Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Institutional review boards (IRBs) were created to review biomedical and psychological research involving demonstrable risk to human participants. During the past half decade, however, many campus IRBs have begun to review humanities and social science research, thereby substantially expanding their mission and effectively imposing on faculty moral and ethical standards inappropriate to historical research. Moreover, IRBs have traditionally reviewed research plans, not potential publications. But the only way for IRBs to guarantee adherence to their standards for human conduct campus wide would be to exercise prior restraint on publication. That would seriously undermine academic freedom.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of University Professors. (2001). Protecting human beings: Institutional review boards and social science research. Academe, 87(3), 55-67.

Anderson, P. V. (1996). Ethics, institutional review boards, and the involvement of human participants in composition research. In P. Mortensen & G. E. Kirsch (Eds.), Ethics and representation in qualitative studies of literacy (pp. 260-285). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Bloom, L. Z. (2003). Living to tell the tale: The complicated ethics of creative nonfiction. College English, 65(3), 276-289.

Gunsalus, C. K. (2002, November 15). Rethinking protections for human subjects. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 16.

Knight, J., Blanchard, M. A., Church, J. T., & Shopes, L. (2002, June 17). Should all disciplines be subject to the Common Rule? (Report to the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee). Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.

Morgan, D. (1998). Ethical issues raised by students’ personal writing. College English, 60(3), 318-325.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Oakes, J. M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator’s guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 443-478.

Sieber, J. E., Plattner, S., & Rubin, P. (2002). How not to regulate social and behavioral research. Professional Ethics Report, 15(2), 1-4.

10.

Wright, D. (2002). Writing the real world. Kenyon Review, 24(3-4), 38-48.

The Brave New World of Research Surveillance

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References