Credit: Ashanti M. Alvarez

Faculty member Kathryn Greene shepherds researchers through the Institutional Review Board process.

As a relatively new doctoral student embarking on extensive research, Alix Genter had to be sure that her oral history research protocol was approved by the Rutgers Institutional Review Board (IRB).

“I knew if I was going to incorporate oral history into my research, I was going to have to deal with them,” said Genter, who began pursuing her doctorate in history in September 2007 and is studying post-World War II lesbian culture. “It turned out to be really necessary for me. It was hard to apply this scientific application to my historical work.”

She emailed the IRB office and attended a session run by Kathryn Greene, an associate professor of communication and the new IRB Advisor. Her post is a new one at Rutgers, which is becoming a model for how universities that receive federal research funding disseminate information about the IRB process. The new post, established by Vice President for Research and Professional and Graduate Education Michael Pazzani, advises researchers how to successfully navigate the IRB system and encourages the conduct of ethically sound research.

“Some people are intimidated by the IRB submission process, and they want to have their project go as smoothly and quickly as possible,” said Greene, a faculty member at the School of Communication, Information and Library Studies (SCILS). Her own research focuses on health communication and includes regular submissions to IRB. “For people who aren’t regular users of IRB, it can be a confusing process. If we can improve quality and completeness of proposals, this helps the submitter, helps the office, and helps reviewers.”

Any federally funded institution must have a review board to ensure the ethics of all research involving human subjects. “At a university like Rutgers, without an academic health center, most of the IRBs protocols [projects] are sociobehavioral,” said Sheryl Goldberg, director of Rutgers’ Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.

“The risks to the human subject in sociobehavioral research have a lot to do with privacy, the individuals feeling respected, and retaining their autonomy in the study. An individual can participate, and then choose to leave anytime they wish,” Goldberg said. “Much of the work the IRB reviews is local to New Brunswick or New Jersey. But we have projects in China, Africa, projects dealing with inner-city populations, rural populations. It’s not an exaggeration to say that we have faculty all over the world doing all kinds of research.”

Greene not only runs seminars for faculty and students but also has office hours and is available by email (irbadvisor@orsp.rutgers.edu) to respond to people who need help readying their research protocols for IRB submission. The IRB receives dozens of submissions per month, Greene said. “I just want to meet the need for people who have questions and make sure that they know we are available to facilitate their research.”

Goldberg said the IRB Advisor program is one of a few of its kind in the country. The University of California at Irvine has a similar program, she said, but many universities rely on online tutorials to meet their IRB educational requirements.

“What’s unusual at Rutgers is that you have a faculty person giving presentations to targeted audiences. It’s a real commitment from Kathryn [Greene], and it’s just more effective and efficient if you have a knowledgeable human being to help you,” Goldberg said. Greene was selected as the IRB Advisor because she is an active reviewer of research protocols, and because she is an expert in communication.

The IRB at Rutgers is composed of 20 people. Some are Rutgers faculty; others are outside scientists, medical doctors, subject matter experts, and community members. In addition, there are reviewers who represent the interests of children and reviewers who represent the interests of prisoners, because these are federally designated as “protected populations.”

“Kathryn [Greene] presented a very pragmatic and clear explanation of how we can smoothly and successfully complete the process for submission. Her presentation was very orderly. She was really attentive to the details that we would have had questions about,” said Carol Gordon, an associate professor of library and information science and codirector of the Center for International Scholarship in School Libraries at SCILS.

CISSL works with schools, education departments, school library organizations and other entities, and conducts research with children. Researchers are interested in how children engage in the Information Search Process and how school librarians can intervene, through Guided Inquiry, to help children overcome frustration or other obstacles in their quest for information.

“One thing the IRB Advisor program did was to help me understand how you have to respect the right of potential participants to decline or not to respond,” Gordon said. “You also have to be aware that there are a reasonable number of times that you can contact potential participants.”

Goldberg said that those judgments are often ones that federal regulations can’t explicitly outline. “Let’s say you’re looking at the nutritional habits of people who are considered poor. Would it be coercive if you paid them to participate? Is $10 coercive; is $50 coercive? IRB members need to bring their judgment and experience to the table as well as be familiar with federal regulations.”

For Genter, who is identifying women throughout the New York City metropolitan area to interview, the IRB Advisor program helped her understand that the questions she asked her subjects may come with psychological risks. “I had to find a counseling center to refer people to if my questions bothered them,” Genter said. She also learned that storing her data in password-protected computer files would help ensure subjects’ confidentiality.

 “Asking people about abortion, substance use, and other personal information can bring psychological and sometimes physical risks,” Greene said. “We want to be sure that participants have a clear understanding of the possible risks that come with the research, as well as how they could benefit.”