Module #12: Authority and power in social science research
Leaders: James Svara, NC State; and Alan Reiman, NC State
Members: Leigh Raymond, Purdue; Robert Baum, ISU; Haryy Brighouse, UW; Rosanne Harrigan, UH; Robin Liles, NC A&T; and Van Kloempken, grad.
Alternate title? “Issues in Human Subject Research in the Social Sciences and the Role of the Institutional Review Board”
The responsible conduct of research requires that investigators take appropriate steps to protect the welfare of subjects used in research. The expectation has been codified in federal law, which requires that researchers get approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) before conducting any research that involves human subjects. The law applies only to research that is funded or regulated by the federal government but even most privately funded institutions, professional associations, and industry journals rely on some type of IRB approval process.
This module guides students through a consideration of ethical issues in the use of human subjects in the social sciences and an examination of IRBs, how they function, and the standards they apply in making decisions.
To highlight the sensitive issues that can arise in the process, the module considers the limitations and possible justifications of using research techniques that involve deceiving the subjects about the true nature of the research. This focus will force students to consider the dilemma of chossing between competing ethical models: adhering to principles, e.g., full disclosure for research subjects, versus adopting research strategies that might produce a positive result, e.g., unique research outcomes.
This module will be based on original research contributions by team leader Svara (research in progress) and graduate student Kloempken. It presents a role-play scenario in which students are asked to imagine that they are members of an Institutional Review Board at Yale University in the 1960s. The students must consider a research proposal from a faculty member named Milgram that involves deceiving research subjects into believing that they are being ordered to administer potentially lethal electrical shocks to other human beings. Although there is probably a widespread impression that the Milgram experiment on obedience could never be approved under current policies, the case is not as clear cut as it appears. In two demonstrations of the simulation, the students who played the role of IRB members labored with deciding whether the experiment should be approved or not.