Does oral history require IRB review? This question has been a topic of debate among scholars and researchers in the field of oral history. Oral history, as a method of gathering information through interviews, has been widely used to document the experiences and perspectives of individuals and communities. However, the ethical considerations involved in conducting oral history research have raised concerns about the necessity of Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. This article aims to explore the reasons behind this debate and provide insights into the role of IRB in oral history research.
Oral history involves collecting sensitive information from individuals, which may include personal stories, memories, and experiences. These narratives can be emotionally charged and may reveal sensitive or confidential information. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the participants’ rights and privacy are protected during the research process. One of the primary reasons why some argue that oral history requires IRB review is the potential for harm to participants.
IRB review is designed to protect human subjects from potential harm and to ensure that ethical principles are followed in research. In the context of oral history, IRB review can help researchers identify and mitigate risks associated with the collection and dissemination of sensitive information. This includes obtaining informed consent from participants, ensuring confidentiality, and addressing any potential psychological or emotional distress that may arise from participating in the research.
However, there are also arguments against the requirement of IRB review for oral history research. Critics argue that the IRB process can be overly bureaucratic and may stifle the creative and flexible nature of oral history. They believe that oral history researchers, who are often community members or individuals with deep knowledge of the subject matter, are well-equipped to handle ethical considerations without the intervention of an IRB. Moreover, they argue that the IRB process may not be suitable for the unique aspects of oral history, such as the importance of building trust with participants and the fluidity of the research process.
In conclusion, the question of whether oral history requires IRB review is complex and multifaceted. While protecting participants’ rights and privacy is of utmost importance, the IRB process may not always be the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring ethical conduct in oral history research. Researchers should consider the specific context of their study, the nature of the information being collected, and the potential risks involved. By striking a balance between ethical considerations and the unique aspects of oral history, researchers can conduct their work responsibly and effectively.
