A valuable addition to the discussion on IRBs
I know there are lots more subtitles involved in Mary's research than this article outlines...and part of her work is online. This excerpt is taken from today's Inside Higher Education, summarizing some papers given at the Am Sociological Assoc meetings this week: * * * Mary L. Gray, an anthropologist at Indiana University at Bloomington, described her work in graduate school, which raised all kinds of red flags with her IRB at the time: She wanted to study the way gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth develop their identities in the rural Southeast, and she wanted to base her research on interviews with such youth, under the age of 18, without their parents' knowledge. Her project, she said, "had every imaginable red flag." With some regrets, she won IRB support by appealing to prejudice many have of the rural South. Although she had no evidence to make this claim, she argued that the situation in the rural South is "so awful" for the young people she was studying that she couldn't possibly approach their parents for consent. (Actually Gray believes that the situation for gay youth is more subtle and less uniform than she suggested, but she guessed it would work with the IRB, and it did.) Because the IRB was - like most IRB's - oriented around medical research, not social science, the focus was on potential harm that Gray could cause her research subjects in person. Gray reported that she received relatively little questioning or guidance from her IRB on one of her major areas of research: what the young people she studied wrote about themselves online. Gray developed her own ethics rules (she wrote to the subjects to ask permission), but she was struck by what was and wasn't considered important by the IRB. To the IRB, "distance read as objectivity" and so was by definition "good," she said. Never mind that what her subjects shared about themselves online was as important as the thoughts they shared in person. This points to Gray's broader critique of the IRB process. Social scientists frequently complain about IRB's failing to understand their studies, but Gray suggested it was time to move beyond the idea of just adding more social scientists to the panel. Rather, she said it was time to question certain underlying assumptions of IRB's and whether they even make sense for social science. It's not that Gray doesn't think there are ethical issues researchers must consider, but whether the medical model can ever work for projects that don't follow the pattern of having a hypothesis designed to lead to the dispassionate creation of generalizable knowledge. Gray said that "IRB fatigue" is discouraging researchers - especially graduate students - from even trying to get projects approved. * * * http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/14/soc
Something that I'm not clear about - and an international perspective on this issue... At my university in Australia, where I am enrolled as a PhD candidate, the ethics application for my PhD project listed my main supervisor as the chief investigator, and then me as another investigator. I believe this is common here. If there is any comeback from a participant I am well protected, provided I continue to discuss what I am doing with my supervisor and not go outside the bounds of the original ethics approval without applying for an extension to that. I notice a couple of comments (see below for one) about the situation for grad students (I assume in the US as no detail is given) which seem to imply that this is not the case elsewhere. Can anyone clarify? M-H On 15/8/07 9:40 AM, "Lois Ann Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Gray said that "IRB fatigue" is discouraging researchers - especially graduate students - from even trying to get projects approved. * * *
Mary-Helen, I'm in Australia and I am the chief investigator. My supervisor is listed as my supervisor and the point of query should participants wish to go over my head with regard to questions or complaints about the research process. I thought that was common for Oz universities. Maybe it's the Melbourne-Sydney rivalry thing rearing its head again. Paul. -----Original Message----- From: mhward [mailto:mhward@usyd.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2007 10:03 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] Ethics and grad students Something that I'm not clear about - and an international perspective on this issue... At my university in Australia, where I am enrolled as a PhD candidate, the ethics application for my PhD project listed my main supervisor as the chief investigator, and then me as another investigator. I believe this is common here. If there is any comeback from a participant I am well protected, provided I continue to discuss what I am doing with my supervisor and not go outside the bounds of the original ethics approval without applying for an extension to that. I notice a couple of comments (see below for one) about the situation for grad students (I assume in the US as no detail is given) which seem to imply that this is not the case elsewhere. Can anyone clarify? M-H On 15/8/07 9:40 AM, "Lois Ann Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Gray said that "IRB fatigue" is discouraging researchers - especially graduate students - from even trying to get projects approved. * * *
_______________________________________________ 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/
This question addresses an important, and, in my opinion, most troubling question. To directly respond to the question, our human subjects protocol requires that the student who is conducting the master's/doctoral research be listed as the chief investigator, although this isn't necessary to prove in order to graduate with the degree. The most aggregious ethical problem, it seems to me, is that it's become business-as-usual among faculty members to put their names on any publications which come out of 'their' graduate students' research. This is 'because, after all, I contributed to the publication by chairing the thesis/dissertation', to quote a friend with whom I disagreed about this practice. I have heard that this is a common practice in the hard sciences and sometimes the social sciences. But, I have to take exception to faculty members' hijacking of research which is largely or mostly conducted by graduate students. Actually, I was a bit blind-sided to hear that this might be a common practice. One excuse by some faculty members: that having their (obviously 'known') names on the article submission would help to launch 'their' graduate student to the top; often, it's seemed to me that this practice is more of a case of graduate students' work allowing some faculty members to seem to be producing more research. I'd be interested in others' opinions on this issue (m-h included). I have been accused of being too entrenched in my view, and I welcome feedback if that's the case. All the best, Lisa (to sort of 'place' myself, I'm an associate professor with a joint appointment in media studies and women's studies) ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of mhward [mhward@usyd.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:02 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] Ethics and grad students Something that I'm not clear about - and an international perspective on this issue... At my university in Australia, where I am enrolled as a PhD candidate, the ethics application for my PhD project listed my main supervisor as the chief investigator, and then me as another investigator. I believe this is common here. If there is any comeback from a participant I am well protected, provided I continue to discuss what I am doing with my supervisor and not go outside the bounds of the original ethics approval without applying for an extension to that. I notice a couple of comments (see below for one) about the situation for grad students (I assume in the US as no detail is given) which seem to imply that this is not the case elsewhere. Can anyone clarify? M-H On 15/8/07 9:40 AM, "Lois Ann Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Gray said that "IRB fatigue" is discouraging researchers - especially graduate students - from even trying to get projects approved. * * *
_______________________________________________ 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/
Dear Lisa I have only submitted two papers (one Honours, one Doctorate), but my supervisor in both cases - who is listed as the First Investigator - has NEVER once indicated that she would require or need to have her name on either of them. I know of other doctoral students where this is the case too. The only time the supervisor's name would appear would be if they had sufficient input into the writing of a paper. I have heard of Supervisor's requiring their names on everything, but it usually happens in the hard sciences - very little of this type of practice happens in the social sciences in Australia - well, I should clarify that - from my limited experience that is. Sue
"McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr." <mclauglm@muohio.edu> 8/15/2007 10:36 am >>> This question addresses an important, and, in my opinion, most troubling question. To directly respond to the question, our human subjects protocol requires that the student who is conducting the master's/doctoral research be listed as the chief investigator, although this isn't necessary to prove in order to graduate with the degree. The most aggregious ethical problem, it seems to me, is that it's become business-as-usual among faculty members to put their names on any publications which come out of 'their' graduate students' research. This is 'because, after all, I contributed to the publication by chairing the thesis/dissertation', to quote a friend with whom I disagreed about this practice.
I have heard that this is a common practice in the hard sciences and sometimes the social sciences. But, I have to take exception to faculty members' hijacking of research which is largely or mostly conducted by graduate students. Actually, I was a bit blind-sided to hear that this might be a common practice. One excuse by some faculty members: that having their (obviously 'known') names on the article submission would help to launch 'their' graduate student to the top; often, it's seemed to me that this practice is more of a case of graduate students' work allowing some faculty members to seem to be producing more research. I'd be interested in others' opinions on this issue (m-h included). I have been accused of being too entrenched in my view, and I welcome feedback if that's the case. All the best, Lisa (to sort of 'place' myself, I'm an associate professor with a joint appointment in media studies and women's studies) ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of mhward [mhward@usyd.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:02 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] Ethics and grad students Something that I'm not clear about - and an international perspective on this issue... At my university in Australia, where I am enrolled as a PhD candidate, the ethics application for my PhD project listed my main supervisor as the chief investigator, and then me as another investigator. I believe this is common here. If there is any comeback from a participant I am well protected, provided I continue to discuss what I am doing with my supervisor and not go outside the bounds of the original ethics approval without applying for an extension to that. I notice a couple of comments (see below for one) about the situation for grad students (I assume in the US as no detail is given) which seem to imply that this is not the case elsewhere. Can anyone clarify? M-H On 15/8/07 9:40 AM, "Lois Ann Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Gray said that "IRB fatigue" is discouraging researchers - especially graduate students - from even trying to get projects approved. * * *
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
I think this is another interesting issue. Neither of my supervisors want to be listed on my papers routinely, and we have all agreed that I will decide whether their contribution to a paper will be sufficient for me to add their name. (At Sydney we don't have the concept of 'chairing' the thesis - the entire PhD is usually examined on the thesis alone and the supervision of the work is generally by one or two people, and although this not the case across Australia it is still a very common practice. It's also the subject of my own PhD.) However, both of them are full professors (ie very senior academics in our system) and I'm a (very!) mature student. I don't feel I need their names for credibility and they don't feel they need to be on my papers for their reputations or to increase their research output. On the other hand, my partner is supervising several research students in the Nursing Faculty of this University. She contributes a lot to her students' publications - beyond editing and providing the odd reference - and she (quite rightly) has her name as a secondary author on all of their publications as of right. M-H On 15/8/07 10:36 AM, "McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr." <mclauglm@muohio.edu> wrote:
This question addresses an important, and, in my opinion, most troubling question. To directly respond to the question, our human subjects protocol requires that the student who is conducting the master's/doctoral research be listed as the chief investigator, although this isn't necessary to prove in order to graduate with the degree. The most aggregious ethical problem, it seems to me, is that it's become business-as-usual among faculty members to put their names on any publications which come out of 'their' graduate students' research. This is 'because, after all, I contributed to the publication by chairing the thesis/dissertation', to quote a friend with whom I disagreed about this practice.
I have heard that this is a common practice in the hard sciences and sometimes the social sciences. But, I have to take exception to faculty members' hijacking of research which is largely or mostly conducted by graduate students. Actually, I was a bit blind-sided to hear that this might be a common practice. One excuse by some faculty members: that having their (obviously 'known') names on the article submission would help to launch 'their' graduate student to the top; often, it's seemed to me that this practice is more of a case of graduate students' work allowing some faculty members to seem to be producing more research.
I'd be interested in others' opinions on this issue (m-h included). I have been accused of being too entrenched in my view, and I welcome feedback if that's the case.
All the best,
Lisa (to sort of 'place' myself, I'm an associate professor with a joint appointment in media studies and women's studies)
It seems to me that there is a question of who should have authorship and who should have a mention in the 'acknowledgements' at the end of an article. A number of years ago, when I was in graduate school, I couldn't have completed my dissertation without direction from my chair, who was an expert on Frankfurt School Critical Theory. He helped me to think through ideas but never contributed directly to the writing. To me, that's the job of a chair (as I tell my students frequently, 'I'm your chair, not your editor'). And, my chair ecouranged me to claim my own writing, rather than to benefit from having someone else's renowned name on the publications which came out of my dissertation. I tend to look upon him as a model of someone who worked with graduate students with the objective of helping us to situate ourselves within critical studies and find our voices within the field. The question of degree of contribution is important, M-H, but 'contribution' is so subjective. In this peculiar academic world of ours, being listed as first- or second-author can communicate quite a lot, although it's not a straightforward matter in any sense. For me, the most aggravating circumstances are those in which faculty chairs claim first-authorship of articles which arose from graduate students' research. Yet, unless there has been an initial agreement about the co-authorship terms of a specific publication, I'd prefer to be considered as someone who facilitated the research in some way as opposed to sharing authorship. Best regards, Lisa ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of mhward [mhward@usyd.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:54 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Ethics and grad students I think this is another interesting issue. Neither of my supervisors want to be listed on my papers routinely, and we have all agreed that I will decide whether their contribution to a paper will be sufficient for me to add their name. (At Sydney we don't have the concept of 'chairing' the thesis - the entire PhD is usually examined on the thesis alone and the supervision of the work is generally by one or two people, and although this not the case across Australia it is still a very common practice. It's also the subject of my own PhD.) However, both of them are full professors (ie very senior academics in our system) and I'm a (very!) mature student. I don't feel I need their names for credibility and they don't feel they need to be on my papers for their reputations or to increase their research output. On the other hand, my partner is supervising several research students in the Nursing Faculty of this University. She contributes a lot to her students' publications - beyond editing and providing the odd reference - and she (quite rightly) has her name as a secondary author on all of their publications as of right. M-H On 15/8/07 10:36 AM, "McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr." <mclauglm@muohio.edu> wrote:
This question addresses an important, and, in my opinion, most troubling question. To directly respond to the question, our human subjects protocol requires that the student who is conducting the master's/doctoral research be listed as the chief investigator, although this isn't necessary to prove in order to graduate with the degree. The most aggregious ethical problem, it seems to me, is that it's become business-as-usual among faculty members to put their names on any publications which come out of 'their' graduate students' research. This is 'because, after all, I contributed to the publication by chairing the thesis/dissertation', to quote a friend with whom I disagreed about this practice.
I have heard that this is a common practice in the hard sciences and sometimes the social sciences. But, I have to take exception to faculty members' hijacking of research which is largely or mostly conducted by graduate students. Actually, I was a bit blind-sided to hear that this might be a common practice. One excuse by some faculty members: that having their (obviously 'known') names on the article submission would help to launch 'their' graduate student to the top; often, it's seemed to me that this practice is more of a case of graduate students' work allowing some faculty members to seem to be producing more research.
I'd be interested in others' opinions on this issue (m-h included). I have been accused of being too entrenched in my view, and I welcome feedback if that's the case.
All the best,
Lisa (to sort of 'place' myself, I'm an associate professor with a joint appointment in media studies and women's studies)
_______________________________________________ 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/
M-H I'm in Melbourne and I have the same requirements as you do. My supervisor is listed as the First Investigator. Sue
mhward <mhward@usyd.edu.au> 8/15/2007 10:02 am >>> Something that I'm not clear about - and an international perspective on this issue...
At my university in Australia, where I am enrolled as a PhD candidate, the ethics application for my PhD project listed my main supervisor as the chief investigator, and then me as another investigator. I believe this is common here. If there is any comeback from a participant I am well protected, provided I continue to discuss what I am doing with my supervisor and not go outside the bounds of the original ethics approval without applying for an extension to that. I notice a couple of comments (see below for one) about the situation for grad students (I assume in the US as no detail is given) which seem to imply that this is not the case elsewhere. Can anyone clarify? M-H On 15/8/07 9:40 AM, "Lois Ann Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Gray said that "IRB fatigue" is discouraging researchers - especially graduate students - from even trying to get projects approved. * * *
_______________________________________________ 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/ Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Needing a desperate break from the IRB was the heaviest straw in my decision not to enter the academic job market. Folks keep telling me that this institution or that institution is not that bad, but when I talk to folks, it depresses me beyond belief just what concessions academics are willing to make to make IRBs happy. It's never about better protecting subjects; instead, it's about better protecting fearful institutions. Research shouldn't be like that and most of the projects that I want to work on next would never fly through an IRB because of their necessary rogue nature. I'm playing by the rules in order to graduate, but I'm leaving academia because of it. I hope to come back at some point, but I won't return while working on projects involving teens. I also keep hearing of folks who work in industry who decide against graduate school because of IRB requirements - they feel more free to do research in industrial settings, even if they can't publish. That's depressing. On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
* * * Mary L. Gray, an anthropologist at Indiana University at Bloomington, described her work in graduate school, which raised all kinds of red flags with her IRB at the time.....
Gray said that "IRB fatigue" is discouraging researchers - especially graduate students - from even trying to get projects approved. * * *
participants (6)
-
danah boyd -
Lois Ann Scheidt -
McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr. -
mhward -
Paul Teusner -
Sue Malta