Comments on: Fieldwork and resources for doing it

By: morgan

morgan — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:03:31 +0000

I would like to chip in and say that yes, many irbs are totally clueless as to anthropology methods. Yes, I do interviews, but I also talk to random people on the bus. Where does that fit into the IRB?

Also, I do my fieldwork in a place where most anthropologists do informal interviews, as taking notes or tape recording people makes them very nervous: although they know what anthropology is and generally support it. Where do informal interviews fit in here? how does one record oral consent in this case? Doesn’t the very fact of having a recording of someone’s voice identify them, or signing a sheet with their name? Where the danger is political repression rather than side-effects from medical experimentation, the IRBs methods simply don’t work.

Your ethics need to be judged by people competent in the methods they are evaluating.

Report this comment

By: Andrej

Andrej — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:31:27 +0000

Indeed, it is time for a change at your blogroll. Indeed, as stated before (don’t remember from whom though), a lot of smaller, peripheral anthro blogs could seriously benefit by appearing at your blogroll – and in turn you/we could benefit from them. I mean, you do the ‘savage minds around the web’, how difficult a blogroll refresh could be?

Report this comment

By: mmmm

mmmm — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:06:41 +0000

apropos of nothing in this post:

great blog, guys, but it really is time to update the blogroll. many of the links are dead or inactive. i mean, the politicaltheory site (which i always preferred to the aldaily site) still has headlines on its front page like: “Global investment banks are taking ever more risk, and are devising ever more sophisticated ways of spreading it. Is that reassuring or worrying?.” this hasn’t been news, or something that could be phrased as a question, for a while now. you guys must have some favorite contemporay links you could put up here. it would increase your traffic too.

i don’t mean to be rude, because this is (often) a great blog.

but, you know, while i’m kvetching, let me suggest a way to enliven the blog and to help the blog enliven anthro: a debates series. what are some big issues in anthro that significant groups disagree about? i, dunno, like what’s really the deal with the pirahã and recursion? are the much publicized claims true?– or, whatever. i love anthro, but it’s hurting for some good debates.

Report this comment

By: Kerim

Kerim — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:10:58 +0000

I didn’t know about the Lofland book. Looks good! Also, I think there are various summer programs that give students a chance to learn-by-doing which is probably the best way.

Report this comment

By: jay sosa

jay sosa — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:06:25 +0000

I’m not sure I would boil anxiety about the IRB down to lack of training in field methods. Sure, you can suffer from both, but the latter doesn’t necessarily cause the former. As I ask older students about the methods course in our department, some people tell me it teaches you how to do fieldwork, and some people say it teaches you how to talk about the fieldwork you’re proposing to do. I think most people would agree that they would prefer being able to employ methods (or engage with methodology in order to get worthwhile ethnographic description) over being able to describe methods for which they can’t practically use. Of course, those people may change their minds when it comes time to write a grant proposal or submit an IRB. Given that so many people say that writing the IRB is so far afield from what they do in the field, it seems to me that the practical knowledge of what to do in the field is as useful in negotiating bureaucracy as bureaucratic knowledge of your institution is in the field.

Report this comment

By: Chuk

Chuk — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:25:22 +0000

My Uni’s IRB is pretty friendly, helped along by a well cut division of labour, and some well placed quals.

Although I had to apply for IRB approval basically to live in my apartment, I was able to argue for participant observation consent on the grounds that as a genuine participant in the community under observation, my research and interests were manifestly overt. Potential respondents could decide to tell me what they liked by deciding to befriend or not to befriend that guy that moonlights as a sociologist.

I could see this argument breaking down, however, if I held a position of power in the community, say as an employer or what not. Not an issue for me though. I’m also not interested in slinging any dirt (at least at my respondents), so you could say that my research is pretty low risk.

Report this comment

By: Grad Student Guy

Grad Student Guy — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:28:09 +0000

I couple months ago I completed my IRB approval for dissertation research I will be conducting this summer. I described my interaction with informants as constituting informal interactions and semi-structured interviews. I also included a list of possible questions for interviews with a disclaimer attached which noted that I might ask questions that were not on the list. I got approval to conduct my research without signed informed consent in a matter of days.

In contrast, at my master’s institution, I had to go through several rounds of revisions to get approval to use only verbal consent. My topic at my master’s university was comparatively less controversial. Both professors and other grad students had similar problems at this institution.

I think there needs to be more consistency between IRB’s. It should not be the case that at some universities the process is quick and relatively easy while at others the process is slow and fairly complicated.

Report this comment

By: Barbara Piper

Barbara Piper — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:18:55 +0000

You might also direct this student to Zachary Schrag’s excellent Institutional Review Blog http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/
which raises both fundamental and practical issues about IRBs for social scientists and humanists. Having often bumped up against an IRB that assumes that all “social and behavioral science” research is just like medical research and drug tests, I find Schrag’s perspective refreshing, and hope that it leads to more rational application of basic principles.

Report this comment