits of this research do not outweigh the ethical concerns in regards to the children, and the spent time observing the children would be better spent improving the deprived conditions of state institutions.