tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525778292565554519.post6523796705577966264..comments2018-01-03T07:02:32.059-05:00Comments on Institutional Review Blog: Criminologists: IRB Demands Threatened ConfidentialityZachary M. Schraghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07101709506166167477noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525778292565554519.post-20088077848448404262011-12-29T17:05:04.051-05:002011-12-29T17:05:04.051-05:00Thanks for this comment. As Boston College prepare...Thanks for this comment. As Boston College prepares to supply prosecutors with interview materials for which the narrators were promised confidentiality, I think all researchers must ask themselves if their "personal word" includes a promise to go to jail before complying with a subpoena.Zachary M. Schraghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07101709506166167477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525778292565554519.post-60867796386063083562011-12-29T11:31:28.232-05:002011-12-29T11:31:28.232-05:00My 'absolutely ironclad guarantee' represe...My 'absolutely ironclad guarantee' represented my personal word, as a cop-to other cops-while I was a serving police officer. This section of the article referred to a grad school project that never was published- for that and other reasons (I promised the participants that I wouldn't ever publish what they gave me for one). Lessons learned! But in regarding the IRB, their demands were impossible to satisfy; there are many, many similar cases cited in this extensive literature.Mitch Librettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525778292565554519.post-45689139462303429462011-11-23T14:45:38.809-05:002011-11-23T14:45:38.809-05:00Thanks for these thoughtful comments. I should hav...Thanks for these thoughtful comments. I should have mentioned that the authors do not merely "generalize from their own personal experience and anecdote"; they also cite a number of other publications noting similar problems with IRBs.<br /><br />I agree that these two researchers could have used some guidance on the limits of confidentiality. Unfortunately, their IRBs seem to have lacked the expertise necessary to provide such guidance, and instead made matters worse. Nor is this surprising. As <a href="http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2007/01/why-not-make-irb-review-voluntary.html" rel="nofollow">Joan Sieber noted back in 2001</a>, "There is now a literature of virtually hundreds of approaches to protecting privacy or assuring confidentiality. This literature is rarely sought out by IRBs, researchers, or teachers of research methods. Most are not even aware that it exists. . . ."<br /><br />The coercive power of IRBs relieves them of the need to achieve and demonstrate true expertise while discrediting the idea of any kind of ethics review. Deregulating social science research might encourage individual researchers and departments to seek out true expertise. See "<a href="http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2008/04/michael-rowe-on-situational-ethics.html" rel="nofollow">Michael Rowe on Situational Ethics</a>."Zachary M. Schraghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07101709506166167477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-525778292565554519.post-20074252366249662632011-11-23T10:58:12.308-05:002011-11-23T10:58:12.308-05:00Interesting. I do not see any evidence that the di...Interesting. I do not see any evidence that the disconnect is "typical". You'd think researchers would know better than to generalize from their own personal experience and anecdote. <br /><br />The requirements in the Librett case are clearly ridiculous and contrary to the requirement to minimize risk. The IRB seems to be more concerned about institutional risk. <br /><br />However, Librett is wrong if he thought he could offer "an absolutely ironclad guarantee that any revelations would never be traceable to an identifiable person." Researchers should never make promises that might not hold up. You'd think a detective, whose job is to identify people who beleive they won't be identified, would no better. Better to describe for the subject the steps taken to greatly reduce the risk. Telling subjects that there is "no risk" is unethical. <br /><br />In the Perrone case there should be no requirement for signed informed consent because this is covered, as noted, by 117(c)(1). I agree that requiring documentation be made available as an option is stupid but following the minimizing risk requirement elsewhere in the regs an IRB is more than justified in ignoring it. If there are conflicting requirements I think it is fair game for the reviewers have to make a sensible choice.<br /><br />They allowed her to keep audio recordings and keep keys to the participants identities despite the legal risk? If they were doing their job they'd want to severely limit the collection of identifiable data and the time it could exist in an identifiable state. And if you collect this identifiable data that makes you ineligible for 117(c)(1). It states "the only record" linking is the consent form. If you want that documentation exemption you can't record other identifying data. That doesn't make any sense. I wonder if they required her to get a certificate of confidentiality? I'm skeptical about how effectiveness of CoCs but at least it's something. <br /><br />Perrone seems to be almost as clueless as she makes her IRB out to be. The part about the option of lying to the court shows really bad judgement. <br /><br />If a breach of confidentiality creates significant risk, you want to severely limit any data that could be identifying including documented consent. You don't want audio recordings or keys files or anything like that. You want to create de-identified data that can't be re-linked without great difficulty or where there is significant doubt about the validity of the recreated links. If the only links are in the researcher's memory, then there is plenty of room for "I'm not sure who said what". Do enough interviews, and believe me, that's true. <br /><br />So, where does this leave us? Sure there are IRBs who do a bad job, but there are researchers who need adult supervision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com