A Tale of Two Perspectives: Regulation Versus Self-Regulation. A Financial Reporting Approach (from Sarbanes–Oxley) for Research Ethics

Reports of research fraud have raised concerns about research integrity similar to concerns raised about financial accounting fraud. We propose a departure from self-regulation in that researchers adopt the financial accounting approach in establishing trust through an external validation process, in addition to the reporting entities and the regulatory agencies. The general conceptual framework for reviewing financial reports, utilizes external auditors who are certified and objective in using established standards to provide an opinion on the financial reports. These standards have become both broader in scope and increasingly specific as to what information is reported and the methodologies to be employed. We believe that the financial reporting overhaul encompassed in the US Sarbanes?COxley Act of 2002, which aims at preventing accounting fraud, can be applied to scientific research in 4 ways. First, Sarbanes?COxley requires corporations to have a complete set of internal accounting controls. Research organizations should use appropriate sampling techniques and audit research projects for conformity with the initial research protocols. Second, corporations are required to have the chief financial officer certify the accuracy of their financial statements. In a similar way, each research organization should have their vice-president of research (or equivalent) certify the research integrity of their research activities. In contrast, the primary responsibility of the existing Research Integrity Officers is to handle allegations of research misconduct, an after-the-fact activity. Third, generally accepted auditing standards specify the appropriate procedures for external review of a corporation??s financial statements. For similar reasons, the research review process would also require corresponding external auditing standards. Finally, these new requirements would be implemented in stages, with the largest 14 research organizations that receive 25% of the total National Institutes of Health funding, adopting these research oversight enhancements first.     

Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis

Showups (a one-person identification) were compared to both simultaneous and sequential lineups that varied in lineup fairness and the position of the suspect in the lineup. We reanalyzed data from a study by Gronlund, Carlson, Dailey, and Goodsell (2009), which included simultaneous and sequential lineups, and using the same stimuli and procedures, collected new data using showup identifications. Performance was compared using ROC analysis, which is superior to traditional measures such as correct and false identification rates, and probative value measures. ROC analysis showed that simultaneous lineups consistently produced more accurate identification evidence than showups, but sequential lineups were sometimes no more accurate than showups, and were never more accurate than simultaneous lineups. These results supported prior suppositions regarding the suggestiveness of showups, revealed a misconception about the superiority of sequential lineups, and demonstrated why eyewitness identification procedures need to be evaluated using ROC analyses.     

Suicidal Behaviors in the African American Community

This article reviews the risk and protective factors associated with suicidal thoughts and behaviors in the African American community. The authors provide a brief review of the history of suicide research in African American communities and critique some of the paradigms and underlying assumptions that have made it difficult to address the problem of suicidal behaviors in the African American community. The article also summarizes the articles that are presented in this special edition of the Journal of Black Psychology on suicidality in the African American community.     

Foucault's concept of illegalism

This paper reconstructs Foucault's concept of illegalism and explores its significance for his genealogies of modern punishment and racial formation. The concept of illegalism, as distinct from illegality, plays a double role. It allows Foucault to describe a ruling class tactic for managing inequalities and also to characterize an important vein of resistant subjugated knowledges. The political project of the prison is linked to a new crime policy that does not so much aim to repress illegalisms as to manage them differentially. This practice of differential management, which arises in the 18th century, produces a primary split along class lines between two types of illegalism—an insight that has a certain resonance with Edwin's Sutherland's concept of “white collar crime.” Foucault's investigation of a third category of “infralegal illegalism” sheds light not only on the genealogy of the category of delinquency but also on his genealogy of racial categorization. Finally, Foucault argues that a genuinely radical critique of modern society must address the “need” organized political power has for the illegalisms from which it purportedly seeks to protect society. Against this practice of differentially managing illegalisms, Foucault seeks to reactivate a subjugated problematic that might open up questions about the transformative possibilities of illegalism today.     

Integration,Community, and the Medical Model of Social Injustice

I defend an empirically-oriented approach to the analysis and remediation of social injustice. My springboard for this argument is a debate – principally represented here between Tommie Shelby and Elizabeth Anderson, but with much deeper historical roots and many flowering branches – about whether racial-justice advocacy should prioritise integration (bringing different groups together) or community development (building wealth and political power within the black community). Although I incline toward something closer to Shelby's ‘egalitarian pluralist’ approach over Anderson's single-minded emphasis on integration, many of Shelby's criticisms of integrationism are misguided, and his handling of the empirical literature is profoundly unbalanced. In fact, while both Shelby and Anderson defend the importance of social science to their projects, I'll argue that each takes a decidedly unempirical approach, which ultimately obscures the full extent of our ignorance about what we can and ought to do going forward. A more authentically empirical tack would be more epistemically humble, more holistic, and less organised around what I'll call prematurely formulated ‘Grand Unified Theories of Social Change’. I defend a more ‘diversified experimentalist’ approach, which rigorously tests an array of smaller-scale interventions before trying to replicate and scale up the most promising results.     

The predictive power of first-grade peer and teacher ratings of behavior: Sex differences in antisocial behavior and personality at adolescence

Peer and teacher assessments of aggression, social withdrawal, and likability using the Pupil Evaluation Inventory were recorded for 104 French Canadian girls and boys in grade 1. Self-reported delinquency and personality measures were administered to these children when they were in junior high school 7 years later. Linear regression analyses revealed significant predictive differences between the grade 1 assessment of girls and boys: For antisocial behavior, teacher and peer assessments of boys were equally good predictors, and the combination of the two assessments did not improve prediction; for girls, peer and teacher assessments taken separately were weak predictors, but, taken together, they were better predictors for girls than for boys; for personality, peers were better predictors than teachers both for girls and for boys. When categorical analyses were used to predict extreme antisocial behavior, peer and teacher assessments were equally good predictors for girls and boys. The use of peer and teacher ratings together, however, decreased the number of false positives. The implications of these findings for research and clinical work are discussed.