Go
back to Notes from a Radical Behaviorist
Is
it Morally Defensible to Use the Developmentally Disabled as Guinea
Pigs?
Richard W. Malott1
Behavior Analysis Program
Department of Psychology
Western Michigan University
Download
Word version of this article
Others have argued that we can justify the developmentally disabled
spending some of their time as research subjects by considering it
part of the tuition they pay. And we might make the same argument
for college sophomores in Introductory Psych when they serve as subjects;
however, we are obligated to provide the sophomores with an educationally
valuable debriefing, in return for their participation. But I don't
think the developmentally disabled get such an exchange. And often
the institution doesn't get any pay off either. Now I'm somewhat sympathetic
with the problems of the basic researcher in this area; they may simply
have nothing to offer the individual or the institution, and yet science
must march on. But we might say that for every hour the developmentally
disabled individual gives the researcher in the name of science, the
researcher should give one hour to the individual in the name
of one-on-one therapy or training. Even basic scientists can do that.
And such a policy sure would encourage small-n2 research.
But I'm really more concerned about applied researchers. They often
have something of real value they could offer the developmentally
disabled individual and the institution. But once the researcher has
met the objective of achieving a thesis, a dissertation, or a submittable
article, he or she is long gone, off to fresh new projects, leaving
the subjects none the richer. For instance, a student will develop
and validate some special training program for the developmentally
disabled, and then close up shop as soon as enough multiple baselines
have been run. The student graduates and moves off to a job at some
other training center for the developmentally disabled, and that's
that. Après moi, le deluge.
The same problem seems to prevail in most other areas of research
as well. In instructional technology, we have a strong tendency to
demonstrate a significant effect and then start packing our bags,
with little concern about whether our new procedure remains in the
system and is actually used. We sometimes treat our intro. psych courses
as if they were mainly to serve as a vehicle for publications rather
than for educating our students. We are more concerned with whether
our article gets published than whether the course is permanently
improved as a result of our research and development efforts.
Now the requirements of social validation and cost-benefit analyses
for applied research go a long toward insuring the practicality of
our developing technology. But they often fail to insure that technology's
implementation and maintenance, once the original research is done.
So I think we need to add one more requirement for applied research
to be acceptable for a thesis, dissertation, or publication. I think
we should require evidence that the researcher has arranged for the
results of that research to be implemented and maintained after the
initial research is done. In other words, I think we should put a
contingency on evidence of a social conscience. Some faculty hand
out checklists for their grad students to help them do good research: do reliability checks; do social validations, etc. I think
we should add to that checklist, Have a social conscience. Don't
short-change your subjects or your hosts.
I think this problem often arises from the artificial contingencies
put on the research effort in the first place. Most research seems
to be done to help a student obtain a degree or a faculty member to
get tenure. Most research does not seem to be done to solve a problem
in the research setting. This condition might be improved slightly,
if we supplemented the above implementation and maintenance requirement
with a couple more.
We could require that students do one or two semesters of practicum
in the setting prior to or in conjunction with their research. And
we could require that the faculty member have some sort of vested,
long-term interest in the research setting. These requirements might
make it more reinforcing for the researchers to solve the real problems
of their research setting, though the requirements will not guarantee
problem-oriented research; and of course many times those requirements
will not be practicable.
Please don't take my suggestions as a burning critique of our field.
I think applied behavior analysis is the most moral and most accountable
research field in psychology. I just think we are ready to advance
to the next level of morality.
Go
back to Notes from a Radical Behaviorist
1Click here to view contact information
for the author:
http://old.dickmalott.com/contact.html
(Go back to article)
2 Research with
a small number of subjects (i.e., where the number of subjects, n,
is small).
(Go back to article)
