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

研究成果: 書貢獻/報告類型篇章

2 引文 斯高帕斯(Scopus)


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.

主出版物標題Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education
主出版物子標題International Perspectives and Gold Standards
發行者Springer Netherlands
出版狀態已發佈 - 2009

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • 一般社會科學
  • 一般藝術與人文科學


深入研究「Research ethics boards and the gold standard(s) in literacy and science education research」主題。共同形成了獨特的指紋。