Encountering Your IRB 2.0: What Political Scientists Need to Know

Abstract

This essay corrects and updates one that was originally published in Qualitative & Multi-Method Research and, in a condensed version, in three other APSA Organized Section newsletters. Our research into IRB policy has shown that many political scientists are not familiar with some of its key provisions. The intent of the essay is to increase awareness of the existing policy's impact on political scientific research and, in particular, on graduate students and junior faculty. We remain concerned that at present, faculty are leaving discussions of research ethics to IRBs (and their counterparts worldwide), whereas these Boards largely focus on complying with the regulatory details of governmental policy. Even though this essay seeks to clarify the latter, we remain convinced that research ethics ought to be vigorously taken up within disciplinary and departmental conversations. Authors' Note for the PS Edition

Ethics in Political Science Research

“…Second, there is a tension between ethical matters that transversally cross disciplines that are distant from each otherfor example, medical research vs. political studiesand ethical concerns that are instead specifically tied to research on politics. The challenge in this case is mostly related to the origins of ethical reviews policies, which are often rooted in the medical sciences (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2016). In certain countries, for instance, national ethics review boards are familiar with hard sciences ethical problems but less so with research projects in the social sciences that involve human subjects (Cunow and Desposato 2016).…”

Introduction

“…Even more discouraging is the recent effort by some IRBs to require of researchers not only the typical consent process for participants but also documented proof of approval from other gatekeepers—from community leaders to authoritarian regimes. Some IRBs are also requiring expert letters attesting to the cultural sensitivity of a researcher’s “protocol.” (On these latter features, see Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2016). And while there are federal policy “exemptions” for the sorts of methods social scientists use (surveys, interviews, observation), that term means exemption only from “full board review,” rather than all other forms of review.…”

Ethics of Field Experiments

“…Many of the articles reviewed here discuss IRBs and the failure of IRB criteria and processes to ensure that field experiments are ethical. This review assumes that readers have a basic familiarity with the history of human subjects research, the Belmont Report, IRBs, and the US "Common Rule" 45CFR46 [readers who do not should see Morton & Williams (2010) and Yanow & Schwartz-Shea (2016)].…”