Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote:
We will have to disagree here completely. It is the job of the IRB to decide on the quality of research if the quality shifts the balance of cost/benefit to cost. Participants do give up theri time and energy and are not often compensated. Most subject pools use a genteel form of coercion that we leave a blind eye to--do this 3 of 5 times per semester or do a much more onerous task, or don't pass the course. Let's be real. Most students do not want to participate in research but most intro psych students have to, or they have to do article reviews or some such nonsense.
Annette,
If one is gong to be "real" then one should admit that the "risk" of "minimal risk" research is probably less than that of going to the class itself. The rhetoric of "cost" in a not-very-well controlled study is, I'm afraid, the main form of nonsense here.Has ANYONE EVER been injured, e.g., memorizing a list of words and then spitting them back out? There is no cost worthy of the name here at all. There are no ethical considerations that don't serve more to denigrate the term "ethics" than to "protect" anyone at "risk." It is a power play, pure and simple. Being a participant in research is part of the education itself and is no more "coercive" than reading assingments and tests.
And just for the record (since you assumed otherwise) I have sat on my department's ethics review committee.
Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ============================ .
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
