Institutional Review Boards: Perspectives from the United States
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the U.S., all research must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that evaluates research protocols for the purpose of protecting human subjects. This paper includes a brief history of the development of public policy that guides institutional review boards in the U.S. and commentary on the responsibilities of a grounded theory researcher interested in applying for approval for a research study.
An institutional review board (IRB) is a formally constituted committee that approves and monitors biomedical and behavioural research with the purpose of protecting the rights and welfare of research participants. An IRB performs scientific, ethical, and regulatory oversight functions. In the U.S., it is common for grounded theorists to experience frustration with the IRB protocol submission process. Facets of the application process may seem rigid, redundant, and non-applicable. Review board members may not seem to understand or appreciate qualitative methods and delays are common. In addition, a conglomeration of disparate policies and procedures coupled with a variety of types of review boards creates a system that defies description. Nevertheless, a researcher who understands public policy and the responsibilities of institutional review boards can learn to develop research applications that are quickly approved.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Burkhardt, M., & Nathaniel, A. K. (2008). Ethics & issues in contemporary nursing (3rd ed.). Clifton Park, NY:Delmar.
First Clinical Research. (2010). Clinical Research Milestones. Retrieved 9-24-2010, 2010, from http://firstclinical.com/milestones/?page=9&date=All&anchor=word
Institutional Review Boards of 2010, 21 U.S.C § 56.
Jones, J. (1981). Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment: A tragedy of racce and medicine . New York, NY: The FreePress.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research .
Nuremberg Code. (October 1946 - April 1949) Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (Vol.2, pp. 181-182): U. S. Government Printing Office.
Shuster, E. (1997). Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine, 337 (20), 1436-1440. Sparks, J. (2002). Timeline of laws related to the protection of human subjects . Bethesda, MD: Retrieved from http://history.nih.gov/about/timelines_laws_human.html#1966.
Tuskegee University. Research ethics: The Tuskegee syphilis study Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.tuskegee.edu/global/story.asp?s=1207598
U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee Retrieved October 18, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm
Health insurance reform: Security standards of 2002, 45 U.S.C. § 160, 162, 164, Federal Register 68(34).
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information: Final rule of 2002, 45 U.S.C § 160 and 164, Federal Register 67(157)
Protection of Human Subjects rev. 2009, 45 U.S.C. § 46 (Government Printing Office 2009).
World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical reseasrch involving human subjects.
Glaser, B.G. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (Ed.). (1995). Grounded theory, 1984 - 1994 (Vols. 1-2). Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. (2008). Doing quantitati ve grounded theory . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G. (2009). Jargonizing: Using the grounded theory vocabulary . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualita tive research . New York: Aldine.