Institutional Review Boards (IRB) are set in place to help regulate anthropological research as a way to protect the cultures and lives of the people that are the subjects. The intentions of these boards are set in place for a great reason. The issue lies in how the IRB’s have the ability to inhibit in depth research or even renders research already completed to be completely useless if it is deemed unethical or unauthorized. Institutional Review Boards often impede on the freedom of anthropologists that would otherwise make important discoveries. Because of this, I think that researches should be allowed a wider range of freedom than they currently are.
Rules created by IRBs are definitely set in place for a reason. As the Guatemala Syphilis Experiment points out, “…modern rules absolutely prohibit conducting human subject research without informed consent”. This rule, for …show more content…
By regulating fieldwork so heavily, it actually achieves the opposite end goal that research is trying to reach. Considerable reducing the freedom of researches also considerable reduces both the depth and breadth of their findings. “IRBs have treated speaking with someone as equivalent to experimenting on them” as the IRB and the Future of Fieldwork article points out. There are little to no gains for the anthropological field in terms of findings if you cannot have contact with the people of the culture you are studying. More freedom needs to be allowed regarding the extent to which consent is controlled. As long as there is consent, nothing beyond that should be necessary. Especially in the case of studies such as the IRB and the Future of Fieldwork, where those being interviewed wish to remain anonymous. If that is the case, a signature should not be required because that will only hinder the findings. Subjects will not share as much if they know their name is attached to whatever they decide to
Rules created by IRBs are definitely set in place for a reason. As the Guatemala Syphilis Experiment points out, “…modern rules absolutely prohibit conducting human subject research without informed consent”. This rule, for …show more content…
By regulating fieldwork so heavily, it actually achieves the opposite end goal that research is trying to reach. Considerable reducing the freedom of researches also considerable reduces both the depth and breadth of their findings. “IRBs have treated speaking with someone as equivalent to experimenting on them” as the IRB and the Future of Fieldwork article points out. There are little to no gains for the anthropological field in terms of findings if you cannot have contact with the people of the culture you are studying. More freedom needs to be allowed regarding the extent to which consent is controlled. As long as there is consent, nothing beyond that should be necessary. Especially in the case of studies such as the IRB and the Future of Fieldwork, where those being interviewed wish to remain anonymous. If that is the case, a signature should not be required because that will only hinder the findings. Subjects will not share as much if they know their name is attached to whatever they decide to