anuary 27, 2022
G.R. Advisor
School of Behavioral Sciences
1971 University Blvd
Lynchburg, VA 24515
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).3
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.3
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.
3
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.172.3.2503
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
