Organizational Power and the Institutional Review Board

In this essay, we respond to the narratives and essays in this issue by examining organizational power issues related to researchers and institutional research boards (IRBs). Rather than taking a singular perspective on power, we use multiple perspectives and suggest that the cumulative analyses provide the best understanding of IRBs and organizational power.     

A Rationale for Scholarly Examination of Institutional Review Boards: A Case Study

In recent years, institutional review boards (IRBs) have become an increasingly significant part of the research process for communication scholars. This essay provides a rationale for scholarly examination of IRBs. Using the review process for this special issue as a case study, it identifies a number of ironies that provide justification for this special issue.     

A Rationale for Scholarly Examination of Institutional Review Boards: A Case Study

In recent years, institutional review boards (IRBs) have become an increasingly significant part of the research process for communication scholars. This essay provides a rationale for scholarly examination of IRBs. Using the review process for this special issue as a case study, it identifies a number of ironies that provide justification for this special issue.     

The Organizational Tension of Othering

In this paper narratives submitted to this issue are reviewed and critiqued using the feminist lenses of othering and organizational irrationality. Four emergent themes in the narratives are identified and discussed, with the themes and the feminist critique of them used to provide a set of recommendations for developing researcher-IRB working relationships.     

The Development and Operation of IRBs: Medical Regulations and Social Science

A sketch of the development of institutional review boards (IRBs) and the system of human subjects research regulation in the United States is presented, from the Nuremberg Code of 1949 to the Belmont Report of 1979, and continues with several contemporary developments. Conflicts within the system are discussed, particularly those related to the regulatory application of the medical model to social science. Examination of two central documents produced by participants in the IRB regulatory system is presented to illustrate difficulties with current regulation.     

Difficult Interactions between IRBs and Investigators: Applications and Solutions

This essay describes efforts by the University of Iowa administration and Human Subjects Office to adapt review procedures and interpret federal regulations in ways that were appropriate to the distinctive methodologies of social science and humanistic research, including applied research. Two moments of significant change in those procedures are described and several recommendations are offered for addressing the difficulties institutional review boards and applied researchers encounter when they interact: ask questions and be prepared to respond to them, in person when necessary; be reasonable and accountable and assume the other side is too; recognize that human subjects protection is complicated and that real risks are posed by procedures sometimes assumed to be risk-free by nature. The importance of an adequately funded, well-trained staff is emphasized as the precursor to all of those measures.     

The Organizational Tension of Othering

In this paper narratives submitted to this issue are reviewed and critiqued using the feminist lenses of othering and organizational irrationality. Four emergent themes in the narratives are identified and discussed, with the themes and the feminist critique of them used to provide a set of recommendations for developing researcher-IRB working relationships.     

Difficult Interactions between IRBs and Investigators: Applications and Solutions

This essay describes efforts by the University of Iowa administration and Human Subjects Office to adapt review procedures and interpret federal regulations in ways that were appropriate to the distinctive methodologies of social science and humanistic research, including applied research. Two moments of significant change in those procedures are described and several recommendations are offered for addressing the difficulties institutional review boards and applied researchers encounter when they interact: ask questions and be prepared to respond to them, in person when necessary; be reasonable and accountable and assume the other side is too; recognize that human subjects protection is complicated and that real risks are posed by procedures sometimes assumed to be risk-free by nature. The importance of an adequately funded, well-trained staff is emphasized as the precursor to all of those measures.     

Communication Scholars' Communication and Relationship with their IRBs

Using grounded theory, 57 narratives of communication scholars detailing their experiences and relationships with institutional review boards (IRBs) were examined. From this analysis, 24 concepts emerged constituting five larger categories characterizing the communication relationship between communication scholars and IRBs: antagonistic actions of IRBs, negative perceptions of IRBs, actions of researchers, positive perceptions of IRBs, and protagonistic actions of IRBs. Results indicate that the main difference between positive and negative experiences with IRBs was associated with the nature of the relationship between scholars and IRBs. Scholars who saw their IRBs as adversarial bureaucracies had the most negative experiences, whereas scholars who saw their IRBs as partners in the research process had the most positive experiences. Recommendations for how both IRBs and researchers can improve their relationships conclude this essay.     

Anonymity in Applied Communication Research: Tensions Between IRBs,Researchers, and Human Subjects

This essay examines the rather complex role of anonymity in communication research as revealed in the narratives submitted to this special issue. First, narratives were examined quantitatively to assess the prevalence of issues related to anonymity, with terms such as “anonymous” and “confidential” emerging most often. Next, a thematic analysis of the narratives suggests five tensions discussed in some detail: anonymity or (not and) confidentiality, over-promising and under-delivering anonymity, to sign and record … or not, named vs. anonymous vs. pseudonymous, and whether institutional review boards (IRBs) should be anonymous. The essay concludes with several applied recommendations for IRBs, researchers, and participants as they confront these tensions linked to the role of anonymity in human subjects research.     

新型机构信息环境的建设思路及框架*

研究分析了当前国内外机构信息环境发展的趋势，调研了国内主要研究机构的信息需求，总结了国内主要研究机构进行高效率科学研究时需要提高的5种信息能力，提出数字图书馆的建设需要为研究机构创建一个集成连贯的机构信息环境。主要论述了机构信息环境的建设思路，提出机构信息环境建设的框架结构，并对可能用于这一框架结构中的软件系统做了选择和分析。     

国内数字图书馆研究项目综述

文章通过对国家级数字图书馆研究项目的概述,归纳总结出国内数字图书馆研究的主要特点。参加文献9。     

我国机构知识库研究现状分析

本文对我国截止到2009年4月为止的机构知识库相关研究论文进行了调查.首先从论文的发文量、作者、机构、来源期刊等方面进行统计分析.结果表明:我国机构知识库研究自2004年起步以来已发表146篇学术论文,13位高产作者主要分布在中国科学院国家科学图书馆与高校图书馆和图书情报学科,约1/3论文集中刊登在以<图书情报工作>、<现代情报>为代表的三种学术期刊上;其次对论文中作者给出的关键词,在同义词归类和替换的基础上进行排序后析出10大热点关键词;最后对论文研究内容进行了深入分析和归类,认为机构知识库构建的实证研究应该成为今后的研究重点.     

阅读疗法研究述评

本文从阅读疗法的概念、分类、心理学支持及研究发展等四方面介绍和分析国内外的研究成果,并针对诸如阅读疗法的英语专业术语的应用、阅读疗法的分类、阅读疗法的心理学支持等有争议性的议题提出了个人见解。     

2002-2009年国外机构仓储评价研究述评

机构仓储评价是指运用一定的方法对机构仓储从系统建设、内容组织、服务管理等方面进行多角度的评价,找出机构仓储在实践或服务管理方面的不足,以推动机构仓储向良性轨道发展的过程。其经过了评价先导期与评价实践期的发展历程,主要采用问卷调查法、观察研究法、层次分析法等研究方法。其评价指标为系统指标、内容指标和管理指标3个维度。评价内容包括相关者对机构仓储的认知态度及其存储行为评价、基于机构仓储的电子出版评价、机构仓储的自存档评价、机构仓储的系统化评价等。     

2000年以来我国推荐书目研究述评

文章以整体评述、文献计量学、统计数据分析、典型事例引证等方法对2000年以来我国推荐书目研究的进展、研究方向、研究的不足等进行述评。参考文献84。     

机构仓储及高校机构仓储平台建设规划

文章介绍了机构仓储的概念和建设机构仓储的意义等,提出了一个构建高校机构仓储平台的规划,该规划包括前期准备、功能规划以及模块设计。文章还提出了规划实现过程中应注意的问题。最终揭示了建设高校机构仓储平台对于收集、长期保存学术资源、促进知识共享和学术交流具有极其重要的作用,应该在各高校及科研机构大力普及和应用。     

国内外机构库研究综述

在分析国内外机构库研究现状和特点的基础上,介绍了机构库的概念、基本特征、功能、产生背景、发展历程、机构库软件、内容收集、影响、优势和存在的问题以及我国发展机构库的对策.     

机构仓储可持续发展关键问题研究

根据目前机构仓储的发展现状,总结出影响机构仓储规划、建设和管理过程中的五个关键因素,包括社群参与、质量控制、经费问题、法律政策和人力资源;对每种因素进行深入分析,制定有利于机构仓储长期发展的规划方案,为国内机构仓储工作的研究和发展提供借鉴。