Regulation for Equity

Growing up with four siblings, equity and fairness are values that were instilled in me from a young age. For only two parents to run five children around for all of their activities is a big ask, so there was always a give-and-take. This value, however, creates a struggle because, as President Kennedy once said at his 28th News Conference, “Life is unfair.” Nevertheless, I look to ensure fairness and equity whenever possible. By delving into human research, I found an entirely new subject area where equity is one of the most important factors. Allowing everyone to start on an even playing field is vital when dealing with researcher-participant relationships so that neither group can take advantage of the other. I discovered that the intense regulation of studies is for each group's protection. These rules, the framework for research ethics, pave the way for equity within the field. The inclusion of equity allows for participants and researchers to exercise their rights and have a consented, voluntary choice. They have complete free will to choose what to do with themselves without interference or interruption. For equity to be reached amongst all groups, however, it will not always look the same. When looking at regulations from an outside perspective, it looks as though the researchers are significantly more constrained than the participants; and this is true. Equity doesn’t always entail equality, but it results in complete fairness between the groups.

Starting in the Fall of 2023, my professor, Dr. Easley, and I began to research fifteen female NJCAA athletes. For this study, we were interested in obtaining body composition values and comparing them between the pre-season, season, and off-season. When they came in for data collection, they were asked to fill out demographic and sedentary time surveys. Following the written questions, body composition measurements were measured and recorded. Data collection was quick, allowing the girls to get in and out since their scheduling was tight. Upon entering data into software that converts values into usable data, we found that we needed the athletes' frame size. To calculate the frame size, the wrist circumference was needed. Due to this, we had to pause our data entry and submit a request to the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The worst part was that we had no clue when the request would be accepted or denied. It could have taken weeks for us to get a reply. This frustrated me because I thought it was silly to need approval for a simple wrist. Wrist measurements are non-invasive and usually, people aren’t sensitive about their wrists, so I didn’t see the purpose. I was worried about the setbacks it would cause since we would then have to print all new consent documents, review the updates with the athletes, take the measurements, and then finally be able to convert the numbers into usable data. My priority was time efficiency, and shaving off the IRB request seemed like the easiest thing. I later reflected on this situation, trying to understand the importance of something so simple. This prompted the realization that for it to be equitable, we must be subject to the same regulations as everyone else. Each study must undergo the same rules so that we can all be on a level playing field. In addition, in the case that legal action was to be taken against the researcher, they would not have a fair chance of protecting themselves because of the lack of permission from the IRB and documentation in the consent form. For it to be ethical and equitable, we needed to have written permission from the IRB and full understanding from our athletes of all measurements taken. Although I felt as though a wrist measurement was something insignificant, it is part of a much bigger picture. It demonstrates the intense protection that the IRB provides for the researchers, athletes, and even the university associated.

He was given no choice even though it was his own mind. When the IRB was developed, researchers were then required to include all aspects of the study in a consent form and ensure that the participants were fully informed before proceeding. Researchers are also required to include a section on the consent document stating that it is voluntary and that the participants may leave the study at any time. This allows for the participants to be protected from unethical studies, especially those who are not adults, not of sound mind, and susceptible to peer pressure. The unethical actions of the “Little Albert” experiment did not only pertain to issues of consent. The existence of the study itself posed an issue. It lacks any sense of ethics as its objective was to change the psychological connections of an underdeveloped brain. The IRB now regulates this through a linear process. Each level of the IRB must approve studies before they can be conducted. This ensures equity among researchers and participants by evaluating the ethics of the research being done and making sure everything is included within the consent form that allows participants to understand the study fully. This experiment helped me understand the importance of regulation within research. Without it, a magnitude of studies would lack integrity, ethics, and equity. This extreme example makes it easier to see the importance of strict regulation of researchers.

Previously, both researchers and participants were taken advantage of. The lack of regulation permitted the concealment of true intentions and unjust blame to be common practices, preventing any sort of equity. This takes away the freedoms and choices of the parties involved as external input is forcing their hand. Through organizations, such as the IRB, both researchers and participants can be protected within the research field. The implementation of organizations to review consent forms and approve research studies helps support equitable terms, therefore supporting the freedom of choice. The rules and regulations may appear different on each side, however, they allow for ethical practices and equity within research studies.