Analysis of case studies 1,2,3 and 4

I need 1 page No sources

Case 1 about a video ( Book TV: Sudhir Venkatesh “Gang Leader for a Day” 9:30 mins

Case 2 about a video ( Alice Goffman – On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City 50:42 mins

and I will attach Case3 and 4

You will read the material and then apply your new knowledge to case studies. I’ve included 4 case studies. Two are based on video clips of sociologists talking about their work. From the clips you will be able to think about the kind of research they did and the potential red flags an institutional review board may raise. There are four questions you will answer for each case study. I’ve included them here.

Questions:

Be sure to use the knowledge from your chapter to identify the issues (Section on Protecting Research Subjects–4 guidelines).

• What might be the benefits of this research, if any? What risk to subjects, if any, do you identify?
• If you were sitting on an Institutional Review Board, what issues would you raise regarding the researcher’s proposal?
• If you were a member of the IRB, how would you weigh the benefits of the research with the risks to subjects in the case?
• Based on your assessment of benefits and risks, would you approve the proposed research? If no, what changes would you make?

For example

Case #1

The benefit of this research is when Mr. Sudhir Venkatesh has the opportunity to get into gangs members and see what they are doing within their group; however, the risk of getting into this gang member is very dangerous because they are gangs and others will judge them and if they get into a fight, you will be in danger too.

If I were sitting on an Institutional Review Board, one question that I would raise regarding the researcher’s proposal is to maintain privacy and confidentiality to avoid subjects.

If I were a member of the IRB, I would weigh the benefits of the research with the risks subjecting in the case by saying that this is a rare opportunity for researchers to do a documentary like this because if you were not gang members, you will not be able to get into the group. Although a researcher is in gang members, there is no risk for him.

Based on my assessment of benefits and risks, I would approve this proposed because it is a good opportunity to see insight into the gang member’s activity.

Case #2

The benefits of this research are racial inequality and police treat Africa American minority neighbors. Alice Goffman gave a clear definition of racism. The risk to subjects is beating subjects on streets and rejecting calls while they need help.

If I were sitting on an Institutional Review Board, issues that I would raise regarding the researcher’s proposal is discrimination between white and black. It is a very important topic in our sociology field because participants will get harm, and put in danger. Therefore, maintain privacy and confidentiality are very important.

If I were a member of the IRB, I would weigh the benefits of the research with the risk to subjects in the case is researcher do research in her neighbors and she will get valid results more than interview participants who do not experience or live on these neighbors.

Based on my assessment, I would approve the proposed research because it is a very important the issue that needs to address, and cannot be done in the lab; however, this research can be done in a person, and in a minority environment only.

Case #3

The benefit of this research is to observe the attitude of participants change while they are in a workshop on the environmental issue. One potential risk to subjects will be deception because Smith does not fully disclose the nature of the study.

If I were sitting on an Institutional Review Board, one issue I would raise regarding the researcher’s proposal is the experimental design will raise the risk of participants’ behavior.

If I were a member of the IRB, I would examine the benefits of the research before I approve of this research. One potential risk of this research is participants do not know the procedure, and it will bring harm to them.

I would approve this proposed research because it is involving deception, however; Smith will debrief and answers any questions that concern participants.

Case #4

One of the benefits of this research is to examine and understand the reason for conformity to group norms. One risk of this research will negativity impact participants because this research includes deception, so it will harm participants.

If I were sitting on an Institutional Review Board, there are some issues I would raise regarding the researcher’s proposal. First, the researcher force students to participate, and it is an unethical way to do. Then, if students do not participate, they need to complete 50 pages of a research paper as punishment for students to participate.

If I were a member of the IRB, I would need to observe this proposal before approving it. One benefit of this research is to examine group influence that will conform to group norms. One of the risks is this research include deception and researcher need to aware of ethical principles.

Based on my assessment of this proposal, I would not in favor of approving this research because of its violent participant’s rights. I would not approve of this research because she gives her students two choices instead of encouraging appreciate the application. Smith needs to do this research ethically.