Criminology and Criminal Justice Researchers’ Experiences and Challenges with Institutional Review Boards

Abstract

Social science researchers depend on academic Institutional Review Boards (IRB) to review and approve their research protocols involving human subjects. Conducting research in criminology and criminal justice settings brings unique challenges involving human subjects. Criminology and criminal justice researchers need IRB approval for their projects which often include investigations involving vulnerable populations (e.g., juveniles, incarcerated persons, victims). To advance knowledge in the field and contribute to evidence-based policies and practices, the ability of researchers to obtain IRB approval on sensitive research projects is critical. Beyond their desire to improve knowledge and policies, scholars must have their research approved by IRBs in a timely manner to achieve their required publication quota per university guidelines for tenure ABSTRACT Conducting research in criminology and criminal justice settings brings unique challenges involving human subjects. Prior research has examined the quality and effectiveness of Institutional Review Boards (IRB). However, research on the experiences of criminology and criminal justice researchers when interfacing with their IRBs is scant. This study seeks to fill this gap through the exploration of experiences criminology and criminal justice researchers have had with IRBs. Focus groups were conducted with 13 researchers who were members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology. Results revealed that participants experienced challenges centering around specific themes including: Protocol submission process; IRB lack of understanding of criminal justice research; IRB chair concerns; IRB focus on legality; and appeal policies. Recommendations for improving IRB reviews of protocols and challenges unique to criminology and criminal justice were another emerging theme. Policy implications are discussed.