Recent Posts
- Group 2 – Article 8: Fostering Inclusivity Through Teaching and Learning Action Research
- Group 1 – Article 8: Fostering Inclusivity Through Teaching and Learning Action Research
- Group 1 – Article 7: The Cyclical Process of Action Research
- Group 2 – Article 7: The Cyclical Process of Action Research
- Group 2 – Article 6: Critical Literacy for School Improvement: An Action Research Project
The purpose of this article is to address the concern of the human subject review process in relation to action research. All research involving human participants must be approved by the institutional review board (IRB) prior to the execution of the research. The historical events mentioned in the beginning of this article, such as: the Tuskegee syphillis study, Zimbardo’s prison study, and Milgram’s work on obedience, are all examples of research studies in which humans were exposed to extreme physical and psychological damage prove the necessity of institutional review boards.The duty of the IRB is to protect research participants by preventing research from physically and psychologically harming these persons in any way.
While action researchers have and continue to be in agreeance with the prevention of harm to participants, the issue is the current review process for human subjects and its applicableness to action research. The review process was implemented in alignment with conventional research, which is more systematic and researcher controlled. Therefore, researchers can explicitly state methods and expected outcomes for participants prior to the execution of the research study. Action research is much more open-ended and fluid in nature, which conflicts with the expected ability to state methodologies and expected outcomes prior to actually doing the research. This issue has created a threat towards action research, especially in universities. In order to receive funding for research, you must be approved by the IRB. Due to the inability to explicitly describe the the specifics of the research, many university IRB’s or completely banning action research. The authors of this article argue that this counteracts the duty of the IRB, since action researchers almost guarantee the ethical treatment of participants in comparison to conventional research. In other universities it has opened a door for conversation and understanding of action research by universities’ IRB’s.
Under the current review process there are four crucial issues: coercion, predictability, confidentiality, and risk that the author aims to address in regard to action research. As stated early, the issue that arises often is the unpredictability of action research. This is due to the control belonging to the participants rather than the researcher. It is difficult to attain permission for each practice implemented as the result of reflection, because the action research process moves fairly quick. Waiting for the IRB to approve each decision in regards to the participants would significantly hinder the process of action research. The solutions offered by the authors were to provide consent forms that stated the participants agree to participate in any actions decided by the researchers, appoint a IRB liaison that can be easily contacted and can affirm decided actions on the spot, or a combination of both. In regards to confidentiality, the question is raised of whether participants should have a say in the level of confidentiality used. Action research is basically controlled by the participants. This article offers the suggestion that participants should have the option of receiving credit by name for being a participant. The last issue addressed was coercion. This discussion was based on the researcher knowing whether participates did or do not feel pressured to participate in the research portion of action research, or the act of using the information gathered for formal and public research purposes.
One of the biggest concerns the authors addressed was that the issues presented in this article could potentially turn researchers away from even attempting to conduct action research. As an educator that firmly believes in action research as a tool to not only better my practice, but the lives of the students and humans in general, I find this disheartening. I agree with the authors that the IRB should reevaluate its review process for human subjects to make it more applicable to action research. Although it is implied that action researchers hold themselves to certain ethical standard, I also believe that as action researchers there should be a code of ethics or an ethical mandate of some sort due to uncontrollable nature of this type of research.
Charity, I also find it disheartening that some of the issues discussed in this article and the IRB process in general could turn away those who want to conduct research. Action research is specifically conducted for many reasons. One of these reasons is to seek truth – whether it involves a theory or common classroom practice. Just as the article indicated action research “projects do real good for real people” and it is the researchers job to serve as agents of social change. I would like to think the people or “agents” conducting this type of research and seeking truth (the good, the bad, and the ugly) should already have a strong ethical code. If not, it is important to ensure there is an ethical mandate because as Charity stated, there is an uncontrollable nature to action research that is not often present in traditional research methods.
Charity,
Are the IRB’s protecting the participants alone, are they also protecting the institution that the researcher is working for? I read the article as the IRB is protecting both. Conventional research is also more ‘mainstream’ or more similar to scientific research because of the step by step method that it follows and the lack of participatory action of the researcher. I agree that this lack of understanding leads to some IRB’s refusing to authorize action research, but don’t the other institutions that have ‘been shown the way’ only done so because someone has introduced them to the positive side of this type of research? This would lead me to believe that the educators that are part of that unwilling institution need to step up and show the IRB the ‘good side’. I think the idea that educators are shying away from action research has more to do with the hoops than the unwillingness to complete the research. While I to think about how disheartening it is that researchers don’t push forward with action research, it also lights a fire saying that more institutions need to be introduced to this process. The unpredictability goes with the territory of education. You have to be able to be flexible with children and education, you can teach the same way every single time, and as educators become more vocal, action research will become part of the mainstream research.
Charity,
Given that the current IRB is developed to provide guidance for conventional research, I find it baffling that there has not been a more concerted effort to include. I understand that action research can be considered a little bit more unpredictable due to is participant driven nature. It is almost if the IRB is indirectly advocating for conventional research. The article did make mention of how Cornell University had developed a process for reviewing action research. I wonder if you all feel that Cornell’s example could be replicated at other institutions? I think that the IRB should strongly look into this model to see how the process can evolve to be more accommodating to other forms of research
Thank you for the thoughts and reflections on the article. To answer Darrell’s question, I think the Cornell approach could be replicated with a local twist at each university. I think it is important that the people who would serve on an AR IRB at UR would have to include people who have done/do action research along with representation of students and schools.