Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:21:56.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“I” Does Not Mean Infallible: Pushing Back against Institutional Review Board Overreach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2016

Brian R. Calfano*
Affiliation:
Missouri State University

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Profession Symposium: Local Control and Realities in the Relationship between Institutional Review Boards and Political Science Research
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Mayer, Kenneth. 2016. “Working through the Unworkable: A View from Inside the IRB Process.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (2): this issue.Google Scholar
Musoba, Glenda D., Jacob, Stacy A., and Robinson, Leslie J.. 2014. “The Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Faculty: Does the IRB Challenge Professionalism in the Social Sciences?” The Qualitative Report 19: 114.Google Scholar
Nelson, Cary. 2003. “Can E. T. Phone Home? The Brave New World of University Surveillance?” Academe (September/October): 30–5.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Amy. 2011. “Professor Sues U. over Research Protocol.” The Brown Daily Herald, March 22. Accessed online June 30, 2015.Google Scholar
Shea, Christopher. 2000. “Don’t Talk to the Humans: The Crackdown on Social Science Research.” Lingua Franca 10 (6): 2634.Google Scholar
Shweder, Richard A. 2006. “Protecting Human Subjects and Preserving Academic Freedom: Prospects at the University of Chicago.” American Ethnologist 33 (4): 507–18.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2008. “Reforming Institutional Review Board Policy: Issues in Implementation and Field Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (3): 483–94.Google Scholar