Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research

Robert J. Anthony, Larry D. Yore, Richard K. Coll, Justin Dillon, Mei-Hung Chiu , Cynthia Fakudze, Irene Grimberg, Bing Jyun Wang

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Curiosity-driven research has traditionally investigated problems, issues, and challenges through a variety of research designs to match the research foci without many formal constraints. The character of those designs has been the venue of the researchers, to some degree the funding agency, and the research setting. The creative challenge for the researcher has been consideration of the nature of the problem and research question, development of the problem space, and the monetary, instrumental, and contextual resources available. Increasingly over the last 10-15 years, another presence has joined the research team-the Research Ethics Board (REB), Research Ethics Committee (REC), or Institutional Review Board (IRB). REBs (we use REBS, RECs, and IRBs interchangeably in this chapter) play a mandatory role in reviewing and permitting research conducted under the agency of funding bodies and educational or research institutions in many countries. Over this same time, REBs have become widely accepted as a necessary and reasonable process to ensure that ethical standards of research are maintained and to avoid the potential for litigation resulting fromfaulty research designs and procedures. However, some researchers contend that the unified research ethics regulations, or common rule, for all disciplines overemphasize biomedical inquiries, risks, and norms-leaving much of the uniqueness of social sciences, education, and professional practices and their associated research methods lacking consideration. While the value of REBs is recognized, it is also evident that their procedures and practices are not stable or neutral in their impact on researchers, he potential research topics that are undertaken, and the research designs utilized. These effects and the array of differential influences can be seen on every campus and organization where research ethics reviews operate and, as described in this chapter, in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationQuality Research in Literacy and Science Education
Subtitle of host publicationInternational Perspectives and Gold Standards
PublisherSpringer Netherlands
Pages511-557
Number of pages47
ISBN (Print)9781402084263
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Dec 1

Fingerprint

gold standard
research ethics
literacy
science
education
research planning
funding
organization research
research focus
Literacy Education
Gold Standard
Science Education
Research Ethics Boards
research method
New Zealand
social science
Research Design
Canada
regulation
Funding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Anthony, R. J., Yore, L. D., Coll, R. K., Dillon, J., Chiu , M-H., Fakudze, C., ... Wang, B. J. (2009). Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research. In Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards (pp. 511-557). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_24

Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research. / Anthony, Robert J.; Yore, Larry D.; Coll, Richard K.; Dillon, Justin; Chiu , Mei-Hung; Fakudze, Cynthia; Grimberg, Irene; Wang, Bing Jyun.

Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. Springer Netherlands, 2009. p. 511-557.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Anthony, RJ, Yore, LD, Coll, RK, Dillon, J, Chiu , M-H, Fakudze, C, Grimberg, I & Wang, BJ 2009, Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research. in Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. Springer Netherlands, pp. 511-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_24
Anthony RJ, Yore LD, Coll RK, Dillon J, Chiu  M-H, Fakudze C et al. Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research. In Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. Springer Netherlands. 2009. p. 511-557 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_24
Anthony, Robert J. ; Yore, Larry D. ; Coll, Richard K. ; Dillon, Justin ; Chiu , Mei-Hung ; Fakudze, Cynthia ; Grimberg, Irene ; Wang, Bing Jyun. / Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research. Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. Springer Netherlands, 2009. pp. 511-557
@inbook{8a8db4f40984443abc08fd88ae828987,
title = "Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research",
abstract = "Curiosity-driven research has traditionally investigated problems, issues, and challenges through a variety of research designs to match the research foci without many formal constraints. The character of those designs has been the venue of the researchers, to some degree the funding agency, and the research setting. The creative challenge for the researcher has been consideration of the nature of the problem and research question, development of the problem space, and the monetary, instrumental, and contextual resources available. Increasingly over the last 10-15 years, another presence has joined the research team-the Research Ethics Board (REB), Research Ethics Committee (REC), or Institutional Review Board (IRB). REBs (we use REBS, RECs, and IRBs interchangeably in this chapter) play a mandatory role in reviewing and permitting research conducted under the agency of funding bodies and educational or research institutions in many countries. Over this same time, REBs have become widely accepted as a necessary and reasonable process to ensure that ethical standards of research are maintained and to avoid the potential for litigation resulting fromfaulty research designs and procedures. However, some researchers contend that the unified research ethics regulations, or common rule, for all disciplines overemphasize biomedical inquiries, risks, and norms-leaving much of the uniqueness of social sciences, education, and professional practices and their associated research methods lacking consideration. While the value of REBs is recognized, it is also evident that their procedures and practices are not stable or neutral in their impact on researchers, he potential research topics that are undertaken, and the research designs utilized. These effects and the array of differential influences can be seen on every campus and organization where research ethics reviews operate and, as described in this chapter, in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States.",
author = "Anthony, {Robert J.} and Yore, {Larry D.} and Coll, {Richard K.} and Justin Dillon and Mei-Hung Chiu  and Cynthia Fakudze and Irene Grimberg and Wang, {Bing Jyun}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_24",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781402084263",
pages = "511--557",
booktitle = "Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
address = "Netherlands",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research

AU - Anthony, Robert J.

AU - Yore, Larry D.

AU - Coll, Richard K.

AU - Dillon, Justin

AU - Chiu , Mei-Hung

AU - Fakudze, Cynthia

AU - Grimberg, Irene

AU - Wang, Bing Jyun

PY - 2009/12/1

Y1 - 2009/12/1

N2 - Curiosity-driven research has traditionally investigated problems, issues, and challenges through a variety of research designs to match the research foci without many formal constraints. The character of those designs has been the venue of the researchers, to some degree the funding agency, and the research setting. The creative challenge for the researcher has been consideration of the nature of the problem and research question, development of the problem space, and the monetary, instrumental, and contextual resources available. Increasingly over the last 10-15 years, another presence has joined the research team-the Research Ethics Board (REB), Research Ethics Committee (REC), or Institutional Review Board (IRB). REBs (we use REBS, RECs, and IRBs interchangeably in this chapter) play a mandatory role in reviewing and permitting research conducted under the agency of funding bodies and educational or research institutions in many countries. Over this same time, REBs have become widely accepted as a necessary and reasonable process to ensure that ethical standards of research are maintained and to avoid the potential for litigation resulting fromfaulty research designs and procedures. However, some researchers contend that the unified research ethics regulations, or common rule, for all disciplines overemphasize biomedical inquiries, risks, and norms-leaving much of the uniqueness of social sciences, education, and professional practices and their associated research methods lacking consideration. While the value of REBs is recognized, it is also evident that their procedures and practices are not stable or neutral in their impact on researchers, he potential research topics that are undertaken, and the research designs utilized. These effects and the array of differential influences can be seen on every campus and organization where research ethics reviews operate and, as described in this chapter, in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States.

AB - Curiosity-driven research has traditionally investigated problems, issues, and challenges through a variety of research designs to match the research foci without many formal constraints. The character of those designs has been the venue of the researchers, to some degree the funding agency, and the research setting. The creative challenge for the researcher has been consideration of the nature of the problem and research question, development of the problem space, and the monetary, instrumental, and contextual resources available. Increasingly over the last 10-15 years, another presence has joined the research team-the Research Ethics Board (REB), Research Ethics Committee (REC), or Institutional Review Board (IRB). REBs (we use REBS, RECs, and IRBs interchangeably in this chapter) play a mandatory role in reviewing and permitting research conducted under the agency of funding bodies and educational or research institutions in many countries. Over this same time, REBs have become widely accepted as a necessary and reasonable process to ensure that ethical standards of research are maintained and to avoid the potential for litigation resulting fromfaulty research designs and procedures. However, some researchers contend that the unified research ethics regulations, or common rule, for all disciplines overemphasize biomedical inquiries, risks, and norms-leaving much of the uniqueness of social sciences, education, and professional practices and their associated research methods lacking consideration. While the value of REBs is recognized, it is also evident that their procedures and practices are not stable or neutral in their impact on researchers, he potential research topics that are undertaken, and the research designs utilized. These effects and the array of differential influences can be seen on every campus and organization where research ethics reviews operate and, as described in this chapter, in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873009429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873009429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_24

DO - 10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_24

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84873009429

SN - 9781402084263

SP - 511

EP - 557

BT - Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education

PB - Springer Netherlands

ER -