Communication Scholars’ Communication and Relationship with their IRBs Ascan F. Koerner Using grounded theory, 57 narratives of communication scholars detailing their experiences and relationships with institutional review boards (IRBs) were examined. From this analysis, 24 concepts emerged constituting five larger categories characterizing the communication relationship between communication scholars and IRBs: antagonistic actions of IRBs, negative perceptions of IRBs, actions of researchers, positive perceptions of IRBs, and protagonistic actions of IRBs. Results indicate that the main difference between positive and negative experiences with IRBs was associated with the nature of the relationship between scholars and IRBs. Scholars who saw their IRBs as adversarial bureaucracies had the most negative experiences, whereas scholars who saw their IRBs as partners in the research process had the most positive experiences. Recommendations for how both IRBs and researchers can improve their relationships conclude this essay. Keywords: Institutional Review Board; Human Subjects Research Communication and the relationships it creates are central to the human experience and always have been of great interest to humans and subject to their investigation. In recent times, the discipline of communication studies has made significant strides in illuminating human communication through systematic investigation, both from humanist and social science perspectives. Often, at least in the United States, communication research is preceded by communication of a particular type—that between communication scholars and their institutional review boards (IRBs). As not only this special issue attests to, this communication is far from unproblematic, often the source of significant frustration for scholars, and sometimes even interferes with ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) q 2005 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/00909880500149395 Ascan F. Koerner is Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Minnesota. Correspondence to: Department of Communication Studies, 225 Ford Hall, 224 Church St. SE, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Tel: 612 624 4030; Email: koern011@umn.edu Journal of Applied Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, August 2005, pp. 231–241