Journal
JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 263-279Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1556264621992240
Keywords
Institutional Review Boards; Institutional Review Board-Researcher Assessment Tool; criminology and criminal justice research
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Research on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) has shown gaps in understanding how decisions are made for social science research, particularly in criminology and criminal justice. Results from a survey of members in these fields revealed challenges faced by researchers including delays, bias, and decisions prioritizing legal liability over ethical considerations. Recommendations for improving IRB protocols and addressing unique challenges in criminology and criminal justice have been discussed.
While research on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) has been conducted on issues ranging from quality, process, and effectiveness, gaps remain. Social science researchers have raised issues regarding decisions by IRBs applied to the social sciences based on biomedical research. To date, little is known about the experience of social scientists in criminology and criminal justice with IRBs and this research seeks to fill this gap. An online survey, including open- and closed-ended questions drawn from the validated IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool, was administered to members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology about their experiences with IRBs. Results revealed that researchers report experiencing challenges with their IRBs including timeline delays of their research, bias against their research, and decisions that protect legal liability rather than human subjects ethics. Recommendations for improving IRB reviews of protocols and challenges unique to criminology and criminal justice are discussed.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available