Given the research being done in medicine here I think our IRB does waste too much time policing cultural studies research where the potential for harm is comparably negligible. For a student project they insisted that we get the names and addresses of discussion forum participants who were being 'interviewed' through the forum - so that we could send them a ststement saying we wouldn't use their names and addresses. Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604
That is stupid, and shows complete ignorance of the federal governments guidelines. There are a lot of IRBs out there who are simply making up their own rules, which is foolish. On Mar 8, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
Given the research being done in medicine here I think our IRB does waste too much time policing cultural studies research where the potential for harm is comparably negligible.
For a student project they insisted that we get the names and addresses of discussion forum participants who were being 'interviewed' through the forum - so that we could send them a ststement saying we wouldn't use their names and addresses.
Marj
Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604 _______________________________________________ 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/
Christian Nelson wrote:
That is stupid, and shows complete ignorance of the federal governments guidelines. There are a lot of IRBs out there who are simply making up their own rules, which is foolish.
What you say is true, but Marj isn't in the U.S., so her "federal government" may have different guidelines. In fact, the U.S. guidelines for IRBs are so vague that they clearly invite absurdity. -- 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
Oops. Didn't catch the locality. Doesn't everyone in cyberspace live in the same place? ;-) Re: the US guidelines, I think most of them are quite clear, with the very unfortunate exception of the definition of what constitutes "research." But I hear the OHRP is working on that. On Mar 8, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Mark D. Johns wrote:
Christian Nelson wrote:
That is stupid, and shows complete ignorance of the federal governments guidelines. There are a lot of IRBs out there who are simply making up their own rules, which is foolish.
What you say is true, but Marj isn't in the U.S., so her "federal government" may have different guidelines. In fact, the U.S. guidelines for IRBs are so vague that they clearly invite absurdity. -- 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/
Most - if not all - IRBs in the USA are most definitely NOT making up rules. What they are doing is "slotting" new research into an established series of definitions and federal requirements as well as reviewing their own past practice. Like Dr. Kirby, I too was once told I would need to garner names and addresses of the participants in the chatroom I was studying...the requirement I was given was a bit more complicated then Dr. Kirby's project so I will leave the specifics out. During the discussion with IRB personnel I asked WHY I had to do this and was told that my chatroom was being compared to a focus group...there is no "chatroom" criteria in the regulations. Because of time constrains I chose to rework my research leaving out the part that would have necessitated my gathering names and addresses. Of course, I could have, and now would, make a good argument that chatrooms bear more in common with public squares than they do to focus groups...I was new at this then and let it pass. My advise...if you are given requirements that don't make sense to you then ask what your project is being compared to from the regulations. Then you can prepare a good case to educate the folks on your venue. 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 Christian Nelson <xianknelson@mac.com>:
That is stupid, and shows complete ignorance of the federal governments guidelines. There are a lot of IRBs out there who are simply making up their own rules, which is foolish.
On Mar 8, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
Given the research being done in medicine here I think our IRB does waste too much time policing cultural studies research where the potential for harm is comparably negligible.
For a student project they insisted that we get the names and addresses of discussion forum participants who were being 'interviewed' through the forum - so that we could send them a ststement saying we wouldn't use their names and addresses.
Marj
Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604 _______________________________________________ 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/
I've been on an IRB at various levels and at various types of institutions for well over a decade, so I've followed the news about them and heard of the results of many of their deliberations. Based on that experience, it is not far off the mark to say that many of them are making up their own rules. Sure, they have to deal with unanticipated circumstances. However, I would be rich if I had a nickel for every time I heard of an IRB requiring the gathering of signatures on informed consent forms from subjects in experiments that posed no risk to the subjects except the risk of being identified with the experiment through the signing of an informed consent form--a situation that the OHRP explicitly cites as one in which informed consent forms should not be collected. If that ain't making rules up, I don't know what is. --Christian Nelson On Mar 9, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
Most - if not all - IRBs in the USA are most definitely NOT making up rules.
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
There was also a nice ph.d. thesis recently that is linked from the IRB blog that seems to indicate a bit of arbitrariness, i wouldn't say they are making of the 'rules' but they are certainly trying to apply guidelines that may not fit. On Mar 10, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Mark D. Johns wrote:
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/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu ) () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
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/
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/ -----------------------------------------
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
I am curious about an issue that seems to background much of our IRB discussions. As academics we have gone through many years of being reviewed/graded...in classes, with conference proposals, for publication, and through grant applications - just to name a few. In every one of those cases our research can be declined for any number of reasons from flawed protocols to reviewers personal attitudes toward us or our research. All of that being said, why do we see IRBs as more of a controlling factor on research then say granting entities or publication venues? 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
I think it has to do with the 'extension' of IRB into arenas where it did not used to cover. IRB in the u.s. are now pushing into issues in the humanities in some cases, and it wasn't that long ago that they pushed into social sciences. Many people in the social science are complaining of 'mission creep' according to the few blogs in this arena that i've been readings. I don't think anyone takes issue with the need for IRB's in many arenas, and that there can be issues of research ethics and human subjects in other arenas, but when IRB's are required when one is doing a biography of a living person that is funded in part by an NSF grant, then... i think people are left wondering. On Mar 11, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
I am curious about an issue that seems to background much of our IRB discussions. As academics we have gone through many years of being reviewed/graded...in classes, with conference proposals, for publication, and through grant applications - just to name a few. In every one of those cases our research can be declined for any number of reasons from flawed protocols to reviewers personal attitudes toward us or our research.
All of that being said, why do we see IRBs as more of a controlling factor on research then say granting entities or publication venues?
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
_______________________________________________ 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/
jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu ) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
Apologies for responding to an older topic - I read these in month installments! However, this is an issue near and dear to my heart. In response to the question of why, though we continually jump hurdles as academics, IRB’s are discussed as agents of control, I have four thoughts, most based in my and my colleagues’ experiences. First, most of the time our academic performance is judged by peers or mentors who have at least a passing understanding of the methodologies and debates in our fields; whereas our IRB review committees offer no such guarantee. The feeling is exaggerated because many of the application forms we fill out are the same forms that people doing medical research fill out, and so many of the questions can feel very far removed from our academic realities. Therefore, their recommendation and questions can feel like frustrating hoops that have no real role in our overall research project. Second, the lack of expertise of the IRB in the applicant research area can lead to a series of correspondence in text (which poses its own issues) in which applicants are asked many questions. The process of review means that the applications pass through many hands, each with a new set of concerns, and the scattering of questions can feel arbitrary. Third, while our research is under review we cannot do it. This may seem a silly statement – but for a Ph.C. who is watching the clock tick away (and the gray hairs multiply!) it is worrisome to not be able to begin the empirical work that we need to actually graduate. Finally, the IRB is, in many ways, an “all powerful” bureaucracy-—much like border guards they decide who passes and who does not. Most of us can say with some confidence that our judges in our general exams would rather we pass than not. A “no” on a submitted article is one small event in the larger terrain of an academic career. However, if the IRB decides that a research project is unsuitable they can reject it. I know that this rarely happens, but such power combined with a faceless bureaucracy always causes fear and grumbling among the peasants. I have learned a lot from the, still ongoing, process of my own review and am aware of why we have them. But that said, it is not a process I will look back on with much fondness :) Best, Jessica --------------------------------- Jessica L. Beyer, Ph.C. University of Washington Department of Political Science --------------------------------- On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
I am curious about an issue that seems to background much of our IRB discussions. As academics we have gone through many years of being reviewed/graded...in classes, with conference proposals, for publication, and through grant applications - just to name a few. In every one of those cases our research can be declined for any number of reasons from flawed protocols to reviewers personal attitudes toward us or our research.
All of that being said, why do we see IRBs as more of a controlling factor on research then say granting entities or publication venues?
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
_______________________________________________ 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/
participants (7)
-
Christian Nelson -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
Jessica L. Beyer -
Jim Porter -
Lois Ann Scheidt -
Marj Kibby -
Mark D. Johns