Institutional Review Board

A standing committee that reviews and oversees research involving human participants to ensure that risks are minimised, consent is genuine, and participants' rights and welfare are protected. Institutional Review Board (IRB) is the United States designation; the United Kingdom and much of Europe use Research Ethics Committee (REC), and other jurisdictions use names such as Human Research Ethics Committee (Australia) or Research Ethics Board (Canada).

Regulatory anchor

In the United States, IRBs operate under the Common Rule (45 CFR 46) and FDA regulations where applicable. The conceptual basis is the Belmont Report (1979), produced by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which articulated three ethical principles for research with human subjects: respect for persons (autonomy and protection of those with diminished autonomy), beneficence (maximise benefit, minimise harm), and justice (fair distribution of research burdens and benefits). The Belmont principles map onto three procedural domains: Informed Consent, assessment of risks and benefits, and selection of subjects.

UK and European frameworks

In the United Kingdom, university research ethics is governed by institutional RECs supplemented by sector frameworks such as the Economic and Social Research Council Framework for Research Ethics, which sets expectations on consent, anonymity, data protection, vulnerability, and researcher integrity. NHS-related research goes through the Health Research Authority. EU jurisdictions operate analogous committee structures with additional requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation.

Review categories

Most boards operate three review tracks: exempt (low-risk research such as anonymous educational testing or analysis of public datasets), expedited (minimal-risk research reviewed by a chair or designated members), and full board (greater-than-minimal-risk research, vulnerable populations, or sensitive topics, reviewed in convened session). Approvals are time-limited and require continuing review for protocol changes.

Use in applied linguistics

Classroom research, interview studies, and corpus collection require ethics approval in most institutional settings. Particular attention falls on student-teacher power asymmetries that can compromise voluntary consent, audio and video recording, work with minors, and research with multilingual populations where consent materials need translation and back-translation.

References

• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
• Economic and Social Research Council. (2015). ESRC Framework for Research Ethics. ESRC.