Here of late, it has been reported in many newspapers that the Arizona Department of Corrections has been challenged to conduct and complete a comparative study of private prison costs versus those of the public prisons to be in compliance with a state statute that was passed by the legislature to ensure the taxpayers are getting their money’s worth in competitive contract bidding and private prison services. This report is expected to be finished and delivered to the Governor sometime in January of next year, January 2012. The case is pending before Judge Arthur T Anderson in Maricopa County Superior Court, case no. CV 2011-017119.
It has been said by many researchers that one of the most important elements of conducting a comparative research project or study is ethical conduct and performance. You must ensure for the client [in this case, the public] you have imposed the strictest controls in your project to protect the integrity of the tasks assigned. Most importantly, ethics must be applied to all phases of the study without exceptions. Studies and its contents, amount of time and resources put into it are governed by two important factors. The first factor is the purpose of the study and the second is the allowable financing provided for the project. It is after all, the cost of the study that determines the depth of the examination requested and the number of personnel assigned to conduct the tasks. Therefore, the first step in any public or private study is the analysis of the costs and expenses associated with the project to be shared with a bipartisan committee to ensure the ultimate goals are met with adequate commitments and funding.
The research team must be composed of independent researchers with regard to their personal or professional ethics to avoid harm or negative impact of their findings. This is mandatory in the selection of personnel to avoid deliberate flaws in the analysis process. The attitude of the researcher should be based on lowering the risks for the target group [the public] and its affiliations. Every team member or participating researcher should be deception free and be transparent about the project within the approved setting. Disclosure among each member provides considerable compliance to standards approved and maintains a resistance against disclosure fraud. All participating persons should be aware the full purpose of the examination and why it is being conducted. Because there are liabilities involved, every person must preserve the privacy and confidentiality of every person involved in this matter. Realizing there are limitations on funding, researchers should not attempt to skew or design outcomes based on these limitations and report the results as accurately as possible. Minimizing misconduct in every phase of the project avoid problematic results at the end that can be fully explained if challenged or disputed. Finally, the research team must anticipate ethical problems from the beginning and ensure that all phases, all work and all data is verified through evidence based or scientific methods established at the beginning of the project and approved by all involved to be adhered to by both signatures and the written ethical code submitted to ensure honesty and fully disclosed conclusions.
Source:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/10/15/vince-rabago-joins-fight-to-hold-arizona-accountable-for-private-prison-performance/