The Institutional Review Board - Essay Example

M7A2 - Research methods affiliation M7a2 - Research MethodsAccording to the University Institutional Review Board Handbook for carrying out research, it is the role of the university Institutional Review Boards to officially state conformity with research guidelines that offer for the ethical conduct of human research participants. The board carries out its most important responsibility by reviewing applications for official recognition of compliance submitted by principal investigators (Institutional Review Board Handbook, 2011).

The main mission of this University Institutional Review Board Handbook the board is to guarantee the principled handling of human participants. This includes all researchers associated with University Institutional Review Board Handbook in conformity with the set of laws developed by the University Institutional Review Board Handbook. By not getting well-versed consent from the board, Ann will not be following the guidelines developed by the board. Even though she believes she is not interfering with participants, it is important to inform the board so that they conduct their investigations (Institutional Review Board Handbook, 2011).

According to the code of federal regulations, participants are humans whom the researcher carrying out research obtains information, through involvement or contact with the person. Therefore, these individuals are known as participants. So, the other main purpose of University Institutional Review Board Handbook is to make sure that the risks to participants are reduced (Institutional Review Board Handbook, 2011). This is illustrates indispensable condition for guarantee. The perseverance of when the study participant is at possibility of being at risk is substance of using an ordinary sense and good professional opinion as it relates to the state of affairs of the research achievement (Corey, Corey & Callanan, 2007).

The board will cautiously weigh the comparative risks and remuneration of the investigation measures as they communicate to the study participants. Therefore, researchers are not justified in not obtaining informed consent from the board (Corey, Corey & Callanan, 2007). Ann’s description described above does not meet the Universitys informed consent criteria. This is because she fails to follow the direct procedure developed by the university board. Ann should inform the board about the participants.

She should ensure that the participants in the study are fully aware of the risks and that individuals may withdraw from the study at any time without any form of penalty. Ann should also be aware that rights and welfare of any such participants will be adequately protected. There is an extensive assortment of health check, societal and behavioral research studies and actions in which no instantaneous corporeal or psychological risk to the contributor is concerned, for instance, those making use of individuality materials for research, questionnaires, the use interviews or observation, pictures, recorders, or documented data.

Some of these measures, on the other hand, may engage changeable degrees of distress, annoyance, or incursion of privacy, which possibly will comprise a risk (Institutional Review Board Handbook, 2011). ReferencesArgosy University Institutional Review Board Handbook – September, 2011.Corey, G., Corey, M. and Callanan, P. (2007). Issues and ethics in the helping profession (7th ed). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.