Risks and wrongs in social science research. An evaluator's guide to the IRB.
Having an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and monitor the use of human subjects is now fundamental to ethical research. Yet social scientists appear increasingly frustrated with the process. This article aims to assist evaluators struggling to understand and work with IRBs. The author theorizes why IRBs frustrate and insists there is only one remedy: We must accept the legitimacy of IRB review and (a) learn more about IRB regulations, imperatives, and the new pressures on them; and (b) educate IRBs about social scientific methodologies and empirically demonstrable risks. A research agenda and tips are offered.
Oakes
J Michael
JM
Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, 1300 South 2nd Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 44545-1015, USA. oakes@epi.umn.edu
D026724:Ethical Review; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006805:Human Experimentation; D006801:Humans; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods*; D012106:Research / Q000592:standards; D012942:Social Sciences / Q000592:standards*; D014481:United States
Biomedical and Behavioral Research