Hi On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote:
In reply to someone else who wrote: > > PS- I also have to add that some reviewers on our IRB have > decided that > even minimal risk research must demonstrate > benefits. If a study does not > look like it will lead to a > contribution to general knowledge, it is viewed > as not > having any benefits and should therefore not be conducted. As > a > result, I have had student projects rejected by > reviewers, not because of > any risk, but because of a lack > of benefits. Part of where my cynical view > of the IRB has > come from... > I have to agree with your IRB--if there is NO benefit to a > study then there is nothing to mitigate even minimal risk. > That's from an IRB perspective. Now as a researcher, I'd take > the perspective that if there is NO benefit then why is a > study being done? For the sake of doing a study? I strongly > discourage students from that tactic. We are a discipline > already fraught with too many disconnected pieces of > information that are being done even at upper echelons for > the sake of publication for the almighty god of publish or > perish. Since it was student projects that were being discussed, I would question Annette's position. It appears to ignore completely the pedagogical benefit of carrying out a study. Nor do I think it an adequate alternative for the teacher to always correct student errors so that there will be some benefit. Sometimes there is just no substitute for making mistakes (e.g., finding that your study is impossible to analyze or draw conclusions from). I would also question the capacity of most IRBs (and perhaps anyone) to make a strongly valid conclusion about the value of any given research project. The reality is that we just don't know the potential value of any research. Even a very poorly designed study based on an implausible premise might lead to some serendipitous outcome. The other side of the problem is defining risk, perhaps especially minimal risk. In some people's eyes almost any study could be construed as having some risk. Members of IRBs might lose sight of the fact that anything in life (eating, walking, driving, ...) involves some risk. I also think it is wrong to attribute the disjointed nature of psychology to the collection of disconnected pieces of information. To harken back to an earlier discussion, that is a problem of theory. One could easily imagine similar concerns expressed by the seemingly haphazard collection of biological observations being made by natural scientists, amateurs, travellers, cattle breeders, and the like. Then Charles came along and made sense of a lot of it. The natural sciences are, if anything, I would say more amenable to publishing lots of results (i.e., much shorter papers, higher publication rates). The difference is that many of these observations can be fit into an existing scheme. Until psychology has such a scheme, I wonder about the wisdom of being too selective in what research we do and publish. Perhaps psychology needs to get MORE empirical papers out there by shortening introductions and discussions and by increasing acceptance rates, than cut back on what is published. This might provide greater grist for the psychological Darwin who is going to come onto the scene any day now (we wish!). Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
