The potential benefits to a study of this nature are the possibility of building from and learning about childhood traumatic experiences and the effects that it has on intrapersonal relationships, namely, with incarcerated individuals. This could help change the way that we care for traumatized children and decrease the number of incarcerations, due to post-traumatic stress or other emotional disorders of that fashion. One in six male inmates report abuse before the age of eighteen (Wolff & Shi, 2012). This study has the potential to help improve counseling services, change the judicial system, or foster care, just to name a few.
The potential risks to a study of this nature include risking the participant’s autonomy and self-determination, privacy and justice. Incarcerated individuals already have a lack of autonomy, in the sense that they are no longer able to make their own decisions. They may feel an external influence is determining whether or not they participate. They no longer have the self-determination to make decisions on their own accord. In the Belmont Report, it poses the question, “Who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear it’s burdens? (Office for Human Research Protections & OHRP, 2018).” Ultimately, opening inmates up to reliving horrific childhood traumas can open Pandora’s box. Everyone deals with traumatic instances in different manners. Are there resources available to help them deal with reliving the pain and suffering? How will this study help them? Ultimately, this is a potential risk for behaviors while incarcerated, privacy of the study (due to all subjects being from the same institution) and how they benefit from participating (Office for Human Research Protections & OHRP, 2018)
Depending on risk and subject demographic, a research proposal can fall into one of three categories: exempt, expedited, or a full board review (2018). In this particular case study, the research proposed creates more than a “minimal risk” for both participants and the interviewer. A full board review is necessary when dealing with protected populations, such as children, inmates or mentally handicapped individuals, as well as, “projects that plan to use procedures that are personally intrusive, stressful, or potentially traumatic (2018).”
Resources:
Office for Human Research Protections, & OHRP. (2018, January 15). Read the Belmont Report. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
Types of Review: Exempt, Expedited, and Full Board Review. (2018, January 25). Retrieved from https://www.uwec.edu/ORSP/IRB/about/policies/Types-of-Review.htm
Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2012, May). Childhood and Adult Trauma Experiences of Incarcerated Persons and Their Relationship to Adult Behavioral Health Problems and Treatment. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3386595/
The case study mentions that there are 30 participates chosen using random sampling. Thirty participates doesn’t seem like a number that would produce creditable results or much of an comprehensive/inclusive assessment of how adult relationships are effected by childhood traumatic experiences. This random sample may also be skewed to involving more unbalanced total of one race than another. When reviewing your source, it mentions that there are may be differences in the type of trauma experienced based on race. Also, in this particular case study, it seems that there may not be a consideration for the fact that disabled persons are more like to suffer abuse and therefore include that in the questionnaire. Additionally, it is well known that a large percentage of that population has had trauma or unresolved trauma as a root cause of behaviors that lead to incarceration. Incarcerated people have historically high incidents of trauma that lead to dysfunctional relationships with others and social norms, so what is there new to learn here? The study should also include if those questioned had access to trauma-focused or substance abuse treatment if the goal is to rehabilitate and reintegrate them back into society. Furthermore, those who spend time in prison are nearly twice as likely to suffer PTSD than those who don’t (Mann, 2015), so if you didn’t go in with issues, you defiantly cam out with some. So, yes, I agree with you, lets look at the resources that incarcerate people may need.
Mann, S. (2015). Psychologistfinds link between PTSD and prison. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin.
I enjoyed the fact that you questioned whether or not credible/helpful resources would be made available to these participants. When completing this case study, I hadn’t initially thought of that. In an article I read recently regarding mental health and prisons by the Worlds Health Organization stated, “Prison’s are bad for overall mental health for starters…” and then other factors are imposed such as crowding, increased violence, etc. It seems plausible, this case study has the potential to set someone “over the edge” at any given moment due to increased stressors. Lacking resources to assist these individuals with coping is another recipe for disaster.
The WHO also touches base on resources available for prisoners stating that, “Effective treatment is possible but too often the available resources are wasted: There are many effective treatments for mental disorders, but often the limited available resources are wasted in ineffective, expensive interventions and services that only reach a small proportion of those in need.” In addition, WHO states, “…there is no evidence that these expensive treatment options improve outcomes.”
W. (2005). Mental Health In Prisons. WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation.
Exactly! I kept thinking that reliving traumatic experiences while incarcerated would probably be significantly harder for someone that couldn’t seek mental health services whenever they needed.
This is an interesting topic and very said. It seems as though it’s a generational curse. A child can be traumatized when a parent is absent by incarceration themselves. An article written by Kristin Turney, showed the significance of “children exposed to parental incarceration are more likely than their peers to be exposed to many other adverse experiences in childhood, including household member abuse, household member substance problems, and household member mental illness. these findings suggest that children of incarcerated parents are a more vulnerable group than previously considered” (Turney 2018).” Once the ball is rolling in the direction of traumatic experiences of a child who’s parent is incarcerated, it can be hard to overcome that experience and not allow it to control the rest of that child’s life experiences.
So, I was a little confused on which IRB review you thought this case needed. Are you saying it could need any of the three depending on the circumstances?
Turney, K. (2018). Adverse childhood experiences among children of incarcerated parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 89, 218-225.
The statistical information you presented is very interesting, it really is a vicious cycle. Incarcerated parents can create a traumatic experience in itself, especially when the child is placed into the care of someone that doesn’t have their best interest at heart.
Also, to answer your question, I was just stating that there are three types of IBR, but because of the subject matter and the participants, a full board review was necessary.
Got it! That’s what I thought you were saying but wasn’t sure. Thank you for the clarification.
Aakinkner,
You mentioned that before the age of eighteen, one in six inmates report being abused. Studies on physical abuse and violent behavior are needed to better understand the questions that society asks frequently. Why are some individuals prone to violent behavior? Vulnerability may just be the key. To be vulnerable is to be powerless to harm mentally or physically.
Vulnerability must be protected in research also. Certain populations such as those who are imprisoned are put “at greater risk of being used in ethically inappropriate ways in research”. Physiological harm can be elevated by the “participant’s negative perception of self, emotional suffering or aberrations in thought or behavior”. The social harms are also a concern as research participation “involve the negative effects on one’s interactions or relationships with others” (National Academics of Sciences, 2018).
References
National Academics of Sciences. (n.d.). (2018). Chapter 4: Assessing risks and potential benefits and evaluating vulnerability (research involving human participants V1). Retrieved on June 13, 2018 from: http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx