2000 Oral History Evaluation Guidelines

May 24, 2010 By: mmclellan Category:

The Oral History Evaluation Guidelines are provided as a record. Please see the new document “Principles for Oral History and Best Practices” for Oral History for the Oral History Association’s current guidelines, adopted in September, 2009.

2000 Oral History Evaluation Guidelines
Oral History Association
Pamphlet Number 3
Adopted 1989, Revised Sept. 2000

Contents
1.1 Foreword
1.2 Evaluation Guidelines Committees
1.3 Principles and Standards of the Oral History Association

1.3.1 Responsibility to Interviewees
1.3.2 Responsibility to the Public and to the Profession:
1.3.3 Responsibility for Sponsoring and Archival Institutions:

1.4 Oral History Evaluation Guidelines Program/Project Guidelines, Purposes and Objectives

• 1.4.1.1 Use of Other Sources
  1.4.1.2 Interviewer Preparation
  1.4.1.3 Interviewee Selection and Orientation
  1.4.1.4 Interviewer-Interviewee Relations
  1.4.1.5 Technique and Adaptive Skills
  1.4.1.6 Perspective
  1.4.1.7 Historical Contribution
  1.4.2.1 Creation and Use of Interviews
  1.4.2.2 Transfer of Interviews to Archival Repository
  1.4.3.1 Has the educator:
  1.4.3.2 Has the student:

1.4.1 Interview Conduct Guidelines

1.4.2 Independent/Unaffiliated Researcher Guidelines

1.4.3 Educator and Student Guidelines

1.5 Bibliography

Oral History Evaluation Guidelines

Since its founding in 1967 the Oral History Association (OHA) has grappled constantly with developing and promoting professional standards for oral historians. This has been no easy task, given the creative, dynamic, and multidisciplinary nature of the field.

The OHA has sought to encourage the creation of recorded interviews that are as complete, verifiable, and usable as possible, and to discourage both inadequate interviewing and the misuse of history. Yet it recognizes that oral historians cannot afford to suppress ingenuity and inspiration nor to ignore new developments in scholarship and technology.

The OHA issued its first “goals and guidelines” in 1968, broadly stating the principles, rights, and obligations that all interviewees, interviewers, and sponsoring institutions needed to take into consideration. Then in 1979, at the prompting of various granting agencies, leaders of the OHA met at the Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin, to produce a set of “evaluation guidelines.” These guidelines have since provided invaluable assistance to oral history projects of all sizes and purposes. Organized in checklist form, they offered reminders of the myriad of issues involved in conducting, processing, and preserving oral history interviews. Not every guideline applied to every project, but taken together they provided a common ground for dialogue among oral historians.

Over the next decade, new issues arose. When the need for revision of the earlier guidelines became apparent, the OHA decided against convening another special meeting, as done at Wingspread, and instead appointed four committees to examine those sections of the evaluation guidelines that required revision or entirely new material. After a year’s work, the committees presented their proposals to the members of the Association at the annual meeting Galveston, Texas, in 1989, where their reports were discussed, amended, and adopted at the general business meeting.

During the next year, the chairs of the four evaluation guidelines committees analyzed, revised, and expanded the Goals and Guidelines into a new Statement of Principles and Standards. They offered these standards for amendment and adoption by the membership at the annual meeting in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in November 1990.

If that process sounds convoluted, it was. But its many stages were designed deliberately to foster thoughtful debate among the widest cross-section of oral history practitioners. As a result, the new standards and guidelines more specifically addressed the needs of independent and unaffiliated researchers, as well as those of the larger oral history programs and archives. They dealt with the problems and potentials of videotaped interviews. They raised issues about the use of oral history in the classroom by teachers and students.

The most intense discussions predictably dealt with ethical issues. A greater awareness of the effects of race, class, gender, ethnicity, and culture on interviewing, together with a heightened concern over the impact that the oral history projects might have on the communities in which the interviews were conducted, were woven into both the Evaluation Guidelines and the Statement of Principles and Standards. The new guidelines and standards encouraged oral historians to make their interviews accessible to the community and to consider sharing the rewards and recognition that might result from their projects with their interviewees. They also sanctioned the use of anonymous interviews, although only in “extremely sensitive” circumstances.

During the 1990s, the rapid advances in technology required yet another revision on the new ways of recording, preserving, using and distributing oral history. In 1998 an ad hoc committee presented additional revisions for discussion and adoption by the membership at the annual meeting in Buffalo, New York. These revisions included new sections on recording equipment and tape preservation, and aimed to encourage practitioners to pay more attention to technical standards and to new technology and media, particularly the Internet. At the same time they raised some of the ethical issues that the new technology posed.

All of those who labored in the preparation of the principles and standards and the evaluation guidelines trust that they will offer positive assistance to anyone conducting oral history interviews. While these guidelines and standards provide a basis for peer judgment and review, their success will ultimately depend more on the willingness of the individual oral historians and oral history projects to apply them to their own work.

Donald A. Ritchie

1988-1989
Donald A. Ritchie (coordinator), US Senate Historical Office

Committee on Ethical/Legal Guidelines
Sherna B. Gluck (co-chair), California State University Long Beach
Linda Shopes (co-chair), PA Historical & Museum Commission
Albert S. Broussard, Texas A&M University
John A. Neuenschwander, Carthage College

Committee on Independent/Unaffiliated Research
Terry L. Birdwhistell (chair), University of Kentucky
Jo Blatti, Old Independence Regional Museum
Maurice Maryanow
Holly C. Shulman, Washington, DC

Committee on the Use of Videotape
Pamela M. Henson (chair), Smithsonian Institution
David H. Mould, Ohio University
James B. Murray, Shomberg Library
Terri A. Schorzman, Smithsonian Institution
Margaret Robertson, Minnesota Historical Society

Education Committee
George L. Mehaffy (chair)
Patricia Grimmer
Denise Joseph
Rebecca Sharpless, Baylor University
Andor Skotnes, Sage Colleges
Richard Williams, Plum Borough Senior High School

Principles and Standards Committee, 1989-1990
Donald A. Ritchie (chair), US Senate Historical Office
Willa K. Baum, University of California Berkeley
Terry L. Birdwhistell, University of Kentucky
Sherna B. Gluck, California State University Long Beach
Pamela M. Henson, Smithsonian Institution
Linda Shopes, PA Historical & Museum Commission
Ronald E. Marcello (ex officio), University of North Texas
Lila J. Goff (ex officio), Minnesota Historical Society

Technology Update Committee, 1998
Sherna Gluck(chair), California State University Long Beach
Charles Hardy, Westchester University
Marjorie McLellan, Miami University
Roy Rosenzweig, George Mason University

The Oral History Association promotes oral history as a method of gathering and preserving historical information through recorded interviews with participants in past events and ways of life. It encourages those who produce and use oral history to recognize certain principles, rights, technical standards, and obligations for the creation and preservation of source material that is authentic, useful, and reliable. These include obligations to the interviewee, to the profession, and to the public, as well as mutual obligations between sponsoring organizations and interviewers.

People with a range of affiliations and sponsors conduct oral history interviews for a variety of purposes: to create archival records, for individual research, for community and institutional projects, and for publications and media productions. While these principles and standards provide a general framework for guiding professional conduct, their application may vary according to the nature of specific oral history projects. Regardless of the purpose of the interviews, oral history should be conducted in the spirit of critical inquiry and social responsibility and with a recognition of the interactive and subjective nature of the enterprise.

1. Interviewees should be informed of the purposes and procedures of oral history in general and of the aims and anticipated uses of the particular projects to which they are making their contributions.
2. Interviewees should be informed of the mutual rights in the oral history process, such as editing, access restrictions, copyrights, prior use, royalties, and the expected disposition and dissemination of all forms of the record, including the potential for electronic distribution.
3. Interviewees should be informed that they will be asked to sign a legal release.Interviews should remain confidential until interviewees have given permission for their use.
4. Interviewers should guard against making promises to interviewees that the interviewers may not be able to fulfill, such as guarantees of publication and control over the use of interviews after they have been made public. In all future uses, however, good faith efforts should be made to honor the spirit of the interviewee’s agreement.
5. Interviews should be conducted in accord with any prior agreements made with the interviewee, and such agreements should be documented for the record.
6. Interviewers should work to achieve a balance between the objectives of the project and the perspectives of the interviewees. They should be sensitive to the diversity of social and cultural experiences and to the implications of race, gender, class, ethnicity, age, religion, and sexual orientation. They should encourage interviewees to respond in their own style and language and to address issues that reflect their concerns. Interviewers should fully explore all appropriate areas of inquiry with the interviewee and not be satisfied with superficial responses.
7. Interviewers should guard against possible exploitation of interviewees and be sensitive to the ways in which their interviews might be used.Interviewers must respect the rights of interviewees to refuse to discuss certain subjects, to restrict access to the interview, or, under Guidelines extreme circumstances, even to choose anonymity.Interviewers should clearly explain these options to all interviewees.
8. Interviewers should use the best recording equipment within their means to accurately reproduce the interviewee’s voice and, if appropriate, other sounds as well as visual images.
9. Given the rapid development of new technologies, interviewees should be informed of the wide range of potential uses of their interviews.
10. Good faith efforts should be made to ensure that the uses of recordings and transcripts comply with both the letter and spirit of the interviewee’s agreement.

1. Oral historians have a responsibility to maintain the highest professional standards in the conduct of their work and to uphold the standards of the various disciplines and professions with which they are affiliated.
2. In recognition of the importance of oral history to an understanding of the past and of the cost and effort involved, interviewers and interviewees should mutually strive to record candid information of lasting value and to make that information accessible.
3. Interviewees should be selected based on the relevance of their experiences to the subject at hand.
4. Interviewers should possess interviewing skills as well as professional competence and knowledge of the subject at hand.
5. Regardless of the specific interests of the project, interviewers should attempt to extend the inquiry beyond the specific focus of the project to create as complete a record as possible for the benefit of others.
6. Interviewers should strive to prompt informative dialogue through challenging and perceptive inquiry. They should be grounded in the background of the persons being interviewed and, when possible, should carefully research appropriate documents and secondary sources related to subjects about which the interviewees can speak.
7. Interviewers should make every effort to record their interviews using the best recording equipment within their means to reproduce accurately the interviewee’s voice and, if appropriate, image. They also should collect and record other historical documentation the interviewee may possess, including still photographs, print materials, and other sound and moving image recordings, if appropriate.
8. Interviewers should provide complete documentation of their preparation and methods, including the circumstances of the interviews.
9. Interviewers and, when possible, interviewees should review and evaluate their interviews, including any summaries or transcriptions made from them.
10. With the permission of the interviewees, interviewers should arrange to deposit their interviews in an archival repository that is capable of both preserving the interviews and eventually making them available for general use. Interviewers should provide basic information about the interviews, including project goals, sponsorship, and funding. Preferably, interviewers should work with repositories before conducting the interviews to determine necessary legal Guidelines arrangements. If interviewers arrange to retain first use of the interviews, it should be only for a reasonable time before public use.
11. Interviewers should be sensitive to the communities from which they have collected oral histories, taking care not to reinforce thoughtless stereotypes nor to bring undue notoriety to them. Interviewers should take every effort to make the interviews accessible to the communities.
12. Oral history interviews should be used and cited with the same care and standards applied to other historical sources. Users have a responsibility to retain the integrity of the interviewee’s voice, neither misrepresenting the interviewee’s words nor taking them out of context.
13. Sources of funding or sponsorship of oral history projects should be made public in all exhibits, media presentations, or publications that result from the projects.
14. Interviewers and oral history programs should conscientiously consider how they might share with interviewees and their communities the rewards and recognition that might result from their work.

1. Institutions sponsoring and maintaining oral history archives have a responsibility to interviewees, interviewers, the profession, and the public to maintain the highest technical, professional, and ethical standards in the creation and archival preservation of oral history interviews and related materials.
2. Subject to conditions that interviewees set, sponsoring institutions (or individual collectors) have an obligation to: prepare and preserve easily usable records; keep abreast of rapidly developing technologies for preservation and dissemination; keep accurate records of the creation and processing of each interview; and identify, index, and catalog interviews.
3. Sponsoring institutions and archives should make known through a variety of means, including electronic modes of distribution, the existence of interviews open for research.
4. Within the parameters of their missions and resources, archival institutions should collect interviews generated by independent researchers and assist interviewers with the necessary legal agreements.
5. Sponsoring institutions should train interviewers. Such training should: provide them basic instruction in how to record high fidelity interviews and, if appropriate, other sound and moving image recordings; explain the objectives of the program to them; inform them of all ethical and legal considerations governing an interview; and make clear to interviewers what their obligations are to the program and to the interviewees.
6. Interviewers and interviewees should receive appropriate acknowledgment for their work in all forms of citation or usage.
7. Archives should make good faith efforts to ensure that uses of recordings and transcripts, especially those that employ new technologies, comply with both the letter and spirit of the interviewee’s agreement.

1. Are the purposes clearly set forth? How realistic are they?
2. What factors demonstrate a significant need for the project?
3. What is the research design? How clear and realistic is it?
4. Are the terms, conditions, and objectives of funding clearly made known to judge the potential effect of such funding on the scholarly integrity of the project? Is the allocation of funds adequate to allow the project goals to be accomplished?
5. How do institutional relationships affect the purposes and objectives?

Selection of Recording Equipment

1. Should the interview be recorded on sound or visual recording equipment?
2. Are the best possible recording equipment and media available within one’s budget being used?
3. Are interviews recorded on a medium that meets archival preservation standards?
4. d. How well has the interviewer mastered use of the equipment upon which the interview will be recorded?

Selection of Interviewers and Interviewees

1. In what ways are the interviewers and interviewees appropriate (or inapropriate) to the purposes and objectives?
2. What are the significant omissions and why were they omitted?

Records and Provenance

1. What are the policies and provisions for maintaining a record of the provenance of interviews? Are they adequate? What can be done to improve them?
2. How are records, policies, and procedures made known to interviewers, interviewees, staff, and users?
3. How does the system of records enhance the usefulness of the interviews and safeguard the rights of those involved?

Availability of Materials

1. How accurate and specific is the publicizing of the interviews?
2. How is information about interviews directed to likely users? Have new media and electronic methods of distribution been considered to publicize materials and make them available?
3. How have the interviews been used?

Finding Aids

1. What is the overall design for finding aids?
2. Are the finding aids adequate and appropriate?
3. How available are the finding aids?
4. Have new technologies been used to develop the most effective finding aids?

Management, Qualifications, and Training

1. How effective is the management of the program/project?
2. What are the provisions for supervision and staff review?
3. What are the qualifications for staff positions?
4. What are the provisions for systematic and effective training?
5. What improvements could be made in the management of the program/project?

Ethical/Legal Guidelines

What procedures are followed to assure that interviewers/programs recognize and honor their responsibility to the interviewees? Specifically, what procedures are used to assure that:

1. The interviewees are made fully aware of the goals and objectives of the oral history program/project?
2. The interviewees are made fully aware of the various stages of the program/project and the nature of their participation at each stage?
3. The interviewees are given the opportunity to respond to questions as freely as possible and are not subjected to stereotyped assumptions based on race, ethnicity, gender, class, or any other social/cultural characteristic?
4. The interviewees understand their rights to refuse to discuss certain subjects, to seal portions of the interviews, or in extremely sensitive circumstances even to chooseto remain anonymous?
5. The interviewees are fully informed about the potential uses of the material, including deposit of the interviews in a repository, publication in all forms of print or electronic media, including the Internet or other emerging technologies, and all forms of public programming?
6. The interviewees are provided a full and easily comprehensible explanation of their legal rights before being asked to sign a contract or deed of gift transferring rights, title, and interest in the tape(s) and transcript(s) to an administering authority or individual?
7. Care is taken so that the distribution and use of the material complies with the letter and spirit of the interviewees’ agreements?
8. All prior agreements made with the interviewees are honored?
9. The interviewees are fully informed about the potential for and disposition of royalties that might accrue from the use of their interviews, including all forms of public programming?
10. The interviews and any other related materials will remain confidential until the interviewees have released their contents?

What procedures are followed to assure that interviewers/programs recognize and honor their responsibilities to the profession? Specifically, what procedures assure that:

1. The interviewer has considered the potential for public programming and research use of the interviews and has endeavored to prevent any exploitation of or harm to interviewees?
2. The interviewer is well trained to conduct the interview in a professional manner, including the use of appropriate recording equipment and media?
3. The interviewer is well grounded in the background of the subject(s) to be discussed?
4. The interview will be conducted in a spirit of critical inquiry and that efforts will be made to provide as complete a historical record as possible?
5. The interviewees are selected based on the relevance of their experience to the subject at hand and that an appropriatecross-section of interviewees is selected for any particular project?
6. The interview materials, including recordings, transcripts, relevant photographic, moving image, and sound documents as wellas agreements and documentation of the interview process, will be placed in a repository after a reasonable period of time, subject to the agreements made with the interviewee and that the repository will administer their use in accordance with those agreements?
7. The methodologies of the program/project, as well as its goals and objectives, are available for the general public to evaluate?
8. The interview materials have been properly cataloged, including appropriate acknowledgment and credit to the interviewer, and that their availability for research use is made known?

What procedures are followed to assure that interviewers and programs are aware of their mutual responsibilities and obligations? Specifically, what procedures are followed to assure that:

1. Interviewers are made aware of the program goals and are fully informed of ethical and legal considerations?
2. Interviewers are fully informed of all the tasks they are expected to complete in an oral history project?
3. Interviewers are made fully aware of their obligations to the oral history program/sponsoring institution, regardless of their own personal interest in a program/project?
4. Programs/sponsoring institutions treat their interviewers equitably by providing for appropriate compensation, acknowledging all products resulting from their work, and supporting fieldwork practices consistent with professional standards whenever there is a conflict betweenthe parties to the interview?
5. Interviewers are fully informed of their legal rights and of their responsibilities to both the interviewee and to the sponsoring institution?

What procedures are followed to assure that interviewers and programs recognize and honor their responsibilities to the community/public? Specifically, what procedures assure that:

1. The oral history materials and all works created from them will be available and accessible to the community that participated in the project?
2. Sources of extramural funding and sponsorship are clearly noted for each interview of project?
3. The interviewers and project endeavor not to impose their own values on the community being studied?
4. The tapes and transcripts will not be used unethically?

Recording Preservation Guidelines

Recognizing the significance of the recording for historical and cultural analysis and the potential uses of oral history interviews in nonprint media, what procedures are followed to assure that:

1. Appropriate care and storage of the original recordings begins immediately after their creation?
2. The original recordings are duplicated and stored according to accepted archival standards [i.e. stored in closed boxes in a cool, dry, dust-free environment]
3. Original recordings are re-duplicated onto the best preservation media before significant deterioration occurs?
4. Every effort is made in duplicating tapes to preserve a faithful facsimile of the interviewee’s voice?
5. All transcribing, auditing, and other uses are done from a duplicate, not the original recording?

Tape/Transcript Processing Guidelines

Information about the Participants:

1. Are the names of both interviewer and interviewee clearly indicated on the tape/abstract/transcript and in catalog materials?
2. Is there adequate biographical information about both interviewer and interviewee? Where can it be found?

Interview Information

1. Are the tapes, transcripts, time indices, abstracts, and other materials presented for use identified as to the program/project of which they are a part?
2. Are the date and place of the interview indicated on the tape, transcript, time index, and abstract and in appropriate catalog material?
3. Are there interviewers’ statements about the preparation for or circumstances of the interviews? Where? Are they generally available to researchers? How are the rights of the interviewees protected against improper use of such commentaries?
4. Are there records of contracts between the program and the interviewee? How detailed are they? Are they available to researchers? If so, with what safeguards for individual rights and privacy?

Interview Tape Information

1. Is the complete original tape preserved? Are there one or more duplicate copies?
2. If the original or any duplicate has been edited, rearranged, cut, or spliced in any way, is there a record of that action, including by whom, when, and for what purposes the action was taken?
3. Do the tape label and appropriate catalog materials show the recording speed, level, and length of the interview? If videotaped, do the tape label and appropriate catalog information show the format (e.g., U-Matic, VHS, 8mm, etc.) and scanning system and clearly indicate the tracks on which the audio and time code have been recorded?
4. In the absence of transcripts, are there suitable finding aids to give users access to information on the tapes? What form do they take? Is there a record of who prepared these finding aids?
5. Are researchers permitted to listen to or view the tapes? Are there any restrictions on the use of the tapes?

Interview Transcript Information

1. Is the transcript an accurate record of the tape? Is a careful record kept of each step of processing the transcript, including who transcribed, audited, edited, retyped, and proofread the transcripts in final copy?
2. Are the nature and extent of changes in the transcript from the original tape made known to the user?
3. What finding aids have been prepared for the transcript? Are they suitable and adequate? How could they be improved?
4. Are there any restrictions on access to or use of the transcripts? Are they clearly noted?
5. Are there any photo materials or other supporting documents for the interview? Do they enhance and supplement the text?
6. If videotaped, does the transcript contain time references and annotation describing the complementary visuals on the videotape?

Interview Content Guidelines

Does the content of each interview and the cumulative content of the whole collection contribute to accomplishing the objectives of the program/project?

1. In what particulars does each interview or the whole collection succeed or fall short of the objectives of the project or program?
2. Do audio and visual tapes in the collection avoid redundancy and supplement one another in interview content and focus?

In what ways does the program/project contribute to historical understanding?

1. In what particulars does each interview or the whole collection succeed or fall short in making such a contribution?
2. To what extent does the material add fresh information, fill gaps in the existing record, and/or provide fresh insights and perspectives?
3. To what extent is the information reliable and valid? Is it eyewitness or hearsay evidence? How well and in what manner does it meet internal and external tests of corroboration, consistency, and explication of contradictions?
4. What is the relationship of the interview information to existing documentation and historiography?
5. How does the texture of the interview impart detail, richness, and flavor to the historical record?
6. What is the nature of the information contributed? Is it facts, perceptions, interpretations, judgments, or attitudes, and how does each contribute to understanding?
7. Are the scope, volume, and representativeness of the population interviewed appropriate and sufficient to the purpose? Is there enough testimony to validate the evidence without passing the point of diminishing returns? How appropriate is the quantity to the purposes of the study?
8. How do the form and structure of the interviews contribute to making the content understandable?
9. To what extent does the audio and/or video recording capture unique sound and visual information?
10. Do the visual and other sound elements complement and/or supplement the verbal information? Has the interview captured processes, objects, or other individuals in the visual and sound environment?

Use of Other Sources

1. Is the oral history technique the best way to acquire the information? If not, what other sources exist? Has the interviewer used them and sought to preserve them if necessary?
2. Has the interviewer made an effort to consult other relevant oral histories?
3. Is the interview technique a valuable way to supplement existing sources?
4. Do videotaped interviews complement, not duplicate, existing still or moving visual images?

Interviewer Preparation

1. Is the interviewer well informed about the subjects under discussion?
2. Are the primary and secondary sources used to prepare for the interview adequate?
3. Has the interviewer mastered the use of appropriate recording equipment and the field- recording techniques that insure a high-fidelity recording?

Interviewee Selection and Orientation

1. Does the interviewee seem appropriate to the subjects discussed?
2. Does the interviewee understand and respond to the interview purposes?
3. Has the interviewee prepared for the interview and assisted in the process?
4. If a group interview, have composition and group dynamics been considered in selecting participants?

Interviewer-Interviewee Relations

1. Do interviewer and interviewee collaborate with each other toward interview objectives?
2. Is there a balance between empathy and analytical judgment in the interview?
3. If videotaped, is the interviewer/interviewee relationship maintained despite the presence of a technical crew? Do the technical personnel understand how a videotaped oral history interview differs from a scripted production?

Technique and Adaptive Skills

1. In what ways does the interview show that the interviewer has used skills appropriate to: the interviewee’s condition (health, memory, metal alertness, ability to communicate, time schedule, etc.) and the interview location and conditions (disruptions and interruptions, equipment problems, extraneous participants, background noises, etc.)?
2. What evidence is there that the interviewer has: thoroughly explored pertinent lines of thought? followed up on significant clues? Made an effort to identify sources of information? Employed critical challenges when needed? Thoroughly explored the potential of the visual environment, if videotaped?
3. Has the progam/project used recording equipment and media that are appropriate for the purposes of the work and potential nonprint as well as print uses of the material? Are the recordings of the highest appropriate technical quality? How could they be improved?
4. If videotaped, are lighting, composition, camera work, and sound of the highest appropriate technical quality?
5. In the balance between content and technical quality, is the technical quality good without subordinating the interview process?

Perspective

1. Do the biases of the interviewer interfere with or influence the responses of the interviewee?
2. What information is available that may inform the users of any prior or separate relationship between the interviewer and interviewee?

Historical Contribution

1. Does the interviewer pursue the inquiry with historical integrity?
2. Do other purposes being served by the interview enrich or diminish quality?
3. What does the interview contribute to the larger context of historical knowledge and understanding?

Creation and Use of Interviews

1. Has the independent/unaffiliated researcher followed the guidelines for obtaining interviews as suggested in the Program/Project Guideline section?
2. Have proper citation and documentation been provided in works created (books, articles, audio-visual productions, or other public presentations) to inform users of the work about the interviews used and the permanent location of the interviews?
3. Do works created include an explanation of the interview project, including editorial procedures?
4. Has the independent/unaffiliated researcher arranged to deposit the works created in an appropriate repository?

Transfer of Interviews to Archival Repository

1. Has the independent/unaffiliated researcher properly obtained the agreement of the repository before making representations about the disposition of the interviews?
2. Is the transfer consistent with agreements or understandings with interviewees? Were legal agreements obtained from interviewees?
3. Has the researcher provided the repository with adequate descriptions of the creation of the interviews and the project?
4. What is the technical quality of the recorded interviews? Are the interviews transcribed, abstracted, or indexed, and, if so, what is the quality?

Has the educator:

1. Become familiar with the “Oral History Evaluation Guidelines” and conveyed their substance to the student?
2. Ensured that each student is properly prepared before going into the community to conduct oral history interviews, including familiarization with the ethical issues surrounding oral history and the obligation to seek the informed consent of the interviewee?
3. Become familiar with the literature, recording equipment, techniques, and processes of oral history so that the best possible instruction can be presented to the student?
4. Worked with other professionals and organizations to provide the best oral history experience for the student?
5. Considered that the project may merit preservation and worked with other professionals and repositories to preserve and disseminate these collected materials?
6. Shown willingness to share expertise with other educators, associations, and organizations?

Has the student:

1. Become thoroughly familiar with the equipment, techniques, and processes of oral history interviewing and the development of research using oral history interviews?
2. Explained to the interviewee the purpose of the interview and how it will be used and obtained the interviewee’s informed consent to participate?
3. Treated the interviewee with respect?
4. Signed a receipt for and returned any materials borrowed from the interviewee?
5. Obtained a signed legal release for the interview?
6. Kept her/his word about oral or written promises made to the interviewee?
7. Given proper credit (oral or written) when using oral testimony and used the material in context?

Allen, Barbara, and William Lynwood Montell. From Memory to History: Using Oral Sources in Local Historical Research. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1981.

Baum, Willa K. Oral History for the Local Historical Society Revised edition. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1987.
________ Transcribing and Editing Oral History. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1977.

Brecher, Jeremy. History from Below: How to Uncover and Tell the Story of Your Community, Association, or Union. New Haven, Conn.: Commonwork Pamphlets/Advocate Press, 1986.

Charlton, Thomas L. Oral History for Texans 2d ed. Austin: Texas Historical Commission, 1985.

Davis, Cullom, et al. Oral history: from tape to type. Chicago: American Library Association, 1977.

Douglass, Enid H. Oral History, in David F. Trask and Robert W. Pomeroy, eds., The Craft of Public History: An Annotated Select Bibliography. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983.

Dunaway, David K., and Willa K. Baum, eds. Oral History: An Interdisciplinary Anthology. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History in cooperation with the Oral History Association, 1984.

Fletcher, William. Recording Your Family History: A Guide to Preserving Oral History with Video Tape, Audio Tape, Suggested Topics and Questions, Interview Techniques. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1987.

Frisch, Michael. A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990.

Grele, Ronald J., ed. Envelopes of Sound: The Art of Oral History. Revised edition. Westport, Conn.: Meckler, 1990.

Henige, David. Oral Historiography. New York: Longman, 1982.

Hoffman, Alice M., and Howard S. Hoffman. Archives of Memory: A Soldier Recalls World War II. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1990.

Hoopes, James. Oral History: An Introduction for Students. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979.

Ives, Edward D. An Oral Historian’s Work. Oral History Instructional Videotape. Northeast Historic Film, Rt. 175, Blue Hill Falls, ME 04615.

Ives, Edward D. The Tape-Recorded Interview: A Manual for Fieldworkers in Folklore and Oral History. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1980.

Jeffrey, Jaclyn, and Glenace Edwall, eds. Memory and History: Essays on Remembering and Interpreting Human Experience. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1992.

Jolly, Brad. Videotaping Local History. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1982.

Joutard, Philippe. Ces voix qui nous viennent du passe. Paris: Hachette, 1983.

Labrie, Vivian. Precis de transcription de documents d’archives orales. Quebec: Institut Quebecois de Recherche sur la Culture, 1982.

Lanman, Barry A., and George L. Mehaffy. Oral History in the Secondary School Classroom. Los Angeles: Oral History Association, Pamphlet No. 2, 1989.

Mercier, Laurie, and Madeline Buckendorf. Using Oral History in Community History Projects. Los Angeles: Oral History Association, Pamphlet No. 4, 1992.

Mishler, Elliot G. Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Moss, William W. Archives, Oral History and Oral Tradition: A RAMP Study. Paris: UNESCO, 1986.

Moss, William W. Oral History Program Manual. New York: Praeger, 1974.

Nathan, Harriet. Critical Choices in Interviews: Conduct, Use, and Research Role. Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Governmental Studies, 1986.

Neuenschwander, John A. ” Oral History and the Law.” Los Angeles: Oral History Association, Pamphlet No. 1, 1985.

Oblinger, Carl. Interviewing the People of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1978.

Oral History Association. The Oral History Review, published twice a year; OHA Newsletter, published quarterly.

Oral History Index. Westport, Conn.: Meckler, 1990.

Portelli, Alessandro. The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.

Ritchie, Donald. Doing Oral History. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995.

Sapriza, Graciela. Historia oral e historia de vida: Aportes para una historiografia feminista. Montevideo: Grecmu [1989].

Seminario de Historia Oral del Departamento de Historia Contemporanea de la Universidad de Barcelona. Historia y Fuente Oral. Published twice a year.

Shopes, Linda. Using Oral History for a Family History Project. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, Technical Leaflet 123, 1980.

Sitton, Thad, et al. Oral History: A Guide for Teachers (and Others). Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983.

Smith, Allen, ed. Directory of Oral History Collections. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryz Press, 1987.

Sommer, Barbara and Mary Kay Quinlan. Oral History Manual. New York: Alta Mira Press, 2002.

Stielow, Frederick J. The Management of Oral History Sound Archives. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.

Stricklin, David, and Rebecca Sharpless, eds. The Past Meets the Present: Essays on Oral History. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1988.

Thompson, Paul. Oral History: The Voice of the Past. Revised edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Vansina, Jan. Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Wood, Linda P. Oral History Projects in Your Classroom. Carlisle, PA: Oral History Association, 2001.

Yow, Valerie Raleigh. Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1994.

No Comments →

Bibliography: Historians and Institutional Review Boards

July 08, 2009 By: mmclellan Category:

I. REGULATIONS, POLICIES, GUIDELINES, AND REPORTS
II. COMMENTARY AND CRITICISM

I. REGULATIONS, POLICIES, GUIDELINES, AND REPORTS

Citro, Constance F., Daniel R. Ilgen, and Cara B. Marrett, eds. Protecting Participants and Facilitating Social and Behavioral Research. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2003.
Available at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309088526/html
Chapter 3 provides a good history of human subjects regulation, with particular attention to its application to nonscientific research; includes discussion of debates about the propriety of regulating non-biomedical research going back at least three decades.

COSSA Washington Update Available at http://www.cossa.org
Newsletter of the Consortium of Social Science Associations; provides excellent regular coverage of current federal issues/debates/actions related to human subjects review; searchable on line.

Division of Contracts, Policy, and Oversight, National Science Foundation. “Frequently Asked Questions and Vignettes: Interpreting the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects Behavioral and Social Science Research.”
Available at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/hsfaqs.jsp.
A useful document for understanding and interpreting the Common Rule as it applies to nonbiomedical research.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.
Available at http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html
The landmark federal report that defined the fundamental ethical principles to govern research on human subjects.

Oral History Evaluation Guidelines, rev. ed. Carlisle, Pa.: Oral History Association, 2000.
Available at http://www.oralhistory.org/network/mw/index.php/Evaluation_Guide
The professional standards for oral history, developed by the Oral History Association.

Title 45 (Public Welfare) Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46 (Protection of Human Subjects).
Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
These are the federal regulations governing research on human subjects, available at the website of the Office of Human Research Protections/US Department of Health & Human Services, which has responsibility for implementing them. OHRP’s website includes considerable additional information related to the regulations, their implications, and implementation. Home page is http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/.

top

II. COMMENTARY AND CRITICISM

Atkins, E. Taylor, “Oral History and IRBs: An Update from the 2006 HRPP Conference.” Perspectives Online 45:3 (March 2007).
Available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2007/0703/index.cfm

Beauchamp, Tom L., Ruth R. Raden, R. Jay Wallace, Jr., and LeRoy Walters. Ethical Issues in Social Science Research. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
A seminal work in articulating the ethics of social science research within the framework of the Belmont Report.

Begley, Sharon. “Review Boards Pose Threat to Tough Work by Social Scientists.” Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2002, B1.

Bliss, Alan. “Oral History Research.” In Institutional Review Board Management and Function, edited by Robert J. Amdur, M.D. and Elizabeth A. Bankert. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2002.

Brainard, Jeffrey. “The Wrong Rules for Social Science?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9, 2001, A21.
Available at http://chronicle.com for those with a subscription to the Chronicle.

Cannella, Gaile S. “Regulatory Power: Can a Feminist Poststructuralist Engage in Research Oversight?” Qualitative Inquiry 10:2 (2004): 235-245.

Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois. “The Illinois White Paper: Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects – Counteracting IRB ‘Mission Creep’.” November 2005.
Available at http://www.law.uiuc.edu/conferences/whitepaper/
An ambitious effort to refocus human subjects review on research most likely to result in harm and relieve relatively harmless, non-biomedical or behavioral research from regulatory oversight.

Church, Jonathan T., Linda Shopes, and Margaret A. Blanchard. “Should All Disciplines Be Subject to the Common Rule?” Academe 88:3 (May-June 2002): 62-69.
Available at http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/MJ/For+the+Record/FTR2.htm
The authors’ January 2002 statements before the National Human Research Protections Advisory Commission, raising questions about the appropriateness of IRB review of research in anthropology, history, and journalism.

Gordon, Michael. “Historians and Review Boards.” Perspectives 35:6 (September 1997): 35-37.
Includes a sample description of an oral history project that can be submitted to an IRB for review.
Available at: http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1997/9709/9709pro.cfm

Gunsalus, C. K. “The Nanny State Meets the Inner Lawyer: Over-regulating While Under-Protecting Human Subjects of Research.” Ethics and Behavior 14:4 (2004): 369-382.

———–. “Rethinking Protections for Human Subjects, The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15, 2002, B24.
Available at http://chronicle.com for those with a subscription to the Chronicle.

Hamburger, Philip. “The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards.” The Supreme Court Review (2005): 271-354.
Argues that federal regulations requiring IRB review of human subjects research violate the First Amendment.

Haggerty, K. D. “Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics.” Qualitative Sociology 27:4 (2004): 391-414.

Howard, Jennifer. “Oral History Under Review.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 10, 2006, A14 ff.
Available at http://chronicle.com for those with a Chronicle subscription.

Human Subject Protection Regulations and Research Outside the Biomedical Sphere, a working conference sponsored by the College of Law, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, April 11-12, 2003. Position papers available at http://www.law.uiuc.edu/conferences/humansubject/papers.asp
Position papers on a variety of topics related to research, harm, risk, and human subjects as they relate to IRB review in nonbiomedical fields; papers generally take a broadly critical view.

Institutional Review Blog; maintained by Zachary M. Schrag;
Available at http://institutionalreviewblog.blogspot.com/.
Useful and thoughtful up to date “news and commentary about Institutional Review Board oversight of the humanities and social sciences.”

Kancelbaum, Barbara. “Social Scientists and Institutional Review Boards.” Items & Issues [newsletter of the Social Science Research Council] 3: 1-2 (Spring 2002): 1ff.

Kerr, Robert L. “Unconstitutional Review Board? Considering a First Amendment Challenge to IRB Regulation of Journalistic Research Methods.” Communication Law & Policy 11 (2006): 393-447.

Law and Society Review 41:4 (December 2007): 757-818.
Includes five generally critical articles on IRB review of social science research, including the text of Law and Society Association president Malcolm M. Feeley’s presidential address, three comments, and Feeley’s response. Jack Katz’s article, “Toward a Natural History of Ethical Censorship, is available at http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/katz/pubs/Ethical_Censorship_draft.pdf.

Milne, Catherine. “Overseeing Research: Ethics and the Institutional Review Board.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6:1 (January 2005).
Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-05/05-1-41-e.htm

Nelson, Cary. “Can E.T. Phone Home? The Brave New World of University Surveillance.” Academe 89:5 (September-October 2003).
Available at http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2003/SO/Feat/nels.htm

Oakes, J. Michael. “Risks and Wrongs in Social Science Research: An Evaluator’s Guide to the IRB.” Evaluation Review 24 (2002): 443-478.

Plattner, Stuart. “Human Subjects Protection and Cultural Anthropology.” Anthropological Quarterly 76:2 (Spring 2003):. 287-297.

“Protecting Human Beings: Institutional Review Boards and Social Science Research.” Academe 87:3 (May-June 2001), 55-67.
Available at http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/humansubs.htm
A thorough discussion of the difficulties social scientists – including historians – encounter as regulations developed within a biomedical frame of reference are applied to non-biomedical research; useful as a reference in discussions with local IRBs.

Schrag, Zachary M. “Ethical Training for Oral Historians.” Perspectives Online 45:3 (March 2007).
Available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2007/0703/index.cfm

———-. “How Talking Became Human Subjects Research: The Federal Regulation of the Social Sciences, 1965-1991. The Journal of Policy History 21:1 (2009): 1-35.
Available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=JPH&volumeId=21&seriesId=0&issueId=01
Well researched history of how social science research came to be included within the regulatory embrace of 45 CFR 46.

Sieber, John E., Stuart Platter, and Philip Rubin. “How (Not) to Regulate Social Behavioral Research.” Professional Ethics Report XV:2 (Spring 2002): 1-3.
Available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per29.htm#cover

Shea, Christopher. “Don’t Talk to the Humans: The Crackdown on Social Science Research.” Linguafranca, 10:6 (September 2000).

Shopes, Linda. “Institutional Review Boards Have a Chilling Effect on Oral History.” AHA Perspectives 38:6 (September 2000): 34-37.
Available at: http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2000/0009/0009vie1.cfm

———-. “Negotiating Institutional Review Boards.” Perspectives Online 45:3 (March 2007).
Available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2007/0703/index.cfm

Speers, Marjorie A. “Accreditation Helps Researchers and Subjects Alike.” APS [American Psychological Society] Observer 16:5 (May 2003): 9.

Symposium on Censorship and Institutional Review Boards. Northwestern University Law Review 101:2 (2007).
Available at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/101.2.html
Special issue with articles examining IRBs and human subjects review from a legal perspective.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis, et al. “Report: Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institutional Review Board. “ Academe 92:5 (Sept. Oct. 2006).
Available at: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/humansubs.htm
Report issued by AAUP, which argues that “research on autonomous adults whose methodology consists entirely in collecting data by surveys, conducting interviews, or observing behavior in public places, be exempt from the requirement of IRB review – straightforwardly exempt, with no provisos, and no requirement of IRB approval of the exemption.

Townsend, Robert and Meriam Belli. “Oral History and IRBs: Caution Urged as Rule Interpretations Vary Widely.” Perspectives 42:9 (December 2004).
Available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2004/0412/0412new4.cfm
A good summary of the current state of affairs at the time of publication regarding IRB review of oral history.

———-, with Carl Ashley, Mériam Belli, Richard E. Bond, and Elizabeth Fairhead. “Oral History and Review Boards: Little Gain and More Pain” Perspectives 44:2 (February 2006).
Available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2006/0602/index.cfm
Update on IRBs’ approach to oral history research, based on a survey of some 240 institutions. The news is not good.

Vagts, Rachel. “Clashing Disciplines: Oral History and the Institutional Review Board.” Archival Issues 26:2 (2002): 145-152.

Van den Hoonaard, Will C. “Is Research Ethics Review a Moral Panic?” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 38:1 (2001): 19-36.
Canadian colleagues’ reflections on the issues of human subjects review in qualitative research.

Prepared by Linda Shopes
Updated May 2009

top

No Comments →

Human Subjects and IRB Review

February 24, 2009 By: mmclellan Category:

Oral History, Human Subjects, and Institutional Review Boards

Linda Shopes

Since at least the mid-1990s, college and university students, faculty, and staff who conduct oral history interviews have increasingly found their interviewing protocols subject to review by their local Institutional Review Board (commonly referred to as an IRB), a body charged by the federal government with protecting the rights, interests, and dignity of human research subjects – or, as some prefer, research participants. The review has generally not been a constructive process for oral historians, indeed, in many cases has been quite contentious as principles and practices developed within biomedical and behavioral frameworks have been applied to a more humanistic form of inquiry. The following sections will:

• outline the regulatory framework and historical context for IRB review of research involving what are termed “living individuals;”
• explain why IRBs claim authority to review oral history and suggest why they are increasingly choosing to do so;
• identify primary difficulties oral historians face when submitting interview protocols for IRB review;
• explain efforts to address these problems made by professional bodies including the Oral History Association; and
• suggest what to do when facing IRB review of oral history interviewing projects.

Framework and Context: Authority to review research involving living individuals resides with the federal government, as authorized by Title II of the National Research Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-348) and codified in Title 45 (Public Welfare), Part 46 (Protection of Human Subjects) of the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly referred to as 45 CFR 46 or the Common Rule. The Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees implementation of 45 CFR 46; however, actual responsibility falls to local, typically campus-based IRBs. IRBs are empowered by 45 CFR 46 to approve or disapprove research protocols – or more typically, request their revision – based on their conformity to the principles and practices delineated by the regulations, as well as subsequent guidance issued by OHRP.

The result of lengthy and at times contentious deliberations within government and professional circles, 45 CFR 46 was first codified in 1981 and, in its current form, in 1991. However, its origins date to the 1960s and 1970s, with policies established first by the U.S. Public Health Service and then by the entire U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW, predecessor to HHS) requiring independent review of research involving human subjects funded by these agencies. More broadly, concern for the welfare of human subjects of research was provoked, on the one hand, by the explosion of government funded medical research in the years after World War II; and on the other, by outrage at the violation of human rights demonstrated by certain medical experiments, including Nazi doctors’ experiments on Holocaust victims and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.1

Three ethical principles underlie 45 CFR 46, each codified in procedures to ensure adherence to the principle. These were first articulated in The Belmont Report, issued in 1979 by the federally mandated National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which was charged with identifying the ethical principles underlying the conduct of research involving living human beings. These principles are:

• a respect for persons as autonomous individuals capable of making decisions about their own behavior, or, in the case of individuals with “diminished autonomy,” as needing specific protections, codified in 45 CFR 46 as procedures for securing informed consent from research subjects;
• beneficence, or the obligation to minimize harm and maximize benefits to research subjects, codified as a directive to assess and balance risks and benefits of research;
• and justice, or the equitable selection of research subjects, codified as terms for selection of subjects.

Oral History: The Common Rule defines “research” as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge;” and “human subject” as “a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) identifiable private information” (46.102[d] and [f]). Most IRBs – and oral historians – assume that oral history interviewing is “research” (even though it doesn’t exactly fit the above definition) and because it involves “interaction,” further defined as “communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject (46.102 [f]),” that it is subject to IRB review.
However, 45 CFR 46 also exempts most oral history from regulatory oversight. The regulations state that “research involving . . . interview procedures . . . [is exempt from this policy] unless (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects and [this “and” is all important] (ii) disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability, or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, or reputation” ( 46.101 [b] [2]). In other words, while most oral history narrators can be identified if by no other means than their recorded voice, most do not reveal information that could “reasonably place [them] at risk.” However, following advice issued by OHRP in 1995, the IRB – not the researcher – determines exemption, so we find ourselves in the position of submitting a description of our oral history research protocols to an IRB in order to apply for an exemption from applying to the IRB.

Oral history’s relationship to IRB review is further complicated by the fact that in 1998 ORHP, in an effort to ease the regulatory burden increasingly imposed upon oral history – and in a perverse example of the cure being worse than the disease – issued guidance that included oral history in a list of research modes that could enjoy “expedited review,” which means that the full IRB does not need to review a research proposal, that review can be delegated to one or more members of the Board. “Exempt” or “expedited”? – a contradiction that OHRP has never clarified.

Federal and institutional policies also support IRB review of oral history. The Common Rule itself applies only to research funded by the seventeen federal agencies that subscribe to its terms – and notably, the National Endowment for the Humanities, which is the federal agency most likely to support research in history and other humanities fields, is not among them. In fact, however, most universities and research centers that receive funding from any of these seventeen agencies – and very few do not – apply the terms of 45 CFR 46 to all research conducted within or sponsored by the institution, whether or not the research receives funding from one of these agencies, or is funded at all. For it is in an institution’s self-interest to apply the same oversight to all research conducted within the institution. The regulations themselves also require assurance that ethical safeguards are in place for all human subjects research conducted within an institution for that institution to be eligible for funds from any of the seventeen agencies subscribing to the Common Rule. Most institutions simply choose to extend the terms of the Common Rule – and hence IRB review – to all such research.

Yet another reason for the extension of IRB review to oral history interviewing is what some have termed “mission creep.” Within the last several years, egregious violations of requirements for human subjects review in biomedical research have led to the suspension of all human subjects research at several major institutions. Simultaneously, colleges and universities have become increasingly fearful of litigation or bad press over dangerous or controversial research. As a result, IRBs, already risk-averse bodies, have tended to become hyper-vigilant, extending review to forms of minimal risk research in the social sciences and humanities that previously had escaped their purview. Arguably, oral history’s increasing visibility and acceptance within the academy during this same period have also served to bring it to the attention of local IRBs.

Difficulties: Not surprisingly given the abuses that formed the context within which 45 CFR 46 was developed, the regulations assume a scientific, largely biomedical, model of research. While the social sciences have always been included within the regulatory embrace, their inclusion has been disputed by critics among both policy makers and scholars since the 1960s. The lack of fit between the epistemologies of various social science disciplines and the terms of regulation has never been given due consideration. Psychology is the discipline that has most concerned regulators and with which they are most familiar; history – and the humanities in general – have been a “foreign language.”2 As a result, IRB review of oral history is an awkward and at times contentious affair.

The problems oral historians confront cluster in two areas: 1.) the potential an interview might have for inflicting psychological harm on the narrator within the interview; and 2.) maintaining narrator privacy in any subsequent use of the interview. Concern about psychological harm derives rather awkwardly from that section of the Common Rule that defines minimal risk as the “harm or discomfort . . . encountered . . . during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests” (46.102 [i]). The Guidebook issued by OHRP explicates the notion of psychological harm, stating that “stress and feelings of guilt or embarrassment may arise simply from thinking or talking about one’s own behavior or attitudes on sensitive topics.” In fact, the assumption that harm can result from talking about sensitive topics is contradicted by both anecdotal and more scientific evidence, which suggests that talking about even the most difficult of subjects is generally not perceived as harmful but indeed as having a salutary effect.3 And insofar as oral history narrators freely agree to be interviewed about past experiences (one area in which oral historians and IRBs do agree is the need for informed consent!), it seems patronizing to assume they need to be protected from talking about those experiences, that they cannot decide which experiences, including traumatic experiences, they wish to talk about and which they do not.

Still, concerns about psychological harm have led some IRBs to require oral historians to submit lists of interview questions for review, advise against or prevent them from asking questions about potentially sensitive subjects, and require interviewers who do ask potentially sensitive questions to make referrals to counseling services available to narrators at the conclusion of the interview. These proscriptions make little sense to oral historians: our inquiries are open-ended dialogues that cannot be confined to a prescripted set of questions and we do not always know in advance if an inquiry will enter into a sensitive area – or what might even be a sensitive area for any given narrator. Our practice often requires a series of ethically sensitive decisions within the context of a specific interview relationship.4 The Oral History Association’s Evaluation Guidelines, which codifies the fundamental principles of oral history, provides more appropriate guidance, stating that interviewers “should encourage interviewees . . . to address issues that reflect their concerns” and “must respect the rights of interviewees to refuse to discuss certain subjects,” and “clearly explain [this option] to all interviewees.”

The second area of concern, privacy, also arises from language in the Common Rule, which does not exempt – and hence raises concern about – interviews for which “disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability, or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, or reputation” ( 46.101 [b] [2]). In an effort to protect narrators from such potential risk or damage, IRBs frequently require that they remain anonymous; and that researchers either retain completed interviews in their possession or, preferably, destroy them after the research is completed. For those who come to oral history via anthropology or sociology, maintaining confidentiality of sources is quite compatible with normal disciplinary practice. Yet requiring anonymity violates a fundamental principle of oral history. For historians, anonymous sources lack credibility – knowing the identity of a narrator allows the historian to gauge that person’s relationship to the topic at hand and hence assess the perspective from which he speaks. While OHA’s Evaluation Guidelines do allow interviewees to choose anonymity “under extreme circumstances,” when failure to do so could have adverse consequences, the operating assumption is for narrators to be identified and most, in fact, choose to be. Typically, narrators are proud of having contributed their story to the permanent record and wish to be associated with it.

Furthermore, historians neither keep to themselves nor destroy evidence but rather are enjoined by their own disciplinary ethics to provide open access to sources, so that others can evaluate and build upon their scholarship. Oral history is fundamentally an archival practice, defined by the assumption that interviews are conducted for the permanent record and are to be made publicly available. Again to cite the Evaluation Guidelines: “With the permission of interviewees, interviewers should arrange to deposit their interviews in an archival repository that is capable of both preserving the interviews and eventually making them available for general use.”

For all matters of privacy, “with the permission of interviewees” is the operative phrase within oral history, not the terms of 45 CFR 46: Because oral history interviews are a copyrightable document, owned by the narrator, he or she must sign over – to either an individual researcher or a public archive – rights to the interview via a legal release form. Without this, no one, including the interviewer, can legally use the interview. This release allows the narrator to define the terms with which the interview can be used, including if he/she wishes to remain anonymous or restrict access to the interview for a period of years. The Evaluation Guidelines also recognize the potential for exploitation in oral history, if not “risk of criminal or civil liability,” or damage to a narrator’s “financial standing, employability, or reputation.” They state that “interviewers should guard against possible exploitation of interviewees and be sensitive to the ways in which their interviews might be used;” and “should be sensitive to the communities from which they have collected oral histories, taking care not to reinforce thoughtless stereotypes or to bring undue notoriety to them.” In fact, these principles are more expansive – and more appropriate to oral history – than the terms of 45 CFR 46.

Still, it must also be said that for historians, a deep disjunction exists between the Common Rule’s concern for privacy and the canons of historical inquiry. At times information in an interview, if made public, can indeed place a person at risk of criminal or civil liability, or be damaging to his financial standing, employability, or reputation. Yet historians’ deepest responsibility is to follow the evidence where it leads, to discern and make sense of the past in all its complexity; not necessarily to protect individuals from their past actions. The American Historical Association’s (AHA) “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct” puts it this way: “Professional integrity in the practice of history requires awareness of one’s own biases and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may lead” (bold face in the original). And the OHA Guidelines suggest a similarly critical approach, calling on both interviewees and interviewers to “mutually strive to record candid information of lasting value” and enjoining interviewers to “strive to prompt informative dialogue through challenging and perceptive inquiry.” In this we are akin to journalists and unlike medical professionals, who are indeed enjoined to do no harm.

Historians are not alone in their concern that 45 CFR 46 can be used to constrain critical inquiry. Legal scholar Philip Hamburger has argued that insofar as it requires researchers to get permission to conduct research, 45 CFR 46 violates First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press.5 In a 2006 report, “Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institutional Review Board,” the American Association of University Professors recommends that “research on autonomous adults whose methodology consists entirely in collecting data by surveys, conducting interviews, or observing behavior in public places, be exempt from the requirement of IRB review—straightforwardly exempt, with no provisos, and no requirement of IRB approval of the exemption.”6 The Illinois White Paper, “Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB ‘Mission Creep’“, produced by the Center for Advanced Study at the University of Illinois, concludes that “most journalism and oral history cannot be appropriately reviewed under the Common Rule.”

Efforts to Address the Problems: Responding to increasing concerns about the lack of congruence between the terms of Common Rule and the practice of oral history, in 2003 the OHA and AHA, after a series of discussions, secured the Office of Human Research Protections’ concurrence with a policy statement that excluded most oral history interviewing from IRB review on the grounds that it does not conform to the regulatory definition of research as seeking “generalizable knowledge,” that is to say historians “do not reach for generalizable principles of historical or social development; nor do they seek underlying principles or laws of nature that have predictive value and can be applied to other circumstances for the purpose of controlling outcomes.”

Some IRBs, however, questioned this policy and subsequent commentary from OHRP, developed in response to inquiries from the University of California Los Angeles IRB, refined its concurrence with a policy of exclusion by attempting to distinguish between interviews that are not intended “to draw conclusions, inform policy, or generalize findings” and hence are not subject to IRB review, and those that are so intended and hence are subject to review, including “creat[ion of an] archives for the purpose of providing a resource for others to do research.” To complicate matters even more, in response to further questions raised by OHA and AHA, OHRP also affirmed its original policy statement.7 If this sounds contradictory, it is: Oral history’s status vis-à-vis 45 CFR 46 and hence its relationship to IRB review remains unresolved at the federal level.8 Meanwhile, a few IRBs have attempted to address apparently contradictory advice from OHRP and adopted reasonable policies regarding IRB review of oral history.9 Others exclude interviews conducted for classroom assignments, if they are not made public beyond the classroom, on the grounds that they are pedagogy, not research. Most IRBs, however, which have considerable decision-making autonomy, continue to require review of oral history without parsing OHRP’s statements and without considered attention either to ways oral history differs from biomedical or social science research or to historians’ concerns. The AHA continues to monitor the situation and responds on behalf of all historians to requests by OHRP for public comment on various proposed policy changes.10

What To Do: Some oral historians, it must be said, are supportive – or at least tolerant – of IRB review and willingly submit interview protocols. Others, with less vigilant IRBs, simply fly below the regulatory radar. And some researchers have insisted that the regulations do not, or should not, apply to them and have refused compliance with apparently no adverse consequence.11 Still, while a tenured professor might ignore or refuse compliance with impunity, this may not be an acceptable course of action for many and is especially ill advised for graduate students, whose dissertations can – indeed have – been held up at the administrative level for failure to comply with IRB review.

So, for a college or university affiliated student, scholar, or staff member confronting IRB review for a forthcoming oral history project, the following might be a reasonable course of action:

1. Inform yourself of the federal regulations governing research on human subjects, the context within which they were developed, and recent critiques of human subjects review in the humanities and social sciences.
2. Seek allies within your department or relevant administrative unit as you develop an approach to the IRB.
3. Take a proactive approach with the IRB, informing it of the principles and practices governing history in general and oral history in particular and insisting that it conform to the federal requirement that an IRB include or consult with individuals who can knowledgeably review any proposed research, in this case an individual with adequate knowledge of oral history.12  Oral historians might also consider cooperating with the IRB to develop a review policy appropriate to oral history, one that might include, as some have suggested, departmental review of oral history research projects with some minimal reporting to the IRB (see footnote 9).
4. Provide a forum for discussing “real ethics” in oral history.  One of the consequences of criticizing human subjects regulations is the imputation of ethical insensitivity or arrogance.  Yet there is a deep ethical narrative in oral history and numerous examples of the sorts of ethical dilemmas oral historians have faced in practice.  These dilemmas cannot be resolved by the formulaic proscriptions of the Common Rule but rather by the informed judgment of the interviewer, operating within the context of a specific interview relationship.  Educating students, faculty, and staff in these real ethics would serve everyone well.13

After more than a decade of largely ineffective advocacy vis-à-vis OHRP and its predecessor, oral historians are not likely to gain many concessions from federal regulators.  If we must live within a regulatory system that is, at best, incongruent with our ways of working, perhaps the best we can do is work within our individual institutions to develop a measure of mutual accommodation.  To date that has proven to be the only available recourse.

For more information see the Bibliography: Human Subjects and Institutional Review Boards prepared by Linda Shopes.

This material revises and expands upon Linda Shopes, “Negotiating Institutional Review Boards,” AHA Perspectives Online 45:3 (March 2007); available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2007/0703/0703vie1.cfm.  We are grateful to the American Historical Association for permission to reprise portions of that article.  The author also gratefully acknowledges Charles Hardy, Marjorie McLellan, Donald Ritchie, and Robert Townsend for reading and commenting upon a draft of this article.
__________________________________________________

1. A useful summary of the history of regulations governing research on human subjects is Constance F. Citro, Daniel R. Ilgen, and Cara B. Marrett, eds., Protecting Participants and Facilitating Social and Behavioral Research (Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2003), especially chapter 3, “ Regulatory History.” In addition to Nazi experiments and the Tuskegee Study, also influential in raising contemporary awareness about ethically suspect biomedical research on humans was Harvard University professor Henry K. Beecher, M.D.’s article, “Ethics and Clinical Research,” appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine 274:24 (June 1966): 154-60, which identified twenty-two experiments involving ethically questionable methods.
2. On the contentious history of human subjects regulation of research in nonbiomedical fields, see Zachary Schrag, “How Talking Became Human Subjects Research: The Federal Regulation of the Social Sciences, 1965-1991, The Journal of Policy History 21:1 (2009): 1-35; available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=JPH&volumeId=21&seriesId=0&issueId=01
3. See, for example, Kari Dyregrov, Atle Dyregov, and Magne Raundalen, “Refugee Families’ Experience of Research Participation,” Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12:3 (2000), pp. 413-426; Elana Newman, Edward A. Walker, and Anne Gefland, “Assessing the Ethical Costs and Benefits of Trauma-Focused Research,” General Hospital Psychiatry 21 (1999), pp. 197-196; and Edward A. Walker, Elana Newman, Mary Koss, and David Bernstein, “Does the Study of Victimization Revictimize the Victims?” General Hospital Psychiatry 19 (1997), pp. 403-410.
4. For a thoughtful discussion of the complexity of ethically sensitive decisions in oral history, the way they cannot be scripted in advance but evolve over the course of an interviewing project – and in ways that may vary from narrator to narrator – see Roberta S. Gould, “None of Anybody’s Goddamned Business?: Oral History and the Communist Past,” Institutional Review Blog, posted September 29, 2007; http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2007/09/roberta-s-gold-none-of-anybodys.html.
5. Philip Hamburger, “The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards,” The Supreme Court Review (2005), 271-354. For a broader critical assessment, see C. K. Gunsalus, “The Nanny State Meets the Inner Lawyer: Overregulating While Underprotecting Human Participants in Research,” Ethics and Behavior 14:4 (2004), pp. 369-382.
6. The AAUP report also recommends that academic institutions take advantage of that part of 45 CFR 46 that allows them to subject its terms only to research supported by the seventeen federal agencies that have accepted its terms; and that, in lieu of subjecting all research involving human subjects to IRB review in order to be eligible for federal funding for any research, it submit “a statement of principles governing the institution in the discharge of its responsibilities for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects of research conducted at or sponsored by the institution . . . . This may include an appropriate existing code, declaration, or statement of ethical principles, or a statement formulated by the institution itself” (45.103(b)(1). As reported in Zachary Scharag’s Institutional Review Blog, law professor Malcom Feeley has noted that some universities have, in fact, implemented this recommendation
7. After a January 7, 2004, conference call with Donald Ritchie and Linda Shopes, who negotiated the original policy statement with OHRP, Michael Carome, M.D., associate director for regulatory affairs at OHRP, wrote the following in an email message to Ritchie and Shopes, dated January 8, 2004: “To summarize from OHRP’s perspective, OHRP yesterday reaffirmed its concurrence with your policy statement that oral history interviewing activities, in general, are not designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge and therefore do not involve research as defined by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations at 45 CFR 46.102(d) and do not need to be reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB). OHRP has tried consistently to confirm this concurrence whenever it received inquiries about this matter from representatives of IRBs or other institutional officials.”
8. For a discussion of the current status of the policy statement and AHA’s position on the matter, see Robert Townsend and Meriam Belli, “Oral History and IRBs: Caution Urged as Rule Interpretations Vary Widely, Perspectives, 42:9 (December 2004); available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2004/0412/0412new4.cfm
9. Amherst College’s IRB accepts OHRP’s original concurrence with a policy of exclusion and states that “the treatment of participants in oral history projects must conform to the standards of the Oral History Association and/or other professional organizations in the field.” Columbia University’s IRB excludes most oral history from IRB review based on the OHRP’s original concurrence with a policy of exclusion; it does require review of oral history research that seeks “generalizable knowledge,” per 45 CFR 46 and OHRP’s subsequent commentary, but develops a more refined explication than OHRP of what kind of oral history contributes to “generalizable knowledge,” what kind does not. University of Missouri-Kansas City’s IRB has adopted an exceptionally thoughtful policy that, while not completely excluding oral history from IRB review, promotes best practices as codified by OHA’s Guidelines; allows the individual researcher in consultation with knowledgeable peers to determine whether or not his research project can be excluded or exempted from IRB review; understands that “in keeping with the public role of an historian in a democratic society . . . oral historians are expected to ask tough questions in their interrogation of the past” and that “an historian is also responsible to a wider public to recover a shared past ‘as it really happened’;” makes distinctions between what does and does not conform to the regulatory definition of research in terms that understand the nature of historical research; and conducts regular educational programs for researchers specific to oral history. The University of Michigan’s IRB further explicates OHRP directives about what kind of oral history does and does not contribute to generalizable knowledge and states that “interviews with sources (knowledgeable people) to supplement written documents and artifacts in attempting to preserve information about past events so long as: (i) they focus exclusively on past events; (ii) they are conducted to understand or explain a particular past or unique event in history; and (iii) the anonymity of the narrators is not preserved” do not require submission to IRB. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s IRB essentially accepts Columbia University’s policy. Many thanks to Zachary Schrag for compiling this information.
10. Robert Townsend, with Carl Ashley, Mériam Belli, Richard E. Bond, and Elizabeth Fairhead, “Oral History and Review Boards: Little Gain and More Pain,” Perspectives 44:2 (February 2006); available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2006/0602/0602new1.cfm. For AHA’s responses to OHRP’s recent calls for public comments on key issues, see “AHA Statement on IRBs and Oral History Research,” at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2008/0802/0802aha1.cfm; and Robert B. Townsend, “Training, Discernment, and Oral History,” AHA Today (Sept. 29, 2008), at http://blog.historians.org/profession/618/training-discernment-and-oral-history-review
11. For a discussion of why one oral historian refused to seek IRB approval for her interviewing project on the grounds that refusal was the ethical course of action, see Alice Dreger, “The Vulnerable Researcher and the IRB,” Bioethics Forum, posted October 3, 2008; http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=2476.
12. Paragraph 46.107 (a) of 45 CFR 46 states that “[e]ach IRB shall have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution.” Elsewhere in this paragraph, it refers to IRBs as needing to “[possess] the professional competence necessary to review specific research activities.” Oral historian Donald Ritchie has suggested that “professional competence” for oral history might appropriately be defined as having read an oral history manual, taken an oral history course, and conducted an oral history interview.
13. For a thoughtful discussion of ethics in oral history interviewing, see, for example, Kathleen Blee, “Evidence, Empathy, and Ethics: Lessons from Oral Histories of the Klan, Journal of American History 80:2 (September 1984): 596-606; Tracy E. K’Meyer and A. Glenn Crothers, “’If I See Some of This in Writing, I’m Going to Shoot You’: Reluctant Narrators, Taboo Topics, and the Ethical Dilemmas of the Oral Historian,” Oral History Review 34 (2007): 71-93; Alessandro Portelli, “Tryin’ To Gather a Little Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Ethics of Oral History,” in The Battle of Valle Giulia (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1997), 55-71; Linda Shopes, “Legal and Ethical Issues in Oral History,” in Handbook of Oral History, ed. Thomas L. Charlton, Lois E. Myers, and Rebecca Sharpless, 135-169 (Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press, 2006); and Valerie Yow, “’Do I Like Them Too Much’: Effects of the Oral History Interview on the Interviewer and Vice-Versa,” Oral History Review 24:1 (Summer 1997): 55-79. On the need for ethical training appropriate to oral history, see Zachary Schrag, “Ethical Training for Oral Historians,” AHA Perspectives Online 45:3 (March 2007); available at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2007/0703/0703vie3.cfm.

For more information see the Bibliography: Human Subjects and Institutional Review Boards prepared by Linda Shopes.

Comments (3)