Brandi Hinnant-Crawford, E. Bonney, Jill Alexa Perry, A. Bozack, Deborah S. Peterson, Robert Crow, Susan Carlile
{"title":"Continuous Improvement, Institutional Review Boards, and Resistance to Practitioner Scholarship","authors":"Brandi Hinnant-Crawford, E. Bonney, Jill Alexa Perry, A. Bozack, Deborah S. Peterson, Robert Crow, Susan Carlile","doi":"10.3102/0013189x231208413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, we explore the tension between research using continuous improvement (CI) paradigms, such as improvement science, and conventional research, and the role and regulation of Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight. We argue that the current regulatory structure privileges traditional research and hinders collaborative inquiry that centers the voice and agency of those traditionally marginalized. We also question whether IRBs should limit CI efforts required of educational leaders as part of their jobs. We offer recommendations for how IRBs and scholar-practitioners can together support CI efforts.","PeriodicalId":507571,"journal":{"name":"Educational Researcher","volume":"63 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Researcher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x231208413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this essay, we explore the tension between research using continuous improvement (CI) paradigms, such as improvement science, and conventional research, and the role and regulation of Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight. We argue that the current regulatory structure privileges traditional research and hinders collaborative inquiry that centers the voice and agency of those traditionally marginalized. We also question whether IRBs should limit CI efforts required of educational leaders as part of their jobs. We offer recommendations for how IRBs and scholar-practitioners can together support CI efforts.
在这篇文章中，我们将探讨使用持续改进（CI）范式（如改进科学）进行的研究与传统研究之间的矛盾，以及机构审查委员会（IRB）监督的作用和监管。我们认为，当前的监管结构赋予了传统研究以特权，阻碍了以那些传统上被边缘化的人的发言权和代理权为中心的合作探究。我们还质疑，作为教育领导者工作的一部分，IRB 是否应限制他们在 CI 方面的努力。我们就 IRB 和学者-实践者如何共同支持 CI 工作提出了建议。
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
