Limited confidentiality, academic freedom, and matters of conscience: Where does CPA stand?

CONFIDENTIAL communications; PROFESSIONAL ethics; PRISONERS; RESEARCH; PSYCHOLOGY; ASSOCIATIONS, institutions, etc.

Normally, we would not request an opportunity to reply to another author's response (Zinger, Wichmann, and Gendreau 2001) to out commentary (Palys and Lowman 2001) on one of their articles (Zinger, Wichmann, and Andrews 2001). The purpose of this brief article is two-fold: (a) to clarify our position on limited confidentiality: (b) to address some fundamental (and more general) questions about the Canadian Psychological Association's (CPA's) approach to confidentiality. First, we clarify our position and then examine issues arising from the obligations that Zinger and his colleagues cite to justify the limitations on confidentiality they employed in their research on prisoners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)