Department of Criminal Justice, 7283Seattle University, USA.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021 Jul;16(3):263-279. doi: 10.1177/1556264621992240. Epub 2021 Mar 9.
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 and the 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.
虽然对机构审查委员会(IRBs)的研究已经涉及到质量、流程和效果等问题,但仍存在差距。社会科学研究人员就 IRB 基于生物医学研究对社会科学做出的决定提出了一些问题。迄今为止,人们对犯罪学和刑事司法领域的社会科学家在 IRB 方面的经验知之甚少,本研究旨在填补这一空白。一项在线调查,包括从经过验证的 IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool 中提取的开放式和封闭式问题,针对 和 的成员进行了有关他们与 IRB 合作的经验的调查。结果表明,研究人员报告说,他们在与 IRB 的合作中遇到了挑战,包括研究时间的延迟、对他们的研究的偏见,以及做出的决策是保护法律责任而不是保护人类受试者的伦理。讨论了改进 IRB 对方案的审查以及犯罪学和刑事司法特有的挑战的建议。