I see Jonanna's point, but, one might also look at this another way. Some people sumbit a method to IRB before writing and researching (researching especially) thoroughly. Then, they discover after they think it all through in the course of writing 3 chapters that they want to do something a bit different from what they gave IRB to approve. They'd have to get approval all over again. There are missteps possible in either version. Of course, I write this comfortably from the position of a person writing a theoretical dissertation, with no need for IRB madness at all. On 7/27/05, Joanna Paull <joannapaull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I would like to make a comment about Jerry's silly handout about the > process we should be following to get the dissertation done. Specifically, > he notes that we should finish coursework, the qualifying portfolio, the > culminating evaluation, IRB submission and approval, and ending with > dissertation completion and defense. Some of this makes sense; however, I > HIGHLY, HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend that everyone submit their information to > IRB BEFORE working on the first three chapters. Jerry made a mention in his > handout and discussion to write the three chapters of your dissertation > before gaining approval from IRB which is just insane. What happens if (and > probably when) you need to revise your process after IRB reviews it? You > cannot decide on a methodology until you are certain it is ethically > approved by the IRB. That's my own opinion, I suppose, but I just can't > fathom why anyone would wait to gain IRB approval until after they have > decided on their project and had it approved by a committee in the > department. Can anyone rationalize this for me? I think it is a dangerous > route to take. Though, if you were at the meeting (I am now known as > "Honolulu"), you noticed Jerry's disdain for my presence and questions, so > perhaps I should not comment on my thoughts on his wicked ways. > Joanna > > - > >