While research on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) has been conducted on issues ranging from quality, process, and effectiveness, gaps remain. Social science researchers have raised issues regarding decisions by IRBs applied to the social sciences based on biomedical research. To date, little is known about the experience of social scientists in criminology and criminal justice with IRBs and this research seeks to fill this gap. An online survey, including open- and closed-ended questions drawn from the validated IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool, was administered to members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology about their experiences with IRBs. Results revealed that researchers report experiencing challenges with their IRBs including timeline delays of their research, bias against their research, and decisions that protect legal liability rather than human subjects ethics. Recommendations for improving IRB reviews of protocols and challenges unique to criminology and criminal justice are discussed.
AbbottL.GradyC. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBS: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3
AndersonE. E.DuBoisJ. M. (2012). IRB decision-making with imperfect knowledge: A framework for evidence-based research ethics review. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 951–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00724.x.
BachmanR.SchuttR. K. (2020). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice (7th edn.). Sage.
6.
BledsoeC. H.SherinB.GalinskyA. G.HeadleyN. M.HeimerC. A.KjeldgaardE.LindgrenJ.MillerJ. D.RoloffM. E.UttalD. H. (2007). Regulating creativity: Research and survival in the IRB iron cage. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 593–642.
7.
BreaultJ. L. (2006). Protecting human research subjects: The past defines the future. Oschner Journal, 6(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1043/1524-5012
8.
CalfanoB. R. (2016). “I” does not mean infallible: Pushing back against Institutional Review Board overreach. Profession Symposium, 49(2), 304–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516000251
9.
CarlineJ. D.O’SullivanP. S.GruppenL. D.Richardson-NassifK. (2007). Crafting successful relationships with the IRB. Academic Medicine, 82(10), S57–S60. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31813e66d4
10.
CartwrightJ. C.HickmanS. E.NelsonC. A.KnaflK. A. (2013). Investigators’ successful strategies for working with institutional review boards. Research in Nursing & Health, 36(5), 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21553
11.
ClappJ. T.GleasonK. A.JoffeeS. (2017). Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters. Social Science & Medicine, 194, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.013
12.
DaviesH.NutleyS.SmithP. (1999). What works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice. Public Money and Management, 19(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00144
13.
DaviesH.NutleyS.SmithP. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol University Press.
14.
EmanuelE. J.MenikoffJ. (2011). Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. New England Journal of Medicine, 365(12), 1145–1150. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsb1106942
FlickerS.TraversR.GutaA.McDonaldS.MeagherA. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health, 84(4), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-007-9165-7
17.
FlorczakK. L.LockieN. M. (2015). IRB reformation: Is unfettered access the answer?Nursing Science Quarterly, 28(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318414558621
18.
FriesenP.YusofA. N. M.SheehanM. (2019). Should the decisions of institutional review boards be consistent?Ethics & Human Research, 41(4), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500022
19.
GunsalusC. K.BrunerE. M.BurbulesN. C.DashL.FinkinM.GoldbergJ. P.GreenoughW. T.MillerG. A.PrattM. G.IriyeM.AronsonD. (2007). Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB “mission creep”. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 617–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407300785
20.
HallD. E.HanusaB. H.LingB. S.StoneR. A.SwitzerG. E.FineM. J.ArnoldR. M. (2015). Using the IRB research assessment tool to guide quality improvement. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(5), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615612195
21.
HargerB.QuintelaM. (2017). The IRB as gatekeeper: Effects on research with children and youth. In I. Castro, M. Swauger, & B. Harger (Eds), Sociological studies of children and youth (Vol. 22, pp.11–33). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
HesslerR. M.Donnell-WatsonD. J.GalliherJ. F. (2011). A case for limiting the reach of institutional review boards. The American Sociologist, 42(1), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-011-9122-5
24.
HottensteinK. N. (2018). American institutional review boards: Safeguards or censorship?Journal of Research Administration, 49(1), 31–42.
25.
JacquesS.WrightR. (2010). Right or wrong? Toward a theory of IRBs’ (dis)approval of research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250903496471
26.
JonesJ. H. (1981). Bad blood: the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Free Press.
27.
Keith-SpiegelP.KoocherG. P.TabachnickB. (2006). What scientists want from their research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.67
KlitzmanR. (2015). The ethics police: The struggle to make human research safe. Oxford University Press.
30.
LincolnY. S.TierneyW. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262361
31.
LynchH. F. (2018). Opening closed doors: Promoting IRB transparency. Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 46(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110518766028
32.
MakhoulJ.El-AltiL.QutteinaY.NasrallahC.SakrC.NakkashR.AlaliK. (2014). “Protecting” or “policing”: Academic researchers’ view of IRBs in an Arab context. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/90011933
33.
McDonaldJ. H. (2009). Handbook of biological statistics. Sparky House Publishing.
34.
MilgramS. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
35.
MusobaG. D.JacobS. A.RobinsonL. J. (2014). The institutional review board (IRB) and faculty: Does the IRB challenge faculty professionalism in the social sciences?The Qualitative Report, 19(101), 1–14. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss51/1
36.
NichollsS. G.HayesT. P.BrehautJ. C.McDonaldM.WeijerC.SagninurR.FergussonD. (2015). A scoping review of empirical research relating to the quality and effectiveness of research ethics review. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133639
37.
OakesJ. M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator’s guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 28(5), 443–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/019384102236520
38.
PogrebinM. R. (2010). On the way to the field: Reflections of one qualitative criminal justice professor’s experiences. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(4), 540–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.516570
ReeserJ. C.AustinD. M.JarosL. M.MukeshmB. N.McCartyC. A. (2008). Investigating perceived institutional review board quality and function using the IRB researcher assessment tool. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.25
RossJ. I.BarakG.FerrellJ.KauzlarichD.HammM.FriedrichsD.MatthewsR.PickeringS.PresdeeM.KraskaP.KappelerV. (1999). The state of state crime research: A commentary. Humanity and Society, 23(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/016059769902300306
43.
RossJ. I.FerrellJ.PresdeeM.MatthewsR. (2000). IRBs and state crime: A reply to Dr. Niemonen. Humanity and Society, 24(2), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/016059760002400206
44.
SchneiderC. E. (2015). The censor’s hand: The misregulation of human-subject research. MIT Press.
45.
SchragZ. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Johns Hopkins University Press.
46.
SchragZ. M. (2019). Vexed again: Social scientists and the revision of the Common Rule, 2011–2018. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 47(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519857281
47.
SheskinD. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (3rd edn.). Chapman & Hall/CRC.
48.
SilbermanG.KahnK. L. (2017). Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: The state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. The Milbank Quarterly, 89(4), 599–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00644.x
49.
SpellecyR.MayT. (2012). More than cheating: Deception, IRB shopping, and the normative legitimacy of IRBs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 990–996. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00726.x
TartaroC.LevyM. P. (2014). Criminal justice professionals’ knowledge of institutional review boards (IRBs) and compliance with IRB protocol. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.902982
52.
TartaroC.LevyM. P. (2015). IRB requirements and review processes: Criminal justice faculty members’ compliance and satisfaction. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 37(1), 12–16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24575717
53.
TierneyW. G.CorwinZ. B. (2007). The tensions between academic freedom and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406297655
54.
WhiteR. F. (2007). Institutional review board mission creep: The Common Rule, social science, and the nanny state. The Independent Review, XI(3), 547–564. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24562415
55.
WhitneyS. N.AlcserK.SchneiderC. E.McCulloughL. B.McGuireA. L.VolkR. J. (2008). Principal investigator views of the IRB system. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 5(2), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.5.68
56.
WorleyR. M.WorleyV. B.WoodB. A. (2016). There were ethical dilemmas all day long! Harrowing tales of ethnographic researchers in criminology and criminal justice. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2016.1237945
57.
YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (2008). Reforming institutional review board policy: Issues in implementation and field research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(3), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508080864
58.
ZimbardoP.G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(72)90014-5
