Communication scholars' communication and relationship with their IRBs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 10 Citations

Abstract

Using grounded theory, 57 narratives of communication scholars detailing their experiences and relationships with institutional review boards (IRBs) were examined. From this analysis, 24 concepts emerged constituting five larger categories characterizing the communication relationship between communication scholars and IRBs: antagonistic actions of IRBs, negative perceptions of IRBs, actions of researchers, positive perceptions of IRBs, and protagonistic actions of IRBs. Results indicate that the main difference between positive and negative experiences with IRBs was associated with the nature of the relationship between scholars and IRBs. Scholars who saw their IRBs as adversarial bureaucracies had the most negative experiences, whereas scholars who saw their IRBs as partners in the research process had the most positive experiences. Recommendations for how both IRBs and researchers can improve their relationships conclude this essay.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)231-241
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Applied Communication Research
Volume33
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005

Fingerprint

Institutional review board
action
scientist
perception
Communication
research process
grounded theory
bureaucracy
essay
narrative
category
concept
analysis
Grounded theory
Bureaucracy

Keywords

  • Human subjects research
  • Institutional review board

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Language and Linguistics

Cite this

Communication scholars' communication and relationship with their IRBs. / Koerner, Ascan F.

In: Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2005, p. 231-241.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Koerner, Ascan F. / Communication scholars' communication and relationship with their IRBs.

In: Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2005, p. 231-241.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{359f7cad4d2441d7a3c3d8f743f460bf,
title = "Communication scholars' communication and relationship with their IRBs",
abstract = "Using grounded theory, 57 narratives of communication scholars detailing their experiences and relationships with institutional review boards (IRBs) were examined. From this analysis, 24 concepts emerged constituting five larger categories characterizing the communication relationship between communication scholars and IRBs: antagonistic actions of IRBs, negative perceptions of IRBs, actions of researchers, positive perceptions of IRBs, and protagonistic actions of IRBs. Results indicate that the main difference between positive and negative experiences with IRBs was associated with the nature of the relationship between scholars and IRBs. Scholars who saw their IRBs as adversarial bureaucracies had the most negative experiences, whereas scholars who saw their IRBs as partners in the research process had the most positive experiences. Recommendations for how both IRBs and researchers can improve their relationships conclude this essay.",
keywords = "Human subjects research, Institutional review board",
author = "Koerner, {Ascan F.}",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1080/00909880500149395",
volume = "33",
pages = "231--241",
journal = "Journal of Applied Communication Research",
issn = "0090-9882",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communication scholars' communication and relationship with their IRBs

AU - Koerner,Ascan F.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Using grounded theory, 57 narratives of communication scholars detailing their experiences and relationships with institutional review boards (IRBs) were examined. From this analysis, 24 concepts emerged constituting five larger categories characterizing the communication relationship between communication scholars and IRBs: antagonistic actions of IRBs, negative perceptions of IRBs, actions of researchers, positive perceptions of IRBs, and protagonistic actions of IRBs. Results indicate that the main difference between positive and negative experiences with IRBs was associated with the nature of the relationship between scholars and IRBs. Scholars who saw their IRBs as adversarial bureaucracies had the most negative experiences, whereas scholars who saw their IRBs as partners in the research process had the most positive experiences. Recommendations for how both IRBs and researchers can improve their relationships conclude this essay.

AB - Using grounded theory, 57 narratives of communication scholars detailing their experiences and relationships with institutional review boards (IRBs) were examined. From this analysis, 24 concepts emerged constituting five larger categories characterizing the communication relationship between communication scholars and IRBs: antagonistic actions of IRBs, negative perceptions of IRBs, actions of researchers, positive perceptions of IRBs, and protagonistic actions of IRBs. Results indicate that the main difference between positive and negative experiences with IRBs was associated with the nature of the relationship between scholars and IRBs. Scholars who saw their IRBs as adversarial bureaucracies had the most negative experiences, whereas scholars who saw their IRBs as partners in the research process had the most positive experiences. Recommendations for how both IRBs and researchers can improve their relationships conclude this essay.

KW - Human subjects research

KW - Institutional review board

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27944499315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27944499315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00909880500149395

DO - 10.1080/00909880500149395

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 231

EP - 241

JO - Journal of Applied Communication Research

T2 - Journal of Applied Communication Research

JF - Journal of Applied Communication Research

SN - 0090-9882

IS - 3

ER -