Ross Woods, 2022
“James” plans to do an ethnographic study in his local community. This includes making friends, meeting people informally, and conducting free, informal interviews. He has to apply to his institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for permission. This body oversees ethics of research involving human subjects, and it must follow Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Subtitle A, Part 46, “Protection of Human Subjects.” (CFR).
Under these regulations, researchers must normally disclose information to prospective respondents in writing, explain anything orally that is still unclear, and then get a signed approval form from them. If the project meets the criteria for exemption, the IRB can issue the researcher with an exemption from CFR requirements, and then decide on ethical requirements apart from those of the CFR. This would meet the IRB’s obligations under the CFR.
First, John’s project fits the definition of research and has human subjects. Consequently, the most basic reasons for exemption do not apply, that is, that the project lies outside the definition of research and that it has no human subjects.
The second basis for exempt status is that it meets one of the exemption criteria in CFR 46.104. One section specifically refers to interviews:
In other words, the research could be exempt if it follows IRB-approved procedures to ensure that respondents cannot be identified and could not be re-identified, and ensures that subjects are not put at risk. These generally present no difficulty at all, and it would be easy to approve ethnographic research on this basis. See the recommended procedures below for preventing identification of subjects.
Another possibility is the conditions given in 46.104 (3), and the the table below contains an assessment of compliance:
| 1. The research is completely harmless. | Compliance is easy. In fact, James could show participants his draft research and get their input. |
| 2. Subjects must be adults. | Compliance is easy. |
| 3. Subjects agree to the research. | Compliance is easy, athough the nature of agreement is not specified. It could be oral, as long as the researcher makes a contemporaneous record. |
| 4. One of the following: | |
| a. Subjects are annonymous and cannot be re-identified | Compliance with anonymity is easy, although preventing re-identification is more difficult. (See below.) |
| b. The research does not put the subject at risk of criminal or civil liability or of damage to their financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation | Compliance is normally easy. |
| 5. Contacts are brief in duration, harmless, painless, not physically invasive, not likely to have a significant adverse lasting impact on the subjects. | Contacts are not necessarily brief in duration, but compliance is otherwise easy. However, most ethnographic approaches are inconsistent with the examples given in the regulation: “having the subjects play an online game, ... solve puzzles under various noise conditions, or ... decide how to allocate a nominal amount of received cash between themselves and someone else.” |
| 6. The researcher has no reason to think the subjects will find the interventions offensive or embarrassing. | Compliance is normally easy. |
| 7. The researcher may deceive subjects about the nature or purposes of the research, as long as the subject agrees to that stipulation. | Compliance is very easy but might still be unethical. Its purpose seems to refer to cases where revealing the purpose would defeat its purpose. However, if an ethnography were used for missiological purposes, it would be seen to be surreptitious. |
These are prohibitions and are less restrictive than the standards of ethnographic ethics, which require positive respect for the persons and culture of their research. Nevertheless, most of these requirements inform the way that interviews may be conducted, and the IRB is quite entitled to make them requirements of an exemption based on interviews:
The researcher could easily omit the name of the town and the names of respondents.
Although the research was anonymized, James must also prevent readers from making connections that would re-identify individuals. During the fieldwork stage, the IRB requires the researcher to:
The second stage is publication:
However, the IRB has the right to impose its own requirements apart from the CFR. These include informing respondents of:
If they IRB sees other considerations that weight against an exempt status, the IRB might still approve the research, in which case the full effect of the CFR comes into play with a complex set of informed consent procedures. Even then, the CFR allows some special cases.
Under normal circumstances, respondents must fill out and sign an informed consent document. (CFR §46.117 (a), (b) (1)) However, the IRB may waive that requirement if it finds any of the following:
This section notably mentions “minimal risk of harm.” In other words, the IRB does not need to eliminate all possible risk, but only to minimize it.
The following paragraph of the CFR specifies that “In cases in which the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide subjects or legally authorized representatives with a written statement regarding the research.”
If the IRB did not waive the requirement of a signed consent form, the CFR also allows for information to be presented orally, after which the respondent signs only a short form, while a witness must sign a short form and a long form. This procedure might work well in some populations where it does not skew research results.