Undergraduate Research and the Institutional Review Board: A Mismatch or Happy Marriage?

Abstract

Many undergraduate research projects with human subjects are not reviewed by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Undergraduate research should be reviewed to protect subjects' welfare, ethically and legally protect instructors, enhance the reputation of psychological research, and enrich the educational experience of student researchers. A survey of undergraduate researchers (N = 53), all of whom underwent the IRB process for their research, indicated that they thought they had learned more by going through the IRB process, produced a better product, viewed instructor feedback more positively, saw the instructor as more of an ally, treated their research more seriously, and were sensitized to ethical issues. We recommend the IRB process for all undergraduate research.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adair

J. G.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

Carlopio

. (1983). Social artifact research and ethical regulations: Their impact on the teaching of experimental methods. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 159–162.

Brehm

J. W.

(1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic.

Ceci

S. J.

Peters

Plotkin

. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40, 994–1002.

Christensen

. (1988). Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 664–675.

Deci

E. L.

(1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Eaton

W. O.

(1983). The reliability of ethical reviews: Some initial empirical findings. Canadian Psychologist, 24, 14–18.

Finney

P. D.

(1987). When consent information refers to risk and deception: Implications for social research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 37–48.

Goldman

Katz

M. D.

(1982). Inconsistency and institutional review boards. Journal of the American Medical Association, 248. 197–202.

Grisso

Baldwin

Blanck

P. D.

Rotheram-Borus

M. J.

Schooler

N. R.

Thompson

(1991). Standards in research: APA's mechanism for monitoring the challenges. American Psychologist, 46, 758–766.

10.

Hamsher

J. H.

Reznikoff

. (1967). Ethical standards in psychological research and graduate training: A study of attitudes within the profession. Proceedings of the 75th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 2, 203–204.

11.

Kimmel

A. J.

(1991). Predictable biases in the ethical decision making of American psychologists. American Psychologist, 46, 786–788.

12.

Matthews

J. R.

(1991). The teaching of ethnics and the ethics of teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 18, 80–85.

13.

McGovern

T. V.

Furumoto

Halpem

D. F.

Kimble

G. A.

McKeachie

W. J.

(1991). Liberal education, study in depth, and the arts and sciences major—Psychology. American Psychologist, 46, 598–605.

14.

Stanley

Sieber

J. E.

Melton

G. B.

(1987). Empirical studies of ethical issues in research: A research agenda. American Psychologist, 42, 735–741.

15.

Trice

A. D.

Ogden

E. P.

(1987). Informed consent: IX. Effects of the withdrawal clause in longitudinal research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 135–138.

16.

Tymchuk

A. J.

Thompson

J. H.

(1986). Academic senate members' knowledge of federal requirements for the protection of human subjects in research. Psychological Reports, 59, 323–328.

17.

Wicker

A. W.

(1968). Requirements for protecting privacy of human subjects: Some implications for generalization of research findings. American Psychologist, 23, 70–72.