paper1 - research methodds
ismails95
Chapter2-EthicsinCJResearch.pptEthics in Criminal Justice Research
Chapter 2
*
Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Research
Ethical - behavior conforming to the standards of conduct of a given group
Matter of agreement among professionals
Need to be aware of general agreements of ethical behavior among CJ “community”
Some research designs may be impractical because of ethical issues
No Harm to Participants
Weighing potential benefits against possibility of harm is an ethical dilemma in research
Possible harms of criminal justice research include:
Physical harm
Psychological harm
Embarrassment
Groups at risk include:
Research subjects
Researcher
Third parties
No Harm to Participants
- All research involves risks
- Researcher cannot completely guard against all possible harm
- Researcher should have firm scientific grounds for conducting research which could potentially present harm
- Harm to subjects is only justified if the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms
Voluntary Participation
CJ research often intrudes into subjects’ lives
Participation must be voluntary
This threatens generalizability
Results only represent those who participated
Often not possible with field observations
E.g., observe people without them being aware they are being observed
Anonymity and Confidentiality
Anonymity – when researcher cannot identify a given piece of information with a given person
Confidentiality – a researcher can link information with a subject, but promises not to do so publicly
Research must make it clear to the responded whether the survey is anonymous or confidential
Deceiving Subjects
Generally considered unethical
Use of deception must be justified
Widom (1999) – child abuse and illegal drug use
Telling research subjects the purpose of the study would have biased the results
Inciardi (1993) – studying crack houses
Advises researchers not to “go undercover”
Analysis and Reporting
Researchers have ethical obligations to scientific community
Make shortcomings and/or negative findings known
Tell the truth about pitfalls and problems you’ve experienced
Report negative findings
It is as important to know that two things are not related as to know that they are
Legal Liability
Researchers may expose themselves to criminal liability by:
Failing to report observed criminal activity to the police
Engaging in criminal activity
Engaging in participant observation studies where crimes are committed
Subpoenas violate confidentiality
Legal immunity (42 U.S. Code §22.28a)
Special Problems
Disrupting operations of agencies during the course of an evaluation
Becoming aware of staff misbehavior in agencies
Research may produce crime or influence its location or target
Crime may be displaced
Withholding desirable treatments from control group
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment brought about a great deal of concern regarding the withholding of desirable treatment. During the experiment, penicillin was withheld from African American males suffering from syphilis even after it was well known that it would cure syphilis. Several of the men in the study died painful deaths from syphilis and many infected their spouses and children with the disease. The gross ethical violations in this study also led to the development of the Belmont Report and Internal Review Boards which will be discussed later.
Promoting Compliance With Ethical Principles
Belmont Report – six page report that prescribed a comprehensive set of ethical principles for protection of human subjects
Respect for persons
Beneficence
Justice
Promoting Compliance With Ethical Principles: Continued
Codes of ethics
Professional associations
American Psychological Association
American Sociology Association
The National Academy of Science
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Agencies and organizations that conduct research that conduct human subjects research have established IRBs
Members make judgments about overall risks, and their acceptability
Whether research procedures includes safeguards to protect safety, confidentiality, and general welfare of subjects
Informed Consent
Informed consent – informing subjects about research procedures and then obtaining their consent to participate
Requires that subjects understand the purpose of research possible risks, side effects, possible benefits to subjects, and procedures used
Satisfies voluntary consent
Problems:
Informing subjects of the purpose of the research
Insuring subjects can understand
Special Populations
- Special Populations – subjects to whom federal regulations apply special provisions
- Juveniles
Often must also received parental consent
- Prisoners
Cannot be subjected to greater harm than the general public can ethically be subjected
Must inform them that refusal to participate will not affect work assignments, release decisions, or privileges
Member of IRB must be prisoner representative
Control subjects need to be randomly selected for most projects
IRBs and Researcher Rights
- IRBs have become very cautious
- Restricts researchers abilities to increase knowledge
- Can help researcher balance harms and benefits and help overcome potential issues
Ethical Controversies: Simulating a Prison
Dispositional hypothesis – prisons are brutal and dehumanizing because of people in them
Situational hypothesis – prison environment creates brutal and dehumanizing conditions independent of the people in them
Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo – sought to test situational hypothesis by simulating a prison in 1971
The Experiment
“Prison” constructed in basement of psychology building
24 healthy/psychologically normal subjects selected, offered $15 a day for their participation
Asked to sign a contract that they would be confined, put under constant surveillance, and have their civil rights suspended – but would not be subject to physical abuse
The Experiment Short-lived
Terminated after six days (planned for two weeks)
Subjects displayed “unexpectedly intense reactions”
Five had to be released because they showed signs of acute depression or anxiety
Guards became aggressive, prisoners became passive
Researchers Sensitive to Ethical Issues 1
Obtained consent via signed contracts
Those who developed signs of acute distress were released early
Study was terminated prematurely
Group therapy debriefing sessions were conducted, along with follow-ups, to ensure negative experiences were temporary
Researcher Sensitivity to Ethical Issues 2
Subjects were not fully informed of the procedures
Researchers were unsure as to how simulation would proceed
Guards were granted the power to make up and modify rules – became increasingly authoritarian
How might this study have been conducted differently?
