I just browsed a peer-reviewed article about marketing a specific library resource and was surprised by what I read in the Assessment section. In that section the author noted that he developed a survey to gather feedback from students on the new resource, but since submitting it for approval to the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) would take about a month – longer than he wanted to wait – he skipped that step. He administered the survey via the library Web site, and when that didn’t produce enough responses he asked library student supervisors to request their student workers do the survey.
I was surprised to read this because I was taught that any time a researcher involves humans in their process they have to seek IRB approval in order to make sure that the rights of those being researched are protected. That the author did not seek IRB approval was not hidden, as it is clearly stated in the manuscript. He even seems to understand the rationale of an IRB: “The university has strict human subject rules, and each survey proposal must be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board” (p. 158).
This article was published in an international, peer-reviewed journal, which means that the reviewers and the editor were okay with the IRB step being skipped. Does this mean that IRB approval isn’t necessary for library-related research, even when it involves humans? What do you think?
article citation: Cox, Christopher. 2007. “Hitting the Spot.” The Serials Librarian, 53(3): 147-164. DOI: 10.1300/J123v53n03_10
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
I’m not cool with that. IRB is there for a reason, and yes, if you’re using people (and while some may question the human-ness of some library patrons) you need to go through IRB, even if it does take a month longer.
If the author is employed by the institution, IRB approval is not optional. I’m very surprised to hear that Serials Librarian would publish something in which the author explicitly stated that they hadn’t bothered to get approval.
the question i’m left with after the thoughtful discussion on this topic over on friendfeed (http://ff.im/cbAtj) is that we all agree this shouldn’t have happened, but now what? what should happen to that research? i don’t know what happens in other disciplines when faulty research is discovered. should it be redacted?