Human Subjects Protection and Cultural Anthropology

民族志 面试 社会学 法学 政治学 人类学
作者
Stuart Plattner
出处
期刊:Anthropological Quarterly [George Washington University]
卷期号:76 (2): 287-297 被引量:19
标识
DOI:10.1353/anq.2003.0030
摘要

Institutions in the United States who receive federal funding to engage in research involving human beings must follow the appropriate regulations, known as "The Common Rule". 2 Here is a little quiz on this rule: a) Professor A is beginning a new project, interviewing Latin American domestic workers in Boston on their transnational ties to their homelands. "I don't have to present my research to my university's human subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB) since it is ethnographic, not biomedical, and exempt from the regulations." Is the professor right? b) Graduate student B is about to leave for Africa to conduct her dissertation research on tourist art sold in airports. "I don't require IRB approval since my research is part of my education." Is the student correct? c) Professor C and his students are frustrated. They are eager to begin their classroom project of ethnographically interviewing exotic dancers at the local nightclub, who are also students, on gender roles and sexuality. The results of the project will be term papers used for the students' grades. But the IRB chair has [End Page 287] advised them against presenting the project for approval. The chair said the IRB would be concerned that the research could embarrass the dancers and would not be likely to approve it. Was the chair acting in accord with the regulations? d) Professor D is really upset. She is in the third year of her National Science Foundation-supported sociolinguistic research on Japanese children's use of verb tenses for everyday activities, asking questions like "How would you say 'the pencil fell from the desk'". Dr. Parola has just changed universities and her new institution is insisting that she have a Japanese IRB review her research, and that she get signed informed consent from the parents of the children in accordance with Subpart D of the regulations. Neither her old institution nor the funding agency required these things. The consent form suggested by the IRB is full of vague alarms more suitable for biomedical problems, and she is concerned that the form itself will frighten away potential respondents. What should the researcher do? If you answered "wrong" for A and B, you are correct. While much ethnographic research, like much of social and behavioral research in general can be exempt from the regulations, an independent institutional authority like the IRB must make that determination. The researcher has a clear conflict of interest in excusing himself or herself from IRB oversight. While classroom exercises are normally exempt from federal oversight, the research involved in a dissertation should be reviewed by the institution to make sure it follows official regulations. Example C is about a course requirement and not about human research intended to advance knowledge through publication. While coursework is not covered by the regulations, many institutions extend their implementation to cover a wider range of research activities than the policy calls for. This review should be reasonable and should follow the principle that oversight of research should be commensurate with real risks of harm to human research participants ("subjects"). People who perform in public, like the respondents in C, expect to be observed. The IRB should make sure that the normal confidentiality of respondents is respected without preventing the research from progressing. In this case the IRB chair was improperly interpreting the regulations by being excessively strict. However, readers should note that their IRB is not bound to follow alternative interpretations, since universities are free to adopt policies over and above the Common Rule. What should you do when you disagree with your IRB's interpretation? This will be discussed below. [End Page 288] How about poor Professor D? This case is more complex, and requires a bit more information to comprehend. Two issues are raised, that of parental consent for research with children, and the requirement for foreign IRB review. The federal government's overall human subjects regulations, the "Common Rule," only refers to "Subpart A" of a total of...
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
Lucas应助汤圆软软软采纳,获得10
刚刚
Lucas应助汤圆软软软采纳,获得10
刚刚
斯文败类应助汤圆软软软采纳,获得10
刚刚
研友_VZG7GZ应助汤圆软软软采纳,获得10
刚刚
脑洞疼应助汤圆软软软采纳,获得10
刚刚
Wzg完成签到,获得积分20
1秒前
chiaoyin999发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
独角戏发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
希望天下0贩的0应助橙子采纳,获得10
1秒前
1秒前
1秒前
alala完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
脑洞疼应助Amelia采纳,获得10
3秒前
Jasper应助陶醉的幻竹采纳,获得10
3秒前
3秒前
zhuoai完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
5秒前
Lucas应助酷炫的毛巾采纳,获得50
5秒前
小陈发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
yyy发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
理想发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
ANKAR完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
8秒前
Crystal应助鲤鱼小蚂蚁采纳,获得30
9秒前
ANCY完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
ciara发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
9秒前
9秒前
桐桐应助雪儿采纳,获得10
10秒前
Amelia完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
人间由物发布了新的文献求助30
12秒前
12秒前
12秒前
lixiaoyu发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
anugraphics应助科研通管家采纳,获得30
12秒前
深情安青应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
12秒前
13秒前
阳光下的海水完成签到,获得积分10
13秒前
完美世界应助哇塞的晚秋采纳,获得10
13秒前
英俊的铭应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
13秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Overhead Power Line and Substation Foundations: State of Practice, Basics, Type Selection, Geotechnical Topics, and Specialty Analysis 2000
Overhead Power Line and Substation Foundations: Design Loads, Strength Factors, Threshold Criteria, and Design/Construction Methodologies 2000
The anomeric effect 1000
Principles of town planning: translating concepts to applications 1000
1 Peter and Christ's Descent to the Dead in Its Early Christian Reception 700
Perfectionism in School: When Achievement Is not So Perfect 600
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 纳米技术 工程类 有机化学 化学工程 生物化学 计算机科学 内科学 物理 复合材料 催化作用 细胞生物学 无机化学 光电子学 物理化学 电极 基因
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 7725721
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 9278203
关于积分的说明 20125316
捐赠科研通 7302330
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 3301842
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 2455102
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 2309750