Quoting Jim Porter <porterj8@msu.edu>:
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.
In five years we "declined" one study, but told the researcher we would be happy to look at a new submission if they reworked the deeply flawed (my words not the committee's) protocol. That "declination" only came after months and months of discussions and recommendations that the researcher refused to entertain. Now in truth we didn't decline the study, we simply said we were not going to spend further time reviewing it until changes were made...that doesn't close the door it should just make it clear to the researcher that there are serious problems in their protocol.
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.
Most often when I hear researchers say "The IRB turned down my application" all that's actually been done is to ask questions or make some suggestions...questions and suggestions are always points of access for education of the board...believe me the folks who serve on IRBs know they can't know everything about all the research done on the campus. I am not an optometrist or ophthalmologist and we review A LOT of research that takes place in the optometry program at IU. I don't know about that specialty, but I have learned to ask really good questions and often that is the best requirement in serving the academic community.
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.
I agree with Jim wholeheartedly...I know for myself that working through how to communicate my protocols and developing justifications for my plans has helped me be a better researcher, and taught my IRB much about internet research. Serving on the IRB has also helped me be a better researcher. I've been exposed to a five year advanced research seminar with some of the best and brightest senior researchers in their fields. I have learned a lot from listening intently to their questions and observations. I can also say that I have learned a lot from seeing how protocols are structured by researchers who spend all their time working in potentially controversial research areas. I often think that it is sad that really well thought out and articulated protocols are not published or publicly available in an archive. The teaching potential would be huge. Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Student - School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Adjunct Instructor - School of Informatics, IUPUI, Indianapolis IN USA and IUPUC, Columbus IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com