Dual Relationships Case Study

1 Dual Relationships Case Study In the provided scenario, it is clear that the ethical conflict is in the form of a dual relationship.

The parties in the scenario are a research psychologist and a participant. In the course of participating in a research study, the two parties developed a romantic relationship. However, in light of the fact that they had initially met under the circumstances of a professional relationship, they got into an agreement that they would only consider resuming their romantic relationship once the research study in question had come to an end. Even so, the nature of the relationship they have developed raises serious questions about ethics. Furthermore, the gravity of the situation is of such a nature that it may lead the parties to jeopardize the progress that they have made on the research project.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

2 According to Pope & Vasquez (2007), a dual relationship refers to the situation where a social worker has one or more relationship with a particular client. In the typical case, this relationship between the social worker and the client is in addition to the professional relationship which exists between the two parties. Pope & Vasquez (2007) also note that the dual relationship may have developed either prior to, during, or after the provision of the professional services in question. The nature of dual relationships is such as to complicate the relationship between a social worker and the person with whom he or she is working. Therefore, It is important to note that, when it comes to scope, dual relationships do not only exist where there is a romantic relationship involved. Instead, there are several scenarios that can reveal the presence of a dual relationship. Even so, despite the nature of circumstances which could reveal dual relationships, the fact that they typically reveal an ethical issue means that they have to be dealt with in a delicate manner so as not to reproduce harm or endanger not just professional relationships, but also the ultimate well-being of the involved parties.

Paying Regard to Research Principles When it comes to dealing with the dual relationship, the work of authors like Starr (2018) brings certain considerations into mind. These principles are important as they will guide how the research psychologist will address the situation between him and the research participant. Put differently, in order to deal with the complicated scenario, one of the options open to the parties is to take into consideration the ethical principles which are typically imposed on people who embark on research.

First, authors like Brownlee et al. (2019) provide several principles that guide how professionals like research psychologists on how to treat research participants. The first principle is autonomy. Here, the most important element is recognizing the need for making structural

3 allowances and understanding that there is an inherent importance in allowing research participants to be independent.

The second principle is with respect to nonmaleficence. As Brownlee et al. (2019) note, this principle emphasizes the injunction to “do no harm” to people with whom one comes into contact. In other words, a professional like a research psychologist is given the obligation not to cause distress or harm to people who have chosen to participate in a research study. In terms of nonmaleficence, the most important bit to consider is intentionality. The principle of nonmaleficence emphasizes that a professional should not engage in an activity if they know that they said activity has the potential to bring harm to a person.

The third principle is beneficence. Brownlee et al. (2019) also note that nonmaleficence and beneficence are twin principles and, in the typical case, are usually considered together with respect to ethics. The central underpinning of beneficence is that professionals such as research psychologists should refrain from harming others. Additionally, professionals are enjoined not just to refrain from subjecting or exposing participants to harm, but also to work in such a manner that there will be a benefit to those who are involved in a research project. Therefore, as the work by Brownlee et al. (2019) suggests, the twin concepts of nonmaleficence and beneficence broaden the scope of responsibility that a research psychologist has. It is no longer a question of whether or not one does harm to an individual. Instead, it is an issue that requires a research psychologist to take specific steps towards ensuring that every participant who takes part in a research project can benefit from the research project in some form, fashion, or manner.

The fourth principle is that of justice. In the context of the provided scenario, justice makes reference to the commitment that a researcher makes to ensure that there is equitable distribution not only of responsibilities but also of rewards between researchers and participants.

4 In the typical case, when a researcher makes a commitment to justice, it means that they will neither use the study in a manner that benefits them nor brings harm to the research participants (Brownlee et al., 2019).

Setting Up of Boundary Parameters In seeking to understand the possible options which are open to the research psychologist and the research participant, one could consider setting strict and clear boundaries. According to Shevellar & Barringham (2016), the term ‘boundaries’ refers to the situation where a professional goes beyond what would be advisable limits in so far as the professional relationship between the research psychologist and research participant is concerned. More specifically, the work by Shevellar & Barringham (2016) is instructive because it complicates the question of boundaries. Therefore, even though it would be important for the parties to consider the question of boundaries, the situation would also benefit from adopting a broad conceptualization of what boundaries are. Indeed, if an exploration of boundaries is supposed to be useful, parties who are caught in ethical conundrums ought to adopt the convention of ‘boundary crossing.’ This descriptive term speaks to the fact that a person who is caught in an ethical issue could determine the impact that a boundary will have by embracing the methodology of case-by-case analysis. Using a case-by-case analysis will allow an individual to take into account not only the context, but also the facts which are specific to the situation at hand.

For this reason, the parties have the option of setting new boundary parameters as they address their ethical conundrum. In this situation, one notes that the setting of boundaries could either result in the jeopardizing of the entire research project, or the romantic relationship which the parties intend to embark on. In the process of setting boundaries, the principles which were

5 explored in the sections above could be points of consideration. Ultimately, the main question is the consequence which could result from the decision. Importantly, the research psychologist will have to understand that, ultimately, he has a responsibility to the research participant. As such, any decision taken will have to be in the best interests of the research participant. In other words, the central consideration should be whether or not the violation of the boundary will result in harm (Shevellar & Barringham, 2016).

In his work, Starr (2018) argues that, when professionals such as research psychologists find themselves at the risk of crossing boundaries with a client, psychologists could pay attention to certain factors. First, a professional should ensure that, in setting boundaries, his or her intention is motivated by the needs of either the client or, in this case, the research psychologist. Here, the research psychologist should ensure that the best interests of the research participant come first.

The needs of the research psychologist should not come first. The second consideration that the research psychologist should have should speak to whether or not the developing of boundary parameters will be consistent with the overall results needed by the existing scenario. Thirdly, the developing of boundary parameters should be done in a manner that is sensitive to the circumstances of the parties involved. However, even though these considerations should be made, the priority in terms of wellness and wellbeing should go to the research participant.

The other consideration is with respect to the research psychologist's responsibility to the general field of psychology. In particular, even as the development of parameters is considered, the research psychologist has to understand that he owes the filed certain ethical obligations.

Therefore, if there is going to be some form of boundary crossing, there should be some form of documentation. This documentation is important because it could very well put the entire process - and profession - in jeopardy. For a person who is a research psychologist, the loss of this

6 legitimacy and validity may not only undermine their individual research, but could put the body of knowledge produced by certain psychologists in jeopardy (Starr, 2018).

The other consideration is communication. The research psychologist will have to ensure that the development of parameters is made in consultation with the research participant. In this case, one notes that the presence of the dual relationship complicates the extent to which the two parties can work together. Thus, the research psychologists will have a duty to ensure that the other party knows in advance what the boundary parameters are going to be. This will guarantee that the comfort of the research participant is prioritized. Additionally, it will reduce the possibility of misunderstandings.

Starr (2018) notes that there should be a recognition of the power dynamics which are at play in the relationship between the research psychologist and the research participant.

According to this author, power dynamics refers to the various ways in which power affects the relationship that exists between people. In this case, the romantic relationship developing between the research psychologist and the research participant may be a function of the primary professional relationship which exists between the two parties. Thus, there should be a proper consideration of the power dynamics between the two parties so that, ultimately, the trust of the research participant is not exploited.

Finally, in order to develop boundary parameters that will be suitable for the present circumstance, the research psychologist should therefore consult a respected colleague or another respected professional. The importance of this consultation process can be understood in two ways. First, such a consultation will guide the decision of the psychologist. Secondly, the consultation process will provide the psychologist with the relevant distance and perspective that will allow him to make a balanced decision. Furthermore, obtaining a different perspective will

7 help the research psychologist have access to other solutions that could be utilized in the scenario.

The Preferred Option In the above sections, there has been a consideration of some of the strategies the research psychologist could use to resolve the delicate situation between him and the research participant. A review of the various interests in the scenario reveals that the best option may be the development of boundary parameters that will address the various questions arising from the scenario. One of the most important issues is power dynamics. As Starr (2018) has noted in his work, power dynamics often affect how people interact with each other. It is worth noting that, in some cases, a research psychologist may be in a more powerful position than the research participant. This could especially be the case where the research psychologist is older and more experiences. As someone who possesses more information and knowledge regarding a particular question, the resulting power imbalance may limit the extent to which the research participant can be said to have made a free choice.

As was argued in the earlier sections of the essay, the most important person to protect in this situation is the research participant (Pope & Keith-Spiegel, 2008). Even though she may possess power in other aspects of her life, her interest comes first in the current situation.

Additionally, in considering her best interests, one should ensure that even her future interests are taken care of. This is because, as a research participant, the obligation which the research psychologist has with respect to her persists even after the completion of the research process.

Nevertheless, in considering her wellbeing, care should be taken to ensure that one does not get rid of her agency. Ultimately, the decision regarding her life should be up to her.

Conclusion

8 Overall, then there are several steps which a research psychologist could take in order to avoid a similar situation in the future. Indeed, one could argue that the concept of boundaries is an important one when it comes to dual relationships. From the outset, the research psychologist should ensure that he does not allow himself to enter into a romantic relationship with a research participant (Starr, 2018). If the relevant boundaries had been set up from the initial stages, then perhaps there would not have arisen the proximity which is usually necessary for the sprouting of a romantic relationship. By keeping relations strictly professional, the research psychologist and the research participant would not have had an opportunity to interact in a manner that goes over and beyond the professional encounter.

In addition to the setting up of strong and clear boundaries, the research psychologist could ensure that, in the future, he or she engages other people in the research process so that the opportunity of interacting with research participants in personal ways will be reduced if not eliminated (Reamer, 2019). In essence, the incorporation of other people will function as an accountability mechanism. If there will be a crossing of boundaries, people will prevent the situation from progressing further. In taking these steps, research psychologists will avoid getting into situations where their entire research practice is put in jeopardy.

9 References Brownlee, K., LeBlanc, H., Halverson, G., Piché, T., & Brazeau, J. (2019). Exploring selfreflection in dual relationship decision-making. Journal of Social Work, 19(5), 629-641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017318766423 Pope, K. S., & Keith‐Spiegel, P. (2008). A practical approach to boundaries in psychotherapy: Making decisions, bypassing blunders, and mending fences. Journal of clinical psychology, 64(5), 638-652.

Pope, K. S., & Vasquez, M. J. T. (2007). Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide (3rd edition). Jossey-Bass/John Wiley.

Reamer, F. G. (2019). Boundary issues and dual relationships in social work. The Routledge Handbook of Social Work Ethics and Values.

Shevellar, L., & Barringham, N. (2016). Working in complexity: Ethics and boundaries in community work and mental health. Australian Social Work, 69(2), 181-193.

Starr, L. (2018). Risks of dual relationships in delivering care. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, 26(4), 19-19.