missing the ethical woods: irb procedures

8/8/2019 Missing the Ethical Woods: IRB procedures

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/missing-the-ethical-woods-irb-procedures 1/3

NANDINI SUNDAR

Delhi University

Missing the ethical wood for thebureaucratic trees

C O M M E N T A R Y

As practitioners of a disciplinethat specializes in angst-ridden dis-

cussions about ethics and about whether to treat people in thefield as human subjects or as interlocutors, key informants, col-

laborators, or friends, anthropologists, not surprisingly, feel es-

pecially resentful and threatened when faced with institutional

review board (IRB) procedures. As a working anthropologist reading the

articles in this AE Forum, I could instantly empathize with Rena Leder-

man’s indignation about being forced to translate the disciplinary assump-

tions andprotocols of other subjects to anthropology; the helplessness that

some contributors (e.g., Jack Katzand Daniel Bradburd) express in deciding

when a research moment begins and ordinary life leaves off; and the sheer

puzzlement of how one might be expected to get prior informed consent,

whenparticipant-observationis allabout entering intothe contexts of other

people’s lives.

As someone based outside the United States, I find it difficult to assesshow much anthropological research is really blocked by IRBs and how far

the sense of siege these articles convey is shared across universities. An

unscientific e-mail survey I conducted of colleagues (mostly anthropolo-

gists,but notall) at different U.S. universitiesshowed that everyone hashad

something to do with IRBs but the way they have been affected has varied.

Whereasthe finer pointsof federal mission creepinto non–federally funded

projects, thescopeof exemptionsclauses, or theneed to rewrite IRBrulesto

allow for the differing methodologies of different disciplines are clearly is-

sues for U.S. anthropologists and university administrators to debate, from

my vantage point, it seems more important that the notion of “consent”

itself be problematized and not just the manner of its procurement.

Some requirement that people, whether communities or individuals,

be informed of the goals of research is not unreasonable. Coming froma national context in which the power of anthropology to represent peo-

ple is limited, research funding and consequent oversight are negligible,

and questions of consent are rarely debated, I think something like an

IRB might not be a bad idea. At least, these issues would get raised in the

AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST , Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 535–537, ISSN 0094-0496, electronicISSN 1548-1425. C 2006 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content throughthe University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.



American Ethnologist Volume 33 Number 4 November 2006

consciousness of researchers. My main concern, however,

would be the degree to which a bureaucratic concern with

prior consent obscures the wider ethical issues that anthro-

pologists need to engage with. As Bradburd points out, con-

sent forms serve more to immunize universities from the

risk of litigation than to protect human subjects. They alsoserve, however, to gloss federally funded research as legit-

imate and caring, without attention to the overall context

in which research often takes place. What if, for instance,

the anthropologists involved in Project Camelot, the U.S.

Department of Defense and CIA–funded project in South-

east Asia in the 1960s,had got people to sign consent forms?

To what level of research outcome are people consenting?

How informed is “informedconsent”?Althoughparticipant-

observation does create situations not of the anthropolo-

gist’s choosing, overall it is the anthropologist’s decision to

carry out research, to frame the issue studied in particular

ways, and to use the research for particular outcomes such

asa research paper or a book. Inmany ways, askingfor priorconsent is not dissimilar to the participatory management

so beloved of development agencies, in which the terms of

participation are already determined. In neither case is the

arrangement at all satisfying.

Insituationsinwhichilliteracymakespeoplevulnerable

to signing away rights, demanding written consent forms is

likelyto traumatize peoplemore than it will help or reassure

them, the “chilling effect” that Bradburd mentions. When

studying perpetrators of violence or genocidal agents, as an-

thropology must on occasion, is consent procurable or even

desirable? If one assumes that long-term personal projects

are an important part of a person’s identity and anyobstacle

placed in thepath of these projects would diminish that per-son’s well-being, research that, in the process of explaining

and understanding, also highlights the negative aspects of

these long-term projects clearly does the subject deliberate

harm. But is that, after all, such a bad thing? To be sure, one

person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist, and,

ultimately, all research is a moral call.

Several wider ethical issues—including questions of

representation, ethnographic authority, and the violence

this may entail—have been addressed in various national

disciplinary fora like the American Anthropological Associ-

ation Code of Ethics. Butbecause they lack anyenforcement

procedure, it is not clear that such disciplinary bodies can

fully supplant the role of an IRB-type institution. Also un-

clear is what accountability means, to whom researchers

must be held accountable, and how this is to be balanced

against academic freedom (cf. Richard A. Shweder’s article).

Recent work on accountability for human-made disasters

leavesopentheexcitingpossibilitythatthe“experts”whoad-

vocated structural adjustment in sub-Saharan Africa, caus-

ing thousands of deaths, should be asked to make repara-

tions. If campus watchdog bodies like the David Project or

AccuracyinAcademiasucceedintheiragendas,however,the

demand that subjects consent to research could tomorrow

be extended to the demand that students consent to what

is taught. According to some of its well-known right-wing

promoters, Accuracy in Academia is

shining a light on the continuing depredations of leftistthugs at our universities. . . . Accuracy in Academiadoesmuch more than complain about the leftist, statist,and Marxist biases on American campus. It promotesawareness and understanding of our genuine politicaltradition; it puts young Americans back in touch with their ancestors. This noble mission deserves thesupport of everyone who treasures liberty. [Accuracy in Academia n.d.]

Campus Watch, according to its website, is “a project of

the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East

studies in North America, with an aim to improving them”

(Campus Watchn.d.). The problemsthat need improvement

include “analytical errors” (having different views than thecurrent U.S. administration about militant Islam), “extrem-

ism” (“Many U.S. scholars of theMiddle East lack anyappre-

ciation of their country’s national interests”), “intolerance,”

and “apologetics” (e.g., of 550 papers presented at a Mid-

dle East studies conference, only one dealt with Al-Qaeda;

CampusWatchn.d.).In India, whenthe right-wingBharatiya

Janata Party (BJP) government was in power, passages from

certain history textbooks were removed on the grounds that

they offended the sentiments of certain communities. What

would prior research consent have meant here?

Although prior consent may not always be feasible or

even desirable, it seems to me that the articles in this forum

couldhavemademore of otheraspectsof IRBprocedure:Forinstance, it is noted in 45 CFR 46 that, “whenever appropri-

ate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent

information after participation” (Department of Health and

Human Services 2005:116[d.4]). People want to know about

research outcomes as much as anything else. If IRBs were to

include mandatory requirements like setting aside a certain

sumof moneyfor translation of thefinished productinto the

local language of the “human subjects” or even the national

language of their country, this single step would do far more

to address the power imbalances between anthropologists

and their interlocutors than any other procedure.

My final concern is the legitimacy, or lack thereof, that

anthropology has been able to establish for itself and its

unique methods. Across the world, anthropology plays sec-

ond fiddle to economics and the hardsciences, and as a dis-

ciplinary nationalist, I cannot but be upset about this. Yet,

I confess to a certain worry that the “fuzziness” of ethno-

graphic practice (Bradburd) is often an excuse for intellec-

tual laziness, for not thinking through research problems

adequately or ensuring that, even if research cannot be

“replicated,” it canat least befully defended.Anthropologists

are always going to have the problem of small sample sizes,

536

missing the ethical woods: irb procedures

Documents