The investigators analyzed the relationship between traumatic childhood experiences and the effect on interpersonal relationships in adulthood. Thirty participants incarcerated in a Midwestern United States correctional facility were chosen using random sampling. Individuals were given the opportunity to decline participation in the study. Individuals who chose to participate signed a consent form. A detailed questionnaire was given addressing personal demographic data (e.g. age, sex, race, education level), type of trauma experienced, and interpersonal relationship behaviors. Interviewers administered the questionnaire in a face-to-face interview.
This investigation would require a full board review as it involves prisoners who are classified under the vulnerable populations. The survey in this research investigation would include information that is of a sensitive nature, and this would also classify it in the full board review level of the IRB. Discussing the aspects of the criminal’s personal traumas that may or may not have led the individual into a life of crime can be a very difficult subject to discuss. The researches would need to ensure that the risk posed by this investigation would be minimal, and the benefits would outweigh the risks. The AMA Journal of Ethics teaches us that the Belmont Report of 1974 outlines the importance of maintaining professional integrity, and outlines three principles for conducting research on human subjects. “Beneficence. More than just promotion of well-being, the duty of beneficence requires that research maximize the benefit-to-harm ratio for individual subjects and for the research program as a whole (Moon, 2009).”
Potentially triggering a violent reaction from the inmate during questioning highlights one of the risks of this study, potentially causing psychological harm to the inmates. This in turn could place the interviewer in danger because the questions asked through the face-to-face interview may trigger violent reactions. Causing emotional distress in research subjects is something that should be avoided, but in this type of investigation it is often a result. The individuals conducting the study should be aware of this potential outcome, and should word their questions in a manner that will lead to findings without sacrificing the emotional integrity of the subject in question. Another risk of this study could be racial profiling by the researcher. We all have unconscious bias and sometimes it interferes with our work.
Interviews and questionnaires that analyze the correlation between an individual’s upbringing such as trauma experienced, or social situations, and the effect on their adult interpersonal relationships has benefits as well though. Finding the link between the early life of a criminal which may have led them into a life of crime can give insight on possible ways to help prevent a child who experiences trauma from falling into a life of crime. This can lead to healthier adult interpersonal relationships, and potential break a cycle that some people fall into. The major benefit of this study would be to improve society as a whole.
Through some of the revelation that could be attained through out this study, great improvements could be made in the way of understanding child psychology, and treatment of post traumatic stress experienced by children. Childhood development is affected by the environment, and relationships they have from an early age. This type of study could lead to new understandings of how to prevent the child from falling into criminal behaviors as an adult. The possibility of finding ways to encourage healthy growth and healing from traumatic childhood experiences would lead one to the conclusion that the benefits of this study would outweigh the risks.
Moon, Margaret R. MD, MPH. (2009) The History and Role of Institutional Review Boards: A Useful Tension. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/history-and-role-institutional-review-boards-useful-tension/2009-04
University of New Hampshire. (2020) IRB Review Levels. https://www.unh.edu/research/irb-review-levels
After reading this case study I also feel it requires a full board review, due to the incarcerated individuals being categorized as vulnerable population. As stated in the University of Southern California Office for Protection of Research Subjects, certain forms of research with prisoners are permissible but often require review and approval from several agencies (n.d) I feel there is more than minimal risk to participants as well.
I agree with many of the risks and benefits you described. I too would like to see interviewers be thoroughly trained in how to administer questions as well as be aware of possible ways a traumatized individual could be re-traumatized or triggered. Items such as proximity, gender, voice tone, body language and even colors worn by interviewer could hinder responses and create risk.
I see society benefiting greatly through improvements made in treatment of post traumatic stress syndrome, prevention of violence and programs to enhance family environments. This case study can bring awareness to society, participants and researchers, providing value insight as to why specific crimes are committed. For example, if a child experiences violence in their household how likely is it for them to resolve conflict without violence.
Office for Protection of Research Subjects. (n.d). oprs.usc.edu Retrieved from https://oprs.usc.edu/irb-review/research-with-prisoners/
I feel this type of research assignment could be greatly beneficial to society, however if it is not completed with the supervision of the review board the individual’s personal bias can interfere with the study. After learning more about the IRB, I understand the importance more than I had previously. Through research and trials, medicine and societal interactions can continue to advance. Both parties of the trials, or investigations should feel safe and that ethical principles are adhered to. I understand this is the purpose and goal of the IRB’s, to maintain ethics and professional judgement.
Moon, Margaret R. MD, MPH. (2009) The History and Role of Institutional Review Boards: A Useful Tension. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/history-and-role-institutional-review-boards-useful-tension/2009-04
I agree, I too have learned more about the IRB than I previously understood. According to John Carroll’s University, Institutional Review Board “In order to approve research the IRB shall determine all the following requirements are satisfied.” Therefore the study should be able to run effectively, if approved by IRB. I am assuming the questions are predetermined, safeguarded by the review board. I too feel it would be hard to rule out personal bias of the interviewer, the participant may pick up on various non-verbal expressions feeling judgement therefore not answering honestly, becoming violent or non responsive. If successful, the data collected would be extremely beneficial to the future of corrections, mental and physical health fields.
John Carroll Institutional Review Board. (2018, November). jcu.edu. Retrieved from https://jcu.edu/research/irb/investigators-guide/step-one-you-begin
As an investigator, to truly achieve your goals set forth through research projects it is important to leave out any bias. For some, the unconscious bias can sneak up on you. For research purposes, especially those such as the investigation proposed through this case study, it would be vital for the investigator to learn to control their unconscious bias. This should start in the education forum, and flow into the workplace. To truly conquer unconscious, or implicit bias, according to the Journal of Infectious disease, one must continuously engage in diversity training.
Marcelin,Jasmine R., & Siraj, Dawd S.,& et. al. (2019)The Impact of Unconscious Bias in Healthcare: How to Recognize and Mitigate It.The Journal of Infectious disease, 220, S62-S73. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/220/Supplement_2/S62/5552356