[Christopher Shea, "Historians and Human-Subjects Research," Wall Street Journal: Ideas Market, 5 August 2011]
Understandably, some social scientists want to know why historians should get a pass on paperwork and oversight that takes up lots of their own time.
So the question is: How can oral (or, more generally, contemporary) historians escape inappropriate IRB scrutiny without denigrating their own work? Or, to back up a step, should they, in fact, have to go through the same procedures as social psychologists doing lab studies?
Might I interest him in a 4,800-word answer?