ENGL 604

Reaction Paper
Sarah Fehrman

I initially completed my CITI certification just over a year ago for the purpose of working on a

research project with some of my colleagues in PLaCE. Last October was the first time I had been

involved with research on human subjects, so it was the first time I had heard of CITI or the Belmont

Report, or any of the other things that the modules talk about. As I worked through the modules last

year, I thought that it all made lots of sense, seemed very logical, and seemed fairly straightforward.

Even though there were options for exempt research, it still seemed like there was a pretty clear

definition and understanding of what was right and what was wrong.

As I went back and did the refresher course for this certification, I had many of the same

thoughts as the first time. This all still makes sense, seems logical, and seems pretty straightforward.

However, one of the things that I have been thinking about as I have more exposure to research with

human subjects is the second part of my initial reaction are things really as black and white as they are

presented in these modules? (I should say at the beginning that I have not seen or experienced anything

that is unethical, or that has twisted the guidelines that are in place to protect research participants.

These are just things I have thought about as I have seen the details or components of several different

research projects over the past year.)

One example of this is exempt vs non-exempt research. The Federal Regulations module

states that, Research may be eligible for exemption from the Common Rule if all the activities

associated with the research fall into one or more of six categories and goes on to list the three most

common categories as social, behavioral, and educational including the example of research

conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational

practices.
 Obviously there are any number of assignments completed in a classroom over the course of a

semester. These assignments produce data that tell us something about the students or their mastery of

a particular subject. The primary purpose of this data in a classroom setting is to give the instructor

relevant information about student performance that can be translated into a grade. But what happens

when this data can be used to tell another story?

We can learn a great deal from our students and their data, and there are many instances where

it is entirely appropriate to use this data for research. But what does normal educational practices

actually mean? If we take it at face value, it is pretty simple to understand the things that normally go

on in a classroom. Exams, quizzes, essays, attendance, and so on. But what happens when an instructor

has a research idea, and then specifically makes changes to his or her syllabus to accommodate the

research objective? Is this still part of normal education practice or has it changed into something

else?

In this purely hypothetical situation, imagine that an instructor is involved in conducting

research on a new grading machine. This machine can function like scantron, only it can also be

programmed to recognize correct answers for multiple choice and short answer questions. The

instructor teaches a class that is primarily focused on critical thinking, synthesis, and application, so this

is what the lectures and other assignments focus on. However, in the course of the normal classroom

activity of exams, the instructor makes some changes that will be beneficial for his or her research. In

the past, the instructor has always given blue book exams, as this format was most closely aligned with

the goals of the course. However, in order to collect data for testing the new grading machine, the

instructor changes the exam format to be multiple choice and short answer questions. The material on

the exam has been covered in class, but the instructor knows that the new format of the test is not the

most conducive way to assess what students have been practicing and learning in class. Is this kind of

research good and ok? Is the instructor placing his or her own research interests above what is best for
his or her students? Is it the responsibility of an institutions IRB to decide if this is acceptable or not?

Does it matter on the research emphasis or reputation of the institution in question?

I would (thankfully) imagine that most researchers dont wake up and think, what kind of

experiment can I design today that will exploit my students, elevate research above learning, and utilize

loopholes in research ethics? However, if there is in fact a spectrum of right and wrong, ethical and

unethical, then these things can quickly become complicated and messy. I know that the IRB office plays

an important role in mediating these kinds of situations, but how can the IRB office judge a researchers

motivations? In the example above, unless the researcher disclosed the course objectives and explained

to the IRB office about the difference in exam structures, would anyone know to even think about these

things? In the grand scheme of what research can, and has, accomplished, does it matter if students in

one or two semesters dont receive a midterm exam that most closely correlates with the learning

objectives for the course?

Im glad that there is a strong culture of seeking to conduct ethical research at universities in the

US, and that it is standardized with programs like CITI certification. I think it can provide a valuable

foundation for researchers working across disciplines and institutions. However, I also find that there

are some differences between the relatively straightforward world of CITI and the many decisions that

real researchers face with each new idea. I suppose that these things will become clearer to me with

time and experience, but as a new researcher, I wonder about these things.