Ethnographers’ Experiences of Institutional Ethics Oversight: Results from a Quantitative and Qualitative Survey

Ethnographers' Experiences of Institutional Ethics Oversight: Results from a Quantitative and Qualitative SurveyIn 1977, an offi cer of the American Anthropological Association testifi ed that "the operations of IRBs are inappropriate for ethnographic research, and … the application of the medical model tends to stultify and discourage ethnographic research, to invade scientifi c freedom, and to increase federal control over universities, at no savings in damage to people." 1 By 2004, the AAA had reversed that stance, stating that "the American Anthropological Association … advocates that all ethnographic researchers should cultivate a strong foundation for the ethical conduct of research with human populations.Th is means that the risks of harm must be considered in relation to the potential benefi ts of ethnographic research.Th is process should actively involve the researcher and the IRB, the researcher and participants, and fi nally the IRB, the researcher and stakeholders." 2 Th ese two statements encapsulate not only a range of opinions about institutional ethics oversight that exist among ethnographers but also, as the dates suggest, a historical shift in attitudes toward ethics oversight among I wish to thank those who took the time to respond to this survey with such thoughtful refl ections on how institutional ethics review has shaped their research.I also want to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Zach Schrag, who helped to design the original survey instrument and provided valuable feedback throughout this research project, and Kirsten Bell, who shared ideas, literature, and generously off ered profound insights into the rippling discursive eff ects of talk about ethics committees.