What's Missing? The Combined Logic of Research Approvals in University and School District Institutional Review Board Processes

• In Event: Hilton Roundtable Session 6
  In Roundtable Session: Collaboration Between Researchers and Organizational Stakeholders in an Age of Accountability

Abstract

Many university researchers in the field of education situate their studies within the K-12 school system, relying on IRB approval from not only their institution, but also from a school district. While both approval processes are similar in name, the underlying purposes and motivations vary. University institutional review boards focus on protecting the “rights and welfare of human subjects in research” by minimizing risk in accordance with the Belmont principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (USF RIRIC, 2019, p. 5). School district instructional review boards, while not ignoring potential risks, tend to prioritize the feasibility of the study (e.g., burden of data collection on district staff, time taken away from instruction) and the direct benefits to the district (Muñoz, 2016). The purpose of this presentation is to contribute to the sparse discussion on the dual-approval process for academics conducting research in school districts, highlighting which studies are privileged within the approval logic of both systems and providing a critique of how this process leaves out other types of studies. This analysis draws from a critical perspective, seeking to challenge the dominant narrative created by these approval logics of what is considered “good” research.

As two researchers in a university setting, our own experiences informed our examination of the two different approval logics. One researcher’s experience comes primarily from working at a university as a faculty member, and the other’s from being a graduate student in a university, but also from having worked for a school district’s research department and coordinating their IRB for several years. In addition to our own experiences, we also pulled from the existing literature on the nature of the university and district IRB processes, and reviewed the IRB process documents from our university and local districts. Our analysis started with examining the logic of the IRB process at the university-level and district-level independently. A university logic and district logic were outlined—with universities focusing on minimizing risk, and districts focusing on maximizing benefits and feasibility—and then the types of studies that would be easily approved through both systems were delineated. These studies can be seen as constituting “good” educational research in the eyes of both systems: actionable, generalizable, and with minimal impact on instructional time or district resources.

But, what studies are excluded in these logics? Research that is more theoretical, critical, participatory, or controversial would not be as easily approved by both university and district IRBs, despite a social climate oriented towards activism and increases in and calls for activist-oriented, transformative educational research methodologies (e.g., Kuntz, 2015). Much of the literature that discusses research in school districts does so through the lens of research partnerships—instances when districts seek to connect with a local university to help conduct research of interest to the district (e.g., Brulles, 2019; Muñoz, 2016; Vukotich & Lani, 2018), but this presentation illustrates the issues surrounding studies that are not requested by districts, and might be overlooked or denied in the current approval logic.

Authors

• Stephanie Green, University of South Florida - Tampa

• Jennifer R. Wolgemuth, University of South Florida