Internal Review Board Discussion

Assignment 1: Internal Review Board Discussion

This week we learned that before you conduct research for your dissertation you must have your research reviewed by the IRB. By the due date assigned, post in the discussion below the type of review your research will require and why. Provide feedback to at least two of your peers through the end of the module.

All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.

Module 7 Overview (1 of 2)

Provides the learning outcomes on which the readings and assignments for this module are based.
  • Examine the purpose of a study, research methodology, and data collection methods.
  • Apply ethical decision making related to cultural diversity in participant selection and recruiting, data collection, and analysis.
  • Given a research question, examine and analyze strengths and limitations of multiple methodologies to select the most appropriate research design.
  • Draft a methods section appropriate to research question(s).

Research Methods: Ethical Issues in Research

In Module 7 we will review various ethical issues in conducting research and the researchers’ responsibility to the participants of their studies. This is the final component to prepare you to complete your final paper at the end of this week.

Just as morality is a part of everyday living, ethics is a way of living that permeates all aspects of research. It is essential for researchers to be aware of their responsibility to research participants, co-workers, the profession, and the society as a whole (Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold, 1999).

Creswell (2009) reviewed many ethical issues in conducting research including identifying the research problem, the data collection process, data analysis and interpretation, and writing and disseminating the research. Another issue that is sometimes overlooked relates to the duplication of data. It is not considered to be ethical for researchers to publish the same data in different journal articles because it may give the impression that there is more information to be offered for a particular topic than is warranted by the data. Similarly, “piecemeal” publication is also considered to be unethical. Piecemeal, or fragmented, publication refers to publication of several and perhaps somewhat different studies from the same data set. However, it should be noted that this does not include re-analysis of published data to test a new theory or methodology, assuming that the new article will clearly identify the source of data and the rationale for the re-analysis.

Creswell (2009) briefly touched upon the issue of authorship in publications. For doctoral students, it is sometimes challenging and complicated to negotiate publication credits for their theses and dissertations. Because of numerous complaints, the American Psychological Association Ethics Committee (1983) issued a policy statement that provides detailed guidelines regarding publishing dissertations.

  1. Only second authorship is acceptable for the dissertation supervisor.
  2. Second authorship may be considered obligatory if the supervisor designates the primary variables, makes major interpretative contributions, or provides the database.
  3. Second authorship is a courtesy if the supervisor designates the general area of concern or is substantially involved in the development of the design and measurement procedures or substantially contributes to the write-up of the published report.
  4. Second authorship is not acceptable if the supervisor provides only encouragement, physical facilities, financial support, critiques, or editorial contributions.
  5. In all instances, agreement should be reviewed before writing for publication is undertaken and at the time of submission. If disagreements arise, they should be resolved by a third party using these guidelines.

Continue on to the next page for a discussion of ethical issues related to participants.

Research Methods: Ethical Issues in Research

Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (1985) state that the goal of the ethical researcher is to develop a fair, clear, and explicit agreement with participants so that their decision to participate in an experiment is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Even though they were psychologists, this principle applies to other disciplines including business and education.

Historically, participants’ welfare and dignity were not of the foremost concern. There were several notorious examples of abuse, including the experiments conducted during WWII in Nazi prison camps where prisoners died from lethal doses of chemicals and various levels of physical abuse. Another example was a program conducted by a hospital in Brooklyn in the 1960s where 22 chronically ill patients were injected with cancer cells as part of a study to examine the body’s capacity to reject foreign cells. The patients were not informed of their participation (Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold, 1999; Stricker, 1982).

Now, all research projects with human participants are subject to federal regulations governing research, and most institutions have an Institutional Review Board (IRB) committee of peers to review all research proposals. The Argosy University IRB handbook, located in Discussion Area, is required reading for this module. Be sure to consult The Argosy University IRB handbook for the Informed Consent template, which you must modify for your study and include in your final paper.

Lastly, here are some questions for you to reflect on:

How do you see your dissertation research? Is it a project that you are passionate about, and you cannot wait to start the process, or is it merely a means to an end to obtain your degree? How does your attitude affect your decision to select topics, design your study, and interpret the results?

Assignment 1 Grading Criteria

Maximum Points

Discussed which type of IRB review is appropriate for your selected research.


Responded/Provided feedback to at least two classmates posts.


Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources, displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Justified ideas and responses by using appropriate examples and references from texts, Web sites, and other references or personal experience. Followed APA rules for attributing sources.