Case Study
Jason Michaels is a recent graduate of Ashford University (AU) where he majored in Psychology. Jason’s end goal is to work as a counselor in schools but has taken a year to work on research projects dealing with the efficacy of treatment programs for children with ADHD.
Jason has shared that every course at AU included discussions or instruction regarding ethics in the classroom. He recently shared that, though he always thought this to be redundant, he had occasion to encounter a situation with a peer in his research group that challenged Jason’s own ethical fiber.
To understand Jason’s dilemma, we must first consider Jason’s experience and growth on his educational path. From the beginnings of his journey, Jason was a student whose perspective always included the proverbial “big picture” or a more global view of what he was learning. He understood the mechanics of what he was learning in psychology: the theories, the concepts, and the evolution of the discipline. But, Jason’s primary desire, driven by his aspirations to make a difference in the lives of children, was always the application of what he was learning. To develop his skills in analyzing human behavior and mental process, to understand the theories of personality development, and to evaluate research methods while mastering the connection between the concepts of psychology and the ethics required for effective application of those concepts, Jason remained committed to the practice of stepping back from each situation to fully evaluate all aspects toward healthy resolution. Jason’s belief was that his approach would lend itself to a healthy perspective to all aspects in his life, not just his education or career.
Recently, Jason’s research study was focused on the efficacy of dietary changes in young children as a treatment or prevention for developing ADHD. Another researcher on the project, we will call her Jennifer, came to Jason with a situation that presented a challenge he had never before encountered. Jennifer shared that during a counseling session her project participant, a 10 year old named Suzy, alleged domestic violence between her parents. As this study involved minor children, meeting with and providing full disclosure to the parents of the subjects selected for treatment was a critical component in maintaining the integrity of the study. Jennifer had conducted the initial interview with Suzy’s parents, who Jennifer evaluated as concerned and loving parents focused on Suzy’s best interests. Evaluating the potential participants included semi-structured interviews with parents to determine their willingness and ability to support the parameters of the study. Semi-structured interviews allow for researchers to gain pertinent information while allowing the conversation to potentially uncover concerns or additional information that may affect the outcome of the interview. Jennifer had reviewed her notes and recording from the initial interview and found nothing that would have led her to believe this issue was present.
Jason was now faced with a variety of conflicting situations. First, he must consider the immediate situation at hand. Suzy had developed a patient/counselor relationship with Jennifer and expects a certain level of trust. However, Jennifer’s obligation to Suzy’s trust is outweighed by Suzy’s safety. Was Suzy truly in an unsafe, unstable home environment? Were there indicators in Suzy’s treatment results that would support her claims? Also in question is Jennifer’s skill set with the semi-structured interviews. It would be unlikely that either parent would state one abuses the other, whether physically, verbally or emotionally. So, how well did Jennifer listen to any cues or clues the parents shared? How skilled was she at tailoring questions to the responses and statements made by the parents? Were there opportunities to delve deeper into this issue that Jennifer simply missed or bi-passed in an effort to approve Suzy as a participant? Jason had many questions to address while also maintaining the sanctity of the relationship he has with his colleague. Jennifer has entrusted Jason with some potentially explosive information.
Faced with so many questions and possible resolutions, I asked Jason what he did to address the situation and how he ensured he maintained the integrity of the study in balance with his ethical obligations. Here is what Jason shared with me:
“Of course, my obligation to Suzy’s safety took precedence over all else. I never considered the option to wait until our study concluded as any option at all. My primary concern became understanding Suzy’s allegations to determine if they were genuine or perhaps Jen’s misconception. So, I decided that I would evaluate the progress of both Suzy and her parents in the study. Our original plan called for a final interview to gather outcomes and a debriefing session to determine any negative impact of the study to the participants. Adding this additional interview and counseling session was outside our plan but necessary, I felt, due to the circumstances.
Suzy came in for our counseling session which included the prepared questions of our project plan. I then shared with her that I had reviewed the recording of her prior session and wanted to make sure I understood some things she’d shared. Upon questioning, Suzy gave the exact same account as her prior session. Every detail matched the previous story and her body language and facial expressions implied to me that this was a recollection of a traumatic scenario she had witnessed. After Suzy’s session, I interviewed her parents using the semi-structured design as we had determined in our project plan. I utilized their responses and viewed their body language and found reason to believe Suzy may be at risk. At that time, I contacted the proper authorities and shared what I knew.
In hindsight, I believe my prior experience and practice at AU and on various projects helped me to feel confident in the course of action I had to take. But I also learned some great lessons about my own involvement in projects. Having structured plans as to how the information is shared among researchers involved in the project, in addition to, team efforts to evaluate what is being learned by the project, can help to ensure that potentially volatile situations such as Suzy’s are quickly identified and resolved. Without my prior experiences weighing in on the multitude of ethical issues at play, I may have failed to step back and consider the ethical priority.”