Case study analysis and peer response

Case Study 2
1. The risks to this research are relatively minimal, to the researcher. The interviews are most likely to be conducted in a secure setting with security personnel nearby, so being close to the prisoners likely poses little risk. The reality is that the researcher is interviewing prisoners in a closed setting, asking them to recall things that may trigger emotional response, and these are people who have already demonstrated subpar impulse control. There probably will not be any issues, but some safety precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of the researcher in this situation.
There are not that many risks to the prisoners in this situation. However, they are being asked to recount traumatic experiences, so there is the risk of psychological distress, and the prisoner might not be aware of the degree to which this could be traumatic at the time that he/she decides to participate in the study.
There do not appear to be any risks to society as a whole. The research is contained within a specific population, and there is no risk of anything like contagion – it's just an interview.
That said, there are potential benefits to all stakeholders in this study. The researcher can help advance the study of this topic, at least with a sample size of thirty it's enough to formulate a hypothesis for broader testing later. The researcher will also gain valuable experience, both in terms of study design, in terms of interviewing and also dealing with the IRB, whose input is going to be needed in this particular study.
The prisoners get something to do, but they also may find the experience to be cathartic, especially since it will be used to help others. The majority of the benefits, however, will not be for the prisoners who are participating in the study, but for society as a whole, if there are insights that come from this study that prevent other people from going to prison in the future, which is a distinct possibility.
For society as a whole, the study will help to explore this link, and may help people later to handle traumatic situations better, and reduce criminal activity that occurs subsequent to such trauma.
2. An IRB review is important here, because of the sensitive nature of some of the discussions. The prisoner's rights must be maintained – they are recounting things that if repeated could identify them, so there are privacy issues that need to be protected. Further, there is some risk to both researcher and prisoner, and the IRB will be valuable in identifying and mitigating these risks. On top of that the IRB plays a valuable role in ensuring that the researcher is using his/her time wisely, in particular that the questions being asked directly contribute to the topic being studied, that the interviews are not filled with guiding questions (i.e. that the questions retain neutrality), and that the questions will help the researcher reach the desired conclusions. Interviews can be tricky, and the IRB can provide some guidance to the researcher to ensure that the questions are good, and that they are being interpreted correctly. The IRB in this study therefore plays a critical role in risk reduction, but also in ensuring that the study is of a high enough quality to contribute to the body of knowledge, and be used to assist future scholarship in this area.
The IRB should therefore approve the study before it is conducted, and then review the study after it has been conducted. This will ensure that proper quality control has been conducted, that the report protects prisoner privacy, and that all safety recommendations were followed.