SCS 224 Ethics Journal: Studying Gang Violence, Consent Forms and the IRB

SCS 224 Ethical Responsibilities and Professionalism Journal: studying gang violence

You are a sociologist studying gang violence on the fringes of a large American urban city. The people you interview and their families have a high likelihood to suffer increased levels of violence if they are seen communicating with you. Your reports must be published and interviewees must sign a consent form, so there is potential for word to spread of their involvement with you and your institution. You believe that the neighborhood will undoubtedly benefit from a social scientific examination of how violence affects childhood development, but you are putting yourself and other families at risk in the present. How do you choose to conduct your research and gather data in such a high-risk area?

Keep the following questions in mind: What is an institutional review board (IRB), and what is its purpose? Do you think it actually works? Why, or why not?

Prompt: Discuss the ethical dilemma and write a response in your journal. Consider the role of the IRB. What is an IRB? What is its purpose? Would the IRB protect everyone involved in your research? If so, how? Address these critical elements:

• Institutional review board
• Does the IRB work?
• Ethical dilemma

Original example for study purposes (about 770 words). Rewrite it in your own voice and add your course readings.

Institutional Review Board

An institutional review board (IRB) is a committee at a university or research institution that reviews studies involving human participants to make sure that participants’ rights and welfare are protected. IRBs follow the federal Common Rule (45 CFR 46), which is based on the Belmont Report’s principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Before approving my gang violence study, the IRB would examine whether risks are minimized and reasonable compared with the benefits, whether participants are selected fairly, how informed consent will be obtained and whether there are adequate provisions to protect privacy and confidentiality (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2018). Because my research involves children’s development and possibly minors, the IRB would also apply additional protections for children, such as parental permission and the child’s own assent.

Does the IRB Work?

In this case, I think the IRB can work well, because it offers tools that directly address my problem. The biggest risk is the signed consent form itself, which creates a record that links people to my study. The Common Rule allows an IRB to waive the requirement for a signed consent form when the only record linking the participant to the research would be the consent document and the principal risk would be harm from a breach of confidentiality (HHS, 2018, §46.117(c)). The IRB could approve oral consent with an information sheet instead, which protects participants better. In addition, if my study is funded by the National Institutes of Health, it would automatically be covered by a Certificate of Confidentiality, and other studies can apply for one. A certificate prevents researchers from being forced to disclose identifiable information in legal proceedings (National Institutes of Health, n.d.). This matters because researchers have been subpoenaed for their data; sociologist Rik Scarce was jailed for months in 1993 for refusing to reveal information from his research to a grand jury.

However, the IRB does not protect everyone. It focuses on the people enrolled in my study, so family members, neighbors and I as the researcher receive little attention. It also reviews paperwork, not what actually happens on the street; if someone sees an interviewee talking to me, no consent waiver can undo that. The IRB works only if the researcher designs the study well, reports problems honestly and continues to act ethically after approval.

The Ethical Dilemma

The dilemma is that research on how violence affects children could lead to better prevention programs, school supports and policies for this neighborhood, but gathering the data could expose participants, their families and me to retaliation. The American Sociological Association (2018) Code of Ethics requires sociologists to protect the confidentiality of research participants and to avoid harm, so participant safety must come before my career goals or publication timeline.

I would conduct the research in the following ways. First, I would build partnerships with trusted local organizations, such as violence interruption programs, youth centers and churches, and hold interviews at these locations or by phone so that participants are not seen with an outsider. Community members who are respected in the area could help design the study and recruit participants. Second, I would ask the IRB to waive signed consent and use oral consent, and I would obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality. Third, I would collect only the information I truly need, use codes instead of names, store data encrypted and destroy recordings after transcription. Fourth, I would consider indirect methods, such as interviewing parents, teachers and youth workers about children’s experiences rather than interviewing current gang members, and using existing de-identified data on school outcomes and neighborhood violence. Fifth, in my publications, I would not name the neighborhood, would change identifying details and would report quotes in ways that cannot be traced back to individuals. Finally, I would create a safety plan for myself and my team, including working in pairs and checking in regularly.

Researchers such as Venkatesh (2008), who studied a Chicago gang over several years, show that this type of research can produce valuable insights but also raises serious questions about what researchers learn, what they must report and whom they place at risk. My conclusion is that the study is worth doing only if it is designed around the community’s safety. If, after taking these steps, I still believed that participants faced a serious risk of violence, I would change the design or the location instead of continuing. Ethical research means accepting that some data are not worth the harm required to collect them.

References

American Sociological Association. (2018). Code of ethics. https://www.asanet.org/about/ethics/

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html

National Institutes of Health. (n.d.). Certificates of confidentiality for NIH-funded research. https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/coc/NIH-funded-Research.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Protection of human subjects, 45 C.F.R. pt. 46. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46

Venkatesh, S. A. (2008). Gang leader for a day: A rogue sociologist takes to the streets. Penguin Press.

More model assignments posted today

• SCS 224 journal: Haiti clean water study
• SCS 224 journal: uncontacted tribes of Brazil
• Accreditation and curriculum development
• Supply chain risk PowerPoint
• Neurocognitive psychiatric evaluation
• Cloud, quantum and compliance cost proposal
• Concurrent access and data integrity
• Philosophical assumptions of science discussion