Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Qualitative Inquiry
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Brave New World of Research Surveillance

Cary Nelson

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Institutional review boards (IRBs) were created to review biomedical and psychological research involving demonstrable risk to human participants. During the past half decade, however, many campus IRBs have begun to review humanities and social science research, thereby substantially expanding their mission and effectively imposing on faculty moral and ethical standards inappropriate to historical research. Moreover, IRBs have traditionally reviewed research plans, not potential publications. But the only way for IRBs to guarantee adherence to their standards for human conduct campus wide would be to exercise prior restraint on publication. That would seriously undermine academic freedom.

Key Words: IRB • research • institutional review board

Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10, No. 2, 207-218 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1077800403259701
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
K. Locke and S. Ramakrishna Velamuri
The Design of Member Review: Showing What to Organization Members and Why
Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2009; 12(3): 488 - 509.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative InquiryHome page
T. S. Johnson
Qualitative Research in Question: A Narrative of Disciplinary Power With/in the IRB
Qualitative Inquiry, March 1, 2008; 14(2): 212 - 232.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative InquiryHome page
M. Koro-Ljungberg, M. Gemignani, C. W. Brodeur, and C. Kmiec
The Technologies of Normalization and Self: Thinking About IRBs and Extrinsic Research Ethics With Foucault
Qualitative Inquiry, November 1, 2007; 13(8): 1075 - 1094.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative InquiryHome page
W. G. Tierney and Z. Blumberg Corwin
The Tensions Between Academic Freedom and Institutional Review Boards
Qualitative Inquiry, April 1, 2007; 13(3): 388 - 398.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative InquiryHome page
P. Lugosi
Between Overt and Covert Research: Concealment and Disclosure in an Ethnographic Study of Commercial Hospitality
Qualitative Inquiry, June 1, 2006; 12(3): 541 - 561.
[Abstract] [PDF]