Review others’ posts and respond to at least one of your course colleagues or your faculty member in 150 words.

Review others’ posts and respond to at least one of your course colleagues or your faculty member in 150 words.
THIS IS THE POST YOU ARE RESPONDING TO:
This learner previously took the CITI training and certification in 2014 so there was an account in existence. Obviously that certification is out of date and will need to be refreshed. The most impressive thing noticed in the IRB process was the depth and effort that has been made to assist the scholars in the process. The two videos required for students in this course to watch explained the process in far greater detail than anything previously encountered by this student. Previously, as this learner was drafting chapters one and two the previous dissertation chair provided no guidance whatsoever on what was required for successful IRB review and left it up to the students to determine what was needed and when.
The informed consent document appears geared to assist the applicant in using the document exactly as intended. The form seems straight forward. Based upon the IRBnet FAQs (2018), this learner’s study may be able to be exempt. This would be the case if the researcher does not know the respondents to the survey instrument used to gather data. A recruiter from within the organization would have to send the request for participation out with data sent to MLQ in response. This would also may alleviate the need for informed consent forms. There is more research required into what will be required to complete the study, but this learner is seeing the benefit of using a recruiter from the organization that is also unaware of the identity of the participants and the benefit of doing a quantitative study.
References:
IRBnet FAQ. 2018. https://www.irbnet.org/release/faq.html#implementation