discussion board questions/ experimental design activity

missruf

VSUResearchCh_21.ppt

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >discussion board questions/ experimental design activity

Ethics in Criminal Justice Research

Chapter 2

Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Research

Ethics: associates with morality, deals with matters of right and wrong

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 from doing research against possibility of harm is an ethical dilemma in research

Possible harms of criminal justice research include:

Physical harm –

collecting information from active drug dealers may lead to violence against research subjects

Psychological harm – more common with interviews. Eg. asking subjects about their experiences as victims of child abuse

Embarrassment – eg. rape

No Harm to Participants

Groups at potential risk of physical harm include:

Research subjects – women at risk of domestic violence may be exposed to greater danger if they disclose past victimizations

Researcher – violent offenders might attack researchers

Third parties – collecting information from unstable individuals might increase the risk of harm to 3rd parties. Should researchers honor the promise of confidentiality or intervene to prevent the harm?

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; eg. interviewer’s call or arrival of questionnaire thru email

Participation must be voluntary – not so in practice (respondents participating with expectation of reward

But VP threatens generalizability

Results only represent those who participated

However, 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

Field observation techniques ensure that subjects cannot be identified

Researchers may also gain access to nonpublic records from courts etc in which the names of persons have been removed

Web-based survey that does not require login or other identifying information

Anonymity and Confidentiality

Confidentiality (privacy) – a researcher can link information with a subject, but promises not to do so publicly

Researcher must make it clear to the respondent whether the survey is anonymous or confidential/private

Researcher assures respondents/illegal drug user not to disclose information to the police

Not to disclose information from juvenile gang members to the police/public

Deceiving Subjects

Generally considered unethical

Use of deception must be justified by compelling scientific concerns

Widom (1999) – tested whether child abuse victims are more likely to use illegal drugs than non victims later in life

He informed respondents that they were selected to participate in human development study

Telling research subjects the purpose of the study would have biased the results

Analysis and Reporting

Researchers have ethical obligations to scientific community

Make shortcomings and/or negative findings known

Tell the truth about pitfalls/drawbcks 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 eg. street prostitution. This may be construed as obstruction of justice

Engaging in criminal activity

Engaging in participant observation studies where crimes are committed

Subpoena’s & Disclosure of research data that could be traced to subjects violate confidentiality

Federal Law; Legal immunity (42 U.S. Code §22.28a)

Protects researchers & subjects from legal action in most circumstances

Special Problems

Evaluation of programs have the potential to disrupt the routine operations of agencies being studied

Researchers Becoming aware of staff misbehavior or illegal practices or falsification of reports in agencies

Failure to deliver program treatments like home visits is an example of probation program not operating as planned

Disclosing these irregularities would violate implied trust

Special Problems

Research causes crime:

Research may indirectly promote offending eg. when gang members offers to illustrate their willingness to use violence by inviting researchers to witness a drive-by shooting

How subjects use the cash payments they received in exchange for interview

Withholding of desirable treatments from the 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 – individuals must be allowed to make their own decisions about participation in research

Beneficence – research should do no harm to participants and seek to produce benefits

Justice – the benefits and burdens of participating in research should be distributed fairly

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 concerns 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 – IRB requirement

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

Special Populations

Special Populations – subjects to whom federal regulations apply special provisions
Juveniles

Consent must be obtained from parent or guardian & from the juvenile subjects

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 (Zimbardo’s prison Experiment)

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

Zimbardo’s prison simulation (Activity/Assignment #2)

The video titled Quiet Rage. Students should identify as many ethical issues as possible from the video.

Once those ethical issues are identified, students should show how the simulation could have been done differently to lessen those concerns.

Students should read the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences' (2000) code of ethics at http://acjs.org/pubs/167_671_2922.cfm. Go to membership and click on Code of Ethics

Prepare a report on how they would apply the ACJS Code of Ethics to the Stanford prison simulation.

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 subjected 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?

In-Class Activity

A class debate on the general trade-offs between the requirements of sound scientific research methods and the need to protect human subjects.

In-Class Activity

Review the box "Ethics and Juvenile Gang Members“ (pg. 40). Students should develop an informed consent form to be used for research subjects.