[Air-L] IRBs

[Jim Porter]

> 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 at msu.edu
office: 517.353.7258
fax: 517.353.9162
http://wide.msu.edu/
-----------------------------------------