2004/08/25 by Charles L. Bosk, Raymond G. De Vries, Raymond De Vries · 174 citations
Health Professions · Medicine · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Accommodation #Anthropology #Bureaucracy #Deception #Engineering ethics #Ethics in Clinical Research #Ethics in medical practice #Ethnography #Law #Political science #Politics #Psychology #Public relations #Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics #Research ethics #Sociology
paper · doi:10.1177/0002716204266913
published in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 595(1), 249-263 (SAGE Publishing)
openalex publication_date 2004/08/25 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/25
Ethnographers 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. Compared 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 ethnographic research. We conclude by encouraging ethnographers to be alert to the ways the procedural and bureaucratic demands of IRBs can displace their efforts to solve the serious ethical dilemmas posed by ethnography.