I think everyone who is critical of IRBs needs to sit on one. Once you see the horrendous proposals that come through you will begin to see the logic of the necessity to pay some attention to methodology.
I completely agree with others about the need to examine the methodology, at least for fundamentals. Having sat on our IRB for several years, primarily because I was disgusted with some of their decisions, I quickly was able to reach the conclusion that poor methodology, which clearly results in no gain in knowledge is an abuse of human subjects. The risk value is NOT zero, it uses up the subject's time and energy that could better be devoted to a more gainful use of time. Therefore there is an investment that is going to be wasted, and will also prevent that person from participating in a more useful study. This is not zero, it is a minus situation for the risk factors. Furthermore, at least at our university, we see participation in research as part of learning about the research process. When students participate in studies that even they can see are poorly designed, they come to distrust the whole research process and its checks and balances. Most universities have a subject pool and if it is depleted by studies that end up in the trash can then not only have you wasted the subjects' time but you have denied good studies from being completed for lack of subjects. Finally, the researcher with the poor study lost the benefit of some constructive feedback, putting in tremendous effort and sometimes years of work into something that ends up in the trashcan. I have found, on every occasion when a weakness was pointed out in the methods, that the researcher was grateful for the extra set of eyes. And it was NEVER a matter of qualitative versus quantitative studies. It's all in one's attitude and experiences I guess, which is why I advocate for anyone with negative feelings towards IRBs to sit on one. It will be quite eye opening. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:25:57 -0500 >From: "Jim Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE:[tips] IRB >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > >Hi > >James M. Clark >Professor of Psychology >204-786-9757 >204-774-4134 Fax >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 14-Oct-07 12:15:43 PM >>> >On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Marc Carter went: > >> My major concern would be that the IRB is stepping into issues that >> don't concern it -- it's not the job of an IRB to meddle with issues >> of design that do not impact the rights and welfare of the >> participants. > >I'm on an IRB, and I side with the school of thought that says a badly >designed study is less ethical than a well-designed study because, as >the science deteriorates, the risk:benefit ratio approaches infinity. >So I have no problem with an IRB's dispensing scientific suggestions. >I see it as another layer of quality control, and I'm grateful if it >improves one of my own studies. > >JC: >I could not disagree more with David on this. > >First, once you allow an IRB to intrude into methodological questions, you >necessarily introduce the problem of different views about scholarship, >including anti-quantitative views among some advocates for qualitative >scholarship. You also open the door to any number of suggestions to "improve" >the proposed research (e.g., alternative measures, alternative methods, >different participants, ...). This is not the purpose of IRBs (assuming they >have a legitimate purpose ... see next point). > >Second, The "risk" value in David's ratio for the vast bulk of psychological >research is 0, if we properly define risk as the INCREASE in risk over and >above what participants face in their everyday lives. Hence, there is no risk >against which benefits must be measured. And benefits of course include >teaching benefits when students are involved ... is an instructor correcting >an error in design really as much of a learning experience as students going >through the entire data collection and analysis process, only then to discover >themselves the flaws in their research? > >David continues: >However, in cases like this, where the IRB apparently doesn't know >what it's talking about, I feel that there should be a mechanism >available for a smackdown (or, you know, an appeals process, to phrase >it more politely). The absence of such a mechanism was the subject of >a fascinatingly bitter little symposium at this year's APA >(presentation titles included "IRBs as Bioethical Industrial Waste for >Both Research and Society"). > >JC: >The absence of an appeals process is not the problem ... it is first the use >of IRBs themselves for areas of scholarship that involve no risk above that >met in participants' everyday lives, and second the extension of their powers >to non-ethics matters like method. The claim that the flaw is the appeals >process is like saying that the lack of an antidote is the problem when >someone is going around poisoning people. > >And just try to say, no matter how politely, that some post-modernist or >otherwise relativist faculty members from the humanities or social sciences >(occasionally including psychology) do not know what they are talking about! >Look for retorts including words and phrases like: eurocentric, hegemony, >alternative ways of knowing, and the like. One faculty member in psychology >has already been told by our IRB (different name here of course) to read some >book on rather dubious modes of so-called scholarship (I'm reluctant to use >the word "research") before re-submitting for approval. > >And if you were to use phrases like "doesn't know what it's talking about" >(although I agree entirely with David's depiction), then you might also expect >issues of respectful work environment to arise, another mechanism in academia >for the unwarranted protection of weak, weak, weak (did I say weak?) so-called >scholarship. > >Take care >Jim > > > >--- ---
