IRB Case Study #2
For this study researchers survey a random sample of thirty prisoners from the midwestern United States who were willing participants and agreed to a face-to-face interview. The topic of study is the correlation between traumatic childhood experiences and interpersonal relationships in adulthood.
Risks and Benefits for Researchers
Researchers involved in the face-to-face interviews of this study will be discussing sensitive, emotional topics with individuals who have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to serve time in prison. This puts the researcher’s safety at risk. “Interviewer safety is often overlooked in discussions of qualitative interviews, but it may be of particular concern, depending on the research questions” (Oltmann, 2016). In addition, the in-person interview in this study puts the researcher in a position where unconscious biases may interfere with the validity of the results. These biases may belong to the researcher, the participant or both.
Using the face-to-face interview researchers have the benefit of confirming that demographic data collected is accurate. This interview style also affords the researcher the benefit of observing non-verbal cues. “In the face-to-face mode, nonverbal language and cues can be very rich, including dress, body language, mannerisms, and so on” (Oltmann, 2016).
Risks and Benefits for Participants
Two conceivable risks for participants in this study are the lack of anonymity and confidentiality. The collection of demographic data in this study coupled with the face-to-face interview removes any chance at anonymity for participants. “Anonymity, in a research context, means that either the project does not collect identifying information, or the identifying information cannot be linked to subjects’ responses” (Oltmann, 2016). Confidentiality is also compromised by the in-person interview aspect of the study.
Participation in this study includes answering questions about childhood trauma and relationships in adulthood. This potentially gives the participants an outlet to discuss traumatic experiences they may not have had otherwise. In contrast to upsetting participants with this sensitive subject matter, discussing these events may elicit positive reactions such as participants feeling a sense of relief or even empowered. “Benefits, such as a sense of empowerment, as well as an increase in knowledge that came about as a result of the study, may lead to better health advocacy, study participation and outcomes” (Castillo et al., 2012). Answering questions about this subject in a controlled setting such as the face-to-face interview may allow participants of the study the opportunity to better understand their own behaviors and give them some clarity as well.
Risks and Benefits for Society
The possible negative implications of this study for society might be that the results are limited by the singular population chosen as possible participants. The information collected can’t possibly represent what is true for most people since the only participants were incarcerated individuals. If the findings of this study are taken out of context and applied to society as a whole it could generate unfair prejudice or stereotypes.
A benefit this study provides society is providing some insight into how childhood trauma relates to interpersonal relationships for incarcerated individuals. In other words, it offers society knowledge about the subject matter. Learning about how childhood trauma effects these individuals’ interpersonal relationships in adulthood can give society a better understanding of the importance of providing children protection from those traumatic experiences.
Level of IRB Review
This study involves the voluntary participation of incarcerated individuals. Since these participants are involuntarily imprisoned a full board IRB review must be done. Prisoners are considered a vulnerable population because they have had some autonomy taken away as a result of being convicted of a crime (Prisoner Research FAQs, n.d.).
References
Castillo, A. G., Jandorf, L., Thélémaque, L. D., King, S., & Duhamel, K. (2012, February). Reported benefits of participation in a research study. Journal of community health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4399714/.
Oltmann, S. (2016, May). Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2551/3998.
Prisoner Research FAQs. HHS.gov. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/prisoner-research/index.html.
Good work!
I agree the study requires full board IRB because the study involves prisoners and they are considered a vulnerable population. I do believe they suffer from some sort of confidentiality because they are talking to someone about there personal past and present. According to Research involving Human Participants V1 “IRBs may only approve a research study when the research study is judged to have adequate provisions to protect the privacy of participants and to maintain the confidentiality of data.” How would you protect the privacy of the participants? Making them feel safe and able to open up about there experience will give the best research and providing them protection of privacy will help them open up.
Chapter 5: Ensuring Voluntary Informed Consent and Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality (Research Involving Human Participants V1). (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8037.aspx
Hi Whitney, thank you for your response. The face-to-face interview technique, coupled with the collection of demographic data makes confidentiality and anonymity a challenge, if not impossible. In order to protect privacy, a different data collection technique would have to be considered.