Amy B. Smoyer, Alana Rosenberg, K. Blankenship
Sep 1, 2014
Citations
0
Influential Citations
5
Citations
Journal
Social work research
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Code of Federal Regulations regarding Protection of Human Subjects (45 C.F.R. part 46) provides guidance to social science researchers on how to minimize risks to research study participants. In most academic contexts, institutional review boards use these regulations to assess and monitor research protocols to limit participants’ exposure to physical and psychological risk. Although these guidelines provide rigorous oversight of research activities ( for example, recruitment, consent processes, instruments, and protocols), they do not offer direction on how to set up data collection sites (that is, the specific places where interviews or surveys are conducted). Lack of discussion about this critical piece of the project development process ignores the central role of place in constructing human interactions and may put both research subjects and staff at risk. This research note seeks to address this gap in knowledge by drawing attention to the issue and sharing five recommendations for creating a safe study space. Specifically, we discuss the development of a freestanding study site for communitybased social science research where data is collected outside the physical space of a university or agency. The need to create community-based study sites that can effectively minimize risks borne by research participants, as well as staff, during data collection is particularly salient to social work researchers. The NASW Code of Ethics section 5.02, “Evaluation and Research,” subsection (e), articulates a research ethics mandate that extends beyond the federal HHS requirements. TheCode of Ethics calls for members of the profession to conduct research “with due regard for participants’ well-being, privacy, and dignity” (NASW, 2008, p. 25). Developing a study site that will promote participants’ well-being and dignity is no small charge. BSW and MSW professionals who are employed as research assistants and project managers, and the social work faculty who train students in research methods, may benefit from more deliberate discussion about the logistical and planning issues related to research space. Existing literature discusses tasks that can be “undertaken prior to data collection to ensure that data are of the highest possible quality at the time they are collected” (Whitney, Lind, & Wahl, 1998, p. 72). Suggestions focus on research design issues (for example, framing research questions, developing instruments, engaging stakeholders, recruiting and retaining participants) relevant to multisite studies (Knatterud et al., 1998; Rahbar, Wyatt, Sikorskii, Victorson, &Ardjomand-Hessabi, 2011; Yeatts et al., 2012), interventions research (Naleppa & Cagle, 2010), longitudinal studies (Dennis, Perl, Huebner, & McLellan, 2000;Whitney et al., 1998),and university–community collaborations (Begun, Berger, Otto-Salaj, & Rose, 2010; Secret, Abell, & Berlin, 2011). Practical suggestions about site selection and development are generally not included in this literature. There is a small body of literature about research staff safety that describes the necessity of acknowledging that risks exist “in the field” and introduces safeguards to reduce the ambient and situational dangers that can arise during the course of data collection (Bloor, Fincham, & Sampson, 2007; Craig, Corden, & Thornton, 2000; Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2008; Lee, 1995). We would like to contribute to this existing literature on project organization and mediation of risk by providing five recommendations about how to design, create, and operate a research study office derived from our experience conducting the Structures, Health and Risk among Re-entrants,