Case Study 2 Analysis

In Case Study 2 researchers examined the relationship between childhood trauma and the effect on adult interpersonal relationships.  Researchers used random sampling to select 30 incarcerated participants from a prison population.  These individuals were given the opportunity to decline participation.  Those who chose to participate signed consent forms.  Researchers used face to face encounters to administer an instrument designed to collect demographic information as well as type of trauma experienced and interpersonal relationship behaviors.  There is no control group mentioned in the case study so there is no information on comparisons of groups within and outside the prison system or between those individuals who are incarcerated but did not experience early trauma.

In accordance with Federal guidelines, in place to regulate and protect participants in studies using human subjects drawn from within a prison population, a full review by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) is automatically required for this study due to use of prisoner participants (U.S Department of Health & Human Services, 2003). The IRB for a prison population is to be primarily composed of persons not associated with the prison in question and is to have a prisoner or prisoner representative on the board.  Research using this population is permissible only if it poses minimal risk and inconvenience to participants.  A study designed in this way presents several potential risks to the prisoner, a member of a vulnerable population confined in a closed social and institutionalized setting.  Other questions to be considered by the full IRB review include whether the investigators have all had the requisite human subject training and whether the data collection instrument is both valid and reliable.  Additionally, the IRB should assess procedures for adequate informed consent and debriefing.   This information is not presented in the case study.

Risks to prisoners participating in this research include triggering of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) related to recall of previous traumas (Kleim, Graham, Bryant, & Ehlers, 2013).  This triggering may cause the prisoner to act out in ways that violate conduct codes for the prison, destabilizing population dynamics, increasing the potential for violence within the prison population, increasing the potential for injury to prisoners and guards, and possibly increasing sentence lengths as a result of these behaviors. These violations carry the same weight as breaking the law outside of prisons and typically incur “segregation” (isolation) as a consequence in addition to time added to sentences.  Segregation can cause further psychological trauma to the prisoner.  While participation in the study will not positively impact parole hearings, decreased compliance with behavioral expectations will certainly negatively effect those proceedings.  Revisiting early traumas in a novel and non-counseling situation may interfere with prisoner progress with ongoing psychological treatment and behavioral programs in place.  Post-participation debriefing may not be sufficient if it does not include behavioral staff with whom the prisoner already has established rapport.  If the researcher requires a guard to be present during administration of the data collection instrument, there is a risk to the prisoner’s privacy by an individual who is in a position of power over the prisoner.

Benefits to prisoners participating in this research are limited.  Participants may experience psychological benefit from recounting previous traumas within the context of cognitive behavioral therapy, however it may have negative effects in a simple survey.  Prisoners may perceive a benefit from an alteration in their routine, absence from typical duties, or from receiving increased attention.  Others’ perception of benefit and the absence from typical duties may shift relationships within the general population, resulting in destabilization of social dynamics and increased tensions or violence.  If the researcher has counseling qualifications and provides adequate debriefing, this process may allow participants to shift perceptions of responsibility for behaviors to an external locus of control.  The benefits of this to the prisoner and to society at large are debatable.

The researcher is at risk of physical harm if a participant recalling previous trauma has an episode of triggered PTSD and acts out violently.  The researcher is also at risk of psychological harm in the form of compassion fatigue and vicarious traumatization or secondary trauma from repeated exposure to recounted trauma, (Shannonhouse, Barden, Jones, Gonzalez, & Murphy, 2016) . The researcher also has to contend with the risk of incomplete data and compromised results if participants are not entirely honest and forthcoming.

The main benefit to the researcher is quantifiable data and, if there wasn’t already an abundance of research on this subject, possibly a clearer understanding of the effect of early trauma on interpersonal relationships of individuals within the prison system.  The sample size is small and without the methods section there is no information about control or other groups for comparison.  If there is no control group in the study design it would make this study useful for little other than describing narrow correlations.

Risks to society in general include the potential for increased costs associated with destabilized population dynamics, increased violence and injury to prisoners and prison workers, as well as associated healthcare costs and lost work hours.  Additionally, violence and rule breaking in prisons results in lengthened sentences which incur additional costs to society.

Benefits to society are minimal as this question has been addressed in research many times over and the relationships between early trauma, interpersonal relationships, criminality, and incarceration are well-documented.  Original and early replication research into this question were justified but at present this research is ethically questionable in regard risk to prisoners and in regard to stewardship of finite resources.  Research funding would be better allocated to examining the efficacy of existing early and ongoing intervention after trauma to decrease antisocial behaviors, personality disorders, and criminality.

Resources

Kleim, B., Graham, B., Bryant, R., & Ehlers, A. (2013). Capturing intrusive re-experiencing in trauma survivors’ daily lives using ecological momentary assessment. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(4), 998-1009. doi:10.1037/a0034957

Shannonhouse, L., Barden, S., Jones, E., Gonsalez, L., & Murphy, A. (2016). Secondary traumatic stress for trauma researchers: A mixed methods research design. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 38(3), 201-216. doi:10.17744/mehc.38.3.02

U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 45 CFR 46.305, 306 (2003).