Subjectivity, Power, and the IRB

Abstract

A substantial literature in social sciences, including law and society, examines the intersections of research ethics and institutional review board (IRB) frameworks. Although geographers have engaged this literature, we argue that further involvement in ethical and regulatory discussions will advance opportunities for better understanding and negotiating the complex subjectivities produced in the IRB structure. Drawing on illustrative experiences of researchers, we focus specifically on the institutions convening IRBs, the researchers, and the human “subjects” produced in the IRB process. We conclude with a call for greater open discussion of the power dynamics, subjectivities, and challenges of formal ethical research structures.

Una abundante literatura en ciencias sociales, incluyendo derecho y sociedad, examina las intersecciones de la ética de la investigación con el marco del comité de revisión institucional (IRB). Aunque los geógrafos han participado en esta literatura, nosotros argumentamos que una mayor participación en debates éticos y regulatorios aumentará las oportunidades para un mejor entendimiento y negociación de las complejas subjetividades producidas en la estructura del IRB. Basándonos en experiencias ilustrativas de investigadores, nos centramos específicamente en las instituciones que convocan los IRBs, los investigadores, y los “sujetos” humanos dados en el proceso del IRB. Concluimos con un llamado para un debate más abierto de las dinámicas de poder, las subjetividades, y los retos de las estructuras de la investigación ética formal.

Key Words:

• human subject
• institutional review board
• power
• research ethics
• subjectivity

关键词:

• 人类主体
• 机构审查委员会
• 权力
• 科研道德
• 主观性

Palabras clave:

• sujeto humano
• junta de revisión institucional
• poder
• ética de la investigación
• subjetividad

Notes

*Thanks to Patricia Price for organizing the special session at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting in Las Vegas in 2009 that was the spark for this discussion and for editing this Focus Section.

¹ We protect the confidentiality of those who have shared their stories with us. The fact that some scholars fear the powers of their IRBs to limit future research trajectories, or to make the tenure process difficult, is instructive of the institutional subjectivities and hierarchies at play, or perceived to be. All of the stories that are not from already published accounts come from informal and personal conversations, not a research agenda (none were approved by our IRBs, as we did not conduct research to obtain these stories; they predate the conceptualization of this article). We obtained permission from those whose personal stories we share.