Using IRB Protocols to Teach Ethical Principles for Research and Everyday Life

Abstract

Undergraduate research as a high-impact practice demonstrates many positive benefits for students, but little research has delved into the impact of ethical training for research, in particular submitting Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols to determine if the study meets ethical standards for the treatment of human subjects. This study explored if students in two experimental and one nonexperimental research methods class benefited from increased knowledge of research ethics and how to apply them in daily-life situations if they participated in various aspects of IRB protocol procedures either as part of a class-based research project or by completing an IRB protocol activity for developing a hypothetical program to help families. Some students in all three classes had previously engaged in a 4-hr online extended training [the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Program] in research ethics focused on the Belmont Report principles of beneficence, respect, and justice, but not in IRB protocols. Students were given a pre- and posttest to assess knowledge in both research and daily-life settings for applying the Belmont Report research ethics principles. Results indicate students gained greater knowledge of research ethics when they completed IRB protocol training during a class-based undergraduate research or program-design project, even if they had already completed some extended case-based training in the CITI Program. Results are discussed in terms of the value of using modified IRB protocol approaches as a high-impact practice to teach ethics in research and daily life to students.

Human Subjects Research Guidelines for Undergraduate Researchers: An Analysis of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Websites at Top Liberal Arts Colleges in the United States

“…This approach is in line with scholarship that finds that undergraduate research is a high impact learning practice (Ritchie, 2021; Seifert et al, 2010). Undergraduate students can participate in research by engaging in faculty-led research and by “developing their own research projects in independent studies and senior capstone projects” (Cooley et al, 2008; Ritchie, 2021, p. 120). Compared to students at larger institutions, students from LACs more frequently attend postgraduate studies, sometimes related to and motivated by research experiences in their undergraduate careers (Mahatmya et al, 2017; Richman & Alexander, 2006).…”

“…LACs are characterized by close student-faculty relationships, and students have ample opportunities to engage in research and experiential learning. This approach is in line with scholarship that finds that undergraduate research is a high impact learning practice (Ritchie, 2021;Seifert et al, 2010). Undergraduate students can participate in research by engaging in faculty-led research and by "developing their own research projects in independent studies and senior capstone projects" (Cooley et al, 2008;Ritchie, 2021, p. 120).…”

“…Historically, IRBs have prioritized a natural science and biomedical model and understanding of research with and involving humans, which has been critiqued as of limited relevance to social sciences and other areas of inquiry because of different methods and risks (Schrag, 2010). Despite scholars’ criticism about IRB oversight for social sciences (Hamilton, 2005; Schrag, 2010; White, 2007), educating students about the nature and function of IRBs may provide important information in the context of discussions about the ethics of HSR (Kallgren & Tauber, 1996; Ritchie, 2021). These student interactions with IRBs can be real (Allan, 2018; Estes et al, 2016; Kallgren & Tauber, 1996) or “fake,” as part of an assignment or as mock proposals (Ritchie, 2021; Sweet, 1999).…”

“…Despite scholars’ criticism about IRB oversight for social sciences (Hamilton, 2005; Schrag, 2010; White, 2007), educating students about the nature and function of IRBs may provide important information in the context of discussions about the ethics of HSR (Kallgren & Tauber, 1996; Ritchie, 2021). These student interactions with IRBs can be real (Allan, 2018; Estes et al, 2016; Kallgren & Tauber, 1996) or “fake,” as part of an assignment or as mock proposals (Ritchie, 2021; Sweet, 1999). Although student led-projects carried out in a classroom do not need IRB oversight, including an outward-focused stance in facilitating classroom research can help students better understand what research beyond the classroom entails (Allan, 2018).…”