In this multi-method dissertation project I conduct policy analysis and utilize results from a discipline-wide survey (n=258) to examine the intersection of Writing Studies researchers’ disciplinary affiliation, research context, and personal disposition in relation to the local implementation of federal policy regarding human subjects research. I elaborate on the context of this project, discussing the September 2015 release of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise and update the Common Rule, 45.CFR Part 46, and the Conference on College Composition and Communication’s formal comment in response to the proposed rule’s provisions. I discuss the process of designing and implementing the survey used to establish a disciplinary representation of Writing Studies researchers’ perceptions of, and experiences with, IRBs. The results of this survey (Chapter 4) indicate how Writing Studies researchers presently interface with the process of local policy implementation. In Chapter 5, data from the survey are set against the Final Rule (released January 19, 2017) to provide a new taxonomy for Writing Studies researchers regarding how to interface with IRBs. Finally, the major theoretical contribution is articulated in Chapter Six: a call for human subjects researchers in Writing Studies to consider IRBs as justice-oriented, rather than positivist, in design and purpose. I argue increasingly reciprocal relationships between IRBs and Writing Studies researchers will help ensure Writing Studies research is not overly influenced by IRB review, nor that Writing Studies researchers are unwilling or unable to interface with IRBs to build more ethical and robust research agendas.
|Advisor:||Moxley, Joseph, Elliot, Norbert|
|Commitee:||Barton, Ellen, Neely, Stephen|
|School:||University of South Florida|
|School Location:||United States -- Florida|
|Source:||DAI-A 78/09(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Public policy, Technical Communication, Rhetoric|
|Keywords:||Justice, Public policy, Research admininstration, Research ethics|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be