Abstract
University based academic Research Ethics Boards (REB) face the particularly difficult challenge of trying to achieve representation from a variety of disciplines, methodologies and research interests. Additionally, many are currently facing another decision – whether to have students as REB members or not. At Ryerson University, we are uniquely situated. Without a medical school in which an awareness of the research ethics review process might be grounded, our mainly social science and humanities REB must also educate and foster awareness of the ethics review process throughout the academic community. Our Board has had and continues to have students as active members. While there are challenges to having students as Board members, these are clearly outweighed by the advantages, for both the academic community and the future of ethically sound research in the social sciences and humanities. Moreover, the challenges are often based on misconceptions and can be easily overcome through increased education and understanding of the research ethics review process by the academic community at large. The purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the experiences, advantages and challenges of having students as REB members. The advantages of having students as REB members include the following: (1) Students are the proposed participants in many of our reviewed protocols and student members may illuminate unique issues of participation. (2) Students are active and highly engaged members of the REB. (3) Having students on the REB enhances awareness of research ethics within the University. (4) Student REB members have an opportunity to mentor other students and provide leadership for both undergraduate and graduate students. (5) Students are more vigorously recruited than faculty members and often apply for student positions with enthusiasm and preparation. (6) In creating an atmosphere of excellence in research, engaging students at the beginning of their research career will help in creating tomorrow’s leaders in research and research ethics. The challenges of having students as REB members include the following: (1) Faculty members may be uneasy regarding the prospect of students reviewing protocols. (2) Faculty members may be concerned about confidentiality and respect with students reviewing faculty research protocols. (3) There may be an increased burden for students who serve as members on an REB. (4) There is concern that students will offer less continuous service to the REB. (5) There is a common misconception that students do not have the experience to carry out ethical reviews. While there are challenges from faculty members and others regarding having students as REB members, these challenges are often based on misconceptions about the nature of the REB work and the ethics review process in general. These challenges are also often based on the misconception of the ethics review process as one of peer review and evaluation, instead of a community-based and inclusive process. Having student members is a long-term strategy for both overcoming the misconceptions of the REB as a “necessary evil” and for fostering an awareness of the imperative for ethically sound research in the social sciences and humanities.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brody, J. L., Gluck, J. P., & Aragon, A. S. (1997). Participants’ understanding of the process of psychological research: informed consent. Ethics and Behavior, 7(4), 285–298.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research involving Humans, 1998 (with 2000, 2002, 2005 amendments).
Chen, D. T. (2002). Curricular approaches to research ethics training for psychiatric investigators. Psychopharmacology, 171, 112–119.
Clark, C., & McCann, T. V. (2005). Researching students: an ethical dilemma. Nurse Researcher, 12(3), 42–51.
DeVries, R. G., & Forsberg, C. P. (2002). What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive? Accountability in Research, 9, 199–216.
Eisen, A., & Berry, R. M. (2002). The absent professor: why we don’t teach research ethics and what to do about it. American Journal of Bioethics, 2(4), 38–49.
Ferraro, F. R., Szigeti, E., Dawes, K. J., & Pan, S. (1999). A survey regarding the University of North Dakota institutional review board: data, attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Psychology, 133, 272–280.
Higginbottom, G. (2004). Ethical footprints: finding a way through the research process. Researcher, 13(2), 4–5.
Jeffers, B. R. (2005). Research environments that promote integrity. Nursing Research, 54(1), 63–69.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., Giacalone, R. A., & Bittick, R. M. (2004). The squeaky wheel approach to teaching ethics. Public Integrity, 6(3), 249–262.
Liddle, B. J., & Brazelton, E. W. (1996). Psychology faculty satisfaction and compliance with IRB procedures. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 18, 4–6.
Lynn, M. R., & Nelson, D. K. (2005). Common (mis)perceptions about IRB review of human subjects research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 16(3), 264–270.
Malouff, J. M., & Schutte, N. S. (2005). Academic psychologists’ perspectives on the human research ethics review process. Australian Psychologist, 40(1), 57–62.
Mastroianni, A. C., & Kahn, J. P. (1998). The importance of expanding current training in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 73(12), 1249–1254.
Sengupta, S., & Lo, B. (2003). The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and non-scientist members of institutional review boards. Academic Medicine, 78(2), 212–218.
Vawter, D. E., Gervais, K. G., & Freeman, T. B. (2004). Strategies for achieving high-quality IRB review. American Journal of Bioethics, 4(3), 74–76.
While, A. E. (1995). Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards? British Medical Journal, 311, 661.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walton, N.A., Karabanow, A.G. & Saleh, J. Students as Members of University-based Academic Research Ethics Boards: A Natural Evolution. J Acad Ethics 6, 117–127 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9059-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9059-7