Institutional Review Board (IRB)

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 IRB 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

First, the researcher must file an IRB Research Proposal Form with the Office of Institutional Research.

After receiving the completed request from the researcher, the IRB will verify the following items:

  1. The IRB Research Proposal Form has been completed correctly.
  2. The proposal meets the requirements of Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46).
  3. 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.

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

  1. Has political or broad community implications for the college.
  2. Involves board policy.
  3. Involves all or a significant portion of the staff.
  4. Involves all or a significant portion of the students.
  5. Involves established operating procedures and/or board policies.

Ordinarily the requestor will be contacted concerning the status of the request within 10 working days of receipt of the proposal. If approval is not provided at that time, a timeline to complete the review will be established 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.

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.

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; and
  • The misconduct must be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and
  • The allegation must be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

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.

Office of Institutional Research

1154 Linn Hall