Ethics Review and the Minority Ethnographer

• Author: Mike Tapia,Rubén O. Martinez
• Published date: 01 April 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/2153368717690202
• Date: 01 April 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Race and Justice
2017, Vol. 7(2) 127-143
Ethics Review and the Minority
ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
Ethnographer: A Case Study
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2153368717690202
in Racialized Invalidation
journals.sagepub.com/home/raj
Mike Tapia1 and Rube´n O. Martinez2
Abstract
This article examines some of the implications of the current human subjects reg-
ulatory landscape for conducting “high-risk” ethnographic research. We synthesize a
classical Weberian framework with recent sociological literature on bureaucratic
hybridization to theorize on this aspect of the academy. This perspective frames an
autoethnographic case study on administrative dynamics at a large, public university to
illustrate how certain racialized biases can hinder a research agenda. Broader issues in
the current institutional review board (IRB) reform process contextualize this study
on the potential for the invalidation of certain forms of criminological ethnography by
pretenured minority scholars. To the extent that such experiences are common
among untenured minority ethnographers, this article addresses racialized bias at the
institutional, ideological, and individual levels. These forces can stratify even the most
egalitarian of institutions along race–ethnic lines, impacting the production and
legitimation of knowledge. We make recommendations to young academics engaging
in high-risk research with human subjects and call for a more systematic investigation
of researchers’ experiences with the IRB.
Keywords
IRB, disparity, racialized invalidation, auto ethnography, critical race theory, crimino-
logical theories
Regulation of human subject protections has undergone major changes over the past
several decades, with yet more significant changes on the horizon (Cohen & Fernandez
1 Department of Criminal Justice, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
2 Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mike Tapia, Department of Criminal Justice, New Mexico State University, 1525 Stewart, Las Cruces,
NM 88003, USA.
Email: mtapia@nmsu.edu

---

128
Race and Justice 7(2)
Lynch, 2014; Klitzman, 2015). The institutional review board (IRB) is the primary
mechanism that the federal government has created to provide oversight of human
subject protections at the local or institutional level. Established mainly at colleges,
universities, and research institutes, IRBs now regulate most research contexts,
including nonprofits and other organizations engaged in research involving human
subjects. Such regulatory review has clear benefits for biomedical studies and clinical
trials that expose subjects to high-risk treatments, but many qualitative social science
projects and research agendas are often needlessly set back by its development.
This article illustrates how the structure of IRBs is at odds with the academic
freedom of researchers whose work is not well fitted to its rigid, biomedical-based
review template, especially at institutions where its implementation is overly strict.
We argue that an ever-expanding bureaucracy has overregulated human subject
protections, especially in the area of qualitative and ethnographic criminology. We
synthesize this classical sociological view with contemporary ideas on how institu-
tional dynamics may become racialized to the detriment of minority scholars con-
ducting qualitative research on minority populations. We begin with a brief history of
the IRB and analyze the current landscape for human subjects regulation. We show
how the ambiguous autonomy of the IRB as an ethics regulatory body can lead to
abuses of authority, with a specific focus on its discretionary power to alter or dis-
approve projects. Questions are raised about the authority of IRBs to engage in
punitive measures against investigators and about the lack of due process or oversight
therein. For example, no appeals process is provided in the federal code for such cases
or for other scenarios where investigators feel they have been treated unfairly by the
IRB (Schneider, 2015).
A key part of our argument addresses the apparent lack of diversity of membership
on IRBs, pointing to both race–ethnic composition and familiarity with various forms
of research as factors that lead to difficulties in the review process. A related problem
is the lack of current data on the race–ethnic composition of IRBs nationally. To our
knowledge, the only nationally representative sample of IRBs that contain such data
were gathered in 1995, showing that 92% of the membership was White, with 95%
having a White chair (Bell, Whitton, & Connolly, 1998). Moreover, the relative
representation of Latino, Black, and Native American faculty members at 4-year
colleges and universities in the United States has increased very slowly in recent
years (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012, 2016), and it is not likely that their
representation on IRBs has increased. In fact, recent data on IRB board chairs that
review mental health–related proposals show no change in the proportion of Whites
chairing IRBs since 1995 (Catania et al., 2008b). Given that White faculty members
are still the overwhelming majority in higher education, it is reasonable to assume that
they are still the overwhelming majority on IRBs.
This dynamic, coupled with the disparate treatment that ethnographic work
receives by IRBs, versus quantitative proposals (Dobrin & Lederman, 2011) can
become a stratifying mechanism within the university, with potential adverse effects
on the careers of untenured minority faculty engaged in “high-risk” fieldwork. In
contemporary professional settings, this form of institutionalized bias against

---

Tapia and Martinez
129
minorities is usually not overt, and perhaps not even deliberate. Rather, it may be of
the subtle, subconscious type that some have characterized as microaggression or
microinvalidation of minority values, ideas, and their endeavors (e.g., Bonilla-Silva,
2001). Others have noted these dynamics can be especially insidious within institu-
tions of higher education where there is much at stake in terms of professional
achievement, upward mobility, and prestige (Chesler, Amanda, & James, 2005).
The IRB: A Brief History
The early 1970s to 1980 marked an era of rapid growth of regulatory bureaucracies in
the United States (Dawson & Seater, 2013). As an extension of federal policy reform
in the regulation of the use of human subjects in research, the IRB was defined and
established in this era. Several infamous catalysts involving deliberate deception and
harmful health consequences included persons of color and other vulnerable popu-
lations as human subjects, reflecting the racial features of many of these controversial
studies (Beecher, 1966; Moreno, 2001; Reverby, 2011).
Since its official inception on July 27, 1981, the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects and its 1970s pre-
cursors were met with robust criticism by social scientists (see, for instance, de Sola
Pool, 1979). On the basis of the National Research Act of 1974, the scope of reg-
ulating research involving human subjects was extended from biomedical research to
most types of social science. This expansion of scope and the implementation of
review processes have prompted outcries of mission creep and overreach over the past
few decades (Berrett, 2011; de Sola Pool, 1979; Gunsalus et al., 2007; Meyer &
Rowan, 1977; Schwab, 2010; Zywicki, 2007), along with recognition of the extensive
variability that exists in the operations of IRBs (Klitzman, 2015). Further, the research
and regulatory communities recently engaged in formal public discussions on revising
the federal code with regard to the efficiency and usefulness of particular forms of
oversight (Federal Register, 2011). This Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) was titled “Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing
Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators” and invited comments from
researchers and other stakeholders on some 74 proposed changes across nine major
areas of human subjects regulation.1
One of the most extensive formal commentaries in the recent human subjects
rulemaking process came from the American Anthropological Association (AAA),
which addressed a majority of the proposed changes in its 23-page report, making two
overarching recommendations. The first one calls for limiting the scope of human
subjects review to studies risking physical harm (i.e., biomedical trials and proce-
dures) and those involving other types of human experimentation that control or limit
study information (generally with placebos, deception, or misinformation). As it now
stands, nearly all forms of research involving human participants are subject to review
by an IRB (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], 2009, 45 Part 46, Section 101). The
second major recommendation of the AAA is the establishment of a separate IRB

---

130
Race and Justice 7(2)
devoted to humanities and social science research at each institution (Dobrin &
Lederman, 2011), which is already occurring at some universities.
The Modern Landscape of Human Subjects Protection
Several recent events in the regulatory arena were pivotal in the adoption of the
current compliance-driven orientation of IRBs. In 1996, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) restated the need for continued vigilance over human subject research,
reinforcing that failure to observe 45 CFR Part 46, Subpart A (i.e., the Common Rule),
was grounds...