[Christopher Shea, "Historians and Human-Subjects Research," Wall Street Journal: Ideas Market, 5 August 2011]
Shea writes,
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment
To be published, a comment must include the author's first and last names, and institutional affiliation as appropriate. It must also be responsive to the post to which it is attached. Thanks.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.