criminal justice professionals’ knowledge of institutional

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcje20

Download by: [Youngstown State University], [Dr John Hazy] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 12:03

Journal of Criminal Justice Education

ISSN: 1051-1253 (Print) 1745-9117 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcje20

Criminal Justice Professionals’ Knowledge ofInstitutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Compliancewith IRB Protocol

Christine Tartaro & Marissa P. Levy

To cite this article: Christine Tartaro & Marissa P. Levy (2014) Criminal Justice Professionals’Knowledge of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Compliance with IRB Protocol, Journal ofCriminal Justice Education, 25:3, 321-341, DOI: 10.1080/10511253.2014.902982

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.902982

Published online: 16 Apr 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 134

View related articles

View Crossmark data

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcje20

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcje20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10511253.2014.902982

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.902982

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rcje20&page=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rcje20&page=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10511253.2014.902982

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10511253.2014.902982

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10511253.2014.902982&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-04-16

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10511253.2014.902982&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-04-16

Criminal Justice Professionals’ Knowledgeof Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) andCompliance with IRB Protocol

Christine Tartaro and Marissa P. Levy

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) perform an essential function in the pro-tection of human participants. A survey was conducted on Academy of Crim-inal Justice Sciences members to determine their perceptions of IRBs aswell as their knowledge of IRB principles and the extent to which they fol-low IRB protocol. Size of the researcher’s institution, number of researcharticles, number of years in active research, and number of external grantswere also studied in relation to knowledge of IRB guidelines and number ofIRB protocol infractions. Findings include significant correlations betweeninvolvement in research and engaging in research activities that are againstIRB rules.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States were created to reviewand monitor data collection involving human subjects. The impetus for the

development of these boards was compelling accounts of unethical behavior ofresearchers, some of which involved criminal justice populations. These events

helped to shape the policies on ethical considerations in research as well thetypes of research projects that come before present day IRBs. The purpose of

this research is to explore how well criminal justice researchers understandthe policies and procedures for IRB review including which types of studiesneed review and which level of review is appropriate. The researchers also

asked participants to self-report recent non-adherence to IRB protocol andtheir reasons for doing so. To probe the field of criminal justice, the research-

ers surveyed members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) togage their understanding of IRB rules and the extent of their compliance with

those rules.Early examples of unethical research in criminal justice can be found in the

records of medical experiments permitted to be performed inside of our pris-ons and jails. Oshinsky (1996) chronicled the abuses of the Mississippi PrisonSystem during the post-civil war period and described medical experiments

conducted on unwilling prison inmates in the early 1900s. Hornblum (1998)detailed the wide range of medical experiments, some of which led to organ

damage and other serious ailments, conducted in Holmesburg Prison in

� 2014 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 2014Vol. 25, No. 3, 321–341, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.902982

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.902982

Philadelphia between the 1950s and mid-1970s. The medical experiments con-ducted on inmates in Holmesburg received national attention in 1973 when

congress held hearings on human experimentation. Senator Edward Kennedyquestioned one of the former inmates incarcerated in Holmesburg at the time

of the experiments about the harm they and other inmates experienced andasked whether they had been informed of all of the risks. The gentlemanreplied that the informed consent documents were “like reading hieroglyphics”

for most of the men in the facility (Hornblum, 1998, p. 195). While the afore-mentioned studies involved medical experiments conducted using criminal jus-

tice populations, other less harmful but ethically questionable research hasbeen performed in the sociology, psychology, and criminal justice fields. Text-

books on criminal justice research methods commonly highlight the work ofMilgram (1963) in his Obedience to Authority experiment, Humphreys (1975) in

The Tearoom Trade and Zimbardo (2007) in The Stanford Prison Experiment asresearch that failed to properly consider the potential harm to participants.

While there was concern about protection of human participants in socialscience research, it was primarily the horror stories associated with unethicalmedical experiments inside and outside of correctional facilities that prompted

the federal government to act. In 1971, the US Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare (HEW, now HHS) laid out strict guidelines for obtaining

Informed Consent. In 1979, the Commission released the Belmont Report: Ethi-cal Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of

Research, Report of the National Commission for the Protection of HumanSubjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report explains

the need for research projects to contain three ethical principles to be upheldin research involving human participants: respect for persons (informed con-sent), beneficence (risk v benefit), and justice (selection of participants). In

1981, the Belmont Report was incorporated into regulations in the Departmentof Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration. In 1991,

the Common Rule (45CFR46, Subpart A), was created to codify the BasicHealth and Human Services Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects

(now called Human Research “Participants”) for any research that is conductedor supported by any Federal Department or Agency.

Current IRBs are required to approve research proposals only after takingcareful consideration of the ways in which participants will be treated follow-

ing the Belmont Report and Common Rule guidelines. These protocols wereestablished, in part, because of the inhumane treatment of participants inmedical and psychological research projects. However good intentioned, some

now argue that the IRB review process is complex, cumbersome, and oftenunnecessary. Compliance with IRBs does add to the length of the research pro-

cess, particularly when a full board review is required for a proposal. The IRBmay decide to reject the proposal or require changes to the protocol before

the research can begin. The required changes may have a significant impact onthe study’s design, and it could also provide additional work for the

investigators.

322 TARTARO AND LEVY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

In recent years, many institutions have increased their level of compliancewith the Common Rule and have subsequently become more stringent with the

proposals that are reviewed. Some, however, consider IRB requirements to beunnecessary and even vindictive, and claim that IRB members demonstrate a

lack of understanding about certain topics. Swauger (2011) recalled an incidentwhen an IRB mandated a consent requirement that might have proved moreharmful to the participants than what the investigator originally proposed.

Swauger was told that the only way researchers would be permitted to inter-view juveniles in foster care was if the researchers could obtain consent from

the biological parents first. The researchers resisted, arguing that it was uneth-ical to put consent in the hands of people who have been deemed by the

courts to be unfit to handle custody of their own children. Swauger concludedthat “The IRB’s commitment to fixed procedures and rules and its discourse

about the vulnerability of certain populations inadvertently blocks the abilityof scholars to represent girls’ voices …” (2011, p. 497).

Bledsoe et al. (2007) discussed challenges faced by social science research-ers at some schools. The researchers noted that many of the regulations devel-oped by the federal government and enforced by IRBs have their origins in

medical research, and the result is that restrictive policies meant to protectpatients from physical harm are applied to studies that do not include such

risks. The researchers argued that IRBs attempt to control research protocolshas resulted in an expanded mission, and colleges and universities have been

increasingly pre-emptive in trying to avoid non-compliance. The result, accord-ing to Bledsoe and colleagues, is that IRBs either deter faculty from attempting

certain research projects or that the IRB and researchers develop what theyreferred to as “consensual censorship.” Consensual censorship is defined asresearchers presenting the IRBs with proposals that meet the boards’ standards

but both the board and the researchers understand that the data collectionwill not be implemented in that exact manner. Bledsoe et al. summarized their

displeasure with IRBs by writing “IRBs have disrupted student careers, set backtenure clocks, and blunted the essence of many intellectual traditions. Facing

demands that spiral to the level of sheer impracticality, faculty and studentsat many institutions face a stark choice: to conduct innovative research in the

fields or to meet the requirements of their institutions” (2007, p. 594).Lariscy (2009) argued that IRB-mandated protocols put United States-based

researchers at a disadvantage relative to their international counterparts. Asevidence, Lariscy discussed a communications study that she conducted in apublic school district in a southern state. The primary data collection chal-

lenge was to obtain parental consent so eighth-grade students would be ableto participate in a survey. She used a few different methods for contacting the

parents over a period of a few months and offered the parents incentives toattempt to get their attention and consent. The end result was that Lariscy

was able to get a 30% participation rate for the survey. A similar publishedstudy conducted outside the United States had an 85% response rate. The

CJ PROFESSIONALS AND THE IRB 323

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

authors of the international study were not bound by IRB requirements, so theyhad much easier access to participants.

While there are faculty and graduate students who have had negative expe-riences with their IRBs, dislike of IRBs and their procedures is far from univer-

sal. Ferraro, Szigeti, Dawes, and Pan (1999) surveyed faculty and graduatestudents from the University of North Dakota and found that, overall, partici-pants were satisfied or very satisfied with their IRBs. When asked “have you

ever been unable to carry out a research project because of problems with theIRB?,” no graduate students reported problems, and 8% of the 112 faculty who

answered this question responded affirmatively. When asked “Do you think theIRB has treated you fairly and equitably when evaluating your proposed

research?,” all students reported that they had been treated fairly and equita-bly, and 13 of 109 faculty reported that they had not. Sixteen percent of fac-

ulty and 11% of graduate students agreed or strongly agreed that IRBs impederesearch efforts. When understanding why faculty members were more likely

to have negative opinions of the IRB, two explanations come to mind. First,faculty members have more research experience to draw from when recallinginteractions with the IRB. By the nature of their work history, they are more

likely to have experienced problems on at least one proposal. Second, Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (2005a) noted that IRBs might include members that are

junior in status to the faculty who are submitting proposals. Rejection fromthose considered to be less experienced or inferior researchers could dampen

relations between faculty and IRBs, but graduate students who lack the statusof faculty are less likely to view anyone on the IRB as less qualified to judge

their research.Liddle and Brazelton (1996) surveyed psychology faculty at 10 public

research institutions and asked about faculty members’ level of compliance

with IRB regulations and reasons for non-compliance. Fifty-seven percent of111 respondents reported full compliance with IRB policies for all studies for

which they were either the primary or co-investigators. Twenty-one percentdid report making minor changes to the wording of a consent form after the

IRB had already approved it, and the respondents did not report that minorchange to the IRB. Eight percent admitted to allowing people to participate in

a study despite the lack of a properly signed and dated consent form. Threepercent reported that they carried out research protocols that significantly dif-

fered from what was approved by the IRB. When asked why they did notalways comply, the most frequent response was that the researchers did nothave time to delay the study, followed by they were unaware that their stu-

dent or colleague had not obtained approval, they considered the process tobe too frustrating, and they were reluctant to make changes that would affect

the quality of the research. Liddle and Brazelton found a significant relation-ship between satisfaction with IRBs in general and satisfaction with individuals’

own review boards.The purpose of this study is to ascertain criminal justice faculty and

researchers’ level of understanding of IRB rules and the degree to which they


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

adhere to those rules. We hypothesize that current or former IRB memberswould be more likely to provide correct answers on the research scenarios and

be less likely to participate in research activity against IRB rules than thosewho had not served on an IRB. Second, we predict that researchers who are

part of a large university are more likely to break IRB rules and less likely toanswer the IRB scenarios correctly since they have more autonomy and lessmicromanagement than would be expected at smaller institutions. Finally, we

predict that those who have done more research and have been involved withresearch for a longer period of time will be less aware of IRB rules and less

likely to comply with them.

Method

The researchers identified members of the ACJS as potential research partici-pants. ACJS is a criminal justice organization that promotes criminal justice

education, research, and policy analysis and is one of the two largest suchorganizations in the United States. While this is an international organization

and welcomes criminal justice practitioners, most of its members are collegefaculty and researchers who work in the United States.

After completing an expedited review from our IRB, the researchersrequested access to the ACJS email directory in August 2012. The directory

contained 1,421 email addresses, but the researchers removed several belong-ing to respondents who were not suitable for the survey. Addresses belongingto 65 people who worked for an organization outside of the United States were

removed, since countries vary in their application of ethics protocols forresearch. One hundred twenty respondents who worked with practitioner orga-

nizations were also excluded, since this project involves questions about aca-demic research. Fifty-seven email addresses were found to be either invalid or

closed once the surveys were sent. Three automated replies indicated that theowners of those accounts were retired, had resigned, or were on an extended

leave. The two researchers who are members of ACJS were also removed fromthe list leaving 1,174 potential respondents. The researchers sent three emailsrequesting participation in August and one in September 2012. The emails con-

tained statements about the purpose of the study, informed consent, and alink to an Internet-based survey. Three hundred, ninety-seven people partici-

pated in the survey (34% response rate).The survey included questions about respondents’ employment status and

involvement in research. The researchers created seven research ethics sce-narios, each with multiple choice options for answers. The answer options

included a range of activities from proceeding with a project without consult-ing the IRB to a full IRB review before the research could commence. One of

the authors is the Chair of the Institutional Review Board at our institution.She has been on the IRB for eight years and the Chair of the IRB for the lastfive years. She completes over eight hours of online Collaborative Institutional


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Training Initiative (CITI) training every two years and has reviewed hundreds ofIRB proposals. The correct answers for the scenario responses were gained by

reviewing each scenario with the Chair and comparing her answers to those ofa national survey of IRB Chairs which produced responses from 164 IRB Chairs.

While we acknowledge that many of these answers are subject to interpreta-tion, it is the IRB Chairs who ultimately decide the level of review required foreach protocol based on his or her interpretation of the federal guidelines. As

such, IRB Chairs’ interpretations of federal guidelines as applied to theresearch scenarios is the closest one can get to identifying “correct” answers.

All IRB Chairs were given the same amount of information from which to drawtheir conclusions and determine “correct” answers. IRB Chairs were divided on

the correct course of action for two of the seven research scenarios, so thosescenarios were excluded for the current analysis.

The survey also included questions about whether the respondents have han-dled particular research matters without IRB approval in the past three years.

These questions were adapted from Liddle and Brazelton’s (1996) work andincluded such matters as proceeding with data collection without obtaining IRBapproval, making minor changes to wording on surveys, or consent forms after

IRB approval without informing the IRB, using survey or interview results fromone or more participant who did not properly complete the informed consent

procedure, substantially changing the research plan after IRB approval withoutreporting back to the IRB, starting data collection involving human subjects

after the IRB application has been submitted but before IRB approval, startingdata collection involving human subjects before submitting the IRB application,

and submitting an IRB application but purposefully leaving out information orbeing intentionally vague about an aspect of the study that the IRB might chal-lenge. Respondents were asked to respond yes or no to each question. If they

answered yes to any of those questions, they were asked why and given severalanswer options with the choice of selecting as many as were applicable. These

options included: My IRB takes too long to approve projects; My IRB is toorestrictive; The members of my IRB don’t understand Criminal Justice

research; I know how to protect human subjects myself, so I don’t need IRBsto review my projects; The members of my IRB show preferential treatment

for certain researchers but not others; and Other.

Results

Univariate Analysis

Thirty-one of the 398 responses were excluded from the current analysis, asthose respondents reported that their institution lacks an IRB. Forty-four addi-

tional respondents were also removed, since they reported that they do notconduct research. The remaining 323 survey responses were used for the

current analysis. Data regarding the characteristics of the respondents areavailable in Tables 1 and 2.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

IRB involvement was measured with three questions. First, participants were

asked if they were currently serving or have ever served on an IRB. Twentypercent replied affirmatively, 69% responded that they have not, and 11% did

not answer this question. Two hundred fifty (77.4%) of respondents previouslysubmitted an IRB application, 13 (4.0%) had not and 19% did not answer the

question. Participants varied in the extent of their involvement in interactionswith the IRB in the past three years. Eleven percent had not submitted any

applications during that time, 14% submitted one, 16% submitted two, 13% sub-mitted three, and 27% submitted four or more. Twenty percent did not answerthe question (Table 3).

The first research ethics scenario was “You are teaching a class, and youdecide that your students would make a good sample for your study about fear

of crime. You decide to offer the surveys to students for extra credit. Beforeyou do this, you should ….” IRB Chairs were widely in agreement that some

level of IRB review was necessary, but they were split on the extent of thatreview. The researchers condensed the response options to “proceed with data

collection” and “apply for some level of IRB review.” Ninety-five percent ofACJS respondents responded that some level of IRB review was required before

Table 1 Respondents’ job status and institutional setting

f %

Job status

Faculty/researcher 287 88.9

Student 6 1.9

Administrator (academia) 8 2.5

Practitioner 3 .9

Other 19 5.8

Tenure

Tenured or on tenure track 272 84.2

Not tenured or on tenure track 21 6.5

Missing 30 9.3

College/university size

Less than 5,000 65 20.2

5,000–9,999 43 13.3

10,000–14,999 56 17.3

15,000–19,999 54 16.7

20,000 or more 76 23.5

Missing 29 9.0

Highest degree offered by your department/program

AA/AS 2 .6

BA/BS 57 17.6

MA/MS 90 27.9

JD, Ph.D., Ed.D. 143 44.3

Missing 31 9.6


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

proceeding with survey administration while 5% believed that researchersshould proceed with data collection.

For scenario two, respondents were asked to imagine that, “You are seekinginformation from a local police department about the date and location ofeach report of a stolen car over a period of a year. You are not requesting any

identifying information on the owner or car. How would you handle thisstudy?” The appropriate course of action, according to IRB rules, is to apply

for exempt or expedited status from the IRB, and 66% answered this correctly.Twenty-seven percent responded that proceeding without IRB approval was

appropriate, and 8% thought that a full IRB review was necessary.Scenario three involved the ethics of identifying research participants. Par-

ticipants were asked to consider the following: “As you prepare to presentfindings at a conference, your colleague presents you with slides that she

Table 2 Respondents’ research experience

f %

Years involved in research as primary investigator

Less than a year 16 5.0

1–4 years 75 23.2

5–9 years 64 19.8

10 + years 131 40.5

Missing 37 11.5

Years involved in research as co- investigator

Less than a year 18 5.6

1–4 years 71 22.0

5–9 years 62 19.2

10 + years 137 42.4

Missing 35 10.8

Peer-review articles accepted for publication

Zero 18 5.6

1–4 75 23.2

5–9 57 17.6

10–14 35 10.8

15–19 19 5.9

20+ 86 26.6

Missing 33 10.3

External grants

Zero 107 33.1

1 43 13.3

2 40 12.4

3 25 7.8

4 11 3.4

5+ 63 19.5

Missing 34 10.5


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

wants to use. On one of the slides, your colleague has a picture of an offender

that she took during field observations … How do you respond?” Ninety-threepercent chose, “tell your colleague that including the photo would be unethi-

cal,” while 7% would have advised the colleague to include the photo in thepresentation.

Scenarios four and five addressed faculty use of assessment of student learn-

ing data. For scenario four, “You want to give students a non-graded quiz atthe beginning of the semester. At the end, you plan to give students the same

quiz to see how much they learned. You aren’t going to publish the results.How will you handle this?” Ninety-five percent correctly chose “proceed with-

out IRB approval,” 3% believed it was necessary to apply for an exempt orexpedited review and 2% selected full IRB review. For scenario five, the

instructor from the previous scenario planned to use the assessment data for aconference presentation or publication. The correct answer is to apply for an

IRB exempt/expedited review, and 65% of respondents chose that option. Six-teen percent believed that no IRB review was necessary, and 19% were in favorof a full IRB review. We summed the respondents’ correct responses for the six

scenarios, assigning them one point for every correct answer. The mean scorewas 3.81 (SD = .82) (Table 4).

The next section of the survey included several questions about researchactivities that are against IRB regulations. Nineteen percent of respondents

indicated that they had begun data collection prior to receiving IRB approval.Four percent made a substantial change to their research plan after IRB

approval and did not report that change back to the IRB. The most commonactivity without IRB approval reported by the respondents was making a minor

Table 3 IRB experience

f %

Have you ever served on an IRB

Yes 64 19.8

No 224 69.4

Missing 35 10.8

Have you ever submitted an application to an IRB?

Yes 250 77.4

No 13 4.0

Missing 60 18.6

Number of times in past three years you have submitted application to IRB

0 34 10.5

1 44 13.6

2 50 15.5

3 43 13.4

4 or more 86 26.6

Missing 66 20.4


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

change to the wording of a survey or consent form without reporting that

change to the IRB, with 27% of respondents reporting having done so. Sevenpercent reported collecting data involving human participants after the IRB

application had been submitted but before it had been approved. Five percent

Table 4 Research scenarios

ACJS participants

F Valid %

S1: You are teaching a class, and you decide that your students

would make a good sample for your study about fear of crime.

You decide to offer the surveys to students for extra credit.

Before you do this, you should:

Proceed with data collection. As long as the survey is optional,

it’s fine.

13 4.0

Apply for some level of IRB review 247 95.0

S2: You are seeking information from a local police department

about the date and location of each report of a stolen car over a

period of a year. You are not requesting any identifying

information on the owner or car. How would you handle this

study?

Proceed without IRB approval 70 26.8

Apply for an exempt or expedited review from the IRB 171 65.5

Apply for full IRB review 20 7.7

S3: As you prepare to present findings at a conference, your

colleague presents you with slides that she wants to use. On one

of the slides, your colleague has a picture of an offender that

she took during field observations … How do you respond?

Include the photo in the presentation 18 7.0

Tell your colleague that including the photo would be unethical 240 93.0

S4: You want to give students a non-graded quiz at the beginning

of the semester. At the end, you plan to give students the same

quiz to see how much they learned. You aren’t going to publish

the results. How will you handle this?



Apply for full IRB review 5 1.9

S5: Imagine you are conducting the assessment that was

mentioned in the previous question, but this time you plan on

presenting the results at ACJS and/or publishing the results.

What should you do?



Apply for full IRB review. 48 18.5

Scenario score(highest score = 5) M = 3.81 SD = .82


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

collected data on human participants before submitting the application to theIRB. Three percent used survey or interview results from at least one partici-

pant who had not completed the informed consent procedure, and 3% purpose-fully omitted information or were vague about aspects of the study on their

IRB applications if they believed the IRB would challenge them. Fifty-nine per-cent of respondents who answered the questions about their research activitiesdid not report participating in any of the aforementioned activities against IRB

rules, and 27% reported one activity (Table 5).Respondents who reported involvement in any of the aforementioned

research activities were asked to indicate why they did so. The surveyincluded several options, and respondents were able to choose as many as

were applicable. The options were: My IRB takes too long to approve pro-jects; My IRB is too restrictive; The members of my IRB don’t understand

criminal justice research; I know how to protect human subjects myself, so Idon’t need IRBs to review my projects; The members of my IRB show

preferential treatment for certain researchers but not others; and Other rea-sons. The most commonly chosen reason for sidestepping IRB rules for mostquestions was that the institution’s IRB takes too long to approve projects.

One respondent wrote “I knew it would be approved and didn’t feel like orga-nizing my professional life around the IRB schedule.” Another respondent

wrote “I know how IRBs work and was confident it would eventually beapproved, I just don’t feel like waiting for them, even if they can do it rela-

tively quickly.” For the two questions involving collecting data involvinghuman subjects, the most common reason for proceeding before receiving or,

in some cases even seeking, IRB approval was that the IRBs did not under-stand criminal justice research. For the question about collecting any type ofdata prior to IRB approval, the modal response for those who prematurely

collected data was that they did not need IRB review because they know howto protect human subjects. One respondent who was purposefully vague on

his or her IRB application explained that “My IRB doesn’t understand qualita-tive research that uses grounded theory.”

We then asked participants whether they thought that researchers shouldparticipate in any of the aforementioned activities that are against IRB regula-

tions. For all of the questions, participants were less likely to believe thatresearchers should engage in these activities than to have self-reported doing

them. Two percent believed that researchers should start data collection priorto IRB approval. Less than 1% responded that researchers should make a sub-stantial change to their research plan after IRB approval. Twenty-one percent

indicated that researchers should be able to make a minor wording change toa previously approved survey or consent form without reporting it to the IRB.

One percent believed that researchers should start collecting data on humanparticipants while awaiting review of the IRB application, and no participants

believed that researchers should collect data involving human participantsbefore the IRB application has been submitted (Table 6).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Table 5 IRB Infractions

In the past 3 years, have you: started to collect data prior to receiving

IRB approval for the project

No 202 81.5

Yes (choose as many as apply) 46 18.5

Reason: My IRB takes too long to approve projects 15 4.6

Reason: The members of my IRB don’t understand Criminal Justice

research

9 2.8

Reason: My IRB is too restrictive 7 2.2

Reason: The members of my IRB show preferential treatment for

certain researchers but not others

2 .6

Reason: I know how to protect human subjects myself, so I don’t need

IRBs to review my projects

7 2.2

Reason: Other reason 25 7.7

In the past 3 years, have you: Made a substantial change to your research

plan after IRB approval without reporting back to the IRB?

No 238 96.4





research

6 1.9



2 .6



1 .3

Reason: Other 3 .9

In the past 3 years, have you: Made a minor change to the wording of a

survey or consent form after IRB approval without reporting back to

the IRB.

No 181 73.3





research

14 4.3



6 1.9



2 .6

Reason: Other 37 11.5

In the past 3 years, have you: Started collecting data involving human

subjects after the IRB application had been submitted but before it

was approved.

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Table 5 (Continued)

No 229 92.7



Reason: My IRB is too restrictive 2 .6


research

3 .9



2 .6



2 .6

Reason: Other 8 2.5

In the past 3 years, have you: Started collecting data involving human

subjects before submitting the application to the IRB.

No 234 95.1





research

2 .6



6 1.9



1 .3

Reason: Other 5 1.5

In the past 3 years, have you: Used survey or interview results from one

or more participants who did not properly complete the informed

consent procedure.

No 238 97.1


Reason: My IRB takes too long to approve projects 3 .9



research

4 1.2



3 .9

Reason: Other 3 .9

In the past 3 years, have you: Submitted an application to an IRB but

purposefully left out information or was vague about an aspect of the

study that you anticipated that the IRB would challenge.

No 236 96.7


(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Bivariate Analysis

The first hypothesis predicted that participants who are serving or previouslyserved on IRBs would be more likely to provide correct answers on the

research scenarios and be less likely to participate in research activity againstIRB rules than those who had not served on an IRB. Table 7 includes cross-tab-

ulations with chi-squared statistics comparing participants by IRB committeeparticipation. There were no statistically significant differences between crimi-nal justice researchers who had served on the IRB compared to those who had

not. A chi-squared test was not possible for scenarios one and three, due tothe low variability in responses. Table 8 includes the result of two indepen-

dent-samples t-tests with whether respondents served on the IRB as the inde-pendent variable. The first dependent variable was the sum of correct answers

on the research scenarios. Those who had served on an IRB had a mean of 3.93(SD = .72) of correct answers, while those who did not had a mean of 3.77

(SD = .85). The second dependent variable was the number of research activi-ties people participated in that were contrary to IRB rules. Again, there was

very little difference between the two groups, with current or former IRBmembers receiving a score of .57 (SD = .95) compared to respondents who hadnot served on the IRB (Mean = .71, SD = 1.08).

For hypotheses two and three, Spearman’s rho was used to calculate corre-lation coefficients since the remaining independent and dependent variables

were ordinal level. See Table 9. With regard to hypothesis two, the number ofundergraduate and graduate students enrolled at the respondents’ institutions

was not correlated with correct answers on the ethical research scenario ques-tions or IRB infractions. With regard to hypothesis three, no measure of

research experience was correlated with the number of correct answers on the

Table 5 (Continued)




research

8 2.5



1 .3

Reason: Other 2 .6

Sum of activities against IRB rules in past three years

0 144 59.0

1 66 27.0

2 14 5.7

3 12 4.9

4 6 2.5

5 2 .8


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

research ethics scenarios but the number of external grants (rs = .155, p < .05)

and years active in research (rs = .130, p < .05) were positively correlated withrespondents engaging in an increased number of research activities that are

contrary to IRB rules. Researchers with more experience being awarded exter-nal grants and those who have been active researchers for a longer period of

time tended to report participating in more activities against IRB rules.

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that academic researchers in criminal justicelack a uniform understanding of IRB rules. While there was a high level of

agreement on being able to proceed with student testing directly related tocourse curriculum without IRB review, use of one’s own students for opinion

surveys, and that including a picture of an alleged offender in a research pre-sentation is unethical, answers to the other ethics scenarios lacked uniformity.

We did not find support for the hypothesis that criminal justice researchers

Table 6 Opinions about researchers’ responsibilities

f %

Should researchers start to collect data prior to receiving the IRB approval

for the project?

Yes 6 1.9

No 248 76.8

Missing 69 21.3

Should researchers make a substantial change to your research plan after

IRB approval without reporting back to the IRB?

Yes 2 .6

No 252 78.0

Missing 69 21.4

Should researchers make a minor change to the wording of a survey or

consent form after IRB approval without reporting back to the IRB?

Yes 68 21.0

No 185 57.3

Missing 70 21.7

Should researchers start collecting data involving human subjects after the

IRB application had been submitted but before it was approved.

Yes 3 .9

No 251 77.7

Missing 69 21.4

Should researchers start collecting data involving human subjects before

the IRB application has been submitted.

No 255 78.9

Missing 68 21.1


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

who are current or past IRB members would be more likely to answer the

ethics scenarios correctly or less likely to violate an IRB rule over the pastthree years. It is interesting to note that criminal justice researchers who are

current or former IRB members tended to have just as much variability in theiranswers to some of the ethics scenarios as their non-IRB counterparts. The lack

of agreement found among IRB members raises questions about the consistencyof IRB training across institutions and should be the subject of further

research.

Table 7 Comparison of respondents who served on an IRB to those who did not serve

on an IRB and their answers on the research scenarios

Served on

IRB

Has not

served on

IRB X2 p

S1 Incorrect 0 (0%) 12 (6%) – –

Correct 59 (100.0%) 187 (94.0%)

S2 Incorrect 15 (25.0%) 75 (37.5%) 3.186 .074

Correct 45 (75.0%) 125 (62.5%)

S3 Incorrect 3 (5.0%) 15 (7.6%) – –

Correct 57 (95.0%) 182 (92.4%)

S4 Incorrect 1 (1.7%) 11 (5.5%) 1.555 .212

Correct 59 (98.3%) 188 (94.5%)

S5 Incorrect 43 (72.9%) 135 (67.8%) .541 .462

Correct 16 (27.1%) 64 (32.2%)

Self-reported research activities

against IRB rules—last three years

None 37 (67.2%) 108 (58.1%) .400 .527

At least

one

22 (37.3%) 78 (41.9%)

Table 8 Independent samples t-test comparing IRB service and scores on scenario

questions

Served on

IRB

Has not

served on

IRBt

Mean SD Mean SD

Sum of correct answers to research ethics scenario

questions*

3.93 .72 3.77 .85 1.44

# of research activities that are contrary to IRB rules .57 .95 .71 1.08 −.831

*Six scenarios, each worth one point. Higher score indicates more correct answers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Self-reported IRB rule infractions within the past three years were similar tothose reported by psychology faculty (Liddle & Brazelton, 1996). The most fre-

quent infractions were ones that were unlikely to harm human participants. Themost common rule violation was minor wording changes to a survey or consent

form after IRB approval or starting to collect data prior to IRB approval. Whatwe do not know is how “minor” these wording changes actually were. If they

were simply changes to fix grammatical errors or typos, one may not considersuch changes as IRB infractions. If the “minor” wording changes were substantive

changes such as changing the word “anonymous” to “confidential” the “minor”change could represent a much more serious infraction. The follow-up com-ments provided by respondents indicated that most of the data collection prior

to IRB approval included public records or other data not involving human partic-ipants. Collection of data involving human participants prior to IRB approval or

submission of the IRB application was rare. There appears to be little evidenceto support the notion that criminal justice faculty and their corresponding IRBs

practice consensual censorship, whereby researchers intentionally mislead IRBs.Only nine respondents reported that in the past three years they have submitted

IRB applications in which they purposefully omitted information or remainedvague for the purpose of avoiding a challenge by the IRB.

Table 9 Correlations for size of institution, research involvement, research scenarios

and IRB infractions

#

students

enrolled

# peer-

reviewed

articles

accepted

#

external

grants

awarded

Years

active

in

research

Research

ethics

scenario

questions

# of

research

activities

that are

contrary to

IRB rules

# students

enrolled

1.00 .458** .327** .158** −.023 .018

# peer-reviewed

articles

accepted

1.00 .484** .576** −.009 .113

# external grants

awarded

1.00 .489** .040 .155*

Years active in

research

1.00 −.007 .130*

Research ethics

scenario

questions

1.00 .104

Any IRB

infractions

1.00

*p < .05. **p < .01.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

There was no support for the hypotheses regarding college or university sizeand correctly answering research scenarios or committing IRB infractions. One

important consideration for the relationship between IRBs and social scienceresearchers at larger schools is whether the IRBs are also reviewing research

proposals in the bio-medical field. The majority of IRB regulations in existencetoday were inspired by unethical and dangerous medical research practices(Bledsoe et al., 2007; Gunsalus et al., 2007), so bio-medical IRBs must consider

the potential for physical harms that may arise out of the proposals theyreview. The researchers did ask respondents whether their colleges or universi-

ties housed a medical school, and 54 (17%) responded affirmatively. The nextquestion was whether the institutions required social science researchers to

submit their proposals to the same IRBs as the medical schools. Twenty-seven(8.4%) respondents replied that social science and bio-medical proposals were

reviewed by the same IRBs. While this is a positive step in acknowledging thedifferent risks posed by social science research, some have argued that IRBs at

institutions with and without medical programs continue to adopt languageand rules that are more appropriate for bio-medical issues than those relatedto the social sciences (Bledsoe et al., 2007; Burris, 2008; Gunsalus, et al.,

2007). The needs of the two are different and IRBs must meet the needs ofthe researchers they serve.

There were three measures of faculty involvement in research: number ofpeer-reviewed publications, number of external grants, and years involved in

research. None of the aforementioned variables were related to scores on theresearch ethics scenarios, but two of three were correlated with the depen-

dent measures. The number of grants and years active in research were associ-ated with the number of IRB infractions, with increased number of grantsawarded correlated with at least one IRB rule violation in the past three years

and increased years active in research correlated with at least one IRB ruleviolation.

It is possible that those who have been working in the field and conductingresearch longer may feel that they “know better” than the IRB. Faculty mem-

bers who are more experienced at research might be more inclined to discountthe importance of IRB compliance, as they would prefer to rely on their own

knowledge and experience rather than awaiting approval from a board ofresearchers who may not be in the field of criminal justice and/or who may be

of lower professional rank. It is also possible that researchers who haverecently earned degrees may be more aware of updates or new governmentguidelines for IRBs. Those who have been out of school for longer may not be

aware of such changes, and their memories of IRB guidelines that were inplace when they completed their own graduate work may have faded. Further-

more, new faculty may have more exposure to college policies and committeessince they are introduced to the college in a variety of ways upon hiring. IRB

practices vary from institution to institution and, therefore, it is possible thata faculty experience at one institution may lead to potentially inaccurate

assumptions about approvals needs at another institution. Since the IRB, not


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

the researcher, ultimately decides the level of review that is needed, it iseven more common for practices to vary from institution to institution. Finally,

senior faculty may be expected to know about the IRB and may not have asmany reminders to think about the IRB approval process and the role it plays

in research. IRBs could also play a role in this dearth of knowledge if they arenot actively promoting IRB work and are not actively engaged in disseminatinginformation or providing instructional workshops.

Limitations and Recommendations

This research has a number of limitations. First, the researchers chose to usethe ACJS email membership directory. While ACJS is one of the largest aca-demic organizations in this field, there are perhaps thousands of researchers in

criminal justice who are not part of this directory. We chose ACJS because itdoes appear to include a very diverse group of members, ranging from some of

the most recognizable and frequently published researchers in the field to fac-ulty who focus on more applied research to faculty from community colleges

who may have high teaching loads and less time for research. While ACJSappears to be a good pool of potential respondents, it is unclear whether the

ACJS membership presents an adequate representation of criminal justiceresearchers nationwide. Second, only 34% of eligible respondents participated.

While that allowed the researchers to collect nearly 400 surveys, it is far fromthe ideal response rate and is likely to impact generalizability. Third, the sur-vey was long, and there was attrition as respondents approached the end of

the survey. This resulted in a number of dropouts. Fourth, this was a self-report survey. Participants were given assurances of anonymity, and the

researchers refrained from asking for any identifying information. Some of thequestions, particularly those about IRB rule infractions, involved some behavior

that can be considered socially undesirable for academics. It is possible thatrespondents were hesitant to fully disclose their research activities out of con-

cern for a breach of confidentiality.While we found limited support for some of our hypotheses, we are still left

with the question, what else predicts IRB knowledge and compliance? Future

research should include questions about the types of classes that researchersteach, if any. It is possible that faculty who are responsible for teaching clas-

ses on research methods might have a better grasp of IRB requirements andmight be more reluctant to sidestep them. Additionally, the nature of individu-

als’ research could also explain some of this variation, with faculty moreactive in field research with human participants differing from those who rely

primarily on existing data-sets or public records.The level of outreach and training that is provided by and required of IRBs

should also be measured and analyzed. The Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR 46, does not require the Chair or IRB members to conduct community out-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

reach. However, IRB best practices, as noted in Institutional Review BoardResearcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), include four items for measuring

outreach by the IRB (Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 2005b). These measures includethe extent to which IRBs: offer information to improve the chances of gaining

IRB approval, offer consultation during the development of research protocols,offer investigators opportunities to be educated about federal research policy,and offer editorial suggestions regarding consent documents and protocols.

Based on the findings of the current survey of criminal justice researchers, IRBswould be best served by providing some outreach to members of the college or

university.Both the Office for Human Research Protections and CITI offer online train-

ing modules for those interested in or required to learn about how to protecthuman participants in their research. The CITI training is customizable and can

be adjusted to fit a range of needs for any institution. Modules can be createdfor those simply interested in learning about ethical concerns or for those who

will be collecting primary data from human participants. Offering online train-ing is yet another way IRBs can accommodate the needs of busy researcherswhile ensuring that researchers are aware of their obligation to protect human

participants.

Notes on contributors

Christine Tartaro is a professor of Criminal Justice at the Richard Stockton College ofNew Jersey. She has a PhD in Criminal Justice from Rutgers University. She has workedas a researcher for the New Jersey Department of Corrections, and the Police Founda-tion, as a research consultant for the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission. Herresearch interests include new generation jails, suicide in correctional facilities, mentalhealth, and crime prevention.

Marissa P. Levy is an associate professor of Criminal Justice at the Richard StocktonCollege of New Jersey. She has a PhD in Criminal Justice from Rutgers University. Shecurrently works on a grant-funded project sponsored by the NJ Office of the AttorneyGeneral to reduce violence in Atlantic County, New Jersey. Her research interestsinclude crime prevention, crime mapping, and environmental criminology.

References

Bledsoe, C. H., Sherin, B., Galinsky, A. G., Headley, N. M., Heimer, C. A., Kjeldgaard,E., … Uttal, D. H. (2007). Censorship and institutional review board: Regulating crea-tivity: Research and survival in the IRB iron cage. Northwestern Law Review, 101,593–641.

Burris, S. (2008). Regulatory innovation in the governance of human subjects research:A cautionary tale and some modest proposals. Regulation & Governance, 2, 65–84.

Ferraro, F. R., Szigeti, E., Dawes, K. J., & Pan, S. (1999). A survey regarding the Uni-versity of North Dakota institutional review board: Data, attitudes, and perceptions.The Journal of Psychology, 133, 272–280.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

Gunsalus, C. K., Burbules, E. M., Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldberg, W. T., Greenough,G. A., … Aronson, D. (2007). The Illinois white paper: Improving the system for pro-tecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB “Mission Creep”. Qualitative Inquiry, 13,617–649. Retrieved from http://qix.sagepub.com/content/13/5/617.full.pdf+html

Hornblum, A. M. (1998). Acres of Skin. New York, NY: Routledge.Humphreys, L. (1975). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Chicago: Aldine

Transaction.Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G. P. (2005a). The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also

encourage deceit? Ethics & Behavior, 15, 339–349.Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G. P. (2005b). Institutional Review Board Researcher

Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT): A User’s Guide. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsresearch.com/images/IRB_RAT_User_s_Guide.revised_3-11-05.pdf

Lariscy, R. W. (2009). IRBs and communication research: Some perplexing issues. Jour-nal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 668–671.

Liddle, B. J., & Brazelton, E. W. (1996). Psychology faculty satisfaction and compliancewith IRB procedures. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 18, 4–6.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 67, 371–378.

Oshinsky, D. (1996). Worse than slavery: Parchman farm and the Ordeal of Jim CrowJustice. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Swauger, M. (2011). Afterword: The ethics of risk, power, and representation. Qualita-tive Sociology, 34, 497–502.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect. New York, NY: The Random House.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

You

ngst

own

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Dr

John

Haz

y] a

t 12:

03 1

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

16

http://qix.sagepub.com/content/13/5/617.full.pdf+html

http://www.ethicsresearch.com/images/IRB_RAT_User_s_Guide.revised_3-11-05.pdf

http://www.ethicsresearch.com/images/IRB_RAT_User_s_Guide.revised_3-11-05.pdf

criminal justice professionals’ knowledge of institutional

Documents