Institute of Communications Research
Research — Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Human Subjects
I. Overview
The College of Media/ICR Human Subject Review Committee is the college-level body responsible for reviewing researches involving human subjects. The committee is chaired by Professor Norman Denzin.
The policy of on human subjects research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the College of Media states that all research involving human subjects conducted by any employee or agent of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, or otherwise conducted at or sponsored by the University, irrespective of the risks, scope, funding or location of the research, must comply with federal and campus policies for the protection of human subjects. Illinois' Institutional Review Board and College of Media/ICR Human Subject Review Committee share responsibility for ensuring that all relevant research activities meet these requirements. All students, faculty or staff in the College of Media who plan to conduct research involving human subjects, or researchers from another institution who plan to collaborate with College of Media students, faculty or staff, must follow the procedures for human subjects review.
In general, the College of Media/ICR Human Subject Review Committee evaluates all studies involving human subjects except those that are funded in whole or in part by funding resources external to the University or those studies that involve more than a "minimal risk" to subjects. (Minimal risk is defined as a research protocol in which risks of anticipated harm are not greater, considering probability and magnitude, than those ordinarily encountered in the subject's daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests). All research that places human subjects at more than minimal risk and some externally funded research must be reviewed by the University Institutional Review Board before researches can be run.
The internal review of research with human subject at the College of Media follows the general federal and campus guidelines to prioritize ethical awareness for protecting human subjects in research. At the same time, it is expected that the internal review process could also generate lively conversations across the units in the College on the issues of federal regulation, academic freedom and research ethics, while at the same simplifying procedures and minimizing paperwork for communications researchers.
There are three tracks of review in the College of Media: interpretive research of the oral history variety that does not require IRB review, behavioral science research that qualifies for expedited review and exemption within college IRB review, and standard behavioral science research requiring campus IRB review. (Please refer to Appendix I for the routing of application requirements at different levels.)
1. In light of the present establishment on the application of federal regulations governing research on human subjects to oral history, above all, we hold that communication studies in general fall in a similar body of research that does not contribute to "generalizable knowledge," the regulatory definition of research, and should be freed from federal review. If communication scholars deem their communications projects do not meet the regulatory definition of research, they may make a statement to the college IRB body claiming that their research is qualified for exclusion of IRB review. Although there is not yet a college protocol that defines the types of communications and media research to be excluded from IRB review, we hope college-level conversations on this subject could be generated to serve as a reference for researchers to make "exclusion" statements. These conversations join force with a nationwide action taken by academic professional associations (such as the American Association of University Professors) against the "unchecked power" of IRB over the academic freedom. We encourage all members of the College of Media family to refer to the latest report of AAUP on this issue.
The following articles should also be of interest to concerned scholars:
Live discussions, "Getting the OK to Interview Grandma," Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 8, 2006.
Jennifer Howard, "Oral History Under Review," Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 10, 2006.
Nevertheless, it should also be pointed out that the applicability of the exclusion of IRB reviews to communications research by no means contradicts with the high esteem for ethical integrity that communications scholars prioritize in their researches involving human subjects. For decades, indeed, communications researchers have promulgated high ethical and professional standards, including their ethical requirement to gain informed consent prior to conducting an interview. The College of Media/ICR Human Subject Review Committee takes these standards into consideration when assessing whether communications researchers meet the criteria for federal regulation. For a comparative review on the nature of research that might be exempted from IRB review, please refer to Appendix II on the complete exclusion of oral history research from IRB review.
2. If a project does meet the regulatory definition of research, the application for college IRB review should be filed. As a central part of the committee's effort to facilitate College of Media researchers, the college IRB body makes decisions on certain research projects that are exempt from IRB review or can be reviewed in an expedited process, based on University and federal guidelines. Please note that the determination of exemption may not be made by the investigators themselves. All human subjects research, whether exempt or not, must be submitted for approval by College of Communications / ICR Human Subject Review Committee. No involvement of human subjects may take place prior to formal, written approval from the appropriate body. For a description of categories of research that meet the requirements for both "exempt review" and "expedited review," please refer to Appendix III, A and B.
Given the scope, nature and methodologies of communications research, much of the research undertaken by College of Media is supposed to be exempted from IRB review, and therefore, it is the aim of the committee to facilitate researchers by helping them adjust their projects to the federal and campus requirements.
3. If a project involves more than minimal risk to human subjects and is funded externally, the application for campus IRB review should be filed with the campus IRB-1 form and other required materials (Appendix IV).
All students, faculty and staff of the College of Media are expected to make themselves familiar with the scope of research subject to IRB review, the different levels of review required for the research, and the departmental and University human subjects review processes.
II. Review process
For research projects that are not externally funded, do not involve more than minimal risk and are deemed by researchers as "research" according to the federal definition, human subjects review may be initiated by submitting a completed College of Media/ICR Human Subject Review Form (Appendix V), and supporting documentation to the College of Media/ICR Human Subject Review Committee. The form and supporting materials must be received by the committee at least four weeks before the research is scheduled to begin. On the application form, it is assumed that researchers will indicate whether their project qualifies for either "Exempt from Review" or "Expedited Review."
On the IRB application form, the researcher shall identify his or her Responsible Project Investigator (RPI). Responsible Project Investigator is a nonvisiting member of UI faculty or staff who takes ultimate responsibility for the protection of the subjects and the conduct of the human subjects research described on his or her IRB application. For College of Media students, the RPI would normally be their academic adviser or course instructor who meets certain requirements or the IRB contact person in their units. (See http://www.irb.uiuc.edu/ihb/part3.asp#A.)
The supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, an informed consent. The consent form may be a comprehensive written document that embodies the federally required elements of informed consent or a short form stating that the required elements of informed consent have been presented orally to the subject or their representative. In either case, a copy of the form must be given to the subject or their representative. For a complete list of the required elements of a consent document, please see Appendix V. There are also samples of informed consent on the University IRB site for researchers to design their own templates. (See http://www.irb.uiuc.edu/ic/samples.asp.)
Once submitted, the human subjects form and other documents relevant to the research will be reviewed to determine whether they are complete and clearly respond to the questions. If not, requests for additional or revised information will be made. Once the forms are complete and in order, and University IRB review is not necessary, human subjects review will be conducted in College of Media, and the researcher will be notified of their project's approval as soon as possible by letter in campus mail or e-mail. Researchesr may not proceed with their research until they have received notice of approval. If the reviewer determines that review at the University IRB is warranted, the researcher will be contacted and the materials will be forwarded to University IRB for review.
Accompanying IRB documents
Routing of Application for Research Involving Human Subjects.
This is a graph that illustrates the text in Part I about how researchers
could decide what level of IRB oversight their research might need to go
through.
Appendix II The Exclusion of Oral History from IRB Review.
This is an additional text that helps researchers understand what types
of research might be completely excluded from IRB review. Before filing
for IRB approval, researchers might consider if their research falls under
the federal definition of regulable research as "generalizable knowledge,"
so no IRB oversight would be necessary for their research at all. For an
update report, see www.historians.org/Perspectives/Issues/2004/0403/0403new1.cfm.
Appendix III-A Categories of Research
for Expedited Review
This is a text that describes the categories of research that could reviewed
by an IRB body in an expedited process. Also available on the University
IRB Web site.
Appendix IIII-B Categories of Research
for Exempt Review.
This is a text that describes the categories of research that could be exempted
from IRB review. Also available on the University IRB Web site.
Appendix IV Campus IRB FORM.
This is the University campus IRB form. Researchers have to go through campus
procedures with this form if their research is externally funded or involves
more than minimal risk to human subjects.
Appendix V ICR / College of Communications
IRB Form.
This is the form for researchers to file IRB application at department level.