For case study 2, participants were incarcerated individuals from a facility in the Midwest US. The sample size consisted of 30 people who could decline participation. Those that chose to continue with the study were given a consent form and a questionnaire that gathered personal demographics, type of trauma experienced during childhood and their interpersonal relationship behaviors. The questionnaire was a face to face interview.
Risks for this study would be potential privacy issues. Since the sample size is so small and the type of questions and information gathered from those participating might be identified even though their names are not used. Since these interviews will be conducted in person it also limits the protection of their identity. Correction officers and other inmates may be able to easily identity these individuals based on the meetings alone. Also, being a part of the prison population may raise the question if their consent is truly voluntary.
Benefits of this study would be in person interviews for both the researcher and the participant. Being in person might help build a rapport and allow the individual to open up more and go into more detail then they would be able to on paper. This would also allow for the researcher to ask follow up questions or clarification if something is not understood. The same would go for the prisoner. Also, the type of information being requested (interpersonal personal relationship behaviors) would flow better as a conversation as you be able to also note body language and tone. Benefits of the study for society could possibly be helping to bring awareness to how certain situations affect people in different ways and the need for more resources or better utilization of resources. It could also show how the absence of resources affect people.
A full board review would be needed to review this case. This case study sample uses prisoners which would be considered a vulnerable population. Using a vulnerable population increases the risk for exploitation. With the use of a vulnerable population, the question of whether the informed consent is valid and the potential for exploitation meets the requirements of a full board review.
Chapter 4: Assessing Risks and Potential Benefits and Evaluating Vulnerability (Research Involving Human Participants V1). (2016, February 1). https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx.
According to an article “Reaching Social Impact Through Communicative Methodology. Researching With Rather Than on Vulnerable Populations: The Roma Case” it looks at whether using vulnerable populations for research is even beneficial or actually made things worse.
“Although several decades of research on vulnerable populations have passed, there is scarce evidence as to whether this research has led to a positive transformation of or social impact on the community or the daily lives of the people who were subjects of the research. In fact, part of the research has even promoted or reproduced racist stereotypes about these vulnerable populations.”
This is an interesting concept as those in prison could be a fairly stable control group for any experiment.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00009
Many ethical principles are involved when human subjects are used in research. Ethical principles surrounding research were brought to attention after WWII when Nazi doctors used inmates as human subjects in their research experiments. The doctors were trialed at Nuremberg, and the effects of these Nuremberg Trials changed the way human medical research was conducted on human participant with the Nuremberg Code. The code set standards for involving human subjects in research. The federal government categorizes prisoners as members of a vulnerable population and requires additional protections in order for prisoners to be participants in research studies. The Belmont Report contains the ethical principles of respect, beneficence and justice in the application of research studies on vulnerable populations. In case study 2 the participants are incarcerated and are therefore considered a vulnerable population. The ethics from the Belmont Report are applied in this case study because the prisoners were given autonomy through the ability to decline participating in the study.
Ahalt, C., Haney, C., Kinner, S., & Williams, B. (2018). Balancing the Rights to Protection and Participation: A Call for Expanded Access to Ethically Conducted Correctional Health Research. Journal of general internal medicine, 33(5), 764–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4318-9
Yes, when using people as your subjects you will have many things that you will have have to consider and many regulations to abide to conduct an ethical experiment. There are now federal regulations that will hopefully prevent unethical use of humans as subjects like the WWII experiments, Tuskegee experiments and other like it.
UCI Office of Research. (2019). https://research.uci.edu/compliance/human-research-protections/researchers/ethical-guidelines-fed-regs-and-state-statutes.html.
I never heard of the Tuskegee experiments, so I researched it. In 1932, the U.S Public Health Service wanted to investigate the effects of untreated syphilis in individuals. Poor black men participated in the experiment because they were told they would receive free medical care, meals and burial insurance from the government. The participants were never told they had syphilis and treatment was withheld. The National Commission published the Belmont Report in 1979, which protects research on human studies with ethical standards
Kim W. O. (2012). Institutional review board (IRB) and ethical issues in clinical research. Korean journal of anesthesiology, 62(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2012.62.1.3
“When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects (45 CFR 46.111; 21 CFR 56.111 [FDA regulations differ only in regulation citations])”(2016). It would be interesting to see exactly what safeguards are to be put in place for this specific vulnerable population. I agree that in a face-to-face interview it is obviously impossible to protect their identity especially if an interviewer is a “known person” to the prisoner.
N. (Ed.). (2016, February 01). Chapter 4: Assessing Risks and Potential Benefits and Evaluating Vulnerability (Research Involving Human Participants V1). Retrieved from https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx