IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014 - 61

explaining the purposes or the benefits of the research in detail to subjects may skew the research results
in the social sciences [4]. It is proposed that IRBs do not take specific
context of social-science research
into consideration [43]. The American Association of University Professors has cited numerous examples
[44], such as when a linguist seeking to study language development
in a preliterate tribe was instructed
by an IRB to have the subjects read
and sign a consent form before the
study could proceed. Similarly, a
political scientist who had bought a
list of appropriate names for a survey
of voting behavior was required by
an IRB to get written informed consent from the subjects before mailing
them the survey.
Informed consent is seen as creating additional challenges in international settings [39]. Seligson has
proposed that IRBs may be engaging in a sort of cultural imperialism when they impose American
criteria on human subjects in social
settings elsewhere [34]. Further, it
is not customary in the culture of
many developing nations to sign
documents [10]. Generally, the
details written on the informed
consent tend to be detached from
the cultural norms of the countries
where the study is conducted.
Informed consent is also required
to protect the privacy of human subjects. IRBs consider anonymity one
of the best assurances for protecting
confidentiality of human subjects.
Scholars have claimed that in some
social-science methods, the issue
of anonymity is problematic [42],
[43]. For example, it is difficult to
protect the identity of human subjects in a focus group study or in an
interactive group setting in which a
researcher asks questions. Human
subjects give answers openly, and
they are free to talk with other participants. In ethnographic studies,
cultural anthropologists cannot
ensure anonymity in practice since
some societies, individuals, or organizations are sufficiently distinctive

and thus identifiable [6], [11]. For
oral historians, anonymous sources
lack credibility [45]. They conduct
interviews for the record, preserve
interviews as an archival document,
and provide open access so that others can evaluate them.
Studies on sensitive topics such
as sexual assault, repressed memory, genetic markers, teen pregnancy, or criminal conviction face
additional challenges. For instance,
doctoral student Tara Star Johnson
who wanted to do a qualitative study

Empirical Cases
This section presents examples narrated by social-science researchers
on their interactions with IRBs following three conferences in 2005,
2006, and 2011. Each session had
over 20 participants in the room and
the participants were in agreement
about the role of IRBs in socialscience research. A large majority
of these social-science researchers
belonged to public research universities; IRBs in private research
universities, as well as in master's,

If there are social scientists on local
IRBs, they tend to be trained in
quantitative methodology.
to investigate the phenomenon of
sexual dynamics in the classroom
discovered that the IRB was a tool
used to discipline her department by
allowing its students to do research
outside accepted norms [46]. Jonathan Church, a senior student,
wanted to conduct an ethnographic
study of a gentleman's club in Philadelphia, which raised red flags to
the IRB. He abandoned the project
for something less controversial in
an effort to graduate on time [15].
David Wright was accused by the
IRB of unethical behavior, among
other things, for not reporting a student's involvement in a crime about
which he wrote a creative nonfiction story [47]. Typically, IRBs
views sensitive topics as having the
potential to bring lawsuits and bad
publicity to universities.
If social scientists conduct their
research without IRB approval,
employing universities may call it
scientific misconduct and suspend
the research, thereby making the
data inadmissible for publication
[48]. Brown University prohibited Professor Li from publishing
research from her three-year study
of the education and socialization of
Chinese immigrant children because
she modified the IRB-approved budget during the fieldwork stage [49].

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

WINTER 2014

baccalaureate, and other educational
institutions, may differ in rules
regarding human subject research.
In most of these public research
universities, IRBs were centralized,
dealing with biomedical, behavioral, and social science research;
universities, which have a separate
IRB for social-science research, are
likely to differ in the review process.
Only examples pertaining to qualitative research are presented here.
Example 1- According to a
researcher, the IRB did not understand why his research questions
were not converted into a hypothesis
to be easily tested. Additionally, the
IRB was not in agreement with his
need to conduct face-to-face interviews with human subjects. Alternatively, the IRB expressed that
administering an anonymous survey
could collect the same information.
Example 2- The IRB told a
researcher that the snowball sampling that he had proposed was similar to collecting data from friends.
In his experience, purposive sampling, interviews, and small sample
size do not generally fall in line
with IRB approval standards. They
tend to favor surveys with a large
sample that is selected randomly.
Example 3- The IRB took
over eight months to approve an
|

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