Human subjects requirements and economic education researchers

Lopus, Jane S. and Grimes, Paul W. and Becker, William E. and Pearson, Rodney (2007): Human subjects requirements and economic education researchers. Published in: The American Economist , Vol. Volume, (November 2007): pp. 49-60.

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a web-based survey of economic educators who were asked about their knowledge and experience with human subjects research and the mandated federal protocols that govern such research at most American universities. The results indicate that while economic education researchers are experienced in conducting human subjects research and are aware of the federal regulations, they are not well informed about key details of the regulations. They are skeptical of the net benefits of the mandated protocols because of the perceived discouraging burdens of the paperwork that rarely result in significant modifications of their research projects. The authors conclude that recent calls for modifications to the federal regulations for classroom-based research projects may be justified given the opportunity costs of adhering to the regulations compared to the relatively low levels of perceived benefits.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Human subjects; Experiments; Internal Review Boards; Regulation; Research
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments; A - General Economics and Teaching > A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics

References

Becker, William E. 2002. 2002 Annual Report. The Journal of Economic Education. Available from: www.indiana.edu/~econed/anrpts/anrpt02/rep02 .htm

Brainard, Jeffrey. 2005. An Accrediting Group for Protecting Human Research Subjects Will Close. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Today's News, 13 September. Available from: http:// chronicle.com/daily/2005/09/2005091304n.htm

Brainard, Jeffrey. 2004. When is Research Really Research? The Chronicle of Higher Education 51 (14):A21.

Brainard, Jeffrey. 2003. Eederal Agency Says Oral History Is Not subject to Rules on Human Research Volunteers. The Chronicle of Higher Education 50 (10): A25.

Center for Advanced Study. 2005. Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB 'Mission Creep.' The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Available from: http://www.law.uiuc.edu/conferences/ whitepaper/

Friedman, Daniel and Shyam Sunder. 1994. Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Gray, B.H., Cooke, R.A., and Tannenbaum, A.S. 1978. Research Involving Human Subjects. 5ae «ce201 (4361): 1094-1101.

Hamburger, Phillip. 2004. The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards. Supreme Court Review 21 \ (2004): 271-354.

Howard, Jennifer. 2006. Oral History Under Review. The Chronicle of Higher Education 53

Howe, K.R. and Dougherty, K.C. 1993. Ethics, Institutional Review Boards, and the Changing Face of Educational Research. Educational Researcher 21 {9): 16-21.

Oakes, J.M. 2002. Risks and Wrongs in Social Science Research: An Evaluator's Guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review 26 (5): 443-79.

Pritchard, I.A. 2002. Travelers and Trolls: Practitioner Research and Institutional Review Boards. Educational Researcher 31 (3): 3-13.

Siegfried, J. J. and Stock, W. A. 2004. The Market for New Ph.D. Economists in 2002. American Economic Review 94 (2): 272-85.

Thompson, J. T, Elgin, C, Hyman, D. A., Rubin, P E., and Knight, J. 2006. Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institutional Review Board. Academe (92) 5: 95-100.

United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 2005. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Public Welfare, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects. Available from: http://www. hhs.gov/ohrp/