IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014 - 58

to the Wall Street Journal, IRBs
are "cracking down on social sciences" [13]. Shea has declared that
researchers are virtually being told,
"Don't talk to the humans" [14].
Church, Shopes, and Blanchard
have observed that IRBs have a
"chilling effect" on social-science
research [15]. Schrag has equated
the relationship between IRBs and
social sciences to "ethical imperialism" [16].
This article will review the
rules, processes, and behaviors of
IRBs for qualitative inquiry in the
social sciences within the framework of professional autonomy.
The research will demonstrate
how IRBs draw procedural criteria from the biomedical sciences
and favor criteria applicable to
quantitative social-science research
when reviewing qualitative socialscience research applications. Typically, quantitative research assumes

generates frustration among qualitative social-science researchers.
Most scholarly studies on IRBs
have either grouped social sciences
with behavioral sciences, or have
focused on the discipline of social
sciences rather than on the method
by which the research was conducted. For instance, a recent largescale national survey on 45 IRB
functions was conducted with 886
biomedical and social-behavioral
researchers as subjects [17]. More
importantly, IRB review tends to
be more challenging for qualitative research rather than quantitative social-science research. This
can be attributed to the notion that
traditionally, quantitative inquiry
has been portrayed as superior to
qualitative inquiry. For instance,
Fred Kerlinger once proclaimed,
"There's no such thing as qualitative data. Everything is either 1 or
0" (cited in [18]). Consequently,

Quantitative inquiry has been
portrayed as superior to
qualitative inquiry.
that social facts have an objective
reality and that they reduce data
to numerical indices. There is also
the assumption that social facts are
deductive, begin with hypotheses
and theories, identify variables,
and measure relationships among
variables. In contrast, qualitative
research assumes that reality is
socially constructed and makes
minor use of numerical indices.
This type of research is inductive,
ends with hypotheses and grounded
theories, restricts identification of
variables, and faces difficulty in
measuring relationships among
variables. Since an important factor in qualitative social-science
research is that researchers enjoy
discretion in deciding what they
would like to research and the
means with which they want to
carry it out, and ultimately IRBs
control this, IRB review often
58

IRB's demand modifications better
suited for quantitative rather than
qualitative social-science research.
Previously, when scholars have
focused specifically on IRBs and
qualitative inquiry [5], [6], [9]-[12],
the topic was not examined explicitly within the framework of professional autonomy.

Professional Autonomy
The professional autonomy of scientists to determine research problems, and to determine the methods
with which to respond to research
problems, has been regarded as
one of the fundamental norms of
science. Friedson has argued that
legitimate organized autonomy
is the basic pillar of professionalism [19]. Professional autonomy is
defined as the ability to initiate and
conclude action, and to control the
content, manner, and speed with

which a task is done [20]. Bailyn
has identified two types of professional autonomy: 1) "strategic
autonomy" which is the freedom
to set one's own work agenda, and
2) "operational autonomy" which is
the freedom, once the work agenda
has been set, to attack it by means
determined by oneself [21].
As professionals, scientists exercise both facets of autonomy in
the performance of research, with
the theoretical expectation that research will be conducted in accordance with the ethical norms of the
profession and without interference
from those who are not qualified
[22]. Scientists are viewed as experts in their fields who have gone
through an extensive period of formal education and training [23].
Thus, autonomy is not a reward that
has been granted, but rather it is a
right earned by the efforts displayed
in becoming an expert.
The academic setting is known
to facilitate the highest form of professionalism. Professionals sustain
jurisdiction with the power and prestige of their academic knowledge
[24]. Academic scientists are viewed
as enjoying strategic autonomy [25].
Theoretically, they are not required
to focus on any given research topic;
they conduct research in their areas
of interest and expertise. They have
ownership of data generated from
their research and decide how to
interpret results. They tend to enjoy
the academic freedom to speak
freely on subjects within their expertise. Similarly, they pursue their own
agenda in teaching and even shape
the department curriculum. They
are free to design courses they like
to teach, and to determine how to
present material to students.
In practice, however, academic
scientists do not enjoy absolute
autonomy. Since 1950, the financial support given to universities
by the government, as well as the
partnership between universities
and industry since 1970, has placed
organizational constraints on the
autonomy of academic scientists

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

WINTER 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014