How research ethics boards are undermining survey research on Canadian university students

Abstract

In Canada, all research conducted by individuals associated with universities must be subjected to review by research ethics boards (REB). Unfortunately, decisions reached by REBs may seriously compromise the integrity of university-based research. In this paper attention will focus on how requirements of REBs and a legal department in four Canadian universities affected response rates to a survey of domestic and international students. It will be shown that in universities in which students were sent a legalistic cover letter to a mail survey, or were required to sign a consent form, lower response rates were achieved than in universities in which students were sent a relatively friendly letter. In turn, lower response rates resulted in: sample characteristics that deviated from population characteristics; a reduction in the possibility of testing research hypotheses; and increased survey costs. As a consequence, it is argued that the unreasonable demands of REBs are seriously compromising the quality of research that can be carried out on Canadian university students.

Sense of coherence and academic achievement of domestic and international students: a comparative analysis

“…Moreover, a large part of the differences in response rates can be attributed to the fact that each university had its own ethics committee that required different letters of introduction to the survey (Grayson and Myles 2005). The total number of domestic and international students from each of the universities who completed a questionnaire is summarized in Table 1.…”

The Potential of Digital Technologies for Transforming Informed Consent Practices with Children and Young People in Social Research

“…Indeed, Macfarlane (2009) argues that such forms may be exclusionary because of expectations about their content from research ethics committees. Grayson and Myles (2005) illustrate the problem by demonstrating that the response rate to a survey was substantially reduced when participants received a more 'legalistic and impersonal' (p. 298) introductory letter and consent form (whose wording complied with institutional requirements) compared to a more personalised and informal one. Brooks et al (2014) concur with this challenge, noting that: 'the way in which information is presented to potential respondents is not neutral…the formality of some initial consent procedures may alienate some groups, particularly those who are vulnerable' (p. 95).…”

Gaining Institutional Permission: Researching Precarious Legal Status in Canada

“…We carefully considered the issue of consent forms given that highly legalistic and complicated informed consent documents have been known to affect response rates (Greyson and Miles 2005). The normal practice for academic researchers is to use written consent forms that include the participant's signature.…”

“…This has led recent publications to suggest that the reach of the ERB has become unwieldy as the ethics protocol may not be well suited to projects in the social sciences and humanities (Bledsoe et al 2007;Dyer and Demeritt 2009;Greyson and Miles 2005;Sikes and Piper 2008;Stark 2006). Dyer and Demeritt (2009) argue that "the ethical frameworks applied by formal ethical review processes ignore… wider normative and political concerns at best, and at worst actively subvert ongoing efforts to infuse [research] practice with an ethical sensibility"(p.48).…”

“…They had trouble focusing on certain parts and it created a distance between them and the researchers (for the effects of consent form wording on low response rates, see Greyson and Miles 2005). The reading of the form was awkward and uncomfortable for all particularly when having to tell people that 'confidentiality will be protected to the extent that the law allows.'…”