Our IRB has been having similar discussions. The question that keeps coming
up is about the definition of research and specifically "contributing to
generalizable knowledge," with "generalizable" being the undefined word.
Does "generalizable" connote an ability to predict outcomes based on
research results? If ability to predict is what makes the activity one that
contributes to generalizable knowledge, then where do all the studies using
qualitative methods fit in?
One of our IRB members is actually doing an oral history project about the
Holocaust that the IRB has not reviewed (our current policy based on the
OHA/OHRP decision). Some of her interviewees served as guards in the
concentration camps. Disclosure of what some have told her could definitely
put these people at risk. She also interviews survivors, who can obviously
have some strong emotional/psychological response to recall of events. Some
IRB members think this should have been reviewed by the IRB because of
potential harms; others think that, although she should be (and is) well
aware of her ethical responsibilities, it is not an IRB matter because the
project will not contribute to generalizable knowledge (i.e., offer a
predictive model of some sort).
Perhaps it is the sensitivity of the research, and not the generalizability,
specific activities, research design, or discipline that should drive what
is subject to IRB review, tempered with a healthy respect for the varying
accepted disciplinary methods for collecting research data within the social
sciences.
Our IRB is talking about developing a parallel review structure for
non-federally funded research--don't know if it would be any less
restrictive, but it may at least be more understandable to social
scientists, historians, and educators. But we're waiting to see the result
of the proposed changes to expedited review criteria. I have mixed feelings
about this, and like all of you, no good answers.
Ms. Barbara H. Gray
Director of Grants & Contracts
Valdosta State University
1500 North Patterson Street
Valdosta, GA 31698-0429
Telephone: 229-333-7837
Fax: 229-245-3853
Email: xxxxxx@valdosta.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of
Bloomberg, Robert
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:17 AM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Anthropology, History and Rhetoric
So let me see if I got this right--
If I ask my uncle, who is 84, to relate to me his experiences, say, during
WWII, I need informed consent and IRB approval?
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org]On Behalf
Of Elisabeth Sherwin
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:57 AM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Anthropology, History and Rhetoric
So do you make History submit to IRB and then get exempt?
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
