The latest version of the TCPS on research ethics can be downloaded from this link. Pay attention, especially to chapters 9 & 10, which focus on Aboriginal research and qualitative research issues.
Some would say that IRB’s already regulate more research than is necessary, showing little appreciation for the distinction between and undergraduates interviewing their grandparents for an oral history project and life and death medical interventions. Changes to the Common Rule, the first in decades, are being considered and have the potential to limit what is now publicly available data and to extend the notion of informed consent to perhaps ever sillier lengths. A summary of the changes can be found in this NYT article. Many scholars and scholarly associations are weighing in on the issues. The American History Association argues that its work should be excluded based on:
a. That oral history research focuses on eliciting information about the particular experiences of the past, and suffers irreparable harm when forced into rubrics developed to treat human beings in a general (or “generalizable”) way by engaging them in tests, trials, or medical procedures;
b. That the methodology of oral history research is built on a free and open dialogue with the interviewee, and cannot be reviewed or assessed in the structured or systematic framework of an IRB;
c. That the proposed “excused” category does not address our concerns, because it keeps oral history tied into inappropriate frameworks of the sciences and would add the further burden of rules designed to prevent “information risk”;
d. That this is not a simple plea to be free of all professional standards. The AHA endorsed the Oral History Association’s Statement of Principles and Best Practices and maintains its own Statement on Professional Standards because we believe history work should be conducted in a rigorous and professional way, but our standards are organized and applied in ways that are fundamentally different from the scientific procedures and criteria administered by IRBs.
IRBs are already the panopticon for scholarly inquiry and the skepticism about the reasons for increased surveillance in research, especially research that is no/low risk, should lead us to consider the extent to which observation and regulation of research is more about normalization and less about ethical research practice.
Apropros of the discussion in my research class, this article illustrates nicely the ‘voluntary’ nature of compliance with IRBs AND that the agreement (legal and moral) to protect human rights in research contexts is a social convention. The US Department of Defence’s disregard for internationally accepted norms is as outrageous as the historical events that lead to the creation of institutional review boards.
This is an excerpt from Freeman & Mathison’s Researching Children’s Experiences chapters 2, 3 & 5.
Freeman, M. & Mathison, S. (2009), Research Children’s Experiences. New York; Guilford Press.
The piece from the NY Times is about clinical trials in medicine, but it speaks generally to the conservatism of research review boards.
Canada’s Tri-council research funding agencies have drafted a new version of the guidelines for ethical research with humans. The new guidelines are significantly different and have a much expanded description of the nature of ‘qualitative research.’ Check out especially chapter 10 of the Tri-Council Draft Policy on Research Ethics.
“Field research can, at bottom, be considered as an act of betrayal, no matter how well intentioned or well integrated the researcher. You make the private public and leave the locals to take the consequences.” (Miles & Huberman (1994, p.265) in Qualitative Data Analysis)
Following up on the previous post on the embedded social scientists in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the question about whether IRB approval is needed for this military work. Leaving aside the moral issues about embedded social scientists, one wonders if this is simply IRB creep, i.e., does everything that involves people require IRB approval? Read on, Are IRB’s Needed for War Zones?
The United States government has embedded anthropologists in troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to help them understand local culture. Does this amount to militarizing anthropology or anthropologizing the military? There is no end of controversy and many anthropologists see this as using anthropologists in counterinsurgency activities, as happened in Vietnam and Latin America. The NY Times has a story today on the matter.