Mauricio,
I see you're working in the US, in Cinci. Your institution's IRB office probably has a provision allowing for an "expedited IRB." If you are not doing anything with the human subjects that could be physically, psychologically, or emotionally invasive, then an expedited IRB would likely be a fast and easy way to meet this obligation.
I don't know of course who's telling you that you shouldn't submit your study protocol to UC's internal review board. That's bad advice, and it can lead you into serious trouble. We don't have a choice when it comes to IRB. If you're working with human subjects, you must file for an IRB-it's US federal law. This issue is particularly sensitive in the US, given events such as experiments performed on African American soldiers (without their knowledge of the content of those experiments or their consent) at Tuskegee-the oft cited tragedy in informed consent literature. More recently, experiments involving gene therapies have heightened concerns and have caused research hospitals and universities to impose stricter IRB standards. So there's no debate as to whether or not we have a choice: designers or not, we have to apply for and receive institutional review board approval before working with human subjects. And if there's more than one institution involved, then each institution's IRB has to approve the study protocol. If you are doing something, like usability studies, that you know you'll have to do repeatedly and that will not vary significantly from test to test, then you can apply for a blanket IRB to cover not just one experiment but all such studies, usually for a period up to one year. Then you can apply for a renewal in 12 mos, if needed.
One complaint I often here, and it's legitimate, is that the review boards are often comprised of people who know very little about qualitative research and who in some cases even hold a bias against anything outside a conventional quantitative study, randomized trial, or a rigorous mixed methods approach. Ironically, low-impact, non-invasive studies like carefully constructed interview protocols can be the hardest for which to receive approval. This is frustrating, but the problem is with those particular boards and not with the concept of IRBs. Chances are if a researcher doesn't have something he or she can bring before an IRB, then that PI probably doesn't have a decent informed consent document/process prepared either. And that means the researcher may not be informing his or her participants fully, which in turn could make the research ethically suspect not to mention inconsiderate of or even deeply irresponsible.
Finally, if we're really designing with the "user" in mind, then why would any of us object to taking all due measures to protect and respect our research participants?
Best,
Michael
--
Michael Schmidt, Director
Center for Multimedia Arts
The University of Memphis
FedEx Institute of Technology Bldg
365 Innovation Dr, Ste 335
Phone/fax: 901-678-1777
iChat: [log in to unmask]
Skype: vizthnkr
---
Dear list members,
I am a graduate student and I did a research for my master's thesis observing the interaction between human subjects and design objects. I got IRB protocol approval (ethics protocol for research with human subjects). I've heard that some think that we design researchers shouldn't request that because we are looking at the interaction not at the human behavior. I ask for your opinions about whether or not design researchers should request IRB protocol approvals.
Best,
G. Mauricio Mejía
Assistant professor Universidad de Caldas, Colombia
Master of Design student University of Cincinnati, USA
http://mejia.disenovisual.com
|