Amir, who is research faculty in bioengineering, receives revisions from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) on his survey design. Among the critiques, the IRB shared concerns about the design of his demographic items, specifically the items that solicit information about participants’ gender identity and sexual orientation. The IRB reviewer asserted that the current items are not resonant with how contemporary Queer and Trans folk articulate their experiences and made recommendations for elaborated items, including open-ended responses.
Amir is frustrated by the review, asserting that such revisions are not consistent with previous scholarly standards and that changes to the survey design would complicate an otherwise simple and efficient statistical analysis. Amir makes time to meet with the IRB reviewer to explore the issue further. Amir comes to understand that collecting information in its current form is not only incongruent with his participants’ experiences, collecting information in this way would ultimately result in erroneous or misleading data.
Amir is committed to strengthening his study design. He enters into revisions, committing to engage in a more congruent, albeit laborious process, and communicating results in a manner that honors the participants’ lived experiences.
- The Issue: Amir’s research design does not allow for his research participants to accurately share who they are regarding their gender identity and sexual orientation.
- The Deliberation: Amir works through his disappointment and frustration about the prospect of additional time and energy spent in revisions and agrees to consult with institutional experts and learn more about the issue.
- The Growth: Amir recognizes that effective and ethical inquiry practices with underrepresented groups requires a commitment of additional time and energy in design and analysis.