Questions
Regarding the Policy Statement
The recently announced policy excluding most oral history interviewing projects from Institutional Review Board review according to federal regulations governing research involving human subjects (codified as 45 CFR 46 and generally referred to as the Common Rule) has raised a number of questions about oral history and ethics. Following are brief answers to some of the most common questions. For further information, see the bibliography, “Historians and Institutional Review Boards”:
1. The new policy excludes oral history from IRB review. What’s the difference between “exclusion” and “exemption”?
The operative word in the policy
statement is “exclude” rather than “exempt.” Until now, researchers had to submit protocols for oral
history projects to Institutional Review Boards, which then decided whether to
“exempt” oral history from review according to categories of exemption outlined
in the Common Rule. The U.S. Department
of Health and Human Service’s Office for Human Research Protection has now
agreed that oral history as the practice has been professionally defined does
not meet the regulatory definition of “research” and therefore is excluded
entirely from IRB review, without seeking formal exemption. If oral historians deem that their oral
history projects do not meet the regulatory definition of research, they can
proceed without consultation with an IRB.
If a project does meet the regulatory definition of research, it could
still be “exempted” by an IRB, but that must be determined by the IRB. [For the
regulatory definitions, see: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
]
2. Within their
institutions, whom should historians inform about this policy statement?
Rather
than going to an IRB, oral historians should take the policy statement to their
chairs, deans, provosts or other administrators responsible for institutional
compliance with federal regulations.
3. Does the
regulatory definition of research mean that oral history is not research?
The policy
statement does not say that oral history is "not research." It says that oral history does "not
involve research as defined by the HHS regulations." The OHRP has affirmed that federal
regulations were designed with biomedical research in mind, as well as
behavioral and social scientific research that uses standard questionnaires
with often anonymous sources to produce quantitative information that aims at
"generalizable knowledge."
Since that is not the way oral historians operate, the type of research they do is now
excluded from IRB review. The OHRP has
no authority to define what constitutes legitimate research in any field, only
what research is covered by federal regulations.
4. Why did oral historians seek exclusion from
IRB review?
Years of
complaints from historians at colleges and universities across the country have
amply documented rulings that directly contradicted the professional standards
of oral history. IRB members with
backgrounds largely in the medical and behavioral sciences applied their
research practices to the humanities.
IRBs have required oral historians to submit questions in advance, not
to ask questions about sensitive or difficult topics, not to use interviewees'
real names (despite their willingness–even eagerness–to be identified), and not
to save the tapes once the project is completed, requests that directly
contradict historians’ professional standards.
IRBs have eventually exempted most oral history from review, but only
after the filing of considerable paperwork and protracted deliberations that
have delayed course work and research and also have had the unintended effect
of weakening IRBs’ overall credibility.
Rulings have been inconsistent from university to university, and
sometimes from board to board within the same institution. Some historians chose not to conduct
interviews to avoid the frustrations of dealing with IRBs , suggesting the
chilling effect IRBs were having on legitimate research. It was because of these mounting professional
complaints that representatives of the Oral History Association and American
History Association met with government regulators to develop the policy
statement.
5. Does exclusion of most oral history from IRB
review mean that historians need not be sensitive to ethical issues?
Not at all.
It only means that oral historians are freer to act in accordance with
ethical and legal standards appropriate to oral history, not biomedical or
behavioral research. For decades, oral historians have promulgated
high ethical and professional standards, including their ethical requirement
to gain informed consent prior to conducting an interview, and a signed legal
release at the conclusion of the interview.
These issues are codified in the Oral History Association's Principles
and Standards and
Evaluation Guidelines.
6. Why do interviewers still need to get informed
consent and secure legal releases? Doesn’t that inhibit historians’ right to
free inquiry?
Simply talking with someone for background is not oral history. Oral history involves interviews for the record, explicitly intended for preservation as a historical document. Informed consent means that those being interviewed fully understand the purposes and potential uses of the interview, as well as their freedom not to answer some questions, and their identification in research and writing drawn from the interview. Legal releases are linked to issues of evidence and copyright. If a researcher makes explicit use of an interview in written work (both in direct quotation and paraphrase), the interview should be cited in a footnote, so that others can identify and locate that information within the framework of extant evidence. Recorded interviews involve copyright, and interviewees must sign an agreement that establishes access for those who use the interview in any way. If the interviews are deposited in a library or archives, legal releases will establish ownership of the copyright and the terms of access and reproduction. If the interviews are published, legal releases will satisfy publishers’ concerns over copyright. [For further information see: John A. Neuenschwander, Oral History and the Law.