Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Using a question-and-answer format, this section addresses questions and concerns about the role of institutional review boards (IRBs) in monitoring the treatment of human participants in evaluation. According to the American Evaluation Association’s Guiding Principles for Evaluators, “Evaluators should abide by current professional ethics, standards, and regulations regarding risks, harms, and burdens that might befall those participating in the evaluation; regarding informed consent for participation in evaluation; and regarding informing participants and clients about the scope and limits of confidentiality” (for the full text, see http://www.eval.org/Guiding%20Principles.htm). Focusing on IRBs is important because evaluators receive varying levels of training in the regulations guiding ethical practice. In addition, evaluators have had disparate experiences with IRBs, ranging from being told that their work is exempt from review to receiving the same level of scrutiny that medical research receives. As academic institutions face increased scrutiny about their adherence to regulatory guidelines, many are becoming more vigilant (and authoritarian) about the behavior of institutional members.

Keywords

human participants institutional review boards respect for people

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare . (1979, April 18). The Belmont report: Office of the secretary: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm

Institute of Medicine . (2002). Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Institutes of Health , Office of Extramural Research . (2005). Certificates of confidentiality kiosk. Available at http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc/index.htm

National Research Council . (2003). Protecting participants and facilitating social and behavioral sciences research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation . (2004). Frequently asked questions and vignettes: Interpreting the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects for Behavioral and Social Science Research. Retrieved April 30, 2005, from http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/hsfaqs.jsp%23author

Oakes, J. M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator’s guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 443-479.

Sieber, J. E. , Plattner, S. , & Rubin, P. (2002). How (not) to regulate social and behavioral research. Professional Ethics Report, XV(2). Available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per29.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Office for Civil Rights . (2005). HIPAA: Medical privacy: National standard to protect the privacy of personal health information. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Office for Human Research Protections . (2005a). Code of federal regulations: Title 45: Public welfare. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm

10.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections. (2005b). Home page. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/

11.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Office for Human Research Protections . (2005c). Policy guidance [by topics]. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/index.html

12.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Office of Inspector General . (1998). Institutional review boards: The emergence of impendent boards (OEI-01-97-00192). Washington, DC: Author.

The Complexity of the IRB Process

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References