Sometimes, an instructor will submit a class assignment to the IRB before the semester starts, so that IRB categorization is in place before students start their work. Here are four examples:
- An assignment might include journalistic interviewing that will be exempt from review for each student.
- An assignment might include practicing research methodology in a way that would be HSR if being done for publication, but is not HSR because it is practice.
- An assignment might include HSR, and there is already a protocol approved (to which students do work to get added as research personnel)
- An assignment might include HSR, and as part of the assignment students prepare the IRB protocol submission (which is then submitted to the IRB by the instructor as the Primary Investigator)
Below are four example statements that might be added to assignments by an instructor following interaction with the IRB. Even further down the page are additional details about the responsibilities of instructors supervising projects like these in their classes.
Four example statements that could appear on Minerva assignments.
Statement from the IRB for Interview-Based Assignments: The institutional review board (IRB) at Minerva reviews and monitors research with human subjects at Minerva. The MU IRB has reviewed this assignment and categorized it as “not human subjects research”. This categorization is because the assignment is about informational interviews to understand a specific context, rather than trying to make generalizable claims about humans. Because the IRB has reviewed this assignment and provided this categorization, students do not need to communicate with the IRB about this assignment or get approval from the IRB. Importantly, students should still think about the experience of the people providing information for this assignment, including avoiding any potential for harm, thinking about #ethicalconsiderations in general, and maintaining a high level of #professionalism. Students should discuss best practices with their instructor, and can also contact the IRB at hsr@minerva.edu. More information about the IRB and human subjects research at Minerva can be found at irb.minerva.edu
Statement from the IRB for Assignments to Practice Research: The institutional review board (IRB) at Minerva reviews and monitors research with human subjects at Minerva. The MU IRB has reviewed this assignment and categorized it as “not human subjects research”. This categorization is because the assignment is about practicing research methodology, rather than trying to make generalizable claims about humans. Notably, this means that the work being done in this assignment would require review and approval by the IRB if it were being done with the goal of making (and perhaps then publicly sharing or publishing) generalizable claims. Importantly, students should still think about the experience of the people providing information for this assignment, including avoiding any potential for harm, thinking about #ethicalconsiderations in general, and maintaining a high level of #professionalism. Students should discuss best practices with their instructor, and can also contact the IRB at hsr@minerva.edu. More information about the IRB and human subjects research at Minerva can be found at irb.minerva.edu
Statement from the IRB for Assignments With Existing Approval. The institutional review board (IRB) at Minerva reviews and monitors research with human subjects at Minerva. The MU IRB has reviewed this assignment and categorized it as “human subjects research”. This categorization is because the assignment involves data collection with humans that could be used to make generalizable claims about people. The details of this assignment have been reviewed and approved by the IRB as Protocol #[insert number], and as part of doing this assignment you should read the application and approval at this link [insert link]. Each student will be added to the IRB protocol as a researcher. Being added to the protocol requires that you have done Human Subjects Training (original or annual refresher) within the past 12 months. Click here [link] to find the training modules. More information about the IRB and human subjects research at Minerva can be found at irb.minerva.edu
Statement from the IRB for Assignments Requiring IRB Applications. The institutional review board (IRB) at Minerva reviews and monitors research with human subjects at Minerva. The MU IRB has reviewed this assignment and determined that most or all students completing this assignment will be engaging in “human subjects research”. This categorization is because the assignment involves data collection with humans that could be used to make generalizable claims about people. Thus, an early part of this assignment will be submitting information to the IRB, according to the instructions here [link, likely to a resource put together to help students through the process for this particular assignment, including template material for their application]. More information about the IRB and human subjects research at Minerva can be found at irb.minerva.edu
Responsibility of Instructors Supervising Projects
When students are “practicing research methodology” as a classroom exercise (with no possibility of trying to publish or otherwise publicly share “results” as generalizable knowledge) then it is possible that IRB approval is not required. Notably, this puts the burden of supervising and approving the activities on the instructor, and so may be more work for the instructor compared to relying on the MU IRB for this.
A good analysis of this can be seen on this page from the University of Michigan. The most notable bit is the section on “Instructor Obligation” that says, in part:
- “Even when a class assignment is "non-research" and, thus, not under the jurisdiction of the IRB, faculty members have an affirmative obligation to ensure that students understand their ethical obligations in carrying out their assignments. Instructors should provide guidance to students collecting information so as to minimize any unwitting or unintentional harms to other students or to individuals, especially if students will interact with or collect private information about vulnerable individuals. Faculty members may use a number of ways to educate students and encourage responsible interactions with others, including:
- Reviewing students' plans for classroom or group projects and suggesting improvements in design and protections for confidentiality
- Requesting that students take … on-line training on human subject protection before collecting information from others
- [and 6 more bullet points]”
In short, whether it is done by the IRB or by an instructor, there should be an identical level of supervision and commitment to research best practices, #ethicalconsiderations, and #professionalism. The Minerva IRB is committed to supporting instructors as much as they desire in meeting this supervision and commitment--as with many other cases, we are eager to be available to assist and consult with research at Minerva, even when you are not required by policy to consult with us!