NSG 3029 Week 4 DQ 1: alternative community consent
The prompt's premise is that guidelines say who must consent but not how. Answering the question well means naming what individual consent is failing to deliver before proposing something to replace it.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Alternative forms — so what is the standard one failing at?
The premise is worth taking seriously before the question is answered. Existing guidelines establish that individuals must give informed consent and say very little about how it should be sought, which is why the article's computer-based education intervention exists at all — comprehension, not authorisation, is the weak point. Surrogate consent makes this sharper: a surrogate is asked to authorise research on someone else, often under acute stress, about a study they have minutes to understand, and the evidence on what surrogates actually comprehend in that situation is not reassuring. So the case for alternatives starts from a documented failure rather than from a preference for community involvement. It is also worth noting what the intervention in the article was: an education tool, not a change to who authorises. That is itself an answer: the researchers judged the fixable problem to be understanding rather than the locus of consent.
Then be clear about what community consent means, because the term covers several different things and they are not equally defensible. Community consultation before a study begins, community advisory boards with ongoing input, and community permission as a precondition are three distinct arrangements. Only the third substitutes for individual consent, and it raises the objection that has to be answered: a community cannot waive an individual's right, no community speaks with one voice, and whoever claims to represent it was usually not chosen by the people whose data is at stake. The defensible position is generally that community mechanisms should supplement rather than replace individual consent — they improve what is asked, catch harms individuals cannot foresee such as group stigma from genomic findings, and build the trust that makes individual consent meaningful. Take a position and meet the representation objection rather than leaving it to a classmate.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Identify comprehension rather than authorisation as the weak point in consent.
- 02Distinguish consultation, advisory boards and community permission.
- 03Answer the representation objection to community consent.
- 04Recognise group-level harms individual consent cannot address.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. NSG 3029 Week 4 DQ 1 One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01The specific failure in current consent practice.
- 02The three forms of community involvement, distinguished.
- 03A position on whether they should be pursued.
- 04An answer to the representation objection.
The gap, the alternatives, then the objection
What current consent fails at
Establish comprehension as the weak point, especially for surrogates.
Three community arrangements
Distinguish consultation, advisory boards and permission.
The representation objection
Address who speaks for a community and by what authority.
Group-level harm
Identify harms individual consent structurally cannot cover.
Where community consent has been tried
Recommended databases
- PubMed Central
- Your IRB's guidance
- StatPearls research ethics chapters
- CINAHL
Search sequence
- 1.Read the article's own findings on surrogate comprehension before arguing.
- 2.Find where community consultation is formally required and why.
- 3.Look for critiques of community consent on representation grounds.
- 4.Search for group harm or stigma arising from genomic research findings.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Informed Consent
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Sets out what valid informed consent requires, which is the standard any alternative has to be measured against.
- 02
Surrogate consent for research involving adults with impaired decision making: Survey of Institutional Review Board practices
Critical Care Medicine · 2014
Surveys how review boards actually handle surrogate consent, which is the practice the article's intervention was addressing.
- 03
Research Ethics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
The research ethics framework within which any community arrangement would have to sit.
- 04
About The Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · 2024
The case that shows what community-level harm looks like and why trust is part of the consent problem.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Advocating community consent without saying what individual consent fails at.
- Treating consultation and permission as the same arrangement.
- Ignoring that no community speaks with one voice.
- Overlooking group-level harms specific to genomics.
Submission checklist
- Have you named the documented failure the alternatives address?
- Are the forms of community involvement distinguished?
- Did you answer the representation objection?
- Is your position stated rather than implied?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.