So I just went through a learner-directed "automated" study of six online modules related to human subjects review. There weren't pre- or post- tests per se, but this blog entry may serve as a kind of post-test. (Let's just say I pass.) While the heading for this blog is playful, the contents of IRB trainings are not, often opening with painful reviews of historical abuses of people in various types of biomedical and other "research." The nuances of acceptability of research may vary. Vulnerable populations cannot be exploited. Participants have a right to informed consent. Duplicity may only be used in very rare research circumstances. All research, once a file has been opened on it, continues under IRB oversight. Any anomalies or concerns need to be addressed. For online surveys, given the ability to track information, evokes greater concerns now than in the past. As many have noted, the moment information has been collected, it may be misused in various ways. Information hunters - in their various incarnations - can get highly creative in terms of getting and using databases for marketing, information, and policy ends. The IRB first verifies that what it's examining is research and that it falls within their purview. If some research is found "exempt," then they give it its blessing, and the work may then commence. They may suggest mitigations to a research design. The point of the IRB, foremost, is to prevent harm to participants in the research. They put various sets of eyes on the design and information collection and play out liabilities. Other goals may include heading off legal liabilities, bad public relations, and poor research designs. Indeed, universities take on a fair amount of responsibilities with their numerous grant dollars and public trust. The publication element adds more concerns to IRBs in the sense that with more eyes on project, there's a greater chance for outcries.

I learned a few things with my self-directed learning (via slideshows). First, an individual who partners with another campus needs to be assured that that campus follows federal guidelines on human subjects research. A person may agree to do a small piece of the research without understanding the larger pieces and may end up linking their own reputations and the university with a project that may involve negative outcomes. (I assume that grant evaluators, colleagues and others will be providing oversight and critical thinking to a degree. At the ID level, unless one is a PI, one seldom sees the originating grant - and so has little input on ground level. One is brought in later once funding has been approved and commences.)

The other big thing I learned was that interviews themselves need to be vetted by the IRB. Questions may be leading. Researchers may pose questions that may lead to respondent self-incrimination, such as asking under-age respondents about their drug or alcohol consumption (as an example one of the staff gave me).

It seems wise to not trundle blindly into a research situation without the full protections of information and IRB cover. The more informed eyes-on-project, the better the results oftentimes. It takes a kind of finesse to use IRBs and spices in proper measure.