The New York Times has a fascinating article about Institutional Review Boards and the humanities and social sciences.
Institutional Review Boards began as a federal mandate to control human experimentation – but the definition of ‘experimentation’ has broadened. A lot.
Bernadette McCauley, a historian at Hunter College, said she ran into trouble a couple of years ago when she tried to help students working with the Museum of the City of New York on an exhibition about Washington Heights. She asked if a few nuns who had grown up in that neighborhood and whom she knew from her research would talk to the students. And that, Ms. McCauley said, was “when things went haywire.”
The review board discovered the request and lambasted Ms. McCauley for failing to consult with it, she said. The board also demanded proof that previous research for a completed book did not use any archival material involving living people and banned her from doing any research.
Don’t you love that audit of her previous book? The possibility for abuse without appeal is enormous. For instance:
Debbie S. Dougherty and Michael W. Kramer, two former members of a review board at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who wanted to study review boards, had to first get their own board’s O.K. Although they thought their project was exempt from board approval, the only entity authorized to make that decision is the board itself, and the only appeal if the researchers had rejected the ruling is also the board.
An unintended consequence of this? Well, more historians might actually work on, you know, dead people. That part I could get behind.



