Last week, I led an IRB 101 workshop for the Visitor Studies Association.  IRB is the acronym for Institutional Review Board.  That short three-letter acronym, IRB, can instill a lot of fear and anxiety in researchers and evaluators for multiple reasons.  For one, IRBs are an oversight organization, so non-compliance can have repercussions.  Additionally, the language used by IRBs is technical and governmental (e.g., non-compliance, human subjects research). Plus, there are so many acronyms (e.g., IRB, HHS, OHRP)!!

I have 15 years of experience using multiple IRBs with many methodologies and audiences.  Yet, I still had a lot of anxiety in leading an IRB 101 workshop. I felt like nervous, nail-biting Kermit the Frog.  I don’t feel like an IRB expert.  My hope in leading the IRB 101 workshop and writing these posts is to help others overcome their nervousness about IRBs.  Let’s start with a shared, foundational understanding of IRB.

What is an IRB?

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a formally designated administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects (research participants, in simpler terms).  IRBs do three main things:

1. Review research and evaluation protocols involving human subjects prior to starting research and evaluation. Prior is a key word.  The review needs to take place before researchers start recruiting any research participants.
2. Approve, disapprove, or request modifications to research and evaluation protocols. Researchers submit their protocols (and instruments, consent and assent forms, etc.) to an IRB.  The IRB reviews these materials, weighing the risks to research participants against the benefits of doing research and evaluation.  They have the authority to reject or request modifications if they decide the risks to research participants outweigh the benefits.
3. Monitor research and evaluation activities. Once research begins, IRBs can request to review research activities. This may happen if the IRB has received complaints from research participants. They may also request to review activities if there is potential non-compliance with the approved research protocols (i.e., not following the rules).

Note that IRBs are specifically US entities.  The Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees all IRBs.  This short video from OHRP provides a good overview about IRBs.

Why do IRBs exist?

Historically, researchers have too often mistreated research participants.  An egregious example is the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male (1932-1972).  For 40 years, medical researchers studied black men in Alabama. Some had syphilis, and some did not.  The men thought researchers were providing medical treatment. However, researchers were only monitoring them to study untreated syphilis.  At the initiation of the study, treatment for syphilis did not exist.  When treatment became available, researchers withheld it from research participants.

When the public became aware of the study in the 1970s, the US government began to implement policies to protect research participants.  The National Research Act of 1974 established IRBs to oversee research with human subjects.  Then, in 1979, the The Belmont Report was published.  The report identifies three ethical principles for the protection of research subjects: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.  Providing further guidance to IRBs was the 1991 establishment of the Common Rule.  The Common Rule takes the three principles of The Belmont Report and outlines practices researchers apply to protect research participants.  The Common Rule was revised in 2018, although the revision did not change practices drastically.

The need to protect research participants has not diminished over time.  As society changes, so does our understandings of potential risks to research participants.  For instance, physical effects on research participants were an initial risk concern (e.g., not treating syphilis).  But, the US government now acknowledges that risks to research participants also include psychological, social, economic, and legal risks.  The Protecting Human Research Participants Training identifies the Facebook Social Contagion Study of 2014 as a modern example of the mistreatment of research participants psychologically.  Researchers manipulated a random sample of Facebook users’ news feeds to show either more positive or negative posts.  They were studying the effects of these manipulations on Facebook users’ emotions.

More on IRBs

Hopefully, this post has established the unquestionable need to protect research participants and instills empathy for the process of applying to IRBs. Check back for more IRB 101 posts soon!

Have questions about IRBs? Let us know in the comments!

The post IRB 101: What are they? Why do they exist? appeared first on RK&A.

Summer is here, and with it, a new guest blogger series! Today we are excited to share a new post by our friend Sadiya Akasha of Sitara Systems. Sadiya is a researcher, product designer, and expert on Gen Z (people born between 1995 and 2010).  In this summer series, Sadiya will make the case for how and why engaging Gen Z is critical and share research-based insights that cultural institutions should note if they want to survive and thrive.

Her first post, below, highlights how Gen Z’s tendency to act as “investigators” affects their expectations of museums and cultural institutions.

Thank you, Sadiya, for sharing your expertise!

“Generation Z is the most tech-savvy generation” or “Generation Z spends the most time on social media.” We hear sentiments like these all the time, but what does it mean?  It means that Gen Z, born between 1995 and 2010, has greater access to information and people compared to any prior generation.  Being the most *connected* generation allows them to curate and create communities, build meaningful connections that help them define themselves, and hold perspectives that were not possible for any other generation.

Members of this generation, coming of age during a global pandemic, are currently eyeballing your cultural institution as a place to spend an afternoon engaging in active learning while socializing. How is that different from the way older generations engage with your museum or library? It turns out Gen Z has an entirely different set of expectations shaped by their unique upbringing that affects their decisions.

Growing up in an information-dense world

For starters, this generation has grown up during the Great Recession, a continuous war on terror, a global rise in authoritarianism, ideological polarization, massive racial protests, mass incarceration of children and asylum seekers, and, of course, a global pandemic. Though prior generations have struggled with some of the same (or similar) issues, none since the Silent Generation have grown up in an era with so little to buffer them from the onslaught of current events. The Silent Generation came of age in the shadow of World War II, and it left a lasting impact on their attitudes and worldview. Similarly, Gen Z has grown up in the aftermath of 9/11 and the ensuing War on Terror and that is likely to have a lasting impact. The oldest Gen Z kids would have been 6 years old on September 11, 2001. Throughout their lives, they have been immersed in media, with polarized news coverage competing for attention against the constant marketing of digital distractions. All of these information sources have their own agenda; thus this generation, composed currently of 11 to 26 year-olds, have learned to be particularly critical of any information presented to them and thoroughly scrutinize every source.

Cutting through the noise as a core competency

The unique combination of nearly infinite access to information (and a global reach) coupled with a near-constant evaluation of the motives behind consumable content has caused Gen Z to become both global and critical thinkers in a way quite beyond the norm for previous generations. 

This generation has become avid researchers, blurring the lines between work, play, hobbies, and academic pursuits. They have created online micro-communities to share the fruits of their research, deepen their understanding of particular topics, and be seen and heard by like-minded folks. Values, it turns out, are equally important to this generation as meaningful identity markers in an otherwise fluid and multicultural society. 

Ubiquitous internet access has given them a truly global reach where it would not be odd for a high schooler from Philadelphia to befriend a postal worker from a small town in Scotland if their specialized interests in sea shanties and respect for personal pronouns overlap. Where once we had to make do with AOL chat rooms populated by students in our own schools and neighborhoods, Gen Z is catapulted into depression-busting video dance challenges originating in places like Limpopo, South Africa! 

This kind of access and exposure forces them to be discerning and selectively inclusive. They can, and do, think about the values and agenda that drive online interactions. Consequently, in sharing resources, findings, and experiences with their peers, Gen Z clearly articulates their agenda and values to ease the burden on their viewers and collaborators. Furthermore, they provide sources to back up their statements. Gen Z is used to doing the work to see through marketing and propaganda. Cultural institutions will also have to engage in the work of declaring and living up to their institutional values to be able to meet this generation in good standing.

Authenticity is foundational to building trust

In my work as a Researcher, I’ve seen the value of sharing an institution’s agenda with Gen Z audiences firsthand. In interviews and test sessions I clearly state that the cultural institution I am working with is trying something new, they are doing this specifically to reach people like them, and they are looking for open feedback to better understand them and build a deeper connection. This is a simple thing to do, but it sets the tone of the interaction to one with a clearly understood values-based agenda. Seeking feedback on a new project or approach is a highly authentic opening that invites the audience in to participate. 

Most recently, I worked with a small museum that was experimenting with a new way of engaging with Gen Z audience members in their community. During the interviews, it was like seeing the lightbulb turn on when the participant would suddenly realize their feedback was of real import to the museum. They felt valued, and they said so! It was an immediate connection and the participants were all extremely excited about the project and looking forward to its launch. Of course, after building this authentic connection the next (and most important!) step is to listen deeply and reflect the research findings in your final production, whether that’s a virtual interactive, a change in exhibit layouts, or a newly commissioned work of art.

Cultural Institutions need to do the work to build trust with Gen Z.  Trust can only be earned through a clear statement of agenda, acknowledgment of when that agenda has differed in the past, transparency of the process, and actively lived values. And all this needs to be delivered with authenticity as part of an ongoing conversation with Gen Z in order to deeply engage this generation. 

What’s next?

In the next post in this series, I’ll uncover how being the most racially diverse and multicultural generation in the US affects Gen Z’s views on identity and humanity. The existence of the most multicultural and multiethnic generation to date is going to upend traditional approaches to audience research and redefine demographic collection protocols.

About the Author

Sadiya Akasha is the co-founder and Director of Product Development at Sitara Systems, a design and technology laboratory that creates interactive experiences with emerging technologies. Sadiya partners with cultural institutions to help them conceptualize and deliver technology initiatives by leveraging her background in human-centered design, agile thinking, and audience research. In her free time Sadiya enjoys exploring the rugged yet delicate landscapes of the great Southwest. 

The post Gen Z are Investigators: What Does This Mean for Cultural Institutions? appeared first on RK&A.