          
|
||
|
|
||
|
AAA Addresses Ethnography and Ethics Mary Margaret Overbey, director The AAA issued an educational statement on Ethnography and Insti-tutional Review Boards (IRBs) on June 4 that addresses the protection of human participants in ethnographic research for policymakers, IRBs and ethnographers. The statement interprets the federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects invoked by IRBs in their review of research proposals as they apply to ethnography. The regulations, known as the “Common Rule,” developed to regulate higher risk biomedical research like that conducted in clinical trials, apply to all research involving humans. Interpretations of the Common Rule by IRBs at different institutions have often varied, resulting in complaints that the biomedical model does not fit the needs of lower risk research methodologies. A challenge by historians in 2003 to the application of the Common Rule to oral history was considered by the US Office of Human Research Protections and ruled that oral history at times does not constitute research as defined by the regulation. Since oral history is among the methods used in ethnography, the question rose as to whether or not other ethnographic methods or ethnography as a whole could be excluded. At the 2002 and 2003 annual meetings, roundtable discussions were organized to consider the relationship of ethnography to IRB review. An outcome of these discussions, as well as discussion of the issue in Anthropology News over the past three years, was the suggestion that AAA develop a statement on ethnography and IRBs to define ethnography, describe ethnographic methods, address benefits and risks, emphasize the importance of protecting those studied, consider exemption and expedited review of research and address informed consent. Carolyn Fleuhr-Lobban (Rhode Island C) and Patricia Marshall (Case Western Reserve U), assisted by background research efforts of AAA staff Melissa Coates and Amy Beckrich, developed an initial draft statement that was reviewed by AAA’s Committee on Ethics. The draft was revised with the help of AAA staff Mary Margaret Overbey and Stacy Lathrop and contributions from Stuart Plattner (NSF), Helen McGough (U Washington), Marjorie Speers (Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs) and Glen Drew (OHRP). The Committee on Ethics approved the statement. The AAA Executive Board considered the statement on May 23, suggested revisions that were incorporated and adopted the statement by electronic ballot June 4. AAA’s statement describes the often long-term nature of ethnography and the relationships of trust that develop between the ethnographer and research participants. The statement emphasizes the importance of protecting human participants in research. It acknowledges that ethnographic research is subject to the Common Rule and that, because of the complexity, variable contexts and duration of each project, ethnographic research should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The statement recognizes that ethnographic research projects may be exempt from IRB review or qualify for expedited review. The statement considers in-formed consent, often an issue of contention between ethnographers and IRBs. The statement points out that written informed consent may not always be the appropriate means for securing and documenting consent of participants. It identifies situations—for instance, among illiterate populations or where human rights abuses have created an atmosphere of fear—where signing one’s name would be seen as coercive or to be used for harmful purposes. The statement encourages IRBs to consider granting waivers of written informed consent in these and other in-stances. The full statement is available at: www.aaanet.org/stmts/irb.htm. |
||
|
Questions
or comments? We want to hear from you! Copyright
© 1996-2006, American Anthropological Association |
||
