Information about IRBs
The relationship of oral history to human subject research regulations has been widely debated since the 1990s, in particular whether oral history should be reviewed by Institutional Review Boards, or IRBs. OHA has played and continues to play a central role in these discussions.
On September 8, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a set of recommended revisions to the regulations concerning human subject research. Specifically, it recommended that oral history be explicitly excluded from review by institutional review boards, or IRBs, and alluded to the fact that oral history already has its own code of ethics, including the principle of informed consent.
This is potentially a big breakthrough in what has been a twenty-year struggle over oral history and IRB review. The Oral History Association is collaborating with other professional associations to develop a collective response to the recommendations, and will be developing its own response. There is also a 90 day period during which individuals and organizations may add their own commentary.
OHA executive director Cliff Kuhn has written an overview of the IRB situation leading up to the current recommendations. See Background on the Current HHS Recommendations Concerning IRBs.
Read the History News Network article about IRB review.
To read the entire document and to submit a comment, go to Federal Register.
For more information go to the Institutional Review Blog maintained by George Mason University professor Zachary Schrag: Institutional Review Blog.
For specific responses to the recent recommendations, see http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2015/09/nprm-proposes-freedom-for-historians.html and http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2015/09/nprm-freedom-for-historians-if-they-can.html.
The OHA will continue to monitor and publicize new developments as they take place.
Additional reading on oral history and IRBs: