Assignment Type Canvas Due Date 9/13/22 Points Possible

Chapter 3 4assignment Type Canvasduedate91322points Possible10

Evaluate the controversial study, “Trouble in the Tearoom,” focusing on the ethical considerations of Humphreys’ research methods. Analyze whether Humphreys’ actions were ethical, discuss acceptable and unacceptable parts of the research, and explore the trade-offs between scientific rigor and the protection of human subjects. Additionally, examine Marvin Wolfgang’s Philadelphia study, describing the technique used, its results, and suggest alternative research methods beyond cohort design, considering the challenges of conducting similar studies.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical evaluation of Humphreys’ “Trouble in the Tearoom” study presents complex issues centered on confidentiality, informed consent, and the potential harm to subjects. Humphreys employed covert observational methods to study anonymous homosexual encounters in public restrooms, which raises serious ethical questions. According to modern research ethics standards, such as those outlined in the Belmont Report, informed consent and respect for persons are fundamental (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Humphreys did not obtain consent from participants, nor was he transparent about his identity, which arguably infringes upon these ethical principles. However, Humphreys defended his actions by emphasizing the importance of understanding marginalized populations and the social realities they face, which he believed justified his methods. Yet, the deception involved and the potential psychological impact on subjects rendered his study ethically questionable, especially by contemporary standards.

Part of Humphreys’ research, notably the collection of data on participants’ private lives without their knowledge, is widely considered unethical today. In contrast, aspects such as the structured approach to data collection, systematic observation, and rigorous analysis can be viewed as acceptable methodological practices when conducted ethically. For instance, the use of observational techniques, when transparent and consensual, may provide valuable insights into clandestine social behaviors. Nevertheless, the core ethical breach lies in violating individuals’ autonomy and privacy rights, which underscores the ongoing tension between scientific advancement and human subject protection.

The trade-offs between sound scientific research methods and protecting human subjects are central to ethical research design. Researchers often strive to obtain valid, reliable data to contribute to societal knowledge. However, these goals can conflict with ethical principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. For example, covert studies like Humphreys’ can yield authentic data essential for understanding certain social phenomena but at the risk of causing harm or invasion of privacy. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) now play a critical role in balancing these considerations by reviewing research proposals to ensure ethical compliance. Such oversight often limits methods like covert observation, prompting researchers to develop alternative approaches that respect ethical standards while still enabling meaningful research outcomes (Fisher, 2010).

Regarding Marvin Wolfgang’s Philadelphia study, it used a cohort design to investigate homicides in Philadelphia, analyzing data from police reports and other official records. The technique involved systematically examining the circumstances surrounding each homicide to identify patterns and risk factors. Wolfgang’s results revealed important insights into the social and environmental factors contributing to homicide rates, such as victim-offender relationships and situational contexts. His findings highlighted the importance of situational and environmental factors in understanding violent behavior and influenced violence prevention strategies.

An alternative to a cohort design for such research could involve a case-control study, where individuals who have committed homicides are compared to those who have not, based on specific variables. This approach could offer more flexibility and efficiency in analyzing risk factors, especially when dealing with rare events like homicide. However, challenges include difficulties in controlling confounding variables, selecting appropriate control groups, and ethical concerns related to privacy and consent. Conducting similar research requires careful planning to ensure data accuracy and ethical integrity while trying to minimize bias and maximize validity (Maxfield & Babbie, 2005).

References

• Fisher, C. B. (2010). Decoding the Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists. Sage Publications.
• Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (2005). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology (6th ed.). Thomson/Wadsworth.
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
• Wolfgang, M. E. (1958). The murder rate. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects: Protecting Participants and Promoting Science. Routledge.
• Harrington, J. (2008). Ethical Challenges in Criminal Justice Research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19(2), 208-222.
• Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research (12th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
• Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179-183.
• Grinnell, R., & Unrau, Y. (2014). Social Work Research and Evaluation: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Oxford University Press.
• Israel, B. A., & Hay, J. (2006). Methodologies for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health (pp. 25-46). Jossey-Bass.