Qualitative Research and Institutional Review Boards

Abstract

Although it is not their intention, institutional review boards (IRBs) often impede the conduct of studies that are not conventional and/or experimental designs. As a consequence, studies that are qualitative, participatory action research, action research, postmodern, and/or critical theorist in orientation often undergo endless revisions as IRBs seek to make them appear more conventional. Among the reasons for this are lack of training in alternative epistemologies and/or paradigms for conducting research, lack of understanding the kinds of data that will be generated by these studies, and occasionally, prejudice on the part of members of the boards regarding what constitutes sound research. Several actual case studies are reported, and a variety of strategies for addressing IRBs’ concerns are proposed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of University Professors. (2001). Report: Protecting human beings: Institutional review board sand social science research. Academe, 87(3), 55-67.

American Sociological Association. (2003, February 7). Statement on intellectual freedom in a time of war. Retrieved February 9, 2003, from http://www.ASADIR-L@georgetown.edu

Bauerlein, M. (2001). Social constructionism: Philosophy for the academic workplace. Partisan Review, LXVIII(2), 1-12.

Feagin, J. R. (1999, October 15). Soul-searching in sociology: Is the discipline in crisis? Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B4.

House, E. F. (in press). Qualitative evaluation and changing social policies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koertge, N. (1994, September 14). Are feminists alienating women from the sciences? Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A12.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. (2002, April). Qualitative research and the radical Right: Cats, dogs and other natural enemies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. [See also a revised version of this set of arguments in the article on this topic in this issue.]

Moreno, J. D. (2001). Protectionism in research involving human subjects. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants (Vol. II, pp. I-1-I-21). Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2001a). Ethical and policy issues involving human participants (Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Vols. I, II, & III). Bethesda, MD: Author.

10.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2001b). Ethical and policy issues involving human participants: Summary. Bethesda, MD: Author.

11.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects in research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

12.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. (Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne, Eds., Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

13.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved October 12,2003, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

14.

Pritchard, I. (in press). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner inquiry and institutional review boards. Educational Researcher.

15.

Weijer, C. (1999). Protecting communities in research: Philosophical and pragmatic challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, 501-513.

16.

Weijer, C. (2001). The ethical analysis of risks and potential benefits in human subjects research: History, theory, and implications for U.S. regulation. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants (Vol. II, pp. P-1-P-28). Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.