Abstract
AbstractNew governance scholars see hybrid regulation as a means for achieving regulatory flexibility and responsiveness. The US system for overseeing human subjects research embodies three dimensions of hybridity: it brings together governmental and non‐governmental controls; it combines central and local authority; and it engages a multiplicity of policy actors. Yet this system became rigid 20 years into its development. Sources of rigidity included shifts in the regulatory environment, temporal constriction in the range policy participants, and risk aversion on the part of non‐governmental institutions charged with implementing federally mandated controls. This article explores the implications of these institutional dynamics for the relationship between hybridity and regulatory responsiveness. It also examines possibilities for renewed flexibility generated by the recent advent of both accreditation and regulatory innovation by university research administrators.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
