I totally agree (I was an IRB member for years). BUT for an IRB to suggest changing a sound research design into one with a truly confounding variable is simply inexusable. There be some requirement of minimal expertise in research design and legal issues (we had a lawyer on the IRB I sat on).
On Oct 15, 2007, at 8:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> --- > > --- > > ======================================================== Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 "Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran up the trunk of a small elephant" (S. S. Stevens, 1958) ---
