Can E. T. Phone Home?: The Brave New World of University Surveillance

Nelson, Cary

doi:10.2307/40253385

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Consequently, because of their composition, it is debatable whether IRBs can, for example, effectively assess "non-biomedical" protocols. According to Cary Nelson, "the growing literature on campus IRBs shows again and again that boards assembled to supervise biomedical research often haven't a clue about the culture of history or anthropology or literature departments" (Nelson, 2003). Nelson's assertion is overstated, but it does highlight the issue of whether IRBs are taking part in an epistemically sound practice.…”

Section: Expertise Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

Borenstein

2008

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implications of the institutional review board (IRB) system's growing purview are examined. Among the issues discussed are whether IRBs are censoring research and whether the IRB review process fundamentally alters the research that is being conducted. The intersection between IRB review and free speech is also explored. In general, it is argued that the review system for human subjects research (HSR) should be modified in order to limit the scope of IRB review.

show abstract

Section: Expertise Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one case, a researcher had to obtain permission from an IRB in order to conduct an interview with his/her own mother (Nelson, 2003). Further, students might not graduate on time if an IRB decides that their work must be reviewed (Brainard, 2001).…”

Section: Halting or Delaying Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

Borenstein

2008

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Complicating matters is the combined unfamiliarity of IRB members with the research methods they are evaluating and the negligence of university administrators who do nothing to address inherent deficiencies within their IRBs. Nelson’s (2003) essay for the American Association of University Professors made this point well:. .…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“I” Does Not Mean Infallible: Pushing Back against Institutional Review Board Overreach

Calfano

2016

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(Cohen 2007) and "Defanging IRBs" (Epstein 2007) are two of the grittier ones out there. Tales of researcher interaction with institutional review boards (IRBs) are deemed "horror stories" (Nelson 2003) in which researchers are cast as "victims" (Stark 2007) of entities whose purpose for existence, it seems, is to drain the life out of research before it begins. The very language of "IRB creep" that is so often invoked in the more critical commentary (White 2007) itself invokes encroachment by a threatening presence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geography, Me, and the IRB: From Roadblock to Resource

Price

2011

The Professional Geographer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussion of human subjects protection in research conducted by social scientists has painted the costs and benefits in too-stark terms. Given that human subjects protection is a spatially and temporally stretched-out process involving multiple actors, there is more latitude for interpretation, flexibility, and negotiation than most are willing to concede. As a geographer active in human subjects research, and an institutional review board (IRB) chair at a large public university, the author occupies a unique vantage point from which to reflect on the contributions of geographers to human subjects protection and vice versa. The confidentiality of linked sociospatial data, mobility of research participants, and scalar mismatches in oversight constitute three issues that particularly concern geographers. In conclusion, broader pragmatic suggestions for productive interaction with IRBs are offered. Key Words: ethics, human subjects, institutional review boards, research.La discusión de la protección de los seres humanos en las investigaciones dirigidas por científicos sociales ha pintado los costos y beneficios en términos demasiado crudos. Dado que la protección de seres humanos es un proceso espacial y temporalmente estirado que involucra a múltiples actores, hay un mayor margen para la interpretación, la flexibilidad y la negociación de lo que la mayoría está dispuesta a conceder. Como geógrafa activa en la investigación con seres humanos, y miembro de una junta de revisión institucional (IRB) en una universidad pública grande, la autora goza de una posición ventajosa desde la cual puede reflexionar sobre las aportaciones de los geógrafos a la protección de los sujetos humanos y viceversa. La confidencialidad de la información socio-espacial, la movilidad de los participantes de la investigación, y los desajustes escalares en la supervisión son tres temas que conciernen en particular a los geógrafos. En conclusión son ofrecidas mayores sugerencias prácticas para la interacción productiva con el IRB. Palabras clave:ética, seres humanos, comités institucionales de revisión, investigación.

show abstract

Can E. T. Phone Home?: The Brave New World of University Surveillance

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

“I” Does Not Mean Infallible: Pushing Back against Institutional Review Board Overreach

Geography, Me, and the IRB: From Roadblock to Resource

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About