>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Paul Brandon wrote:
>
>> 'Function' might be a better term than 'intent'.
>> If the function of the data collection is instructional, and its research
>> use a minor byproduct (in other words, if the data would have been
>> collected to assess and improve instruction even if research were not
>> involved) then it would not fall within the purview of an IRB.
>>
>
>I think this is where I get confused. If your function/intent is
>instructional, but you collect the *exact same information* as someone who
>has a function/intent of publishing the data, where is the difference as
>far as the student/participant is concerned? They all receive the same
>"treatment," but in one case, they sign informed consent, etc., and the
>situation is treated very differently all around.
The question is not whether there is a difference from the _students'_
point of view;
it's who has the responsibility for overseeing the activity.
A question that ought to be raised is whether we should have an educational
equivalent to IRB's to deal with ethical issues involved in _instruction_.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
