Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

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.

Automated summary

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.