[Air-L] IRBs - I am curious

[Jessica L. Beyer]

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 at 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/
>