These are all important points -- I concur that the ethics board should be respected insofar as they protect subjects. That said, however, I believe their approach does very little to actually protect subjects. The informed consent letter I have for participants is 2 pages long. It is very verbose and largely unintellible to the uninitiated (this at the board's explicit direction). The net result is that the lived experience of my participants varies greatly from the "official" experience the board is attempting to engineer. Ethical obligations do not reside within rules or structures. Ethical obligations must transcend such structures. There is no "letter of the law" that ruled a very real ethical problem I encountered yesterday -- a person who knew one of my participants mentioned that I had interviewed him. I could not discuss this interview, or even the existence of such an interview, in accordance with what i perceive to be my ethical obligation of confidentiality. My ethics board says nothing about this specific case. I must infer the spirit of the rules, which I prefer to do instead of following letter of the law at the expense of its spirit. On 5/18/07, Justin Reedy <jsreedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/18/07, Sam Ladner <samladner@gmail.com> wrote:
They also insisted I insert a paragraph that my university would not
hold
anything against them based on their participation. I can only infer there was a rash of disappointed undergraduate applicants that had participated in university-based research....none of my participants understood the reason behind that phrase either.
I have heard a lot of folks in the social sciences express frustration at IRBs and ethics boards, but I think it's very important to remember the basics of why they exist: to protect research subjects and represent their interests.
Most researchers in all of the sciences (life sciences, social sciences, etc.) are very conscientious in their work, and would not willingly harm their subjects or expose them to suffering (in the case of animals used in life sciences research, for example). However, there have been far too many cases where scientists acted in ways that harmed (or could have harmed) subjects for the sake of their research. The IRB is an entity that is supposed to represent the interests of subjects, just as researchers represent their own interests.
Some of the protections or informed-consent clauses may seem strange and inappropriate for your particular line of research, but IMO, when protecting a group that has in the not-so-distant past been left unrepresented in the process or study design and implementation (I'm speaking of research subjects here), it is far better to be safe than sorry. Also, some of those clauses can seem weird for your work, but upon further reflection, it's not too much of a stretch to see how someone could feel coerced into participating or doing something else they'd rather not do. A large state university, for instance, can be a powerful entity in a research subject's community and may seem intimidating to people.
Just to reiterate my overarching point: I try to view an IRB as an entity representing the interests of subjects, who get no say in the design and implementation of a study otherwise.
My two cents as a (lowly) graduate student, Justin Reedy University of Washington Department of Communication _______________________________________________ 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/