Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-j5c6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-11T18:35:31.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working through the Unworkable? The View from Inside an Institutional Review Board

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2016

Kenneth R. Mayer
Kenneth R. Mayer*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Profession Symposium: Local Control and Realities in the Relationship between Institutional Review Boards and Political Science Research
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 289 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Burris, Scott. 2008. “Regulatory Innovation in the Governance of Human Subjects Research: A Cautionary Tale and Some Modest Proposals.” Regulation and Governance 2 (2): 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citro, Constance F., Ilgen, Daniel R., and Marrett, Cora B., eds. 2003. “Protecting Participants and Facilitating Social and Behavioral Sciences Research.” US National Research Council, Panel on Institutional Review Boards, Surveys, and Social Science Research. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Gunsalus, C. K., Bruner, Edward M., Burbules, Nicholas C., Dash, Leon, Matthew Finkin, Joseph Goldberg, et al. 2007. “The Illinois White Paper—Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB ‘Mission Creep’.” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (5): 617–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, Robert J-P. 2008. “Protecting Human Research Participants, IRBs, and Political Science Redux: Editor’s Introduction.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (3): 475–6.Google Scholar
Klitzman, Robert L. 2015. The Ethics Police? The Struggle to Make Human Research Safe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Konnikova, Maria. 2015. “How a Gay-Marriage Study Went Wrong.” The New Yorker, May 22.Google Scholar
LaCour, Michael J., and Green, Donald P.. 2014. “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality.” Science 346: 1366–9 (December 12).Google Scholar
Schrag, Zachary M. 2010. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Wisconsin, Madison. 2015. Data Digest 2014–2015. Office of the Provost, Academic Planning & Institutional Research, and Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration (March). Available at http://apir.wisc.edu/datadigest/201415Digest/dd15_web.pdf.Google Scholar