Week 2 Summary & Research Ethics Recap

Research Ethics: Principles, Protections, and Institutional Oversight

The week began with a comprehensive exploration of research ethics, tracing the evolution from the Nuremberg Code through the Declaration of Helsinki to the Belmont Report. Students examined how the three Belmont principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice translate into practical protections such as informed consent, risk-benefit analysis, and equitable participant selection. These principles are not abstract ideals but operational requirements that shape every stage of the research process.

Specific attention was given to vulnerable populations, including children, prisoners, and individuals with cognitive impairments, who require additional safeguards beyond standard consent procedures. The role of the Institutional Review Board as the primary mechanism for ethical oversight was examined in detail, covering the three levels of review and the components of a strong IRB application. CITI training certification was introduced as the gateway credential that institutions require before researchers can engage with human participants.

Public health ethics extended the discussion beyond individual-level protections to population-level concerns, including the tension between community welfare and individual autonomy, the ethical complexities of surveillance and screening, and the importance of community engagement in research design and dissemination. Together, these modules established that ethical competence is an indispensable foundation for credible healthcare research.

Literature Reviews: Types, Methods, and Quality Assessment

The second major theme of the week introduced literature reviews as essential tools for synthesizing existing knowledge and identifying gaps that justify new research. Students learned that the term literature review encompasses a range of methodologies, each suited to different questions and evidence types. Narrative reviews offer flexibility and breadth, while systematic reviews provide the rigor and reproducibility demanded by evidence-based practice.

Meta-analyses, integrative reviews, and scoping reviews were presented as additional options that address specific research needs. Meta-analyses pool quantitative data for stronger statistical conclusions, integrative reviews bridge quantitative and qualitative evidence, and scoping reviews map the landscape of available research on emerging topics. Understanding when to use each type is a critical skill for students planning their own review projects.

Quality assessment frameworks such as PRISMA and AMSTAR equip students to evaluate published reviews critically rather than accepting their conclusions at face value. The distinction between evidence-based guidelines and literature reviews clarified how synthesized evidence is translated into clinical recommendations, highlighting the different purposes these documents serve and the distinct processes by which they are developed.

Research Question Development: From Broad Interest to Focused Inquiry

The final instructional theme of the week addressed the process of formulating and refining research questions using structured frameworks. PICO was presented as the standard tool for clinical and quantitative questions, decomposing them into population, intervention, comparison, and outcome. SPIDER was introduced as the qualitative counterpart, with components adapted for studies that explore experiences, perceptions, and meanings rather than testing interventions.

The FINER criteria provided a complementary evaluation tool that assesses whether a question is feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant. Students learned that a well-structured question can still fail if it cannot be investigated within available resources or if it does not contribute meaningfully to existing knowledge. Theoretical frameworks were presented as essential anchors that connect research questions to established explanatory models, guiding variable selection, study design, and data interpretation.

Together, these frameworks offer a systematic pathway from a broad area of interest to a focused, answerable research question. The iterative nature of this process was emphasized, with students encouraged to refine their questions through multiple cycles of framework application, advisor feedback, and literature review. This skill set forms the basis for the more advanced research design work that will follow in subsequent weeks.

Looking Ahead: How Week 2 Concepts Build Toward Future Modules

The ethical principles and institutional processes covered this week will resurface throughout the course as students encounter more specific methodological contexts. Understanding IRB requirements and CITI certification now prepares students for the practical research activities that later modules will introduce, including protocol development, data collection planning, and the management of participant relationships during active studies.

Literature review skills will continue to develop as students engage with more specialized topics and begin constructing their own reviews for thesis proposals or capstone projects. The ability to distinguish between review types and assess their quality will become increasingly important as students are expected to position their own work within existing evidence and defend their methodological choices to committees and reviewers.

Research question development is an ongoing process, not a single assignment. The frameworks introduced this week provide tools that students will return to repeatedly as they narrow their focus, encounter new literature, and refine their theoretical understanding. The self-reflective assignment offered an early opportunity to practice connecting course content to personal research goals, a skill that becomes essential when writing research proposals, personal statements, and grant applications in the advanced stages of graduate training.