Email list hosting service & mailing list manager


Re: Anthropology, History and Rhetoric Gene Stein 22 Feb 2008 12:48 EST

The Holocaust study is a very good example of why oral history projects
should be reviewed by the IRB.

Among the criteria for IRB review are those projects that have the
potential to cause physical, psychological, social, or economic harm.
Questions asked of the population involved (prison guards and others)
certainly do that.  Most importantly, though, is the ability of subjects
to know they can say "NO" to the researcher.  Informed consent forms
tell the subjects that they don't have to respond.  If there's no IRB
review, there is probably no informed consent form, which means the
subjects may not know they can refuse to answer.  In addition, the fact
that the interviewer is from a university adds "authority" to the
questions, and a respectful older person may feel compelled to answer
the questions.

The term "generalizable" does not mean it has a predictive quality, as
Barbara suggests.  In fact, it has a more vague or indefinite meaning.
It also implies, in a research way of thinking, that the information
uncovered will be disseminated.

Robert Bloomberg does not need approval to talk to his uncle about World
War II.  Bob isn't doing research with a large sample, he's not planning
on publishing, he's doing the questioning as a nephew, not a university
professor, and---above all--his uncle has the ability to say "No."

Gene Stein
San Diego State University Research Foundation

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On
Behalf Of Barbara Gray
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 8:44 AM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Anthropology, History and Rhetoric

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")
======================================================================

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================