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
Research involving human subjects must be carefully designed and held to high ethical standards. Modern history shows us that there is a need for formal oversight of research. Notoriously, Nazi “scientists” performed psychopathic, genocidal experiments on Holocaust prisoners. Decades later, Stanley Milgram conducted research on obedience that involved a research participant delivering levels of electric “shock” to what appeared to be another, innocent research participant. Tragedies and criticized methodologies such as these resulted in a series of research reforms in the 20th Century: the Nuremberg Codes; the Helsinki Declaration (1964); the Belmont Report (1979); and the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (1991). While the early reforms started to formulate the idea of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) for research, the later (1991) clearly delineated United States (US) federal policy towards them. The US government requires IRB review of human subject research and maintains the right to withhold funding from any research institution that does not follow proper protocol. As a result, most institutional IRBs favor positivist research, as they believe it to be regulatorily “safe.”
On the contrary, the characteristics of action research come into conflict with IRBs. Because action research is collaborative and open-ended, IRBs fear a lack of control in the research process. Furthermore, action research does not begin with formalized hypotheses or methodologies, and IRBs are uncomfortable with this uncertainty. Yet, action research is a scientific endeavor and a critical catalyst of timely, social change. Therefore, there is a need for IRBs and action researchers to work together. Through collaborative strategies, IRBs and action researchers can reduce critical issues and achieve shared goals. Action research can continue to advance humanity, and humans involved in action research will be respected and protected.
Critical issues to address are: “predictability, risk, confidentiality, and coercion.” First, action research is not predictable because control is released from the researcher and given to the participants. The article recommends developing better informed consent procedures. These procedures should make participants fully aware that their normal actions are part of a research process. Second, action research often involves sensitive subjects and marginalized populations. Allowing one’s actions to become part of a research study can be risky for these groups. For example, a political regime might seek vengeance for negative exposure in research. Furthermore, IRB consent forms are formalized and robotic, sometimes masking the risk involved in research participation. The article recommends that consent forms become a collaborative process between IRBs and action researchers. Participants will then be protected with more genuine and transparent language surrounding risk and consent. Third, IRBs default to strict participant confidentiality. Yet, because action research is a collaborative process, it is recommended that participants have a say in what is shared. Action researchers and IRBs should work together to determine the best way to describe participant contributions in the research process. Finally, coercion deals with pressure to participate in research. This can be more of an issue in action research, as often the researcher and the participants have a prior relationship. The article suggests involving a third party in the consent process and reflecting on the “power and privilege” dynamic throughout the process. In summary, with increased collaboration between action researchers and IRBs surrounding these four critical issues, ethical standards can be upheld.
Of the many issues discussed in this article, the one I found most notable fell under the critical issue of “risk.” IRBs fear uncertainty. Naturally, any institution would tread carefully under the threat of a lawsuit or the loss of federal funding. Because action research is perceived as more risky and less certain than traditional research, it takes much longer to approve and is more often rejected. With that in mind, many researchers are dissuaded from pursuing projects that examine the most sensitive, arguably most important, topics. The article gives an example of a dissertation researcher who wanted to study HIV positive teenagers but fell back on studying the perceptions of adults towards these teenagers. One cannot fault this researcher for wanting to complete her dissertation without years of IRB push-back, yet the youth most affected by this issue were “silenced.” If I pursue a Phd. at some future time, this would be a serious consideration for my research. When it comes to major social changes, it’s easy to “talk the talk” but much harder to “walk the walk.” Years of your professional career are at stake, and it would be emotionally taxing on your personal life. I wonder how others in my group my feel about this situation? Is this an issue that can be fixed by collaboration between action researchers and IRBs, or do larger governmental reforms need to happen first?
Rachel, thank you for your lead blog. I encourage other group members – as part of your blog – will respond to the question Rachel asks.
Erik
Rachel, thanks for the summary of the article. You raised an important question at the end. As I read the article, it seemed that they were largely arguing that the problems could be dealt with by the researchers and IRBs. I don’t quite understand how much room the IRBs have to work with, and at what point federal funding is taken away. I was also interested in the fact that the IRB review is only relevant to turning action “into research for presentation or publication.” Because action research is not usually generalizable, how significant is it that actions are formally researched for publication?
Rachel, Thank you for your post. You did a great job summarizing the article and pulling out key points. I thought the same thing as I read this article and discussed action research and IRBs in class. Is it worth all the push back? On one hand I want to say if I was passionate about topic I would follow through but realistically, If I was to pursue my Phd. I believe I would most likely pick a topic that would not receive as much push back. I am not sure the correct way to go about fixing it, but I do believe that first the researchers and IRBs should collaborate and have a better understanding of each project. Maybe there needs to be more face to face meetings? I think if there small changes made and the issue is not “fixed” then I do believe this needs to be looked at at a larger scale. However, at the end of the day IRBs are trying to protect and many times in Education the subjects are children and it is vital that we do not harm them in research.
Rachel, the issues addressed in the article review are incredibly multi-faceted and complex. I am glad you started your response by bringing up the reality of the horrifying history of research on human participants. I think it is impossible to have this discussion about the role of the IRB and the roadblocks it puts on researchers without keeping the past in mind. There is a reason the IRB exists, and it exits for an extremely good and important reason. That being said, I honestly do not know what the answer is to the important question you posed is. My obvious hope is that researchers select topics that need the most attention, and from there work with the IRB to make it happen, instead of perhaps only selecting topics that seem “most IRB” appropriate. But I agree, perhaps this is idealistic and happening less than we know. If it is, it highlights a serious problem in research that perhaps needs to be researched in itself!
Rachel, first of all I believe you did a great job thoroughly summarizing the article. However, more importantly, I really appreciate the point you brought up and your willingness to ask us all a very important question. Like you said, I want to say that I would “walk the walk”, but at the same time with the realities of life I can’t say for certain that I would. The reason I, and I believe so many of us, became a teacher was to make a lasting impact on the lives of children. I do believe that action research is one great way to do this, but I also realize the potential risks that are involved. I think often times people want to take the easy way out, but this forfeits the positive change that could be made. Furthermore, I think the IRB often gets a bad rap because of the lengthy and involved process that can seem to last forever. As you and Samantha made clear however, we must remember the reason for this. When we consider it all from the right perspective, we should be grateful that IRBs are so thorough and that there are so many laws in place to protect people. As a couple others stated, I also do not know the best way of resolving the issues between action researchers and the IRB. As the article suggested, I think it should at least start with open communication between the two parties. They should meet face to face, and if necessary have a mediator present. They should also actively listen to what each other has to say before making their response. It may need to be taken higher, but if the researchers really care about their topic (and target population) and the IRB is truly committed to protecting people they should be willing to work together first and foremost.