Overseeing research

Ethics and the Institutional Review Board

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

In this paper I examine my experience of submitting a research proposal to the Institutional Review Board of a university. In the United States of America Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated ethics committees that evaluate research proposals to ensure the rights of human subjects are protected by conducting a risk benefit analysis of proposed research, ensuring that informed consent and confidentiality protocols are applied appropriately, and that the selection of participants is just and equitable. While accepting the need for IRBs, I suggest that their documentation and practices privilege specific research practices. This paper seeks to highlight the emerging consistencies and contradictions of this documentation when applied to a research approach seeking to study an urban science classroom and argues that there needs to be an ongoing dialogue to examine and acknowledge these contradictions in their documentation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalForum Qualitative Sozialforschung
Volume6
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2005

Fingerprint

research ethics
documentation
research practice
research approach
privilege
dialogue
moral philosophy
classroom
university
science
experience

Keywords

  • Ethics
  • Informed consent
  • Power
  • Qualitative research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Overseeing research : Ethics and the Institutional Review Board. / Milne, Catherine.

In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.2005.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{5b5eb51ff2594ac4be2f137ff7fa1639,
title = "Overseeing research: Ethics and the Institutional Review Board",
abstract = "In this paper I examine my experience of submitting a research proposal to the Institutional Review Board of a university. In the United States of America Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated ethics committees that evaluate research proposals to ensure the rights of human subjects are protected by conducting a risk benefit analysis of proposed research, ensuring that informed consent and confidentiality protocols are applied appropriately, and that the selection of participants is just and equitable. While accepting the need for IRBs, I suggest that their documentation and practices privilege specific research practices. This paper seeks to highlight the emerging consistencies and contradictions of this documentation when applied to a research approach seeking to study an urban science classroom and argues that there needs to be an ongoing dialogue to examine and acknowledge these contradictions in their documentation.",
keywords = "Ethics, Informed consent, Power, Qualitative research",
author = "Catherine Milne",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
journal = "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung",
issn = "1438-5627",
publisher = "Institut fur Klinische Sychologie and Gemeindesychologie",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Overseeing research

T2 - Ethics and the Institutional Review Board

AU - Milne, Catherine

PY - 2005/1

Y1 - 2005/1

N2 - In this paper I examine my experience of submitting a research proposal to the Institutional Review Board of a university. In the United States of America Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated ethics committees that evaluate research proposals to ensure the rights of human subjects are protected by conducting a risk benefit analysis of proposed research, ensuring that informed consent and confidentiality protocols are applied appropriately, and that the selection of participants is just and equitable. While accepting the need for IRBs, I suggest that their documentation and practices privilege specific research practices. This paper seeks to highlight the emerging consistencies and contradictions of this documentation when applied to a research approach seeking to study an urban science classroom and argues that there needs to be an ongoing dialogue to examine and acknowledge these contradictions in their documentation.

AB - In this paper I examine my experience of submitting a research proposal to the Institutional Review Board of a university. In the United States of America Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated ethics committees that evaluate research proposals to ensure the rights of human subjects are protected by conducting a risk benefit analysis of proposed research, ensuring that informed consent and confidentiality protocols are applied appropriately, and that the selection of participants is just and equitable. While accepting the need for IRBs, I suggest that their documentation and practices privilege specific research practices. This paper seeks to highlight the emerging consistencies and contradictions of this documentation when applied to a research approach seeking to study an urban science classroom and argues that there needs to be an ongoing dialogue to examine and acknowledge these contradictions in their documentation.

KW - Ethics

KW - Informed consent

KW - Power

KW - Qualitative research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27544486716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27544486716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 6

JO - Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

JF - Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

SN - 1438-5627

IS - 1

ER -