As previously reported on this site, the federal government is considering changing the regulations that govern IRBs as they apply to historians. The Oral History Association has posted sample language / talking points to help you submit your comments to HHS. As noted below, it is most important that many of us send comments, not that you get your exact ideas perfectly polished and then forget about it or miss the deadline. So read an excerpt from the OHA site below, and copy-paste their talking points to submit your feedback. Do it today!
From the OHA:
We encourage you to respond as a concerned oral historian, either by submitting the below statement in the comment box in the online form (link below), or offering your own thoughts and observations on the issues raised by the proposal. The comment period closes on October 26, 2011. We are advised that high volume of response is most critical. You can also submit your comments by mail to Jerry Menikoff at either jerry.menikoff@hhs.gov or Office of Human Research Protections, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852.
The online submission form has a 2000 character limit so we have drafted a brief version of the statement. To view the statement in its entirety, click here. We strongly encourage you to make your own comments, however, we have also provided the opportunity for you to copy and paste the text below onto the online comment form.
Click Here to Access Online Comment Form
Copy Text Below
1) Regarding whether “certain fields of study [such as history] whose methods of inquiry were not intended to or should not be covered,” we argue for full exclusion of oral history from the terms of the Common Rule.
a. Oral history research focuses on eliciting information about particular past experiences and suffers irreparable harm when forced into rubrics developed to treat subjects in a “generalizable” way as demanded by scientific research
b. Oral history research is built on open dialogue with interviewees and cannot be assessed properly within the IRB regulatory framework
c. The proposed “excused” category does not address our concerns. It keeps oral history tied to inappropriate science frameworks and adds the burden of rules designed to prevent “information risk”
d. This is not a plea to be free of professional standards. The Oral History Association maintains its own Principles and Best Practices governing the conduct of oral histories in an ethically responsible way; but our standards are applied in fundamentally different ways than the scientific procedures and criteria administered by IRBs
2) The implications for oral historians in the proposed rules to limit “information risk” are also of concern.
a. Overregulation of the future use of archival or public-use data can inhibit our understanding of the past, including data that would hold scholars accountable for misuse of research subjects
b. Oral history protocols already mandate signed releases by interviewees, in which they state explicitly the terms by which the interview can be used in the future.
c. The federal proposal-and specifically the application of HIPAA rules to non-medical research-reflects the danger of a “one size fits all” approach
3) History and Oral History were never envisioned as falling under these rules. This review offers an opportunity to correct the misapplication of IRB authority.
