Mentoring student research is a highly rewarding experience, especially when the project can then be shared at a science fair, conference, or through publication. However, engaging in the IRB process can be daunting, especially for students. Here are a few words of advice for faculty mentors and their student researchers when navigating the IRB.
Scope
First, projects that do not yield generalizable data or projects that are educational in nature — their purpose is to teach the research process — may not be subject to review. Likewise, certain course projects whose results are intended for dissemination might be eligible for blanket approval. If you are unsure whether the student research you supervise is subject to IRB review or if blanket approval is available, check with your IRB chair or compliance officer beforehand.
Theory
Prior to submitting a protocol that involves students as researchers, provide an overview on the history and purpose of ethics review boards and establishment of IRBs in addition to how your institution’s committee operates; this helps set the context for psychology student researchers and gives them an idea of what to expect. Though many will have learned about ethical considerations in Milgram’s, Asch’s and Zimbardo’s famous studies, they may not be familiar with the Nuremberg Code or how the local IRB operates. If you are teaching a research methods course or working with several students, arrange a group visit with the compliance officer or IRB chair.
Preparation
IRBs welcome projects in which students are the principal investigators (PIs), but mentors need to prepare students in advance of protocol submission to avoid unnecessary delays and frustration. Students who submit directly to the IRB gain a better understanding of the procedures, ethical concerns and view it as an educational process (Kallgren & Tauber, 1996), but busy volunteer reviewers do not have time to do the mentor’s work. Share the resources provided by the IRB with students. Typically, boards will supply templates and checklists for informed consents, site permissions and other documents. Many will also provide a copy of their guidelines or operations and procedures manual to researchers. At my institution, we regularly produce and update a frequently asked questions sheet, distributed each fall.
Online data
Researchers are increasingly turning to online data collection through social media, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. If this is the case, describe online data collection settings in detail and ensure students understand any limitations to promises of confidentiality or anonymity of participants. Many researchers claim data will be collected voluntarily and anonymously but their description of data collection methods may not support this. For example, surveys with forced-response validation or questions that lack a "prefer not to answer" option are not truly voluntary. Additionally, Internet Protocol addresses may convey information about the location of a respondent. Baker (2012) provides a thorough overview of considerations on IRBs and electronic surveys and the online survey platform SurveyMonkey includes recommendations for conducting IRB-compatible research on its website.
Accuracy
Show students how to accurately address risks and benefits. Inexperienced researchers regularly overlook the risks and overstate the benefits. If the proposal claims no risk, this suggests to reviewers that the researchers have not given the study serious consideration. One may state ‘no known risk,’ but even this should be explained. Furthermore, if researchers do not expect participants to benefit from the study, say so; the benefits may not be to the individuals, but to the field of psychological inquiry. Whether students are researchers or the subjects of research, they should have a clear understanding of the impact of the research on participants as well as associated risks.
Conflicts
If you are a researcher and include students who are currently enrolled in your classes, be forthcoming and cognizant of potential conflicts. Students may feel pressure to participate in their own professor’s studies, particularly when the professor announces that he/she needs to increase their sample size or if students are receiving credit as part of a course requirement. We require students taking general psychology to complete a research experience component, and, though an alternative to research is provided, a large majority opt for direct research participation. To mitigate any perceived or unintentional coercion to participate, it is recommended that well-trained student research assistants engage in the subject recruitment and data collection process, and that data be de-identified prior to analysis by the professor (Ferguson, Myrick & Yonge, 2006). Bradbury-Jones and Alcock (2010) present a useful framework for ethically involving nursing students in research that applies to students of psychology, too.
Access
If students are listed as the PIs, be sure they include details of the faculty mentor on their application to the IRB. If using an online portal, many committees will require the mentor to have access or sign off before application submission. Portal access allows the mentor to confirm accurate completion and inclusion of requisite documents, including any training certificates. Also important is to ensure the mentor will have access to the raw data collected in the study. Not only is this vital for potential verification purposes, but students may quit or graduate before the project ends; the mentor will then be left to complete the project or will be the corresponding author on any resulting publications.
Attitude
Finally, remember that faculty comments about the IRB rub off on students. If students hear their mentors complaining or making negative statements about the tedious, overreaching, time-consuming and unnecessary tasks involved in the IRB approval process, they will not look forward to their first experience with this ethics board. Both faculty and student researchers will experience frustration at times, but many benefits come out of IRB scrutiny — for the research subjects, the researchers and the research methods (Brinthaupt, 2002). I recommend preparing for problems, but focusing on the positives.
Resources
- The Nuremberg Codeopens in new window (PDF, 3.70MB)
- SurveyMonkey and IRB Guidelinesopens in new window
References
Baker, T. D. (2012). Confidentiality and electronic surveys: How IRBs address ethical and technical issues. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 34(5), 8-15.
Bradbury-Jones, C., & Alcock, J. (2010). Nursing students as research participants: A framework for ethical practice. Nurse Education Today, 30, 192-196. doi. 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.07.013.
Brinthaupt, T.M. (2002). Teaching research ethics: Illustrating the nature of the researcher-IRB relationship. Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 243-245.
Ferguson, L.M., Myrick, F., & Yonge, O. (2006). Ethically involving students in faculty research. Nurse Education Today, 26, 705-711.
Kallgren, C.A., & Tauber, R.T. (1996). Undergraduate research and the Institutional Review Board: A mismatch or happy marriage? Teaching of Psychology, 23(1), 20-25.
About the author
Amy R. Pearce is a professor of psychology at Arkansas State University. She earned her PhD in neuroscience from the Australian National University along with a certificate in science communication. Pearce teaches courses in neuroscience, statistics, physiological psychology, general psychology, and motivation and actively engages students in all stages of the research process. She is a founder and director of the Arkansas Science Festival and has been a member of her university’s Institutional Review Board for over a decade, serving as chair for three years.
