Qualitative research and institutional review boards

Qualitative Inquiry

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 219-234

  Lincoln, Yvonna S ^a   Tierney, William G ^b  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Evidence based research; Institutional review boards; Qualitative research

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548139644     PISSN: 10778004     EISSN: 15527565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077800403262361     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. American Association of University Professors. (2001). Report: Protecting human beings: Institutional review board sand social science research. Academe, 87(3), 55-67.
2. American Sociological Association. (2003, February 7). Statement on intellectual freedom in a time of war. Retrieved February 9, 2003, from http://www.ASADIR-L@georgetown.edu
3. Bauerlein, M. (2001). Social constructionism: Philosophy for the academic workplace. Partisan Review, LXVIII(2), 1-12.
4. Feagin, J. R. (1999, October 15). Soul-searching in sociology: Is the discipline in crisis? Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B4.
5. House, E. F. (in press). Qualitative evaluation and changing social policies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Koertge, N. (1994, September 14). Are feminists alienating women from the sciences? Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A12.
7. Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. (2002, April). Qualitative research and the radical Right: Cats, dogs and other natural enemies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. [See also a revised version of this set of arguments in the article on this topic in this issue.]
8. Moreno, J. D. (2001). Protectionism in research involving human subjects. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants (Vol. II, pp. I-1 - I-21). Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
9. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2001a). Ethical and policy issues involving human participants (Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Vols. I, II, & III). Bethesda, MD: Author.
10. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2001b). Ethical and policy issues involving human participants: Summary. Bethesda, MD: Author.
11. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects in research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
12. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. (Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne, Eds., Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved October 12,2003, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
14. Pritchard, I. (in press). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner inquiry and institutional review boards. Educational Researcher.
15. Weijer, C. (1999). Protecting communities in research: Philosophical and pragmatic challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, 501-513.
16. Weijer, C. (2001). The ethical analysis of risks and potential benefits in human subjects research: History, theory, and implications for U.S. regulation. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants (Vol. II, pp. P-1 - P-28). Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.