Enhancing Academic Quality and Collegial Control: Insights from US Policy on the Ethical Conduct of Human Subjects’ Research

Original Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Government initiatives and regulations intended to assure academic quality have been implemented in many countries over the last 25 years. Because of reservations about the effectiveness of these externally oriented policies, they have undergone continual change and adaptation. A number of countries are now experimenting with internally oriented policies focusing on the reform or “enhancement” of a university’s own collegial processes for assuring academic quality in teaching and student learning. During these same years many developed countries also implemented national policies regulating human subjects’ research within their universities. What might be learned from the experience with national policies on human subjects’ research that could help inform the design of more effective national policies intended to improve and enhance the quality of education within universities? This question is explored through an analysis of the development of US policy on human subjects’ research as well as its implementation and impacts at a major American research university.

Keywords

academic quality assurance university policy higher education policy human subjects’ research policy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Professors Maarja Beerkens, Larry Churchill, Mary Henkel, James Kehoe, Douglas MacKay, Daniel Nelson, John Nelson, and Dr. Elizabeth Kipp Campbell as well as two anonymous journal reviewers for their advice on the development of this paper. I remain solely responsible for the arguments presented.

References

  1. Abbott, L. and Grady, C. (2011) ‘A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn’, Journal Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 6(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annas, G.J. and Grodin, M.A. (1992) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code: human rights in human experimentation, New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Boring, A., Ottoboni, K. and Stark, P.B. (2016) ‘Teaching evaluations (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness’, Science Open  https://doi.org/10.14293/s2199-1006.1.sor-edu.aetbzc.v1, accessed 23 October 2017.
  4. Bowen, W.G. (2016) ‘Issues facing major research universities at a time of stress and opportunity’,  https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.278053, accessed 23 October 2017.
  5. Bowen, W.G., Chingos, M.M., Lack, K.A. and Nygren, T.I. (2014) ‘Interactive learning online at public universities: evidence from a six-campus randomized trial’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33(1): 94–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowen, W.G. and Tobin, E.M. (2015) Locus of authority: the evolution of faculty roles in the governance of higher education, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braxton, J.M. and Bayer, A.E. (1999) Faculty misconduct in collegiate teaching, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J., Kurzweil, M. and Pritchett, W. (2017) ‘Quality assurance in U.S. higher education: the current landscape and principles for reform’, Ithaka S + R  https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.303620, accessed 23 October 2017.
  9. Carroll, K., Dickson, L. and Ruseski, J. (2012) ‘Do faculty matter? effects of faculty participation in university decisions’, http://economics.umbc.edu/working-papers/#2013, accessed 23 October 2017.
  10. Coglianese, C. and Mendelson, E. (2010) ‘Meta-regulation and self-regulation’ in M. Cave, R. Baldwin, and M. Lodge (eds.) The Oxford handbook on regulation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 146–168.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, I.G. and Lynch, H.F. (2015) Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cummings, W.K. (2010) ‘Teaching versus research in the contemporary academy’, Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) International Seminar Reports No.15, http://rihejoho.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/pub_en/seminar_en.html, accessed 23 October 2017.
  13. Daniel, J.S. (2016) Advisory Statement for Effective International Practice. Combatting Corruption and Enhancing Integrity: A Contemporary Challenge for the Quality and Credibility of Higher Education, https://www.chea.org/userfiles/PDFs/advisory-statement-unesco-iiep.pdf, accessed 10/23/2017.
  14. Dill, D.D. (2014) ‘Academic governance in the US: implications of a ‘commons’ perspective’, in M. Shattock (ed.) International trends in university governance: autonomy, self-government and the distribution of authority, Oxford, UK: Routledge, pp. 165–183.Google Scholar
  15. Dill, D.D. and Beerkens, M. (2013) ‘Designing the framework conditions for assuring academic standards: lessons learned about professional, market, and government regulation of academic quality’, Higher Education 65(3): 341–357. Academies Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation (2017) Principles of teaching and learning, https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/principles/, accessed 23 October 2017.
  17. Emanuel, E.J., Wendler, D. and Grady, C. (2000) ‘What makes clinical research ethical?’, Journal of the American Medical Association 283(20): 2701–2711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ganseuer, C. and Pistor, P. (2016) From tools to a system: the effects of internal quality assurance at the university of Duisburg-Essen, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/our-expertise/governance-quality-assurance, accessed 23 October 2017.
  19. Grendel, T. and Rosenbusch, C. (2010) ‘System accreditation’, Higher Education Management and Policy 22(1), pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gunsalus, C.K., Bruner, E.M., Burbules, N.C, Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldberg, J.P., Greenough, W.T., Miller, G.A. and Pratt, M.G. (2006) ‘Mission creep in the IRB world’, Science 312(5779): 1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Higher Education Academy (2017) Supporting your teaching practice and career development, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/individuals, accessed 23 October 2017.
  22. Hopbach, A. (2014) ‘Recent trends in quality assurance? Observations from the agencies’ perspective’, in M. J. Rosa and A. Amaral (eds.) Quality assurance in higher education: contemporary debates, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnes, J. (2016) ‘Performance indicators and rankings in higher education’, in R. Barnett, P. Temple, and P. Scott (eds.) Valuing higher education, London: UCL IOE Press, pp. 77–105.Google Scholar
  24. King, R. (2009) Governing universities globally: organizations, regulation and rankings, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lazega E. (2001) The collegial phenomenon: the social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lazega E. (2005) ‘The theory of collegiality and its relevance for understanding professions and knowledge intensive organizations’, in T. Klatetzki und V. Tacke (eds.) Organisation und profession, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 221–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Massy, W.F. (2016) Reengineering the university, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  28. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral research (1979) Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (Belmont Report), http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/, accessed 23 October 2017.
  29. Nelson, D. (2014) ‘Looking back and looking ahead: reflections on 20 years in the IRB business’, Paper presented at Research Ethics Grand Rounds, April 17, 2014, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  30. Office for Human Research Protections (2017) International compilation of human research standards, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/compilation-human-research-standards/index.html#, accessed 23 October 2017.
  31. Ostrom, E. (2000) ‘Collective action and the evolution of social norms’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3): 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostrom, E. (2010) ‘Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems’, American Economic Review 100(3): 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paradeise, C. and Thoenig, J.-C. (2015) In search of academic quality, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shavelson, R.J. (2010) Measuring college learning responsibly: accountability in a new era, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Stark, L. (2012) Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Stark, P.B., and Freishtat, R. (2014) ‘An evaluation of course valuations’, Science Open  https://doi.org/10.14293/s2199-1006; 1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1, accessed 23 October 2017.
  37. Tapper, T. and Palfreyman, D. (2010) The collegial tradition in the age of mass higher education, Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2017) Human research protection program: standard operating procedures, https://research.unc.edu/files/2017/05/SOP-June-2-2017-bookmarked-and-TOC-links.pdf, accessed 23 October 2017.
  39. Van Vught, F.A. and Ziegele, F. (2012) Multidimensional ranking: the design and development of U-Multirank, Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams, J. and Harvey, L. (2015) ‘Quality assurance in higher education’, in J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. D. Dill, and M. Souto-Otero (eds.) The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance, London: Palgrave, pp. 506–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. World Medical Association (1964) Declaration of Helsinkiethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/, accessed 23 October 2017.

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public PolicyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations