IRBs and Psychological Science: Ensuring a Collaborative Relationship

Eissenberg, Thomas; Panicker, Sangeeta; Berenbaum, Sheri A.; Epley, Norma; Fendrich, Michael; Penner, Louis A.; Simmerling, Mary

doi:10.2139/ssrn.899605

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In its ideal form, the review process supports unbiased evaluation of the ethical aspects of a proposed research study. Although researchers and others ought not interfere with the decision-making processes of RECs, constructive open dialogue between researchers and RECs can be important to the quality and efficiency of ethical review (Eissenberg et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case study of researchers’ knowledge and opinions about the ethical review process for research in Botswana

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most countries, including Botswana, have established Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to provide oversight of research involving human beings. Although much has been published on the structure and function of IRBs around the world, there is less literature that empirically describes the perspectives of stakeholders in low-and middle-income country (LMIC) settings regarding IRB processes. In this study, we employed primarily quantitative methods to examine the perceptions of researchers at the University of Botswana (UB) about the review of research protocols by local IRBs. Data were collected using a web-based survey (SurveyMonkey 1 ). This was a preliminary effort to document some of the emerging experiences of researchers with ethics review in a context where both research and research oversight are relatively new. Findings from 85 researchers indicate that researchers recognized the need for an IRB to review all human research protocols, expressed the need for research ethics training, experienced high rates of approval at government ministries and UB, and generally believed that ethics review processes can help researchers themselves better understand and appreciate research ethics in general. Though only about one-quarter of respondents reported a more positive view of research ethics after interacting with the UB IRB, 56.5 percent reported no change. In contexts where IRBs have recently been established, it can be particularly important to document the perspectives of researchers in order to align expectations with capabilities, and identify areas where IRBs can improve operations. Future efforts to advance research ethics and ethical review in Botswana should include establishing research ethics training requirements and courses for researchers, increasing investment in IRBs and their training, further developing institutional and national research ethics policies, and formalizing agreements between IRBs and others involved in research oversight in the country to support coordinated review.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case study of researchers’ knowledge and opinions about the ethical review process for research in Botswana

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although challenging, educating staff as well as IRB members potentially benefi ts all such researchers, particularly graduate students, some of whom have given up on fi eld research due to IRB delays, which often are greater for research that does not fit the experimental model (van den Hoonaard 2011 ). Like Thomas (2013), we encourage colleagues, where possible, to exert the effort to educate their IRBs about the exigencies of political science field research, for the benefit of all, something that Eissenberg et al ( 2004 ) and Lederman ( 2007 ) have also argued for in psychology and anthropology.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…IRB review need not be an adversarial process (as Eissenberg et al 2004 remark to their colleagues in psychology). Several researchers, in fact, have shared with us their pleased surprise that fi lling out IRB forms focused their attention on ethical aspects of their research which they had not yet considered.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encountering Your IRB 2.0: What Political Scientists Need to Know

Yanow

Schwartz‐Shea

2016

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay corrects and updates one that was originally published in Qualitative & Multi-Method Research and, in a condensed version, in three other APSA Organized Section newsletters. Our research into IRB policy has shown that many political scientists are not familiar with some of its key provisions. The intent of the essay is to increase awareness of the existing policy's impact on political scientific research and, in particular, on graduate students and junior faculty. We remain concerned that at present, faculty are leaving discussions of research ethics to IRBs (and their counterparts worldwide), whereas these Boards largely focus on complying with the regulatory details of governmental policy. Even though this essay seeks to clarify the latter, we remain convinced that research ethics ought to be vigorously taken up within disciplinary and departmental conversations. Authors' Note for the PS Edition

show abstract