Thu, May 14, 2026
[Archive]
Volume 6, Issue 4 (DECEMBER ISSUE 2025)
johepal 2025, 6(4): 155-165 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hernández-Saca D I, Hsieh W, Kuhn M, Meacham S, Mulholland C, Price-Williams S, et al . (2025). Empirical versus Theoretical?: Education Faculty’s Scholarly Publications without IRBs. johepal. 6(4), 155-165. doi:10.61882/johepal.6.4.155
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-1553-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-1553-en.html
David I. Hernández-Saca * 
, Wu-Ying Hsieh , Mason Kuhn , Sohyun Meacham , Colleen Mulholland , Shelley Price-Williams , Nicole Skaar , Matt Townsley
, Wu-Ying Hsieh , Mason Kuhn , Sohyun Meacham , Colleen Mulholland , Shelley Price-Williams , Nicole Skaar , Matt Townsley
Abstract: (421 Views)
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play a vital role in education research by upholding ethical standards and protecting human subjects. However, critics argue that many IRBs lack the expertise to properly assess social science research and may favor quantitative methods. This article engages with the ongoing debate between empirical and theoretical literature in education, drawing on studies such as Carpenter et al. (2023), who analyzed the balance of these types of scholarship in academic journals. Research shows that theoretical and empirical works often cite within their own domains, highlighting their distinct but complementary contributions. The importance of practical, practitioner-focused articles is also emphasized, as they help bridge theory and real-world application despite sometimes lacking empirical data. Systematic and scoping literature reviews further contribute to educational knowledge through rigorous analysis and synthesis of existing research. Overall, a balanced, methodologically pluralistic approach that values both empirical and theoretical work in teaching and learning.
Keywords: Academic Culture, Faculty Scholarship, Knowledge Exchange, Methodological Pluralism, Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/04/8 | Accepted: 2025/09/15 | Published: 2025/12/31
Received: 2025/04/8 | Accepted: 2025/09/15 | Published: 2025/12/31
References
1. Anauati, V., Galiani, S., & Gálvez, R. (2016). Quantifying the life cycle of scholarly articles across fields of economic research. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 1339-1355. [DOI]
2. Angervall, P., Baldwin, R., & Beach, D. (2020). Research or teaching? Contradictory demands on Swedish teacher educators and the consequences for the quality of teacher education. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 2(1), 63-84. [DOI]
3. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. [DOI]
4. Boveda, M., & Annamma, S. A. (2023). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 306-314. [DOI]
5. Buela-Casal, G., Zych, I., Medina, A., Viedma Del Jesus, M. I., Lozano, S., & Torres, G. (2009). Analysis of the influence of the two types of journal articles, theoretical and empirical, on the impact factor of a journal. Scientometrics, 80(1), 265-282. [DOI]
6. Carpenter, H., Taylor, M., Goodman, H., Fox, J., & Petrescu, C. (2023). A content analysis of the Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership: Results from empirical and theoretical article analysis. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 13(1), 1-22. [DOI]
7. Clair, R., Hicks, D., & Isett, K. (2017). An investigation into the characteristics of papers with high scholarly citations in public administration: The relativity of theory and method. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(3), 323-350. [DOI]
8. Dyrbye, L. N., Thomas, M. R., Mechaber, A. J., Eacker, A., Harper, W. R., Massie, F. S., Power, D. V., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2007). Medical education research and IRB review: An analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Academic Medicine, 82(7), 654-660. [DOI]
9. Green, L. A., Lowery, J. C., Kowalski, C. P., & Wyszewianski, L. (2006). Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Services Research, 41(1), 214-230. [DOI]
10. Harris, A. (2005). Leading from the chalk-face: An overview of school leadership. Leadership, 1(1), 73-87. [DOI]
11. Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7-15. [DOI]
12. Minkowitz, H., Twumasi, A., Berrett, J. L., Chen, X., & Stewart, A. J. (2020). Checking in on the state of nonprofit scholarship: A review of recent research. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(2), 182-208. [DOI]
13. Mohamed, M. –A., & Abdul-Talib, A. –N. (2020). Push–pull factors influencing international return migration intentions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 14(2), 231-246. [DOI]
14. Perry, M., Hopson, L. R., House, J. B., Fischer, J. P., Dooley-Hash, S., Hauff, S. J., Wolff, M. S., Sozener, C., Nypaver, M., Moll, J., Losman, E. D., Carney, M., & Santen, S. A. (2015). Model for developing educational research productivity: The medical education research group. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health, 16(6), 947-951. [DOI]
15. Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115-1166. [DOI]
16. Tod, A. M., Nicolson, P., & Allmark, P. (2002). Ethical review of health service research in the UK: Implications for nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(4), 379-386. [DOI]
17. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., Kenny, M., Warren, R., Wilson, C., Stelfox, H. T., & Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 1-10. [DOI]
18. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 166-189. [DOI]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
