[Air-L] IRBs

[Lois Ann Scheidt]

Quoting Jim Porter <porterj8 at 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