Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Students as Members of University-based Academic Research Ethics Boards: A Natural Evolution

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., & McCann, T. V. (2005). Researching students: an ethical dilemma. Nurse Researcher, 12(3), 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbottom, G. (2004). Ethical footprints: finding a way through the research process. Researcher, 13(2), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffers, B. R. (2005). Research environments that promote integrity. Nursing Research, 54(1), 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurkiewicz, C. L., Giacalone, R. A., & Bittick, R. M. (2004). The squeaky wheel approach to teaching ethics. Public Integrity, 6(3), 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M. R., & Nelson, D. K. (2005). Common (mis)perceptions about IRB review of human subjects research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 16(3), 264–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malouff, J. M., & Schutte, N. S. (2005). Academic psychologists’ perspectives on the human research ethics review process. Australian Psychologist, 40(1), 57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • While, A. E. (1995). Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards? British Medical Journal, 311, 661.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy A. Walton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9059-7

Keywords

Navigation