Two comments on your good review of the issues. One, the language of Columbia University’s policy re: the exclusion of “most” oral history from IRB Review is based on the fact that most oral history does not meet the OHRP criteria of “scientific” and “generalizable” research. The “and” is important here. Our understanding (I wear my two hats here, as a senior member of CU’s IRB and director of the Oral History Research Office), is that the goal of scientific research, based on a hypothesis which must be tested similarly (and with identical interviewing instruments to be “scientific” in multiple situations) is to produce “generalizable” results. The goals of oral historians, and historians for that matter, are different. We look for difference more than convergence, and following the biographical and life history method, hardly ever ask the same questions in the same order or in the same language. Therefore, we do not fall into the realm of scientific investigation. That is why Columbia decided to “exclude” most oral history, not just exempt it, which still requires the Chair of the IRB to review or to assign review.

Secondly, I don’t want to close the door to the possibility that OHRP will oppose rational applications of this approach. I was the keynote plenary speaker at PRIM&R two years ago, and had very encouraging discussions with members of OHRP at that meeting, and have been invited to lead workshops on oral history and ethnography, and give webinars, since. In my opinion, it’s not time to fold the tent.

Mary Marshall Clark, Director, Oral History Research Office, Columbia University

I have a good deal of experience in IRB matters, and suggest that people work with them directly – go meet – and ask for guidance and help.