Continuous Improvement, Institutional Review Boards, and Resistance to Practitioner Scholarship
Published In
Educational Researcher
Document Type
Citation
Publication Date
11-16-2023
Abstract
In this essay, we explore the tension between research using continuous improvement (CI) paradigms, such as improvement science, and conventional research, and the role and regulation of Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight. We argue that the current regulatory structure privileges traditional research and hinders collaborative inquiry that centers the voice and agency of those traditionally marginalized. We also question whether IRBs should limit CI efforts required of educational leaders as part of their jobs. We offer recommendations for how IRBs and scholar-practitioners can together support CI efforts.
Rights
© 2023 AERA
Locate the Document
DOI
10.3102/0013189X231208413
Persistent Identifier
https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/41263
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Citation Details
Hinnant-Crawford, B., Bonney, E. N., Perry, J. A., Bozack, A. R., Peterson, D. S., Crow, R., & Carlile, S. (2023). Continuous Improvement, Institutional Review Boards, and Resistance to Practitioner Scholarship. Educational Researcher.