Taking the H out of HCI

Mike Leonard of the Herald-Times published the first of a three-part investigation into the recent changes at the Indiana University research review board. Many academics have already felt the ill-effects of the switch of oversight and approval duties from Bloomington to the Indianapolis campus, which is now “no longer temporary.”

For IU School of Informatics students and professors, the summer delays threaten papers planned for the September 19 deadline to CHI.

An excerpt from Ora Pescovitz’s July 24 response to allegations against the IRB

The H-T implies that office dynamics were involved with the problem:

Apparently the staff complaints were not well received. On June 6, both [Senta] Baker and colleague Sharon Nejfelt received written warnings of poor work performance and corrective action — the first step toward being fired in IU’s personnel system. In her written response to allegations by [Carey] Conover and [Eric] Swank, Baker noted that over the prior six months she had repeatedly discovered protocols that were misreviewed, studies in which subjects’ personal data had been released without their informed consent, instances in which researchers were given incorrect information, approval letters sent out without the required signature of the review board chairman and various other problems.

[…]

The warning letters were withdrawn. But [law professor Ann J.] Gellis went on to complain in a letter to [President Michael] McRobbie that the action taken against the employees appeared “retaliatory” and aimed at covering up “the evidence of incompetence” mounting against the human subjects head and her supervisor.

This is only one piece of the larger picture, of course, but it is moot for those needing to continue research at IU at a brisk pace.

Many of the rules in place in the IRB were crafted and meant for more traditional human-subjects research, such as psychological and drug studies. The human-computer interaction crowd often goes to CHI talking about the woes of the research approval process only to hear how much simpler it is on other U.S. campuses and seemingly non-existent off the continent. Now, with IUPUI overburdened by serving multiple campuses—which apparently is in the long-term restructuring plans anyway—we miss the days of it just being too complicated.

My own research has been affected. I have two proposals in the queue, as well; one of which is a straightforward survey and focus group. Another approved study is in need of an amendment to expand our Twitterspace display from one location to several around campus and Bloomington. The pecking order for review of these projects are near the bottom, and it is unlikely that approval will be given in time to administer and analyze any research prior to mid-September.

Plan B is to avoid humans altogether, a strange notion considering what the “H” means in HCI. I will be relying heavily on theory and public data to analyze and compose into paper submissions. I may also spend more of my academic time constructing systems that might be tested at a later date, either after the controversy has sorted itself out or more resources are thrown into the new centralized review process.