Dear Ms. Advisor,
In the course of conducting the research on the induction processes at the
military establishment, a matter was observed which warrants your attention. Two
of the establishment’s staff were directly observed to be in an altercation with one
of the new recruits. This behavior, if left unaddressed, puts our research endeavor
at risk. At the foundational level, we have been clear with our project sponsors at
the military establishment that respect for persons is paramount to appropriately
conducting this research. By definition, military recruits are subject to strong
command authority which may place undue pressure on the recruit subjects in
favor of or against the research (Spence, 2007).
To that point, the APA Code of Conduct provides relevant direction. Respect for
People's Rights and Dignity, American Psychological Association (2017, Principle
E) mandates that persons vulnerable in such a fashion be protected since they
are hindered for informed consent. Further, we are to enforce Beneficence and
Nonmaleficence, American Psychological Association (2017, Standard Principle A)
which includes protecting the well being of our participants.
Recommendations for resolution are also drawn from the APA Code of Conduct.
This circumstance does indeed reflect a conflict between our ethics and the
organizational demands of the military, as outlined in American Psychological
Association (2017, Standard 1.03). This standard implores that reasonable efforts
be made to resolve the conflict. Our project leadership team must address this
behavior directly with those from the military establishment to gain agreement
that these harmful interactions are halted. As an alternative or as a
complementary resolution, advocacy should be emphasized for the participants
themselves, again through directly addressing with establishment staff. It should
be agreed that participants should have the opportunity without retribution to
properly provide (or withhold) their informed consent and to avoid such harms
through association with the study. This too is reinforced through American
Psychological Association (2017, Standard 3.03) and American Psychological
Association (2017, Standard 3.04) regarding avoidance of harm and harassment,
respectively.
Bottom line, despite any institutional or traditional tolerances which might permit
such behavior, our principles spur us to advocate on their behalf (Stuart &
Szeszeran, 2021). This is indeed supported Biblically in the charge to defend
those who may be oppressed (King James Bible, 1769/2017, Psalm 82:3).
I look forward to your guidance.
References:
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists
and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1,
2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
King James Bible. (2017). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published
1769)
Spence, D. L. (2007). Ensuring respect for persons when recruiting junior enlisted
personnel for Research. Military Medicine, 172(3), 250–253.
https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed.172.3.250
Stuart, J., & Szeszeran, N. (2021). Bullying in the military: A review of the research
on predictors and outcomes of bullying victimization and perpetration. Military
Behavioral Health, 9(3), 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2020.1864527
