The use of one\u2019s own students in human subjects research requires heightened consideration of voluntariness due to the inherent power dynamic between instructor and student. This power imbalance creates the potential for undue influence or coercion, which must be addressed pursuant to the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report.1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n Student research participants may feel obligated to participate and thus not feel fully free to decline participation. Students may feel that their decision to participate will affect their academic status in the researcher\u2019s\/instructor\u2019s course. Additionally, risks extend to confidentiality concerns and the potential for biased interpretation of responses by the researcher\/instructor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instructors who propose the use of their own students as human subjects are responsible for demonstrating intentional and careful consideration of these additional risks throughout their IRB application. Safeguards in the research design must be implemented that clearly separate academic assessment from research participation and instructor from researcher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers should design recruitment procedures that minimize any sense of coercion or influence on students. When feasible, researchers should employ a third party to facilitate recruitment and communications to avoid creating perceived pressure to participate. Recruitment procedures should also avoid individual outreach and instead use general announcements for course distribution through modes such as email and\/or Brightspace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recruitment materials must clearly and plainly communicate that participation in the research is voluntary and that the decision to participate or not will have no impact on grades or academic outcomes. Repeated reminders that could be construed as forceful should also be avoided.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The informed consent process<\/a> must explicitly communicate that the choice to participate is voluntary, that students can withdraw at any time during participation, and that these decisions will not result in any academic consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whenever possible, instructors should arrange for a third party to obtain informed consent from student participants. Regardless of whether informed consent is collected by a third party or the instructor, the informed consent process must be designed such that the instructor will not be aware of what students have or have not consented to participation until final course grades have been calculated and submitted<\/strong>. This process must be clearly explained in the Institutional Review Board (IRB) application, and students should be made aware via the consent form that instructors will not have knowledge of a student\u2019s decision to participate until final grades have been submitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If instructors intend to use any academic records subject to FERPA<\/a> (The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) in their research, signed consent<\/em> must be obtained from students (and parents for minors under the age of 18) and retained indefinitely. If unsure whether the data you intend to collect in your research is protected by FERPA, please contact the Office of Student Records<\/a> for research occurring at 91¸£Àû or the relevant FERPA authority at any external institution where the research will take place prior to beginning your IRB application<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When student participants are offered course credit as compensation for participation in the instructor\u2019s research, an alternative option for those who do not wish to participate must be available that is comparable in both time and effort. Acceptable alternative activities include other research participation opportunities in which the instructor is not a researcher on the project, research seminars, short papers, or other activities reasonably equivalent. In either case, details regarding how compensation would be affected if a participant withdraws should be clearly explained in both the IRB application and consent materials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Should the research offer other forms of compensation besides course credit (e.g., gift cards or cash), the IRB will assess whether the compensation amount is reasonably commensurate with the proposed research and not considered excessive or overly influential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Investigators are responsible for ensuring that their compensation structure does not influence students\u2019 decision-making regarding participation and that selecting alternative options to research participation does not require explanation or justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instructors should demonstrate careful consideration and application of confidentiality safeguards that ensure academic evaluation and research participation are separate. Whenever possible, research data collected from one\u2019s own students should be collected anonymously. If the research precludes participant anonymity (e.g., when the research involves FERPA-protected course grades or assignments), data should remain confidential, with raw and identifiable data accessibility limited to essential personnel. Additionally, data should be de-identified as early as possible. Instructor researchers should not have access to identifiable data, nor should they conduct any data analysis prior to final grade submission<\/strong>. For example, should the research involve interviews with student participants, a researcher other than the instructor should conduct the interviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Data collection in the classroom and\/or group settings with students (except in the case of course activities or coursework that would otherwise occur regardless of the research, i.e., FERPA-protected data) is discouraged unless deemed unavoidable by the IRB.<\/p>\n\n\nRecruitment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Informed Consent<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Compensation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Confidentiality<\/h3>\n\n\n\n