Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Institutional review boards and educational research

2011; Wiley; Volume: 39; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/bmb.20500

1539-3429

Laura Lowe Furge,

Educational Assessment and Improvement

When you hear of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), scenes of clinical trials gone bad or unethical medical procedures may come to mind. Indeed, the earliest origins of IRBs came from unethical medical treatment of Nazi prisoners, Tuskegee syphilis study participants, mental health patients at New York's Willowbrook State School, and others that led to standards in research with human subjects outlined in the Nuremburg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report. The latest headlines of breeches of ethical conduct with research involving human subjects have included the use of DNA samples from Havasupai Native American tribe in Arizona without proper consent [1] and the recently uncovered story of Guatemalans exposed to syphilis by US government researchers in 1946 [2]. The story of Henrietta Lacks and her family has also come to recent headlines as a New York Times Bestseller focusing on questions of ethical treatment of human subjects and their families [3]. However, IRBs do much more than ensure ethical treatment of human subjects in medical studies—they aim to ensure ethical treatment of human subjects in all types of research, from medical to psychological to educational research. Study participants have a right to know that they are being used for research and the nature of the research study when an investigator is conducting research that depends on “intervention or interaction with the individual, or identifiable private information” [4]. The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) defines research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” [4]. Research, as described above, would include collection of information such as an opinion or response to teaching/learning activities that are being developed to increase understanding of effective teaching pedagogies, for example, and participants should freely give consent to use of this information for research and investigation purposes. Those in educational research should become familiar with the IRB (or the equivalent for those outside the US) of their institution and be sure to follow guidelines set by their institution for research with human subjects. Indeed, in the US institutions receiving federal research money must comply with federal law relating to ethical treatment of human subjects, which means IRB review. Research journals require authors to provide statement of compliance with IRB guidelines (and thus, federal guidelines for research with human subjects) and educational journals also have a responsibility in this area. As an example, the journal Family Medicine publishes many articles relating to medical education research in addition to clinical research studies. The editors of that journal realized that ∼90% of the articles being submitted relating to medical education did not receive IRB review, whereas ∼90% of the clinical papers did. This prompted the editors to articulate a formal policy statement regarding IRB review of educational research [5] and to provide a very concise and informational article on educational research and IRB [6]. Miser's [6] article includes tables that clearly outline the Belmont Principles for ethical treatment of human subjects as well as highly useful brief tables of IRB review procedures and considerations for educational research and is a must read for those involved in educational research. Both articles are highly recommended and available free as a PDF on the Internet and are thus not summarized in this commentary. There are several excellent resources available for designing educational research that fulfills criteria for ethical treatment of human subjects. Hatch and Seidman [7, 8] have published books on qualitative educational research that include chapters on working with IRB in designing studies. The information provided in these book chapters not only helps educational researchers to meet the requirements of IRB review and informed consent but also aids in design of effective educational studies. Finally, if your institution does not have an IRB, there are resources available with instructions and examples on how to develop an IRB [9]. In fact, when IRB was developed on my campus (a small undergraduate institution), we were able to find great resources from colleagues at other campuses that allowed us to adopt and adapt policy manuals, forms, and training materials that already existed. This cooperation accelerated development of our IRB to a fully functional committee within the first year of its conception. Otherwise, there are also “contract” IRBs that are available as well. Training for research with human subjects is also available from the National Institutes of Health [10]. Using an IRB is not difficult, although does require advance planning. As scholars, those in educational research must become familiar with and users of IRB. Indeed, the Author Guidelines for this journal state that “contributors are expected to conform to generally accepted international standards of animal and human experimentation and to provide evidence of institutional review and approval of animal and human experimental protocols.” While this article was in press, Science published a Policy Forum relating to research ethics and informed consent [Trinidad, et al. (2011) 331, 287]. This additional article reminds researchers that often a “blanket” consent can be inadequate and that to maintain trust with potential volunteers, researcher scientists in all fields must show diligent effort to gain informed consent.