Do Community Members Have an Effective Voice in the Ethical Deliberation of a Behavioral Institutional Review Board?

Ellen Barton Wayne State University ; Luke Thominet Florida International University ; Ruth Boeder Wayne State University ; Sarah Primeau Wayne State University

Abstract

Using concepts and methods from technical and professional communication and linguistics, the authors conducted an observational study of the voice of community members (CMs) in the deliberation of a behavioral institutional review board (IRB). In the discourse of deliberation, they found that CMs had an effective voice in constructing the compliance of individual research protocols under IRB review. But they also found that CMs had an ineffective voice in representing their African-American community, particularly in their efforts to advocate for more consideration of minority research sites and subjects and a fuller consideration of minority community attitudes.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2018-04-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651917746460
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (4)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

References (51) · 2 in this index

  1. Abbott L., Grady C. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and…
  2. IRB: Ethics & Human Research
  3. Institutional review board: Member handbook
  4. Anderson E. E. (2006). A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board member…
  5. APA Style Blog. (2015). Using italics for technical (or key) terms. Retrieved from http://blog.apastyle.org/a…
Show all 51 →
  1. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. (2012). Home page. Retrieved from ht…
  2. How to do things with words
  3. Beauchamp T. L. (2004, 9 22). Oral history of the Belmont Report and the National Commission for the Protecti…
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. Institutional Review Board
  6. Spoken discourse: A model for analysis
  7. College English
  8. Fitzgerald M. H., Phillips P. A., Yule E. (2006). The research ethics review process and ethics review narrat…
  9. The checklist manifesto: How to get things right
  10. Gunsalus C. K., Bruner E. M., Burbules N., Dash L. D., Finkin M., Goldberg J.…Pratt M. G. (2006). The Illinoi…
  11. The theory of communicative action
  12. HealthyPeople. (2020). Disparities. Retrieved from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/foundation-health…
  13. 10.1017/CBO9780511841057
  14. Hedgecoe A. (2008). Research ethics review and the sociological research relationship. Sociology, 42, 873–886…
  15. Discussion in the college classroom: Applications for sociology instruction
  16. Hsieh H. F., Shannon S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research…
  17. Methods and methodology in composition research
  18. Harvey Sacks: Lectures on conversation
  19. Sociology and Social Research
  20. King P. A. (2004, 9 9). Oral history of the Belmont Report and the National Commission for the Protection of …
  21. Belmont revisited: Ethical principles for research with human subjects
  22. Klitzman R. (2012). Institutional review board community members: Who are they, what do they do, and whom do …
  23. The ethics police: The struggle to make human research safe
  24. 10.4159/9780674054158
  25. Lidz C. W., Simon L. J., Seligowski A. V., Myers S., Gardner W., Candilis P. J.…Appelbaum P. S. (2012). The p…
  26. 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
  27. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979, 4 18).…
  28. National Research Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 289 § 474. Institutional review boards; Ethics guidance program. Ret…
  29. Porter J. P. (1986). What are the ideal characteristics of unaffiliated/nonscientist IRB members? IRB: Ethics…
  30. Porter J. P. (1987). How unaffiliated/nonscientist members of institutional review boards see their roles. IR…
  31. Spoken soul: The story of Black English
  32. Strangers at the bedside: A history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision…
  33. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262028912.001.0001
  34. 10.1353/book.471
  35. Seligman M. E. P., Csikszentmihalyi M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 5…
  36. 10.1097/00001888-200302000-00019
  37. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1974.tb01159.x
  38. Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research
  39. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1974, 5 30). Title 45—Public welfare part 46—Protection o…
  40. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1993). OHRP institutional review board guidebook. Retrieved fr…
  41. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998a, 6). Institutional review boards: Promising approaches. …
  42. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998b, 6). Institutional review boards: A time for reform. Ret…
  43. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Title 45—Public Welfare CFR 46 Protection of Human Subj…
  44. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). OHRP educational videos: IRB membership. Retrieved from…
  45. Veatch R. M. (1975). Human experimentation committees: Professional or representative? Hastings Center Report…
  46. Medical apartheid: The dark history of medical experimentation on Black Americans from co…