IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amerec/v51y2007i2p49-60.html

Human Subjects Requirements and Economic Education Researchers

Author

Listed:
  • Jane S. Lopus
  • Paul W. Grimes
  • William E. Becker
  • Rodney A. Pearson

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a web-based survey of economic educators who were asked about their knowledge and experience with human subjects research and the mandated federal protocols that govern such research at most American universities. The results indicate that while economic education researchers are experienced in conducting human subjects research and are aware of the federal regulations, they are not well informed about key details of the regulations. They are skeptical of the net benefits of the mandated protocols because of the perceived discouraging burdens of the paperwork that rarely result in significant modifications of their research projects. The authors conclude that recent calls for modifications to the federal regulations for classroom-based research projects may be justified given the opportunity costs of adhering to the regulations compared to the relatively low levels of perceived benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Jane S. Lopus & Paul W. Grimes & William E. Becker & Rodney A. Pearson, 2007. "Human Subjects Requirements and Economic Education Researchers," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 51(2), pages 49-60, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:amerec:v:51:y:2007:i:2:p:49-60
    DOI: 10.1177/056943450705100209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/056943450705100209
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/056943450705100209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Michael Oakes, 2002. "Risks and Wrongs in Social Science Research," Evaluation Review, , vol. 26(5), pages 443-479, October.
    2. Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821, January.
    3. John J. Siegfried & Wendy A. Stock, 2004. "The Market for New Ph. D. Economists in 2002," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 272-285, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. William Bosshardt & Peter E. Kennedy, 2011. "Data Resources and Econometric Techniques," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 35, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Carlos J. Asarta & Austin S. Jennings & Paul W. Grimes, 2017. "Economic Education Retrospective," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 62(1), pages 102-117, March.
    3. William Bosshardt & Neela Manage, 2011. "Does Calculus Help in Principles of Economics Courses? Estimates Using Matching Estimators," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 56(1), pages 29-37, May.
    4. Johnson, Marianne & Meder, Martin E., 2024. "Twenty-three years of teaching economics with technology," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. William E. Becker & Suzanne R. Becker, 2011. "Potpourri: Reflections from Husband/Wife Academic Editors," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 56(2), pages 74-84, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Feuz, Dillon M. & Umberger, Wendy J. & Calkins, Chris R. & Killinger, Karen M., 2000. "Consumer Preference For Domestic Versus International Beef Steaks," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36385, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Søberg, Martin, 2003. "Voting rules and endogenous trading institutions: An experimental study," Memorandum 17/2002, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    3. Steven Kachelmeier & Kristy Towry, 2005. "The Limitations of Experimental Design: A Case Study Involving Monetary Incentive Effects in Laboratory Markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 21-33, April.
    4. Adriana Gabriela Breaban & Juan Carlos Matallín-Sáez & Iván Barreda-Tarrazona & Mª Rosario Balaguer-Franch, 2012. "The demand for structured products: an experimental approach," Working Papers 2012/15, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    5. Simon G�chter & Ernst Fehr, "undated". "Fairness in the Labour Market � A Survey of Experimental Results," IEW - Working Papers 114, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    6. Cullis, John & Jones, Philip & Soliman, Amal, 2012. "‘Spite effects’ in tax evasion experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 418-423.
    7. Heblich, Stephan, 2007. "Eigenverantwortliche Individuen und Pro-Aktive Unternehmen," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-48-07, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    8. Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Claims and confounds in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 186-195.
    9. Chian Jones Ritten & Christopher Bastian & Jason F. Shogren & Thadchaigeni Panchalingam & Mariah D. Ehmke & Gregory Parkhurst, 2017. "Understanding Pollinator Habitat Conservation under Current Policy Using Economic Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-13, August.
    10. Sloof, Randolph & van Praag, C. Mirjam, 2008. "Performance measurement, expectancy and agency theory: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 794-809, September.
    11. Falk, Armin & Fehr, Ernst, 2003. "Why labour market experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 399-406, August.
    12. Brooke Helppie McFall & Marta Murray-Close & Robert J. Willis & Uniko Chen, 2014. "Is it all worth it? The experiences of new PhDs on the job market, 2007-2010," NBER Working Papers 20654, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Sam Allgood & Gail Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick, 2018. "The Role of Teaching and Teacher Training in the Hiring and Promotion of Ph.D. Economists," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(3), pages 912-927, January.
    14. Matthew McGinty & Garrett Milam & Alejandro Gelves, 2012. "Coalition Stability in Public Goods Provision: Testing an Optimal Allocation Rule," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(3), pages 327-345, July.
    15. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    16. Pagan, Jose A., 1998. "Employer sanctions on hiring illegal labor: An experimental analysis of firm compliance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 87-100, January.
    17. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    18. Cardella, Eric & Depew, Briggs, 2016. "Testing for the Ratchet Effect: Evidence from a Real-Effort Work Task," IZA Discussion Papers 9981, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Liaukonyte, Jura & Rickard, Bradley J. & Kaiser, Harry M. & Richards, Timothy J., 2010. "Evaluating advertising strategies for fruits and vegetables and the implications for obesity in the United States," Working Papers 126972, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    20. Doyon, Maurice & Novakovic, Andrew M., 1997. "An Application of Experimental Economics to Agricultural Policies: The Case of U.S. Dairy Deregulation on Farm-Level Markets," Research Bulletins 122807, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • A2 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:amerec:v:51:y:2007:i:2:p:49-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/aex .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.