Qualitative Research and Institutional Review Boards

Although it is not their intention, institutional review boards (IRBs) often impede the conduct of studies that are not conventional and/or experimental designs. As a consequence, studies that are qualitative, participatory action research, action research, postmodern, and/or critical theorist in or...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Qualitative inquiry 2004-04, Vol.10 (2), p.219-234
Main Authors: Lincoln, Yvonna S., Tierney, William G.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic freedom
Academic profession
Biomedical models
Institutional review boards
Paradigms
Qualitative research
Regulation
Research methodology
Research methods
Review boards
Review bodies
Risk management
Social sciences research
Surveillance
U.S.A
USA
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Although it is not their intention, institutional review boards (IRBs) often impede the conduct of studies that are not conventional and/or experimental designs. As a consequence, studies that are qualitative, participatory action research, action research, postmodern, and/or critical theorist in orientation often undergo endless revisions as IRBs seek to make them appear more conventional. Among the reasons for this are lack of training in alternative epistemologies and/or paradigms for conducting research, lack of understanding the kinds of data that will be generated by these studies, and occasionally, prejudice on the part of members of the boards regarding what constitutes sound research. Several actual case studies are reported, and a variety of strategies for addressing IRBs’ concerns are proposed.
ISSN:1077-8004
1552-7565
DOI:10.1177/1077800403262361