A few weeks ago, a correspondent asked me what reforms individual universities can implement while awaiting systemic, regulatory reform. It's an excellent question, so here's a roundup from material previously covered on the blog.
No university has adopted all of these measures, and at least one of these measures has not been adopted by any. But most of them are in place already, and there's no reason they can't spread.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
What Can One University Do?
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
10:13 AM
Labels:
aaup,
advisory boards,
appeals,
Belmont,
citi,
due process,
empirical research,
exemptions,
faculty governance,
george mason university,
michigan,
Ohio State,
oral history,
Princeton,
reform,
regulations,
TEAR,
usc
0
comments
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Boston College Oral History Roundup
I rely on the exceptionally thorough Boston College Subpoena News for updates on the efforts of the United Kingdom and United States governments to get access to oral history interviews of participants in Northern Ireland's Troubles, but I feel I should flag three items of special interest to readers of this blog.
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
1:51 AM
Labels:
boston college,
confidentiality,
crime,
criminology,
international,
lowman,
oral history,
palys,
shield,
subpoena,
United Kingdom
0
comments
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Federal Demonstration Parternship Pilots Exempt Wizard
In response to concern about "Over-review of Exempt Research", the Federal Demonstration Partnership is testing an Exempt Wizard, which would allow researchers to fill in a computer form and learn if their projects are exempt, rather than waiting for an IRB or IRB staff to make that determination.
Boston University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, College of Charleston, Sacramento State, New York University, and the University of Washington are participating in the trial.
This sounds most promising.
Boston University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, College of Charleston, Sacramento State, New York University, and the University of Washington are participating in the trial.
This sounds most promising.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
REB Members Beg U of Ottawa to Defend Confidentiality
IRB apologists sometimes argue that IRB review is necessary to ensure that universities will defend researchers and their participants from litigation. Boston College Subpoena News reminds us that ethics approval is no guarantee of such support.
[“News of Interest: Canadian Academics Strongly Defend Research Confidentiality, Call for University Support of Researchers.” Boston College Subpoena News, April 9, 2013. http://bostoncollegesubpoena.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/news-of-interest-canadian-academics-strongly-defend-research-confidentiality-call-for-university-support-of-researchers/.]
[“News of Interest: Canadian Academics Strongly Defend Research Confidentiality, Call for University Support of Researchers.” Boston College Subpoena News, April 9, 2013. http://bostoncollegesubpoena.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/news-of-interest-canadian-academics-strongly-defend-research-confidentiality-call-for-university-support-of-researchers/.]
Posted by
Zachary M. Schrag
at
1:20 PM
Labels:
Canada,
confidentiality,
criminology,
sex,
subpoena
0
comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)