Action Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brydon-Miller, M.
Right arrow Articles by Greenwood, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Action Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, 117-128 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1476750306060582

A re-examination of the relationship between action research and human subjects review processes

Mary Brydon-Miller

University of Cincinnati

Davydd Greenwood

Cornell University

In this brief article, we review the history of the human subjects review process and identify key aspects of that review as they relate to action research. In particular, we examine the issues of coercion, predictability, confidentiality, and risk –concerns central to the criteria used in current review processes but reflecting fundamental differences in the basic conceptualization of ethical practice as this is understood in action research.

Key Words: action research • human subjects • institutional review board (IRB) • research ethics


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Action ResearchHome page
R. Stoecker
Challenging institutional barriers to community-based research
Action Research, March 1, 2008; 6(1): 49 - 67.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 GerontologistHome page
E. Wethington, R. Breckman, R. Meador, M. C. Reid, M. Sabir, M. Lachs, and K. A. Pillemer
The CITRA Pilot Studies Program: Mentoring Translational Research: Kathleen Walsh Piercy, PhD, Editor
Gerontologist, December 1, 2007; 47(6): 845 - 850.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative InquiryHome page
S. Boser
Power, Ethics, and the IRB: Dissonance Over Human Participant Review of Participatory Research
Qualitative Inquiry, November 1, 2007; 13(8): 1060 - 1074.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERHome page
A. L. Nolen and J. V. Putten
Action Research in Education: Addressing Gaps in Ethical Principles and Practices
Educational Researcher, October 1, 2007; 36(7): 401 - 407.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 West J Nurs ResHome page
L. Young
Editorial: Participatory Action Research (PAR): A Research Strategy for Nursing?
West J Nurs Res, August 1, 2006; 28(5): 499 - 504.
[PDF]

Home page
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERHome page
A. Hemmings
Great Ethical Divides: Bridging the Gap Between Institutional Review Boards and Researchers
Educational Researcher, May 1, 2006; 35(4): 12 - 18.
[Abstract] [PDF]