In this essay, we explore the tension between research using continuous improvement (CI) paradigms, such as improvement science, and conventional research, and the role and regulation of Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight. We argue that the current regulatory structure privileges traditional research and hinders collaborative inquiry that centers the voice and agency of those traditionally marginalized. We also question whether IRBs should limit CI efforts required of educational leaders as part of their jobs. We offer recommendations for how IRBs and scholar-practitioners can together support CI efforts.