Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

Abstract

While research on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) has been conducted on issues ranging from quality, process, and effectiveness, gaps remain. Social science researchers have raised issues regarding decisions by IRBs applied to the social sciences based on biomedical research. To date, little is known about the experience of social scientists in criminology and criminal justice with IRBs and this research seeks to fill this gap. An online survey, including open- and closed-ended questions drawn from the validated IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool, was administered to members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology about their experiences with IRBs. Results revealed that researchers report experiencing challenges with their IRBs including timeline delays of their research, bias against their research, and decisions that protect legal liability rather than human subjects ethics. Recommendations for improving IRB reviews of protocols and challenges unique to criminology and criminal justice are discussed.

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

“…(Whitney et al, 2008, p. 70). These sentiments were also raised in the qualitative feedback from 22 criminal justice and criminology researchers in the Gunnison and Helfgott (2021) research investigation. One subject (Participant ID: 63) reported:…”

“…In essence, researchers accused of any wrongdoing by the IRB have no due process rights-the same rights that are afforded to defendants via the U.S. Constitution in the criminal justice system (Schneider, 2015). This may result in researchers having to hire an attorney, at their own cost, to resolve the matter (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2021).…”

“…Moreover, soliciting their recommendations about how to improve IRB practices, based on their experiences, is critical to foster better relationships between academics and IRBs and to improve efficiency in the research review process. Thus, as a follow-up to Gunnison and Helfgott's (2021) research, this investigation attempts to fill the aforementioned gaps in the literature by interviewing subjects, either individually or in a focus group, who volunteered to participate as part of the original study.…”

“…However, questions remain regarding the exact experiences and/or challenges criminal justice and criminology scholars face when interfacing with their IRBs and what recommendations they may have to improve the IRB process. Gunnison and Helfgott (2021) employed a web-based survey of members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology and found that researchers experienced challenges with their IRBs such as delays, bias against their research, and reported IRB decisions that seemed to operate to protect the legal liability of the university rather than a human subjects ethics. Although the survey allowed for some open-ended responses for subjects to recall their specific experiences and/or challenges with their IRBs and offer recommendations for improvement, the analysis of qualitative data was limited by the survey questions and format.…”

“…Understanding the experiences of criminal justice and criminology researchers in their interactions with IRBs and their recommendations for improving IRB practices is critical to improve relationships between academics and IRBs, efficiency, and to ensure that the focus of IRBs remains on human subjects' ethics. This investigation follows Gunnison and Helfgott's (2021) study to fill the gaps in the literature through interviews with criminology and criminal justice researchers, either individually or in focus groups, who volunteered to participate as part of the original study.…”