I have definitely heard researchers say exactly what you have said Mark, and I know the following doesn't apply to you directly. However, when I have heard those stories f2f and asked the researcher about their discussions with IRB personnel I have almost unanimously heard something that amounts to the following "Well I didn't talk to them directly." So I have to admit that the researchers supposition that their research was declined (or simply sent back for revisions) was made for legal protection issues is very suspect in my book. In every case when I have talked to IRB personnel at a variety of universities in the US, I have heard about the difficulty they are having slotting new research media and methods into the existing legal definitions, and how frustrated they have become with the legal environment IRBs operate within - particularly from Washington. I agree that by definition IRB personnel are conservative administrative folks who have to plainly see a comparison to be willing to crawl out on a limb with something new...and anything new is by definition out on a limb. On our IRB we have several ex officio members, including a representative from legal, and one from out computer technical division. We also have several voting community members who represent the local community. 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. But again that does not make the legal issue the primary one, in these cases it just makes it the issue that was likely to get the researchers attention. I have also read a variety of professional publications for IRB pros, that discussed this issue and how it is often not the actual reason behind a study not being accepted in it's initial form...but sadly I don't have any of them in front of me and none of them are available through the libraries resources. Mark, I don't doubt for a moment that there are colleges or universities out there who have given researchers the "We don't want to get sued" response. The only first hand experience I have is at IU (beyond being a Research One institution, IU is the home of the Kinsey Institute so we deal with a lot of research that is controversial among one subculture or another) and from official publications. Anything else I have is hear-say. Now as an afterward, I can say that some of my early applications for research online with anonymous teens probably came as close to being questioned because of legal liability issues as anything I have seen on the board. But of course I do think that is the nature of working with protected populations and I don't think that part of the regulations is likely to change. The underlying reasons that these "protections" exist are not controlled by the IRBs but rather they are US societal issues with our relationship to teens (a dichotomy between protecting them from adults, and protecting adults from them). 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 Quoting "Mark D. Johns" <mjohns@luther.edu>:
Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
Most - if not all - IRBs in the USA are most definitely NOT making up rules...
Unless you've got some data on that, Lois, I must respectfully disagree. There is far too much anecdotal evidence suggesting that the guiding principle for many, if not most IRBs in the U.S. has shifted from the federal guidelines to covering the corporate backside from litigation. When the guiding principle shifts, so do the rules. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/