Federal Regulations, Institutional Review Boards and Qualitative Social Science Research

2019 ◽  
pp. 103-118
Author(s):  
Virginia Olesen
2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (52) ◽  
pp. e2106178118
Author(s):  
David D. Laitin ◽  
Edward Miguel ◽  
Ala’ Alrababa’h ◽  
Aleksandar Bogdanoski ◽  
Sean Grant ◽  
...  

While the social sciences have made impressive progress in adopting transparent research practices that facilitate verification, replication, and reuse of materials, the problem of publication bias persists. Bias on the part of peer reviewers and journal editors, as well as the use of outdated research practices by authors, continues to skew literature toward statistically significant effects, many of which may be false positives. To mitigate this bias, we propose a framework to enable authors to report all results efficiently (RARE), with an initial focus on experimental and other prospective empirical social science research that utilizes public study registries. This framework depicts an integrated system that leverages the capacities of existing infrastructure in the form of public registries, institutional review boards, journals, and granting agencies, as well as investigators themselves, to efficiently incentivize full reporting and thereby, improve confidence in social science findings. In addition to increasing access to the results of scientific endeavors, a well-coordinated research ecosystem can prevent scholars from wasting time investigating the same questions in ways that have not worked in the past and reduce wasted funds on the part of granting agencies.


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane A. Riordan ◽  
Michael P. Riordan

ABSTRACT: Federal regulations require oversight of federally sponsored research involving human subjects. Universities have responded by forming Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Although these regulations only apply to federally funded projects, universities have extended the oversight to include all projects involving human subjects. From our own experience, we observe that not all accounting faculty are aware of their responsibilities to their local boards. The sanctions for failing to follow required procedures depend on the infraction, and range from an order to cease work on the project to termination of university service for the faculty member and expulsion for the student. This report helps accounting faculty understand how the review process may affect their role as instructors and serves as encouragement to them to become familiar with the requirements of local review boards.


1980 ◽  
Vol 59 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1305-1306

An "add-on" study has been brought to the attention of the University's Institutional Review Board (IRB) which has approved Dr. A's study. As a member of the IRB, do you have any questions or concerns about the investigation?


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (16) ◽  
pp. 1956-1979
Author(s):  
Heather R. Hlavka

The interdisciplinary silences on sexual violence and the omission of children and youth from social science research speak volumes of the power of the child as a flexible, cultural signifier. In this article, I argue that dominant frameworks of children and childhood make child sexual assault a discursive impossibility for most young people. The epistemic violence of silencing matters, and it is these erasures that are fundamental to understanding violence and power. I argue it is paramount for feminist researchers to call attention to the undermining qualities of Institutional Review Boards that act as gatekeepers of representation and voice.


2015 ◽  
pp. 261-276
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Bates ◽  
Ben Birch

The development of digital computing and the growth of the Internet have opened up new opportunities to engage in online research. These online research practices involving human subjects, often involving relatively new technologies, can create tension between the online investigator and the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) who are required to review and approve such research prior to data collection. This chapter aims to reduce this tension by discussing the associated ethics issues and applicable federal regulations, identifying specific concerns from the perspective of IRBs, and offering suggestions as to how best to address these concerns in applications in a way that can hopefully serve both the researcher and the review board.


2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (03) ◽  
pp. 477-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell A. Seligson

Social scientists are well aware of the unintended consequences of public policies. The protection of human subjects regulations, which emerged in response to a serious problem in the medical community, provides an ideal example of such unintended consequences; to paraphrase an old aphorism, “the road to bureaucratic hell is paved with well-intentioned public policies.” In this essay I will seek to make three points. First, the protection of human subjects by federal regulation was long overdue. Second, this benefit to society has, in its application, ignored another widely accepted regulatory principle, namely that the costs of regulation should not outweigh its benefits; a combination of “bureaucratic creep” and litigation phobia has resulted in intrusive and counterproductive regulation of social science research, such that the cure has become worse than the disease. Third, ironically, because of institutional review boards' definition of what is and what is not research, the protection of human subjects is denied to subjects who actually could be at risk.


Author(s):  
Jennifer Patrice Sims ◽  
Cassandra Nolen

Obtaining parental consent for youth to participate in research is a standard requirement in the United States. However, the assumption that involving parents is the best way to protect youth research participants is untenable for some populations. This study draws on interviews with 19 LGBTQ+ mixed-race participants to examine lay views of parental consent requirements for LGBTQ+ youth research participants. Qualitative data analysis found concerns about potentially outing LGBTQ+ youth to intolerant parents. Interviewees also asserted that adolescents aged 16 and older are competent enough and should have the autonomy to consent themselves. Finally, interviewees raised several methodological concerns regarding the biased research that may result from parental consent requirements. We agree with others that U.S. Institutional Review Boards should end uncritical requirements for parental consent for older adolescents and should routinize the use and study of alternative protective measures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document