Bureaucracies of mass deception : institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research
By: BOSK, Charles L
.
Contributor(s): VRIES, Raymond G. De.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: Thousand Oaks : SAGE, September 2004The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science 595, p. 249-263Abstract: Ethographers have long been unhappy with the review of their research proposals by institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, we offer a sociological view of the problems associated with prospective IRB review of ethnographic research. Coompared with researchers in other fields, social scientists have been less willing to accommodate themselves to IRB oversight; we identify the reasons for this reluctance, and in an effort to promote such accommodation, we suggest several steps to reduce the frustration associated with IRB review of ethnnographic researh. We conclude by encouraging ethnographers to be alert to the ways the procedural and bureaucratic demands of IRBs can displace thier efforts to solve the serious ethical dilemmas posed by ethnography.
Ethographers have long been unhappy with the review of their research proposals by institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, we offer a sociological view of the problems associated with prospective IRB review of ethnographic research. Coompared with researchers in other fields, social scientists have been less willing to accommodate themselves to IRB oversight; we identify the reasons for this reluctance, and in an effort to promote such accommodation, we suggest several steps to reduce the frustration associated with IRB review of ethnnographic researh. We conclude by encouraging ethnographers to be alert to the ways the procedural and bureaucratic demands of IRBs can displace thier efforts to solve the serious ethical dilemmas posed by ethnography.
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.