Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Academic freedom and the protection of human research subjects are central tenets of American universities. Academic freedom protects the rights of tenured professors to conduct autonomous research; human subject protection ensures that research causes as minimal a risk as possible to study participants. Although the two principles are mutually exclusive, recent trends in Institutional Review Board jurisdiction have placed the two principles in increasing conflict with one another. This article outlines three ways in which Institutional Review Boards potentially infringe on academic freedom: (a) by regulating who is required to consent to research, (b) by stipulating the type of questions allowed and location of research interactions, and (c) by limiting research design.

Keywords

academic freedom human subjects institutional review

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of University Professors. ( 1995). 1940 statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure with 1970 interpretive comments. In AAUP Policy Documents & Reports (pp. 3-10). Washington, DC: Author.

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

Blanchard, M.A. (2002). Should all disciplines be subject to the common rule? Human subjects of social science research. Academe, 88(3), 62-69.

Brunner, D. (2005). The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html

Corwin, Z.B. , & Tierney, W.G. (in press). IRBs and qualitative research. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.

Hofstadter, R. , & Metzger, W.P. (1955). The development of academic freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

Humphreys, L. (1975). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places . Chicago: Aldine.

Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Institutional review boards and methodological conservatism: The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 165-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y.S. , & Tierney, W.G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219-234.

10.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved August, 2, 2002, from http://ohsr.nih.gov/mpa/belmont.php3

11.

Nelson, C. (2004). The brave new world of research surveillance. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 207-218.

12.

Oakes, J.M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator's guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 443-479.

13.

Pritchard, I.A. (2002). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 3-13.

14.

Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A history . New York: Vintage Books.

15.

Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers .

16.

Tierney, W.G. (1993). Academic freedom and the parameters of knowledge . Harvard Educational Review, 63(2), 143-160.

17.

Tierney, W.G. , & Lechuga, V.M. (2005). Academic freedom in the 21st century. Thought and Action, 21, 7-22.

18.

Veysey, L. (1965). The emergence of the American university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Tensions Between Academic Freedom and Institutional Review Boards

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References