I can tell you from sitting through five years of monthly meetings that I have never once seen a study sent back or declined because something about it might get the university sued. I have seen studies sent back because something in the protocol made us wonder about possible impact to the subjects, which then could have lead to legal action, but the potential for legal action was not the reason the study was sent back...it was an after thought at best. I do know that some intransigent researchers have been invited to have conversations with legal about their returned research, but that is only after they refused to work with the IRB to resolve problems with the application.
What Lois says about her experience with IRB deliberations parallels my own experiences, at two different universities (Purdue, Michigan State). In IRB reviews I've witnessed and participated in, the reviewers sometimes ask for additional clarification and they sometimes suggest changes in research protocols, but they have never declined a study. I know, some anti-IRB researchers think that an IRB even asking questions is impertinent and unnecessary and can have a chilling effect on research. But frankly I've never seen evidence of such an effect. What I have seen is some poorly written research protocols. Certainly, yes, Internet research protocols often break new methodological ground and, yes, any new protocol is likely to generate some questions for those unfamiliar with it. But in my IRB experience it has always been *questions* -- true inquiries asking for additional explanation -- rather than obstruction. A doctoral student of mine in 1997 had to explain to the Purdue IRB what she meant by a "virtual ethnography." It took some additional explanation -- which, btw, helped her in writing a stronger case for her methodology -- but once the IRB understood the methodological rationale, they approved the protocol as written. That has been my experience with and on IRBs. Yes, they sometimes ask annoying questions, but they are teachable and flexibile. Usually all that is needed is for the researcher to provide a bit more information or make a slight adjustment in the protocol. Jim Porter ------------------------------- James E. Porter Professor, Department of Writing, Rhetoric, & American Cultures Co-Director, WIDE Research Center Writing in Digital Environments Olds Hall 7 Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 porterj8@msu.edu office: 517.353.7258 fax: 517.353.9162 http://wide.msu.edu/ -----------------------------------------