The tensions between academic freedom and institutional review boards

Qualitative Inquiry

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 388-398

  Tierney, William G ^a   Corwin, Zoé Blumberg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic freedom; Human subjects; Institutional review

Indexed keywords

EID: 34147091986     PISSN: 10778004     EISSN: 15527565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077800406297655     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. American Association of University Professors. (1995). 1940 statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure with 1970 interpretive comments. In AAUP Policy Documents & Reports (pp. 3-10). Washington, DC: Author.
2. American Association of University Professors. (2001). Protecting human beings: Institutional review boards and social science research. Academe, 87 (3), 55-67.
3. Blanchard, M.A. (2002). Should all disciplines be subject to the common rule? Human subjects of social science research. Academe, 88 (3), 62-69.
4. Brunner, D. (2005). The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html
5. Corwin, Z.B., & Tierney, W.G. (in press). IRBs and qualitative research. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
6. Hofstadter, R., & Metzger, W.P. (1955). The development of academic freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
7. Humphreys, L. (1975). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Chicago: Aldine.
8. Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Institutional review boards and methodological conservatism: The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3 rd ed., pp. 165-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Lincoln, Y.S., & Tierney, W.G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2), 219-234.
10. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved August, 2, 2002, from http://ohsr.nih.gov/mpa/belmont.php3
11. Nelson, C. (2004). The brave new world of research surveillance. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2), 207-218.
12. Oakes, J.M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator's guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26 (5), 443-479.
13. Pritchard, I.A. (2002). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards. Educational Researcher, 31 (3), 3-13.
14. Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A history. New York: Vintage Books.
15. Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
16. Tierney, W.G. (1993). Academic freedom and the parameters of knowledge. Harvard Educational Review, 63 (2), 143-160.
17. Tierney, W.G., & Lechuga, V.M. (2005). Academic freedom in the 21st century. Thought and Action, 21, 7-22.
18. Veysey, L. (1965). The emergence of the American university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.