Criminology and Criminal Justice Researchers’ Experiences and Challenges with Institutional Review Boards (by Elaine Gunnison and Jacqueline Helfgott): Review 3

Vote: I’m inclined to vote “publish pending minor changes” but really will respect any decision that the editor makes, given my concern about sample bias.

Overall, it was well-written, and the authors cover a topic that is very important. My concern is the impact of sample bias here, and this leaves the editor to answer the question of how big of an impact this should have on the decision to publish.

In the limitations section, the authors noted that it is possible that people with strong negative feelings about IRBs were more inclined to participate in the focus group, but it is likely that this was more than just a possibility. The authors know that I did a much larger survey of ACJS members and their opinions of IRBs (Tartaro and Levy). Of course, we had some people with negative experiences and perceptions of IRBs, but that was not universal. The results here seem to indicate that this group was motivated to participate by their negative experiences with IRBs, as it appears that all had complaints. In light of that, I worry that the statement in the discussion that “The findings presented here suggest that scholars, engaging in both qualitative and quantitative investigations, are potentially being obstructed from conducting research in criminology and criminal justice…” I don’t think this sampling plan and the sample allow for such a generalization.

The editorial team might choose to deal with this by asking the authors to make their statement in the limitations section stronger while also tempering their discussion/conclusions. I am not familiar with this journal, so I don’t know how strict their methodology requirements are.