Human Subjects Research Guidelines for Undergraduate Researchers: An Analysis of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Websites at Top Liberal Arts Colleges in the United States

Abstract

Teaching students about the ethics of Human Subject Research (HSR) should be a fundamental component of students’ education about research. In this article, we analyze the Institutional Review Board (IRB) websites of top-ranked Liberal Arts Colleges (LACs) to examine their framing of HSR carried out by undergraduate students. Our descriptive quantitative analysis from 50 top-ranked LACs in the United States indicates that a majority of IRB websites provide information about undergraduate research, and most include information about students’ classroom-based research. Our qualitative content analysis of a subsample of ten colleges’ IRB websites provides information on how they inform and educate about issues including informed consent and highlight different resources for students including their research advisor, and disciplinary standards. We conclude by discussing recommendations for IRBs in their accessibility to undergraduates.

Keywords

liberal arts IRB human subject research undergraduate ethics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AAUP (2006). Research on human subjects: Academic freedom and the institutional review board .

Allan

E. G.

(2018). ‘Real research’ or” just for a grade"? Ethnography, ethics, and engagement in the undergraduate writing studies classroom. Pedagogy, 18(2), 247–277. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-4359181

Askehave

Nielsen

A. E.

(2005). Digital genres: A challenge to traditional genre theory. Information Technology & People, 18(2), 120–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840510601504

Babb

Birb

Carfagna

(2017). Standard bearers: Qualitative sociologists’ experiences with IRB regulation. The American Sociologist, 48, 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-016-9331-z

Baumann

J. R.

Mullins-Owens

Russell

Waltz

(2015). Chapter 1 - Human subjects research protections. In Suckow

M. A.

Yates

B. J.

(Eds.), Research regulatory compliance (pp. 1–20). Academic Press.

Bodenhorn

(2003). Economic scholarship at elite liberal arts colleges: A citation analysis with rankings. The Journal of Economic Education, 34(4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480309595228

Brinthaupt

T. M.

(2002). Teaching research ethics: Illustrating the nature of the researcher-IRB relationship. Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 243–245. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2903_12

Callahan

Bok

(2012). Ethics teaching in higher education. Springer Science & Business Media.

Cech

T. R.

(1999). Science at liberal arts colleges: A better education? Daedalus, 128(1), 195–216.

10.

CITI. (2022). Research, ethics, and compliance training | CITI program . Retrieved November 27, 2022 from https://about.citiprogram.org/

11.

Cooley

E. L.

Garcia

A. L.

Hughes

J. L.

(2008). Undergraduate research in psychology at liberal arts colleges: Reflections on mutual benefits for faculty and students. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 463–471.

12.

Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Code of federal regulations. Title 45. Part 46. protection of human subjects .

13.

Emmerich

(2016). When is a REC not a REC? When it is a gatekeeper. Research Ethics, 12(4), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116651668

14.

Estes

Mallory

Sobiesk

(2016). The value of a one semester exposure to the institutional review board process. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 31(6), 63–69.

15.

Hamilton

(2005). The development and operation of IRBs: Medical regulations and social science. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880500149353

16.

Hedgecoe

(2016). Reputational risk, academic freedom and research ethics review. Sociology, 50(3), 486–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515590756

17.

Joy

(2006). What should I be doing, and where are they doing it? Scholarly productivity of academic psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00020.x

18.

Kallgren

C. A.

Tauber

R. T.

(1996). Undergraduate research and the institutional review board: A mismatch or happy marriage? Teaching of Psychology, 23(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2301_3

19.

Keohane

N. O.

(2006). Higher ground: Ethics and leadership in the modern university. Duke University Press.

20.

Kraus

(2008). You must participate: Violating research ethical principles through role-play. College Teaching, 56(3). https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.3.131-136

21.

Mabrouk

P. A.

(2016). What knowledge of responsible conduct of research do undergraduates bring to their undergraduate research experiences? Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00264

22.

Mahatmya

Morrison

Jones

R. M.

Garner

P. W.

Davis

S. N.

Manske

Berner

Johnson

Ditty

(2017). Pathways to undergraduate research experiences: A multi-institutional study. Innovative Higher Education, 42, 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9401-3

23.

Martinez

(2023). Ethics and equity: Lessons learned from an institutional review board (IRB) chair of color. In U. Thomas (Ed.), Cases on servant leadership and equity (pp. 112–131). IGI Global. Retrieved March 24, 2023 from https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/ethics-and-equity/www.igi-global.com/chapter/ethics-and-equity/315178

24.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.

25.

Nolen

A. L.

Vander Putten

(2007). Action research in education: Addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 401–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309629

26.

Office for Human Research Protections. (2017). 2018 Requirements (2018 Common rule). HHS.Gov . Retrieved October 27, 2022 from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/revised-common-rule-regulatory-text/index.html

27.

Office for Human Research Protections. (2022). What are IRBs?

28.

Olimpo

J. T.

Diaz-Martinez

L. A.

Bhatt

J. M.

D’Arcy

C. E.

(2017). Integration of RCR and ethics education into course-based undergraduate research experiences in the biological sciences: A needed discussion. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(2), 18–12. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1344

29.

Pascarella

E. T.

Wolniack

Cruce

T. M.

Blaich

C. F.

(2004). Do liberal arts colleges really foster good practices in undergraduate education? Journal of College Student Development, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0013

30.

Richman

K. A.

Alexander

L. B.

(2006). Ethics and research with undergraduates. Ethics and Education, 1(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449640600950782

31.

Rissanen

Löfström

(2014). Students’ research ethics competences and the university as a learning environment. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(2), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v10i2.1004

32.

Ritchie

K. L.

(2021). Using IRB protocols to teach ethical principles for research and everyday life: A high-impact practice. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 21(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i1.30554

33.

Schrag

Z. M.

(2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. John Hopkins University Press.

34.

Seifert

T. A.

Pascarella

E. T.

Goodman

K. M.

Salisbury

M. H.

Blaich

C. F.

(2010). Liberal arts colleges and good practices in undergraduate education: Additional evidence. Journal of College Student Development, 51(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0113

35.

Senchina

D. S.

(2011). Video laboratories for the teaching and learning of professional ethics in exercise physiology curricula. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(3), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00122.2010

36.

Stark

(2011). Behind closed doors. IRBs and the making of ethical research. University of Chicago Press.

37.

Swarthmore College. (2022). Institutional Review Board. Institutional Review Board . Retrieved December 3, 2022 from https://www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-review-board

38.

Sweet

(1999). Using a mock institutional review board to teach ethics in sociological research. Teaching Sociology, 27(1), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319246

39.

US News & World Report. (2022). The 10 best liberal arts colleges in America. US News & World Report . Retrieved September 14, 2022 from https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges

40.

Wagner

Garner

Kawulich

(2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903452594

41.

Wassenaar

D. R.

Mamotte

(2012). Ethical issues and ethics reviews in social science research. In A. Ferrero, Y. Korkut, M. M. Leach, G. Lindsay, M. J. Stevens (Eds.), The oxford handbook of international psychological ethics (pp. 268–282). Oxford Academic.

42.

White

R. F.

(2007). Institutional review board mission creep: The common rule, social science, and the nanny state. The Independent Review, 11(4), 547–564.

43.

Wynn

L. L.

(2016). The impact of ethics review on a research-led university curriculum: Results of a qualitative study in Australia. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616636234

44.

Zucchero

R. A.

(2008). Can psychology ethics effectively be integrated into introductory psychology? Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9070-7