locating the Field investigação

th
art I of the Handbook begins by brlefly locatlng qualitatlve research within 1e

P neoliberal, corporate academy. It then turns to the history of qualitatlve lnqulry ~

social and educational research. The last two chapters take up the ethlcs, polltlcs, an
morai responsiblllties of the qualltatlve researcher.

The Neoliberal Academy

I~ thelr 2011 H~ndbook chapter "Revitalizing Universlties by Relnventing the Social
Sciences: Bildung and Action Research," Morten Levin and Davydd Greenwood call for
a reinventlon Óf the social sciences in the corporate spaces of the neoliberal universlty.
Their chapter reveals the depth andcoinplexity of the traditional and app!ied qualitative
. >res~arch perspectlves that are consciously and unconsciously inherited by the researcher-
.· as-intérpretive-brico/eur.1 These traditions locate the investigator in academic systems of
hlstorical (and organlzational) discourse. The academy is in a state of crisis. Traditional
•.) unding ccínneêtions to stakehoÍders no !onger hold. Evidence-based research rules the
.•· day. lladica.f change is required, and a~tiori research can help lead the way.
, .i i Leviri ànd Gre_enwood (2011) argúe' that action researchers have a responsibility to
_ ·é dg W?Ikthat is soCÍally meáningful a11d socially responsible. T_he relationship between
<)· re,iearc~ers, un,iversities, and society Ínust change. Politically. informed action research,
. :X inquiry com!llitted to praxis and social change, is the vehicle for accomplishing this
·•. •"' transformation. • · ·
; ActiÓn _ieséa~chers are committed to a set of disciplined,' material practices that
···· ~roduce radical, democratizing transformations in the civic sphere. These practices
mv?Ive . ~.ollaborativf dialogue, • participatory decisi(?n making, inclusive democratic
del'.berat1on, and t~e maximal participation and representation of ali relevant parties .
.Actwn researche_r~ hterally help transform inquiry into praxis or action. Research subjects
· beco~e co-p~rt1C1pants _and stakeholders in the process of inquiry. Research becomes

do::~:e
praxis-practrcal, refl~c.t1ve, ~ragmatic action-directed to solving problems in the world.

tª~
proble~s ongmate m the lives of the research co-participants; they do not come
co-creat~~;~:i1~h by of grand t~eory. Together, stakeholders and action researchers
the rocess e g~ _t at is pragmat1cally useful and grounded in local knowledge. ln
rese!ch qu~s:~~s,l;~~:rk::!:~;ees~arch ~bje~tives and P?litical ~oals, co-construct
and performance texts that im 1 , one s. are research sk11ls, fash1on interpretations
validity and credibility by the ~~:;nt spec~~c strategies for social change, and measure
results of the action research. gness o oca) stakeholders to act on the basis of the
realizar
The academy has a history of not being able to consistentl. .
as these. Levin and Greenwood (2011 ) ff Y accomphsh goals such
the inability of a so-called positivistic, v~lu:f:::e;al. reas~ns for this failure, including
research; the increasing tendency of out .d oc1al SCience to produce useful social
of the university; the loss of research fun~s: corporations t? define the needs and values
organizations; and bloated, inefficient int otndtre~r~neu~1al ~nd private-sector research
erna a mm1strat1ve mfrastructures.
 Levin and Greenwood (2011) are not renounctng the practices of sctence; rather, they are
calllng for a reformulation of what sctence and the academy are ali about. Their model of
pragmatically grounded action research is not a retreat from disclplined sclentific inqulry. 2
This form of inquiry reconceptualizes sclence as a multiperspective, methodologically diverse,
collaborative, communicative, communitarlan, context-centered, moral project. Levin and
Greenwood want to locate action research at the center of the contemporary university. Their
chapter is a clarlon call for a civic social sclence, a pragmatlc science that will lead to the radical
reconstruction of the university's relationships with society, state, and community ln this new
century.

History
ln their monumental chapter ("Qualitative Methods: Their History in Sociology and
Anthropology"), reprinted in the second edition of the Handbook, Arthur Vidich and Stanford
Lyman (2000) revealed how the ethnographic tradition extends from the Greeks through the
lSth- and 16th-century interests of Westerners in the origins of primitive cultures; to colonial
ethnology connected to the empires of Spain, England, France, and Holland; and to severa)
20th-century transformations in the United States and Europe. Throughout this history, the
users of qualitative research have displayed commitments to a small set of beliefs, including
objectivism, the desire to contextualize experience, and a willingness to interpret theoretically
what has been observed.
ln Chapter 3 of this volume, Frederick Erickson shows that these beliefs supplement the
positivist tradition of complicity with colonialism, the commitments to monumentalism, and
the production of timeless texts. The colonial model located qualitative inquiry in racial and
sexual discourses that privileged White patriarchy. Of course, as indicated in our lntroduction
(Chapter 1), these beliefs have recently come under considerable attack.
Erickson, building on Vidich and Lyman (2000), documents the extent to which early as
well as contemporary qualitative researchers were (and remain) implicated in these systems of
oppression. His history extends Vidich and Lyman's, focusing on six foundational footings:
(1) disciplinary perspectives in social science, particularly in sociology and anthropology;
(2) the participant-observational fieldworker as an observer/author; (3) the people who are
observed during the fieldwork; (4) the rhetorical and substantive content of the qualitative
research report as a text; (S) the audiences to which such texts have been addressed; and (6) the
underlying worldview of research-ontology, epistemology, and purposes. The character and
legitimacy of each of these "footings" have been debated over the entire course of qualitative
social inquiry's development, and these debates have increased in intensity in the recent past.
He offers a trenchant review of recent disciplinary efforts (by the American Educational
Research Association [AERA)) to impose fixed criteria of evaluation on qualitative inquiry. He
carefully reviews recent criticisms of the classic ethnographic text. He argues that the realist
ethnographic text-the text with its omniscient narrator-is no longer a geme of reporting
that can be responsibly practiced.
Erickson sees seven major streams of discourse in contemporary qualitative inquiry:
a continuation of rea!ist ethnographic case study, a continuation of "criticai" ethnography,
a continuation of collaborative action research, "indigenous" studies done by "insiders"
(including practitioner research in education), autoethnography, performance ethnography,
and further efforts along postmodern lines, including literary and other arts-based approaches.
Erickson argues that the "postmodern" tum is influencing a call for "postqualitative" and
"posthumanist" inquiry (see the chapters by Ljundberg, MacLure, and Ulmer [Chapter 20]
and Jackson and Mazzei [Chapter 32] in this handbook). ln arguing for succession beyond
 Pan 1 • L.QC.aunv u1• r - -

"s Plene (2014, PP· 14-15) ot,serveS that

what can be called "humanlst qualltatlve lnqulry, t. of utructurallsts Is that the
an ontologlcal lmpllcatlon of the decon 5lnictlve cr~•,:=sas a~autonomous and constant
foundatlonal notlon of the "humanlSl knowlng su htenment that can no longer be
Individual self Is an lntellectual lnherltance from lbe Enllg ous 1tnowlng subject 1s
consldered tenable. As noted, thls Is a polnt well taken, but an aut~n~ Deleuze
not somethlng first questloned by such postmodemlsts as foucau t an ·
herança
The Ethics of lnquiry
d lltlcs of qualltattve lnqulry
Cllfford Chrlstlans (Chapter 3, thls volume) locates the ethlcs an po I the Enllghtenment
wlthln a broader hlstorlcal and lntellectual framework. He fir 5l exam nesh' 1 value hee
model of posltlvlsm, value-free lnqulry, utllltarlanlsm, and utllltarlan et ic~Í n form;t for
social sclence codes of ethlcs for professlonal socletles become the conven ona 5
moral prlnclpÍes. By the 1980s, each of the major social sclence associatlons ~ont~:~r;::':n
wlth passage of federal laws and promulgation of national guidellnes) had eve pe i th
ethlcal code wlth an emphasls on severa! guidelines: lnformed consent, nondecept on, e
absence of psychologlcal or physical harm, prlvacy and conftdentiallty, and a com~itmentrd to
collecting and presenting reliable and valld empirlcal materiais. Institutional review boa s
(IRBs) lmplemented these guldelines, including ensuring that informed consent is always
obtained ln human subject research. However, Christians notes that in reality, IRBs protect
Filme O experimento de Milgram
lnstitutions and not individuais. .
Severa! events challenged the Enlightenment model, including the Nazi ~edic~l
5
experiments, the Tuskegee syphilis study, Project Camelot in the 1960s; Stanle~ Milgram
deception of subjects in his psychology experiments, and Laud Humphrey s decept~ve study _of
gay and bisexual males in public restrooms. Recent disgrace involves the_c?mplic1ty of s~c1al
scientists with military initiatives in Vietnam and most recently the comphc1~y of t~e Am~~can
Psychological Association with the CIA and national security interrogations mvolv~n~ m1htary
and intelligence personnel (Hoffman, 2015). ln addition, charges of fraud, plag1ansm, data
tampering, and misrepresentation continue to the present day.
Christians details the poverty of the Enlightenment model. It creates the conditions for
deception, for the invasion of private spaces, for duping subjects, and for challenges to the
subject's moral worth and dignity. Christians calls for its replacement with an ethics of being
Por isso Freire partia da concepção de
based on the values of a feminist communitarianism. cultura das pessoas
This is an evolving, emerging ethical framework that serves as a powerful antidote to the
deception-based, utilitarian IRB system. The new framework presumes a community that
is ontologically and axiologically prior to the person. This community has common moral
values, and research is rooted in a concept of care, of shared governance, of neighborliness,
or of Jove, kindness, and the moral good. Accounts of social life should display these values
and be based on interpretive sufficiency. They should have sufficient depth to allow the
reader to form a criticai understanding about the world studied. These texts should exhibit an
absence of racial, class, and gender stereotyping. These texts should generate social criticism
and lead to resistance, empowerment, social action, restorative justice, and positive change
in the social world. Social justice means giving everyone their appropriate due. The justified
as the right and proper is a substantive common good. The concept of justice-as-intrinsic-
worthiness that anchors the ethics of being is a radical alternative to the right-order justice
of modernity that has dominated modernity, from Locke to Rawls's Theory of Justice (1971)
and his The Law of Peoples (2001) and Habermas's (2001) The Postnational Constellations.
Retributive and distributive justice is the framework of modernists' democratic liberalism.
Justice as right order is typically proccidural, with justice considered done when members of
:te Tlle SAGE Handbook of Oualitatlw Research

tutlons the ....,.,fs to whlch they have a rlght. For the ethlcs of
a sodety ,ece.lve from Jts Jnstf 6~
beJng, /ustlce Js restoratlve. ltl hl h
A sacred, exJstentJal eplstemology places us ln a noncompet ve, non erarc leal
relationshlp to the earth, to nature, and to the Jarger world (Bateson, 1972, p. 335). Thfs
sacred e lstemology stresses the values of empowerment, shared governance, care, solldarlty,
p .., covenant morally fnvolved observers, and clvlc transformatlon. As
Jove, commun1•.,, • J J that were J d
Chrlstlans observes, thls ethlcal eplstemology recovers the mora va ues exc u ed
by the ratlonal Enllghtenment sclence pro/ect. Thls sacred eplstemology Is based on a
phllosophlcal anthropology that declares that NaJI humans are worthy of dlgnlty and sacred
status wlthout exceptlon for cJass or ethnlcity" (Chrlstlans, 1995, p. 129). A universal human
ethic, stresslng the sacredness of Jife, human dlgnlty, truth telllng, and nonviolence, derives
from thls positlon (Christians, 1997, pp. 12-15). Thls ethic is based on locally experlenced,
culturally prescribed protonorms (Christlans, 1995, p. 129). Th~se ~ri~al n~rn_is provlde
a defenslble Nconceptlon of good rooted in universal human sohdant_Y (Chn~tlans, 1995,
p. 129; also Christlans, 1997, 1998). This sacred epistemology recogmzes and mterrogates
the ways Jn which race, class, and gender operate as important systems of oppression in the
world today. how to deal with an universal ethic human without see the sifferences between the cultures?
In thls way, Christians outlines a radical ethical path for the future. He transcends the
usual mlddle-of-the-road ethical models, which focus on the problems associated with betrayal,
deception, and harm in qualitative research. Christians's call for a collaborative social science
research model makes the researcher responsible, not to a removed discipline (or institution)
but rather to those studied. This implements criticai, action, and feminist traditions, which
forcefuIIy align the ethics of research with a politics of the oppressed. Christians's framework
3
reorganizes existing discourses on ethics and the social sciences.
Clearly, the Belmont and Common Rule definitions had little, if anything, to do with a
human rights and social justice ethical agenda. Regrettably, these principies were informed
by notions of value-free experimentation and utilitarian concepts of justice. They do not
conceptualize research in participatory terms. In reality, these mies protect institutions and
not people, although they were originally created to protect human subjects from unethical
biomedical research. The application of these regulations is an instance of mission or ethics
creep, or the overzealous extension of IRB reguJations to interpretive forms of social science
research. This has been criticized by many, including Cannella and Lincoln (Chapter 4)
in this volume, as well as Kevin Haggerty (2004), C. K. Gunsalus et ai. (2007), Leon Dash
(2007), and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP, 2001, 2002, 2006a,
2006b). 4
Oral historiam have contested the narrow view of science and research contained in current
reports (American Historical Association, 2008; Shopes & Ritchie, 2004). Anthropologists and
archaeologists have chalJenged the concept of informed consent as it affects ethnographic
inquiry (see Fluehr-Lobban, 2003a, 2003b; also Miller & BelJ, 2002). Journalists argue that
IRB insistence on anonymity reduces the credibility of journalistic reporting, which rests on
~aming the sources used in a news account. Dash (2007, p. 871) contends that IRB oversight
mt~rferes with the First Amendment rights ot journalists and the public's right to know.
Ind1genous scholars Marie Battiste (2008) and Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2005) assert that Western
co~ceptions ot ethical inquiry have "severely eroded and damaged indigenous knowledge" and
ind1genous communities (Battiste, 2008, p. 497).5
. As c~rrently deployed, these practices close down criticai ethical dialogue. They create the
u~p~essio~ that if proper IRB procedures are followed, then one's ethical house is in order. But
this 1s eth1cs in a cul de sac.
Dlsclpllnlng and Constralnlng Ethlcal Conduct
The consequence of these restrlctlons Is a dlsdpllnlng of qualltatlve lnqulry that extends
from grantlng agendes to qualltatlve research semlnars and even the conduct of qualltatlve
dlssertatlons (Lincoln & Cannetta, 2004a, 2004b). ln some cases, Unes of criticai lnqulry haft
not been funded and have not gone forward because of altldsms from local lllBs. Ptessuta
from the rlght dlscredlt criticai lnterpretlve lnqulry. From the federal to the local leveis, a
trend seems to be emerglng. ln too many lnstances, there seems to be a move awzy from
protectlng human subjects to an lncreased monltorlng, censurlng, and polldng of pro\ects that
are crltlcal of the rlght and lts polltlcs.
Yvonna S. Lincoln and William G. Tlerney (2004) observe that these pollclng actlvlt\es
have at least five lmportant lmpttcatlons for crltlcal social tustlce lnqulry. Flrst, the wldespread
retectlon of alternatlve forms of research means that qualltatlve lnqulry wlll be heard less and
less ln federal and state pollcy forums. Second, lt appears that qualltatlve researchers are belng
detlberately excluded from thls natlonal dialogue. Consequently, thlrd, young researchers
tralned ln the crltlcal tradltlon are not belng heard. Fourth, the defmltlon of research has
not changed to fit newer models of lnqulry. Fifth, ln rejectlng qualltatlve lnqulry, tradltiona\
researchers are endorslng a more dlstanced forro of research, one that Is compatlb\e wlth
exlsting stereotypes concernlng people of color.
These developments threaten academlc freedom ln four ways: (1) They \ead to lncreased
scrutiny of human subjects research and (2) new scrutiny of classroom research and ttainlng ln
qualitative research lnvolving human subjects; (3) they connect to ev\dence-based dlscourses,
which define qualitative research as unscientiftc; and (4) by endorslng methodo\og\ca\
conservatism, they reinforce the status quo on many campuses. This conservatism produces
new constraints on graduate tralning, leads to the improper review of faculty research, and
creates conditions for politicizing the IRB review process, while protecting institutions and not
individuais from risk and harm.

A Path Forward
Since 2004, many scholarly and professional societies have followed the Oral History and
American Historical Associations in challenging the underlying assumptions in the standa1d
campus IRB model. A transdisciplinary, global, counter-IRB discourse has emerged (Battiste,
2008; Christians, 2007; Ginsberg &: Mertens, 2009; Lincoln, 2009) . This discourse has called
for the blanket exclusion of nonfederally funded research from IRB review. The AAUP (2006a,
2006b) recommended that

exemptions based on methodology, namely research on autonomous adults whose methodology

consists entirely of collecting data by surveys, conducting interviews, or observing behavior in
public places should be exempt from the requirement of IRB review, with no provisos, and no
requirement of IRB approval of the exemption. lAAUP, 200óa, p. 4\

The executive council of the Oral History Association endorsed the AAUP recommendations
at its October 2006 annual meeting. They were quite clear: ulnstitutions considet as
straightfo_rwardly exempt from IRB review any 'research whose methodology consists entirely
of collectmg data by surveys, conducting interviews, or observing behavior in public places"'
(Howard, 2006, p. 9). This recommendation can be extended: Neither the Office for Human
!2 TIi• SAGE Handbook of Oualitative Research

Resource Protectlon nora campus IRB has the authorlty to define what constltutes ,legltlmate
research in any field, only what research Is covered by federal regulatlons. Most recently, the
Natlonal Research Council of the Natlonal Academles (2014) publlshed Proposed Revisions to
tbe Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects ln the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Thls report signlficantly increases the number of research approaches and research data that
are excused from IRB revlew (pp. 4-5).
Don Rltchie (2015) reports that in response to a call for a clarlficatlon on federal regulatlons,

On September 8, 2015, the U.S. Oepartment of Health and Human Services issued a set of
recommended revisions to the regulations concerning human subject research: Oral history,
journalism, biography, and historical scholarship activities that focus directly on the specific
individuais about whom the information is collected be explicitly excluded from review by IRBs.
(See more at http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160885#sthash.Om3fectQ.dpuf)

The proposed revisions defined human subject research as a systematic investigation

designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge that lnvolves direct interaction or
interventlon with a living individual or that involves obtaining identifiable private information
about an individual. Only research that fits this definition should be subject to IRB procedures
and the Common Rule. Human subjects research studies would be placed in one of three
review categories-excused research, expedited review, or full review. A new "excused" category
references research that does not require IRB review if it involves only informational risk that
is no more than minimal. Examples of excused research could include use of preexisting data
with prlvate Jnformatíon or benign interventions or interactions that involve activities familiar
to people in everyday life, such as educational tests, surveys, and focus groups. The report
notes that because the prímary risk ln most social and behavioral research is informational,
much of this research would qualify as excused under the new regulations. The committee
recommended that excused research remain subject to some oversight; investigators should
register their study with an IRB, describe consent procedures, and provide a data protection
plan (read more at http://phys.org/news/2014-0l-common.html#jCp).
With these recommendatíons, a nearly 30-year struggle involving federal regulations of
social scíence research moves into a new phase. Ritchie notes that the federal government
began íssuing mies that required uníversities to review human subject research in 1980. At first,
the regulations applied only to medical and behavioral research, but ln 1991, the government
broadened its requírements to include any interaction with Iiving individuais.
We hope the days of IRB mission creep are over. We are not sanguine. As Cannella and
Lincoln (2011) note, qualitative and criticai qualitative researchers will continue to "take
hold" of their academic spaces as they clash with legislated research regulation (especially,
for example, as practiced by particular institutional review boards in the United States). This
conflict will not end any time soon. This work has demonstrated not only that "legislated
attempts to regulate research ethics are an illusion, but that regulation is culturally grounded
and can even lead to ways of functioning that are damaging to research participants and
collaborators" (Cannella & Lincoln, 2011, p. 87).

Ethics and Criticai Social Science

In_ Chapter 4 (this volume), Gaile Cannella and Yvonna S. Lincoln, building on the work of
M1chel Foucault, argue that a criticai social science requires a radical ethics, an "ethics that is
always/already concemed about power and oppression even as it avoids constructing 'power'
as a new truth" (p. 84). A criticai ethical stance works outward from the core of the person.
 Part 1 • Locating lhe Field 33

A criticai social sclence lncorporates femlnlst, postcolonlal, and even postmodem challenges
to oppresslve power. It Is allgned wlth a criticai pedagogy and a pollttcs of reslstance, hope, and
freedom. A criticai social sclence focuses on structures of power and systems of domlnatlon. It
creates spaces for a decolonlzlng project. Jt opens the doors of the academy so that the voices of
oppressed people can be heard and honored and so that others can leam from them. Allgned
wlth the ethlcs of the tradltlonally marglnallzed, whlch could ultlmately reconceptualize
the questlons and practlces of research, a criticai social sclence would no longer accept the
notlon that one group of people can "know" and define (or even represent) "others." Thls
perspectlve would certalnly change the research purposes and deslgns that are submltted for
human subjects revlew, perhaps even ellmlnatlng the need for "human subjects" ln many
cases. Furthermore, focuslng on the Individual and the dlscovery of theorles and universais
has masked socletal, lnstitutlonal, and structural practlces that perpetuate Injustices. Flnally,
an ethlcs that would help others "be like us" has created power for "us.• They argue that thls
ethlcs of good lntentlons has tended to support power for those who construct the research
and the furthering of oppresslve condltlons for the subjects of that research. A crltlcal social
sclence requlres a new ethlcal foundatlon, a new set of moral understandings. E.ach chapter ln
Part I points us ln that direction.

Conclusion
Thus, the chapters in Part I of the Handbook come together over the topics of ethics, power,
politics, social justice, and the academy. We endorse a radical, participatory ethic, one that
is communitarian and feminist, an ethic that calls for trusting, collaborative nonoppressive
relationships between researchers and those studied, an ethic that makes the world a more just
place (Collins, 1990, p. 216).

Notes
1. Any distlnctlon between applied and nonapplied
qualitatlve research traditions Is somewhat arbltrary.
Both traditlons are scholarly. Each has a Jong
traditlon anda long hlstory, and each carrles basic
implications for theory and social change. Good the-
oretical research should also have applied relevance
and implicatlons. On occasion, it Is argued that
applied and action research are nontheoretical, but
even this conclusion can be disputed.
2. We develop a notlon of a sacred science below.
3. Given Christlans's framework, there are primariiy
two ethical models: utilitarlan and nonutilltarian.
However, historically, and most recently, one of five
ethical stances (absolutist, consequentialist, feminist,
reiativlst, deceptlve) has been followed, although
often these stances merge with one another. The
abso/utist position argues that any method that con-
tributes to a society's self-understanding is accept-
able, but only conduct ln the public sphere should
be studied. The deceptlon model says any method,
including the use of lies and mlsrepresentation, is
justilied ln the name of truth. The relatlvlst stance
says researchers have absolute freedom to study what
they want; ethical standards are a matter of Individ-
ual conscience. Christians's feminist•communitarian
framework elaborates a contextual-consequentlal
frarnework, which stresses mutual respect. noncoer-
cion, nonmanipulation, and the support of demo-
cratlc values.
4. Misslon creep includes these issues and threats:
rewardlng wrong behaviors, focusing on procedures
and not dilficult ethical issues, enforcing unwieldy
federal regulations, and involving threats to aca-
demic freedom and the First Amendment (Becker,
2004; Gunsalus et ai., 2007; also Haggerty, 2004).
Perhaps the most extreme form of lRB mlsslon
creep Is the 2002. State of Maryland Code, Tltle
13-Miscellaneous Health Care Program, Subtitle .
2.0-Human Subject Research § 13-2001, 13-2002:
Compliance With Federal Regulations: A person
may not conduct research using a human subject
unless the person conducts the research ln accor-
dance with the federal regulatlons on the protectlon
of human subjects (see Shamoo & Schwartz, 2007).
 The SAGE Handbook ol Qualilative Research

' • to analytt the many lmpllcatlons of these

5. There Is • large Canadlan proj<ct on lndlgenous
lnteiltctual property rlghts-lntelltctual Property
lssues ln Cultural Herflage. Thls project represents
an lnttrnatlonal, lnterdlsclpllnary collaboratlon
among more than 50 scholars and 25 partnerlng
organlutlons embarklng on an unprecedented and
tlmely fnvestlgatlon of lntellectual property (IP)
lssues ln cultural herltage that represent emergent
local and global lnterpretatlons ol culture, rlghts,
and knowledge. Thelr objtctlves are
• to document the dlverslty of principies, lnterpre-
ta!lons, and acllons arlslng ln response to IP lssues
ln cultural herltage worldwlde;
sltuatlons;
• to generate more robust theoretlcal
understandlngs as well as exemplars of good
practlce; and
• to make these lindlngs available to stakeholders-
from Aborlglnal communlties to professlonal
organlzatlons to government agendes-to develop
and refine their own theorles, principies, policies,
and practlces.
Left Coast Is their publlsher. See their website:
http://www.sfu.ca/lpinch/.

References
Becker, H. S. (2004). Comment on Kevin D. Haggerty,
American Association of Unlversily Professors (AAUP).
"Ethics creep: Governing social sclence research ln
(2001). Protecting human belngs: Inslitutional
the name of ethics.• Qualitative Socio/ogy, 27(4),
revlew boards and social sclence research. Academe,
415-416.
87(3), 55-67.

American Associatlon of Unlverslty Professors (AAUP).
(2002). Should ali disciplines be subject to the
common role? Human sub/ects of social science
research. Academe, 88(1), 1-15.
Amerlcan Assoclation of Unlverslty Professors,
Commlttee A. (2006a). Report on human subjects:
Academ/c freedom and the Jnstitutional review
boards. Retrleved from http://www.aaup.org/
AAUP/About/commlttees/committee+repts/
CommA/
Amerlcan Associatlon of Universlty Professors (AAUP).
(2006b). Research on human subjects: Academic
freedom and the Jnst/tutional review board.
Retrleved from www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm./rep/A/
humansub.htm
Amerlcan Hlstorical Association. (2008, February).
AHA statement on IRBs and oral history research.
Perspectives on History. Retrieved from https://
www.historlans.org/publications-and-directories/
perspectlves-on-history/february-2008/aha-
statement-on-lrbs-and-oral-history-research
Cannella, G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Ethics, research
regulations and criticai social science. ln N. K. ·
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of
qua/itative research (4th ed., pp. 81-90). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Christians, G. C. (1995). The naturalistic fallacy ln
contemporary interactionist-interpretive research.
Stud/es ln Symboiic Interaction, 19, 125-130.
Christlans, G. C. (1997). The ethics of being in a
communications context. ln C. Christians &
M. Traber (Eds.), Communication ethics and
universal values (pp. 3-23). Thousand Oaks,
CA:Sage.
Chrlstians, G. C. (1998). The sacredness of life. Media
Deveiopment, 2, 3-7.
Christians, C. G. (2007). Neutral science and the
ethics of resistance. ln N. K. Denzin & M. D.
Giardina (Eds.), Ethicai futures in qualitative
research (pp. 47-66). Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New

York: Ballantlne.
Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethlcs for protecting
lndigenous lmowledge and herltage: lnstltutional
and researcher responslbllitles. ln N. K. Denzln,
Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of
criticai and lndigenous methodologies (pp. 497-510).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black femln/st thought. New York:
Routledge.
Dash, L. (2007). Journalism and instltutlonal review
boards. Qualitatlve Inquiry, 13(6), 871-874.
Fluehr-Lobban, C. (Ed.). (2003a). Ethics and the
profession of anthropology (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira.

Fluehr-Lobban e. (2003b). lnformed consent ln
research. ln C. Fluehr-Lobban
(Ed.), Ethla and lhe professlon of anlhropology (2nd
ed., pp. 159-177), Creek, CA: AltaMlra.
Glnsberg, P. E., & Mertens, D. M. (2009). Fronllers ln
roclal research ethlcs: Ferllle ground for evolullon.
ln D. M. Merlens & P. E. Glnsberg (Eds.), The
handbook ofroclal research elhlcs (pp. 580- 613),
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunsalus, C. K., Bruner, E. M., Burbules, N . C., Dash, L.,
Flnkln, M., Goldberg, J. P., et ai. (2007) . The llllnols
whlte paper: lmprovlng lhe system for protecllng
human subjects: Counteracllng IRB "mlsslon
creep.• Qualltatlve Inqulry, 13(5), 617-649.
Habermas, J. (2001). The postnatlonal constel/atlons.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethks creep: Governlng social
sclence research ln the name of ethlcs. Qualltatlve
Soclology, 27(4), 391-414.
Hoffman, D. H. (2015, July). The Hoffman Report: An
investlgatlon relatlng to ethlcs, torture, psycho/oglsts
& the APA. Paper presented to the Special Commlttee
of lhe Board of Dlrectors of the Amerlcan
Psychologlcal Association, Washington, DC.
Howard, J. (2006, November 10). Oral hlstory under
revlew. Chronlc/e of Higher Educatlon. Retrieved
from http:///chronicle.com/free/v53/ll2/12a01401
.htm
Levin, M., & Greenwood, D.J. (2011) . Revitalizing
universitles by reinventing the social sciences: Bildung
and action research. ln N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd
ed., pp. 27-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S. (2009) . Ethical practices ln qualitative
research. ln D. M. Mertens & P. E. Ginsberg (Eds.),
The handbook of social research ethlcs (pp. 150-170).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. S. (2004a). Dangerous
discourses: Methodological conservatism and
governmental regimes of truth. Qualitati ve Inquiry,
10(1), 5-14.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. S. (2004b). Qualitative
research, power, and the radical right. Qualitatlve
Inquiry, 10(2), 175-201.
Part 1 • Locating the Field
Lincoln, Y. S., & Tlemey, W. G. (2004), Qualitativo
research and lnslltutlonal revlrw boards.
Qua/1111/"" /nqulry, 10(2), 219-234.
MIiier, T., & Deli, L. (2002). Consenllng to what7 lssues
of access, gate-keeplng, and "lnformed consent." ln
M. Mauthner, M. Blrtch, J. Jessop, & T. MIiier (Eds.),
Ethlcs ln qua/llatlvt research (pp. 70-89). London:
Sage.
Nallonal Research Councll of the Natlonal Academles.
(2014). Proposed revlslons to th• Common Rui• for
the Protectlon of Human Sub/ecu ln th• /khavloral
and Social Sc/enc••· Washington, DC: Natlonal
Academles Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap.
· Rawls, J. (2001). The /aw of peop/es. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Unlverslty Press.
Rltchle, D. (2015). Good news for scholars dolng oral
historyl The federal government Is preparlng
to grant them a right to be excluded from lRBs.
Retrleved from http://hlstorynewsnetwork.org/
art!cle/160885#sthash.Om3fectQ.dpuf
Shamoo, A. E., & Schwartz, J. (2007). Universal and
uniform protections of human subjects in research.
American]ourna/ of Bloethlcs, 7, 7-9.
Shopes, L., & Ritchie, D. (2004, March). Exclusion
of oral history from IRB review: An
update. Perspectlves Online. Retrieved from
htttp://www.historians.org/Perspecxtlves/
lssues' 2004/0403newl.cfn
Smith, L. T. (2005). On trlcky ground: Researchlng the
native ln the age of uncertainty. ln N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 85-107). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
St. Pierre, E. (2014). A brlef and personal history of
post-qualltative research. ]oumal of Curriculum
Theorizing, 30(2), 2-18.
Vidich, A., & Lyman, S. (2000). Qualltatlve methods:
Thelr history ln soclology and anthropology. ln
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds,), The SAGE
handbook of qualitatlve reseaJcb (2nd ed., pp.
37-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.