All research requests must be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or its designee, and, in some cases, the appropriate vice president or the president. This procedure is intended to ensure that college staff and students who may be affected by the research can be certain that the research is sound and does not violate board policy, college operating procedures, or federal regulations concerning protection of human participants.

The Institutional Review Board is composed of the Director of Institutional Research, one administrator, two faculty members, and one person from outside of Kirkwood. Additional faculty or staff members may serve in an advisory capacity where appropriate.

Approval Procedure

The researcher must file a Research Proposal Form with the Office of Institutional Research. After receiving the completed request from the researcher, the Institutional Review Board will verify the following items:

1. The Research Proposal Form has been completed.
2. The appropriate signatures have been obtained by the researcher.
3. The proposed research is compatible with Kirkwood Community College's mission and purpose and is education-related. The research should deal with the teaching/learning environment or with the college's policies, procedures, or operations.
4. The proposal meets the requirements of Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46).
5. The results will be disseminated in a fashion which would protect the identity of the participants and, if appropriate, the college. It must be understood that names of individuals will not be used in the study unless the individuals grant permission in writing. The name of Kirkwood Community College will be used only if the Institutional Review Board grants permission.

Criteria for Approval

Individuals requesting authorization to conduct research must complete a Kirkwood Research Proposal Form. Each IRB member will review the proposal independently. Approval of the proposal will be based on the following criteria:

1. Compatibility with the college's mission and purpose.
2. Soundness of rationale for conducting the research project.
3. Soundness of rationale and appropriateness of the sampling, methodology, instrumentation, and treatment of data.
4. Acceptability of the potential effects the collection of data and the dissemination and use of results may have on Kirkwood students, personnel, operations, and the community.
5. Evidence of support of other involved individuals or groups internal or external to Kirkwood.

If the IRB has questions regarding the completeness, relevance, or other aspects of the proposed project, an IRB member will contact the requestor to arrange a meeting.

Under certain circumstances, the Institutional Review Board will submit the request to the appropriate vice president or the president for approval. This submission will occur if the project:

Ø has political or broad community implications for the college,

Ø involves board policy,

Ø involves all or a significant portion of the staff,

Ø involves all or a significant portion of the students, or

Ø involves established operating procedures and/or board policies.

Timeline and Notification of Approval or Disapproval

Research considered to be “exempt” and/or research that must be expedited will be immediately evaluated by an IRB designee. Other research will be reviewed by the full Institutional Review Board (IRB) for their approval.

Ordinarily the requestor will be contacted concerning the status of the request within ten working days of receipt of the proposal. If possible, approval or denial of the request will be made at that time. If a delay is necessary, an appropriate timeline will be negotiated with the requestor.

If a research request is denied, the notification will include the reason(s) for the denial. A revised proposal, or sections thereof, may be submitted for reconsideration.

Human Subjects Research - Regulations and Policies

Research Misconduct

The Federal Policy on Research Misconduct is as follows:

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences in opinion.

Findings of Research Misconduct

A finding of research misconduct requires that all of the following be met:

• there must be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community,
• the misconduct must be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly, and
• the allegation must be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

Evidence of Research Misconduct

Allegations of research misconduct will be responded to in compliance with Public Health Service regulation (42 CFR Part 93).

• An institutional finding of research misconduct must be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
• The institution has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct.
• The respondent has the burden of proving any and all affirmative defenses raised.
• The respondent has the burden of proving any mitigating factors that are relevant to the decision to impose administrative actions following a research misconduct proceeding.

Updated 10/27/08:js