W4 Discussion: Should A Marketing Firm That Is Gathering Inf

W4 Discussion should a marketing firm that is gathering information from humans

In a word essay, discuss two different types of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and their application in different organizations. How are they different and how are they alike? How much importance should each organization place in IRBs?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding research involving human subjects are fundamental in various organizational contexts, including marketing. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) serve as oversight entities designed to protect human subjects by reviewing research protocols to ensure ethical standards are maintained. Understanding the types of IRBs and their relevance across differing organizational types—such as academic institutions and corporate organizations like marketing firms—clarifies their significance in maintaining ethical integrity in research practices.

There are primarily two types of IRBs: the Federal IRB and the Organizational or Institutional IRB. Federal IRBs are established under governmental regulations, primarily in the United States, to oversee research involving federal funding or conducted by institutions receiving federal grants. These IRBs are governed by protocols stipulated by regulations such as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46), which mandates rigorous review processes to protect human subjects. They function as independent entities that review research proposals to evaluate risk levels, informed consent procedures, and privacy protections. Federal IRBs are crucial in academic and government research settings where federal funding is involved, ensuring compliance with national ethical standards.

In contrast, Organizational or Institutional IRBs are established within private organizations or corporations, including marketing firms. These IRBs are responsible for reviewing research conducted internally, especially when human subjects are involved, to ensure ethical standards are maintained according to organizational policies or industry regulations. Unlike federal IRBs, organizational IRBs may be less formalized and may operate based on internal policies tailored to the organization’s specific needs and risks associated with their research. For marketing firms working with external clients, establishing an IRB may depend on the scope of the research, the nature of data collected, and regulatory requirements that govern market research. Their primary goal is to safeguard participant rights while ensuring the reliability and credibility of their research outcomes.

While these two IRB types differ in their scope, authority, and regulatory framework, they share commonalities. Both serve as ethical oversight bodies aimed at minimizing harm to human subjects and promoting ethical research practices. They operate under the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice—core tenets of research ethics outlined in the Belmont Report. Both IRB types also require review and approval of research protocols before data collection begins, emphasizing informed consent, confidentiality, and risk minimization.

The importance that organizations should place on IRBs varies according to their function and regulatory environment. Academic and government institutions must adhere strictly to federal IRB standards, considering ethical oversight not only as a regulatory requirement but as a moral obligation. For marketing firms, the role of IRBs might be less formal but equally significant, especially when dealing with sensitive consumer data or vulnerable populations. Implementing an IRB demonstrates a commitment to ethical research, fostering trust with clients, subjects, and the broader community. Overall, all organizations conducting research involving human participants should prioritize IRB review to uphold ethical standards and prevent harm.

In conclusion, both federal and organizational IRBs are vital components in safeguarding human subjects involved in research activities across different organizational contexts. Their differences primarily lie in regulatory scope and structure, but their shared goal of ethical oversight underscores their equal importance. Organizations, whether academic, government, or private, must recognize the critical role IRBs play in maintaining integrity, compliance, and public trust in research practices.

References

  • Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
  • Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). 45 CFR 46: Protection of Human Subjects. Federal Register, 83(230), 58373-58429.
  • Fost, E., & McGraw, S. (2010). Ethical oversight in industry research: Institutional review boards and corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 317–329.
  • Grady, C. (2015). Institutional review board: A necessary but imperfect barrier to ethical research. JAMA, 314(3), 243–244.
  • Holloway, K. (2010). An overview of IRB procedures for ethical research. Ethics & Behavior, 20(4), 317–329.
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Protecting research participants: Ethical principles and guidelines. Committee on Human Research Publications and Ethical Guidelines.
  • Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
  • Sieber, J. E. (2012). The roles of IRBs in research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(3), 43–49.
  • World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194.
  • Yale University. (2020). Institutional Review Board (IRB). Yale Office of Research Administration. https://your.yale.edu/research/your-projects/irb

Related Assignments