Student researchers used action research both to study the relationship between university researchers and the ethics committee, and also to explore the ethics committee's approach to protocols involving action research and other qualitative methods. We review the existing literature on relationships between university faculty and their ethics committees and briefly discuss the basic tenets of action research. We then describe our research process and the specific recommendations that resulted from this work. Finally, we consider the ways in which action research can be used to better understand and address institutional problems through effective collaboration and dialogue.
AndersonG. L. & HerrK. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities?Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12–21.
2.
BoserS. (2006). Ethics and power in community-campus partnerships for research. Action Research, 4(1), 9–21.
3.
Brydon-MillerM. (2008). Covenantal ethics and action research: Exploring a common foundation for social research. In MertensD. M. & GinsbergP. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Research Ethics (pp. 248–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
4.
Brydon-MillerM. (2001). Education, research, and action: Theory and methods of participatory action research. In TolmanD. L. & Brydon-MillerM. (Eds.), From Subjects to Subjectivities: A handbook of Interpretive and Participatory Methods (pp. 76–89). New York, NY: New York University Press.
5.
Brydon-MillerM. & GreenwoodD. (2006). A re-examination of the relationship between action research and human subjects review processes. Action Research, 4(1), 117–128.
CandilisP. J.LidzC. W., & ArnoldR. M. (2006). The need to understand IRB deliberations. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 28(1), 1–5.
8.
GreenwoodD. & LevinM. (1998). Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
HemmingsA. (2006). Great ethical divides: Bridging the gap between institutional review boards and researchers. Educational Researcher, 35(4), 12–18.
10.
HilsenA. I. (2006). And they shall be known by their deeds: Ethics and politics in action research. Action Research, 4(1), 23–36.
11.
JonesJ. H. (1993). Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, rev. ed.New York, NY: Free Press.
12.
Keith-SpeigelP.KoocherG. P., & TabachnickB. (2006). What scientists want from their research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 67–82.
13.
LincolnY. S. & TiernyW. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219–234.
14.
MaloneR. E.VergerV. B.McGruderC., & FroelicherE. (2006). “It's like Tuskegee in reverse”: A case study of ethical tensions in Institutional Review Board review of community-based participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 96(11), 1914–1919.
15.
McNiffJ.LomaxP., & WhiteheadJ. (1996). You and Your Action Research Project. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
MinklerM. & WallersteinN. (Eds.) (2003). Community-based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
NolenA. L. & PuttenJ. V. (2007). Action research in education: Addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 401–407.
18.
PenslarR. L. (1993). Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook. Bethesda, MD: Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health. Available online at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm.
19.
ReasonP. & BradburyH. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In ReasonP. & BradburyH. (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 1–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20.
RubinP. & SieberJ. E. (2006) Editorial: Empirical research on IRBs and methodologies usually associated with minimal risk. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(4), 1–4.
21.
StringerE. T. (2004). Action Research in Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
22.
ThomasS. B. & QuinnS. C. (1991). The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932–1972: Implications for HIV education and AIDS risk programs in the black community. American Journal of Public Health, 81(11), 1498–1505.
23.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1993). Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook, Chapter IV: Considerations of research design. Bethesda, MD: Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved November 21, 2007 from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_chapter4.htm.
