dangerous gazes

8/7/2019 Dangerous Gazes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dangerous-gazes 1/10

Dangerous Gazes: the Difficulties with Visual Research and Institutional Review BoardsStephen Sills, Department of Sociology, University of North CarolinaGreensboroBart Miles, School of Social Work, Wayne State University

Background

Social and behavioral research has come under increasingly acute

scrutiny by university Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) charged with

the protection of human subjects. The marked intensity of oversight

was noted in a report by the American Association of University

Professors which concluded that federal regulations and overzealous

IRBs “constitute a threat to academic freedom” (Thomson, Elgin,

Hyman, Rubin, and Knight 2006). In 2006, the Center for Advanced

Study at the University of Illinois concluded in their study that many

IRBs have experienced “mission creep” redirecting them from their

charge of ethical oversight and diverting them to “often-meaningless

paperwork” (Gunsalus, et al 2006). The reaction by researchers to the

burden of bureaucratic barriers has been to avoid submission to the

IRB and avoid topics or methodologies that may be perceived as‘risky.’ According to the Law and Society Association there has been a

“chilling effect on the research inquiries of junior scholars, particularly

students” (Barzilai et al 2007). The situation has become so difficult in

some fields of scholarship that professional associations have launch

campaigns to “fix” the institutional review board system. For example,

the American Psychological Associate (APA) created a task force in

2007 to address concerns about routinely inaccurate assessments of

risk, confusing and often nonsensical requirements, and the shift in

focus from review of research protocols on the basis of ethical

treatment of human subjects to that of legal protection of the

universities (Munsey 2007).



The growing power of IRBs to regulate and control social science as

well as that of humanities research is especially worrisome for

qualitative researchers, particularly those who employ innovative

methodologies or operate within critical paradigms. Lincoln and

Tierney (2004) analyzed a set of qualitative research projects denied

approval from various IRBS. The denials often resulted from board

members who misunderstood qualitative epistemologies and did not

understand the kinds of data produced from the methodologies

supported by these modes of inquiry. They also found disturbing

evidence of a prejudice regarding particular qualitative methodologies.

Lincoln and Tierney note:

The ongoing disapproval of the cases does not serveeither ethical criteria or protective criteria. Rather,disapproval (or endless requests for changes,alterations, etc. in the research design, which oftenact to connote future disapproval or at least todiscourage researchers) signals what one IRB groupfrankly admitted to one dissertation advisor: Theinterests of the institution (whatever they are) aremore important than the interests of fostering sound research — even when the research is deemed

important to the IRB itself. (230)Perhaps the most misunderstand qualitative method and the one most

subject to Institutional Review Board bias is visual research. Visual

research projects are often denied approval or must adapt methods as

institutional board members lack understanding of the methodologies.

Professor Bart Miles (Wayne State University) and I (Stephen Sills,

University of North Carolina Greensboro) have been conducting

research on the topic of visual researchers and IRBs. We have

conducted surveys of visual researchers and the strategies that they

have employed in order to win IRB approval as well as on the

difficulties they have faced in having projects approved. Professor

Miles and I have participated in or hosted sessions on IRBs and

academic freedom at the Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (2005 and



2006), the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social

Problems (2006), and a session at the International Visual Sociological

Association (2007). In each case, these sessions drew standing-room-

only audiences and attracted papers from well-known qualitative and

visual researchers.

We would like to turn now to consolidating these papers, and other

published and unpublished manuscripts, into a single collection. This

proposed volume seeks to add to the growing discourse on institutional

review, ethics, and academic freedom. After briefly providing an

overview of visual methods, the text will discuss the role of the IRB in

protecting rights of participants and providing a check for

unscrupulous research practices. The volume will then explore the

experiences of visual researchers with IRB process through a series of

recent projects. Finally, the text will present suggestions on how to

improve the process both in terms of framing projects in terms that are

understandable to the IRBs as well as some of the pitfalls to avoid in

working with an IRB.

Competition

There are no other books on the market that deal directly with the

issues of Visual Research, Academic Freedom, and Institutional Review

Boards. Below is a list of recent texts on Visual Research:

1. Visual research methods Peter Hamilton - 20062. Visual Sociology: An Introduction Douglas Harper - 20103. Doing visual ethnography: images, media and representation in

research Sarah Pink - 20074. Visual research methods: image, society, and representation

Gregory C. Stanczak - 2007 Technical Specifications Of The Book



• 12 chapters 3 parts aprx 350 manuscript pages index originalphotographs

• Foundational chapters develop themes more fully and offerintroduction to various visual research methodologies.

• Original and reprinted works by leading visual researchers fromvarious fields, including Sociology, Education, Political Science,Public Health, and Social Work

• Intended Audience: Members of the International VisualSociology Association (IVSA), advanced undergraduate andgraduate courses in social research, qualitative methods, orvisual research across disciplines such as Sociology, Education,Cultural Studies, Anthropology, American Studies,Communications, Public Health, Gender Studies, Social Work, and

Political Science.



Proposed Table of Contents

Part I - Seeing the Social: A Brief Overview of Visual Sociology

Ch1. Introduction to the VolumeAuthor: Stephen J. Sills

This chapter will begin by create a composite from the several cases of particularly egregious example of mistreatment at the hands of an IRB. The examples will serve to show the sever limitations on academicfreedoms and innovations in research. The second part of the chaptershould be a brief and succinct account of the parts and chapters tofollow.

Ch2. What is Visual Research?Author: Eric Margolis, Jon Prosser, Doug Haper or other.

Ch3. Seeing the Social World: A review of visual sociologymethodsAuthor: Stephen Sills and Aneliese Dar

As J. Ruby (1996) notes, “culture is manifested through visible symbolsembedded in gestures, ceremonies, rituals, and artifacts situated in

constructed and natural environments.” While we live in a visually richenvironment, we have little in the way of formal training in “visualliteracy.” Sociology in particular tends to privilege text and excludeimages from its repertoire of topics of study. This chapter will discussthe three major paradigms of visual research focusing on four specificmethods: photo documentary, photo voice, photo elicitation, and studyof visual media created by others. The chapter will draw on data andfindings from a number of research projects conducted by the authorsincluding: an ethnographic documentary on homeless youth, fieldresearch on graffiti artists, video observations of transnationalcommunities in South East Asia, an analysis of 20 years of images from

a local newspaper, and photo documentaries of immigrantcommunities conducted by students. The chapter will include adiscussion on how Institutional Review Boards restrict visualresearcher.

Part II- When and why is IRB review necessary?



Ch 4. Don't Talk to the Humans: The Crackdown on SocialScience Research.Author: Christopher SheaFrom: Lingua Franca 10(6): 26-34, 2000

Abstract: Christopher Shea discusses the "threats" posed by mostsocial science research on human subjects, and the role of the IRB inthe research process. Cases involving what have been seen as"overzealous" IRBs, like the one involving John Wilmoth, ademographer at the University of California at Berkeley, are alsoaddressed. Ch 5. Ethical review of research involving human subjects:When and why is IRB review necessary?Author: Richard M. WagnerFrom: Muscle Nerve 28: 27-39, 2003

Abstract: Requirements for ethical review of research involving humansubjects are based on widely accepted international standards that areimplemented by various national regulations and institutional policies.In the United States, most human research is reviewed by institutionalreview boards (IRBs) applying federal standards. Researchers may notrealize the variety of studies that should be submitted for review.Studies involving interventions must be reviewed regardless of whether these are standard interventions, nonmedical interventions, orretrospective studies. Quality improvement activities require IRBreview if the results may be published. Research use of information

from medical records or of biomedical specimens requires reviewunless no identifiers are recorded. Review must be sought at leastannually and whenever the research changes. Even human researchthat is technically exempt from Federal regulations usually needs tohave that exemption certified by someone other than the researcher.

Ch 6. The Ethics of Picturing People and Using People’sPictures: a Visual Researcher’s DilemmaAuthor: Luc Pauwels

Abstract: The iconic and indexical properties of images challenge

ethical decision-making for visual researchers and may even preventresearch all together. This chapter discusses ethical dilemmas specificto visual research, how new media have raised new ethical issues, andhow visual researchers need to handle these issues in practice, to bestprotect the researched without introducing double standards orhindering visual research entirely. The central question is: how cansocial and behavioral scientists use visual media to collect data orcommunicate insights, while at the same time guaranteeing that such



research and its dissemination will not harm their subjects? Mydiscussion provides a starting point to help visual researchers find theethical approaches appropriate for their specific research designs,contexts and participants.

Part II – Putting on the Blinders: Case Studies of Recent VisualResearch Projects and their IRB Reviews Ch 7. Silenced for Their Own Protection: How the IRBMarginalizes those it Feigns to ProtectAuthor: Matt BradleyFrom: ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6 (3),339-349, 2007

Abstract: This paper provides a critique of the way IRBs can maintainthe marginalization of ‘vulnerable’ populations through an insistence

on anonymity that can run counter to a group’s desire to choose howto represent themselves. I explore the relationship between anonymityand risks and benefits in a discussion of my own experiencenegotiating with an IRB over a proposed participatory action researchproject that involved youth in the production of a documentary video. Ch 8. Made Visible: Cameras and Public ProcessAuthor: Daven Gee

Abstract: Government-sponsored surveillance is becomingcommonplace but what obstacles exist to visual researchers turning

their lenses on public process and government activities? Made Visibletransposes ethical and intellectual considerations about visualdocumentation onto legal ones: broadcast traditions, sunshine laws,IRBs and a myriad of local, state and federal laws greatly complicateimage-making. In these times, how can a researcher navigate, combatand document with a camera to the best of his/her ability? This paperis supported by video clips and strategies gained while making OurMall, a documentary about a dead shopping mall that became Cityproperty through eminent domain. Ch 9. Envisioning the Voices of Homeless Youth: A photovoice

research projectAuthor: Bart W. Miles

Abstract: This chapter explores the ethical concerns of a project thatinvestigated the lived experience of homeless and runaway youth ages16-24 through the use of photographic images, and participant'sinterpretations of pictures. In this study homeless and runaway youthidentified the everyday elements, both risks and protective features, of



looseness creates opportunities to enlist IRB principles (the good) as aresource for changing ineffective or counter productive IRB policiesand practices (the bad and the ugly). The potential for this kind of change should be of great interest to image-based field researchers,However, to realize that potential researchers will need to give

increased empirical attention to how their work intersects with issuesof justice, respect and beneficence.

Ch 12. Success! Risky projects that won approvalRobert Strack

Abstract:

Ch 13. Views from the IRB: What helps Jen Kimbrough

Abstract:

Ch 14. Practical Matters: Visual Sociology and Working withIRB PolicyAuthor: Marisol Clark-Ibáñez

Abstract: Many visual sociologists encounter difficulties with theiruniversity’s Institutional Review Boards. This chapter will outline someof the relevant aspects of the United States Federal Registry, thedocument from which all university’s IRB’s must be created.Participants will learn how to better frame their research within the

scope of IRB. Also, I will discuss common challenges and their solutionswhen communicating visual research to an IRB. The goal of this paperis help visual researchers negotiate and ultimately gain approval fortheir research with IRB’s.

Biographical Information

Dr. Stephen J. Sills is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at TheUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro where he teaches researchmethods and global social problems.

In the past eleven years, Dr. Sills has conducted research onhomelessness, immigration, poverty, fair housing, access to health andsocial services, and social support networks for marginalizedpeoples. His current scholarship includes research on the feminizationof labor migration, transnational identity, and immigrant access tosocial and health services in the United States. His recent projectshave included studies of transnational Mexican communities in theSouthwest, health issues among Arab-Americans, social exclusion of



Filipino guest workers in Taiwan, and tests of fair housing laws forimmigrants in North Carolina. In addition to his theoretical work, he hasalso authored peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters onresearch methods and culturally sensitive evaluations.While Director of Evaluation at the Center for Urban Studies at Wayne

State University, Dr. Sills served as an external evaluator for federaland state programs, local social service agencies, and educationalinstitutions. He is experienced in the development of researchprotocols for program evaluation, community needs assessment, anddemographic analysis. Dr. Sills draws upon various qualitative andquantitative methods in his research and evaluations. He is also aCertified Cultural Competency Consultant recognized bythe Georgetown University Center for Cultural Competency.Dr. Sills is a former Middle and High School Spanish/ESL teacher whohas lived in Spain, Costa Rica, and Taiwan. He is a member of theAmerican Sociological Association, the Society for the Study of Social

Problems, the International Visual Sociologists Association, theSouthern Sociological Society, and the North Carolina SociologicalAssociation.Dr. Sills holds a PhD in Sociology from Arizona State University withconcentrations in Methods and Globalization. CurriculumVitae at: http://stephensills.wordpress.com/curriculum-vitae/

http://stephensills.wordpress.com/curriculum-vitae/

http://stephensills.wordpress.com/curriculum-vitae/

dangerous gazes

Documents