that they are safe and effective for children the intervention is not studied in community areas adolescents who have unique, developmental that may present more sampling obstacles, that ques- sitivities.Therefore, pediatric research must proceed tion will go unanswered. Research for such settings is to enhance ethical practice and the use of evidence- usually approved only when the focus of the project based treatments is abou those specific populations and settit Young children are unable to give informed Researchers who only recruit children from consent to participate in studies, and therefore, marginalized groups and low socioeconomic status parental permission is required. older children and families can inadvertently stigmatize those children ticipate, even if parents grant the required permission. from nonmarginalized groups who will not benefit Social work researchers need to ensure that parents from the tested interventions raises ethical problems understand the risks and benefits of projects request- even though their inclusion might enhance the ing their childrens participation. The April 2007 validity of research projects editorial by Jorge Delva showed how responsible The NASW Code of Ethics clearly directs social Ind well-informed parents make; such decisions in workers who strongly suspect or discover ethical heir childs best interests and factor in concern for violations to take action. First, it is usually advisable the project's attention to race, culture, language, and to discuss concerns with the research investigator to safety. Unfortunately, some parents face great cogni- seek clarity and, if necessary, remediation.If these tive challenges in understanding the risk or benefits concerns are dismissed or minimized, there are a of such studies and sometimes agree to participate number of alternative pathways for further action in research projects for the wrong reasons Research cannot occur without the sanction of For example, desperate adults can be tempted agency leadership, so consultation with supervisors to sign up children if they believe that they will or administrators can be effective because they are otherwise be denied services to which they are usually aware of the serious ethical and legal rami entitled. Poor adults consent to receive financial fications for the organization if such violations are remuneration or some other incentive that seems taking place. If this is unsuccessful or impractical, too good to pass up. Both of these are examples of the researcher's university IRB can be anonymously oercion, " and IR Bs strive to help researchers to contacted, and this usually generates a vigorous avoid intentional or unintentional coercion investigation because universities face terrible pen Some children are improperly enrolled into clini- alties if ethical violations create harm to research cal research projects because their parents believe that participants. Seeking assistance from a state NASW the experimental intervention will definitely help chapter can also protect complainant anonymity and their child. This is known as the f"therapeutic mis- will ikely incentivize researchers, agency leaders, and conception,'land social workers need to help parents universities to address publicly exposed violations understand that projects testing new interventions Finally, if all else fails, or if because of special cir- offer no guaranteed cure. Empirical findings could cumstances the complainant requires advice before help us understand how to approach these issues, taking any of the actions mentioned earlier, person ut unfortunately, very limited research exists about ally retaining legal counsel can be extraordinarily how parents actually understand the components of effective, although this would require the financial pediatric research studies resour es to pay legal fees Finally, researchers sometimes recruit children The foregoing discussion suggests a few of the ho live in hospitals, in residential programs, or in complexities and challenges involved with pro- state child welfare custody because more research tecting research participants. Yet, it is important to is needed about these populations to help improve remember that it is ethically required to pursue services they receive. However, these individuals also intervention research with vulnerable populations eappen to be subject pools that are readily available, such as children because they would otherwise al- naking them a sort of"captive audience "Validity most always have access to only nonvalidated treat- and ethical problems can arise from studies recruiting ment approaches. Because vulnerable populations ach participants. For example, will a trauma inter- are social workers' primary clientele, practitioners vention validated in a residential treatment setting should join researchers and IRBs in working to generalize to children living in the community? If I protect clients by helping to ensure that their client Social Work VoLUME 54, NUMBER I JANUARY 2009that they are safe and effective for children and adolescents who have unique, developmental sen￾sitivities.Therefore, pédiatrie research must proceed to enhance ethical practice and the use of evidence￾based treatments. ¡ Young children are unable to give informed consent to participate in studies, and therefore, parental permission is required. Older children and adolescents are required to give their assent to par￾ticipate, even if parents grant the required permission. Social work researchers need to ensure that parents understand the risks and benefits of projects request￾ing their children's participation. The April 2007 editorial by Jorge Delva showed how responsible and well-informed parents make; such decisions in their child's best interests and factor in concern for the project's attention to race, culture, language, and safety. Unfortunately, some parents face great cogni￾tive challenges in understanding the risk or benefits of such studies and sometimes agree to participate in research projects for the wrong reasons. For example, desperate adults' can be tempted to sign up children if they believe that they will otherwise be denied services to which they are entitled. Poor adults consent toj receive financial remuneration or some other incentive that seems too good to pass up. Both of these are examples of "coercion," and IRBs strive to help researchers to avoid intentional or unintentional coercion. Some children are improperly enrolled into clini￾cal research projects because their parents believe that the experimental intervention viiill definitely help their child. This is known as the ¡'therapeutic mis￾conception," and social workers need to help parents understand that projects testing riew interventions offer no guaranteed cure. Empirital findings could help us understand how to approach these issues, but unfortunately, very limited research exists about how parents actually understand the components of pédiatrie research studies. Finally, researchers sometimes recruit children who live in hospitals, in residential programs, or in state child welfare custody because more research is needed about these populations to help improve services they receive. However, these individuals also happen to be subject pools that are readily available, making them a sort of "captive äudience."Validity and ethical problems can arise fi'om studies recruiting such participants. For example, will a trauma inter￾vention validated in a residential treatment setting generahze to children living in the community? If the intervention is not studied in community areas that may present more sampling obstacles, that ques￾tion will go unanswered. Research for such settings is usually approved only when the focus of the project is about those specific populations and settings. Researchers who only recruit children from marginalized groups and low socioeconomic status families can inadvertently stigmatize those children further. At the same time,involving healthy children from nonmarginalized groups who will not benefit from the tested interventions raises ethical problems, even though their inclusion might enhance the validity of research projects. The NASW Code of Ethics clearly directs social workers who strongly suspect or discover ethical violations to take action. First, it is usually advisable to discuss concerns with the research investigator to seek clarity and, if necessary, remediation. If these concerns are dismissed or minimized, there are a number of alternative pathways for further action. Research cannot occur without the sanction of agency leadership, so consultation with supervisors or administrators can be effective because they are usually aware of the serious ethical and legal rami￾fications for the organization if such violations are taking place. If this is unsuccessful or impractical, the researcher's university IRB can be anonymously contacted, and this usually generates a vigorous investigation because universities face terrible pen￾alties if ethical violations create harm to research participants. Seeking assistance from a state NASW chapter can also protect complainant anonymity and wü] likely incentivize researchers, agency leaders, and universities to address publicly exposed violations. Finally, if all else fails, or if because of special cir￾cumstances the complainant requires advice before taking any of the actions mentioned earher, person￾ally retaining legal counsel can be extraordinarily effective, although this would require the financial resources to pay legal fees. The foregoing discussion suggests a few of the complexities and challenges involved with pro￾tecting research participants.Yet, it is important to remember that it is ethically required to pursue intervention research with vulnerable populations such as children because they would otherwise al￾most always have access to only nonvalidated treat￾ment approaches. Because vulnerable populations are social workers' primary clientele, practitioners should join researchers and Il^ s in working to protect clients by helping to ensure that their chent Social Work VOLUME 54, NUMBER i JANUARY 2009