Dangerous Gazes: the Difficulties with Visual

Research and Institutional Review Boards

Stephen Sills, Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina
Greensboro
Bart Miles, School of Social Work, Wayne State University

Background

Social and behavioral research has come under increasingly acute

scrutiny by university Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) charged with
the protection of human subjects. The marked intensity of oversight
was noted in a report by the American Association of University
Professors which concluded that federal regulations and overzealous
IRBs “constitute a threat to academic freedom” (Thomson, Elgin,
Hyman, Rubin, and Knight 2006). In 2006, the Center for Advanced
Study at the University of Illinois concluded in their study that many
IRBs have experienced “mission creep” redirecting them from their
charge of ethical oversight and diverting them to “often-meaningless
paperwork” (Gunsalus, et al 2006). The reaction by researchers to the
burden of bureaucratic barriers has been to avoid submission to the
IRB and avoid topics or methodologies that may be perceived as
‘risky.’ According to the Law and Society Association there has been a
“chilling effect on the research inquiries of junior scholars, particularly
students” (Barzilai et al 2007). The situation has become so difficult in
some fields of scholarship that professional associations have launch
campaigns to “fix” the institutional review board system. For example,
the American Psychological Associate (APA) created a task force in
2007 to address concerns about routinely inaccurate assessments of
risk, confusing and often nonsensical requirements, and the shift in
focus from review of research protocols on the basis of ethical
treatment of human subjects to that of legal protection of the
universities (Munsey 2007).
The growing power of IRBs to regulate and control social science as
well as that of humanities research is especially worrisome for
qualitative researchers, particularly those who employ innovative
methodologies or operate within critical paradigms. Lincoln and
Tierney (2004) analyzed a set of qualitative research projects denied
approval from various IRBS. The denials often resulted from board
members who misunderstood qualitative epistemologies and did not
understand the kinds of data produced from the methodologies
supported by these modes of inquiry. They also found disturbing
evidence of a prejudice regarding particular qualitative methodologies.
Lincoln and Tierney note:

The ongoing disapproval of the cases does not serve

either ethical criteria or protective criteria. Rather,
disapproval (or endless requests for changes,
alterations, etc. in the research design, which often
act to connote future disapproval or at least to
discourage researchers) signals what one IRB group
frankly admitted to one dissertation advisor: The
interests of the institution (whatever they are) are
more important than the interests of fostering sound
research — even when the research is deemed
important to the IRB itself. (230)
Perhaps the most misunderstand qualitative method and the one most
subject to Institutional Review Board bias is visual research. Visual
research projects are often denied approval or must adapt methods as
institutional board members lack understanding of the methodologies.
Professor Bart Miles (Wayne State University) and I (Stephen Sills,
University of North Carolina Greensboro) have been conducting
research on the topic of visual researchers and IRBs. We have
conducted surveys of visual researchers and the strategies that they
have employed in order to win IRB approval as well as on the
difficulties they have faced in having projects approved. Professor
Miles and I have participated in or hosted sessions on IRBs and
academic freedom at the Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (2005 and
2006), the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social
Problems (2006), and a session at the International Visual Sociological
Association (2007). In each case, these sessions drew standing-room-
only audiences and attracted papers from well-known qualitative and
visual researchers.

We would like to turn now to consolidating these papers, and other

published and unpublished manuscripts, into a single collection. This
proposed volume seeks to add to the growing discourse on institutional
review, ethics, and academic freedom. After briefly providing an
overview of visual methods, the text will discuss the role of the IRB in
protecting rights of participants and providing a check for
unscrupulous research practices. The volume will then explore the
experiences of visual researchers with IRB process through a series of
recent projects. Finally, the text will present suggestions on how to
improve the process both in terms of framing projects in terms that are
understandable to the IRBs as well as some of the pitfalls to avoid in
working with an IRB.

Competition

There are no other books on the market that deal directly with the
issues of Visual Research, Academic Freedom, and Institutional Review
Boards. Below is a list of recent texts on Visual Research:

1. Visual research methods Peter Hamilton - 2006

2. Visual Sociology: An Introduction Douglas Harper - 2010
3. Doing visual ethnography: images, media and representation in
research Sarah Pink - 2007
4. Visual research methods: image, society, and representation
Gregory C. Stanczak - 2007

Technical Specifications Of The Book

• 12 chapters 3 parts aprx 350 manuscript pages index original
photographs

• Foundational chapters develop themes more fully and offer

introduction to various visual research methodologies.

• Original and reprinted works by leading visual researchers from

various fields, including Sociology, Education, Political Science,
Public Health, and Social Work

• Intended Audience: Members of the International Visual

Sociology Association (IVSA), advanced undergraduate and
graduate courses in social research, qualitative methods, or
visual research across disciplines such as Sociology, Education,
Cultural Studies, Anthropology, American Studies,
Communications, Public Health, Gender Studies, Social Work, and
Political Science.
Proposed Table of Contents

Part I - Seeing the Social: A Brief Overview of Visual Sociology

Ch1. Introduction to the Volume

Author: Stephen J. Sills

This chapter will begin by create a composite from the several cases of
particularly egregious example of mistreatment at the hands of an IRB.
The examples will serve to show the sever limitations on academic
freedoms and innovations in research. The second part of the chapter
should be a brief and succinct account of the parts and chapters to
follow.

Ch2. What is Visual Research?

Author: Eric Margolis, Jon Prosser, Doug Haper or other.

Ch3. Seeing the Social World: A review of visual sociology

methods
Author: Stephen Sills and Aneliese Dar

As J. Ruby (1996) notes, “culture is manifested through visible symbols

embedded in gestures, ceremonies, rituals, and artifacts situated in
constructed and natural environments.” While we live in a visually rich
environment, we have little in the way of formal training in “visual
literacy.” Sociology in particular tends to privilege text and exclude
images from its repertoire of topics of study. This chapter will discuss
the three major paradigms of visual research focusing on four specific
methods: photo documentary, photo voice, photo elicitation, and study
of visual media created by others. The chapter will draw on data and
findings from a number of research projects conducted by the authors
including: an ethnographic documentary on homeless youth, field
research on graffiti artists, video observations of transnational
communities in South East Asia, an analysis of 20 years of images from
a local newspaper, and photo documentaries of immigrant
communities conducted by students. The chapter will include a
discussion on how Institutional Review Boards restrict visual
researcher.

Part II- When and why is IRB review necessary?

Ch 4. Don't Talk to the Humans: The Crackdown on Social
Science Research.
Author: Christopher Shea
From: Lingua Franca 10(6): 26-34, 2000

Abstract: Christopher Shea discusses the "threats" posed by most

social science research on human subjects, and the role of the IRB in
the research process. Cases involving what have been seen as
"overzealous" IRBs, like the one involving John Wilmoth, a
demographer at the University of California at Berkeley, are also
addressed.

Ch 5. Ethical review of research involving human subjects:

When and why is IRB review necessary?
Author: Richard M. Wagner
From: Muscle Nerve 28: 27-39, 2003

Abstract: Requirements for ethical review of research involving human

subjects are based on widely accepted international standards that are
implemented by various national regulations and institutional policies.
In the United States, most human research is reviewed by institutional
review boards (IRBs) applying federal standards. Researchers may not
realize the variety of studies that should be submitted for review.
Studies involving interventions must be reviewed regardless of
whether these are standard interventions, nonmedical interventions, or
retrospective studies. Quality improvement activities require IRB
review if the results may be published. Research use of information
from medical records or of biomedical specimens requires review
unless no identifiers are recorded. Review must be sought at least
annually and whenever the research changes. Even human research
that is technically exempt from Federal regulations usually needs to
have that exemption certified by someone other than the researcher.

Ch 6. The Ethics of Picturing People and Using People’s

Pictures: a Visual Researcher’s Dilemma
Author: Luc Pauwels

Abstract: The iconic and indexical properties of images challenge

ethical decision-making for visual researchers and may even prevent
research all together. This chapter discusses ethical dilemmas specific
to visual research, how new media have raised new ethical issues, and
how visual researchers need to handle these issues in practice, to best
protect the researched without introducing double standards or
hindering visual research entirely. The central question is: how can
social and behavioral scientists use visual media to collect data or
communicate insights, while at the same time guaranteeing that such
research and its dissemination will not harm their subjects? My
discussion provides a starting point to help visual researchers find the
ethical approaches appropriate for their specific research designs,
contexts and participants.

Part II – Putting on the Blinders: Case Studies of Recent Visual

Research Projects and their IRB Reviews

Ch 7. Silenced for Their Own Protection: How the IRB

Marginalizes those it Feigns to Protect
Author: Matt Bradley
From: ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6 (3),
339-349, 2007

Abstract: This paper provides a critique of the way IRBs can maintain
the marginalization of ‘vulnerable’ populations through an insistence
on anonymity that can run counter to a group’s desire to choose how
to represent themselves. I explore the relationship between anonymity
and risks and benefits in a discussion of my own experience
negotiating with an IRB over a proposed participatory action research
project that involved youth in the production of a documentary video.

Ch 8. Made Visible: Cameras and Public Process

Author: Daven Gee

Abstract: Government-sponsored surveillance is becoming

commonplace but what obstacles exist to visual researchers turning
their lenses on public process and government activities? Made Visible
transposes ethical and intellectual considerations about visual
documentation onto legal ones: broadcast traditions, sunshine laws,
IRBs and a myriad of local, state and federal laws greatly complicate
image-making. In these times, how can a researcher navigate, combat
and document with a camera to the best of his/her ability? This paper
is supported by video clips and strategies gained while making Our
Mall, a documentary about a dead shopping mall that became City
property through eminent domain.

Ch 9. Envisioning the Voices of Homeless Youth: A photovoice

research project
Author: Bart W. Miles

Abstract: This chapter explores the ethical concerns of a project that

investigated the lived experience of homeless and runaway youth ages
16-24 through the use of photographic images, and participant's
interpretations of pictures. In this study homeless and runaway youth
identified the everyday elements, both risks and protective features, of
their lives. This study enabled participants to identify, record, and
reflect on their strengths and needs. This project looked at homeless
youth through the photovoice methods. Photovoice is a process by
which people can identify, represent, and enhance their community
through a specific photographic technique. It entrusted cameras to the
hands of people to enable them to act as recorders, and potential
catalysts for social action and change, in their own communities
(Wang, 2003). These pictures were developed, meaningful
images were selected, and then the youth wrote narratives about the
photo's meaning. These photos and narratives were then shown in a
public showing, enhancing the discourse about the experience of
homeless youth.

Part III - Practical Matters: How to Work with IRBs

Ch 10. Visual Researchers and Institutional Review Boards:

Findings from an Online Survey of Visual Researchers
Authors: Stephen J. Sills and Bart W. Miles

Abstract: Recent articles have asserted that the growing power of IRBs
to regulate and control social science and humanities research is
especially worrisome for qualitative researchers employing innovative
methodologies or operating within critical paradigms. This chapter
reflects on the findings of a survey which gathered the experiences of
visual researchers and their IRB experiences. It asked these
researchers for suggestions on how to improve the process. Questions
regarding the type of visual method employed, population studied,
funding for the projects, and reaction of IRBs (expedited vs. full-board
approval, revisions, and rejection) were addressed. In particular
respondents were asked to specify the elements of their IRB
applications that helped to win approval and those elements which
slowed down or even prevented the approval from their local IRBs.

Ch 11. Using the good to challenge the bad and the ugly of IRB
reviews
Author: Jon Wagner

Abstract: Many image-based field researchers regard IRB principles,

policies and practices as tightly coupled and all of a piece. This view is
not entirely off the mark, but it emphasizes compliance over creativity
and cynicism over collaboration. In this chapter I draw on my service
as an IRB member to present the alternative view that coupling among
IRB principles, policies and practices is actually somewhat loose. This
looseness creates opportunities to enlist IRB principles (the good) as a
resource for changing ineffective or counter productive IRB policies
and practices (the bad and the ugly). The potential for this kind of
change should be of great interest to image-based field researchers,
However, to realize that potential researchers will need to give
increased empirical attention to how their work intersects with issues
of justice, respect and beneficence.

Ch 12. Success! Risky projects that won approval

Robert Strack

Abstract:

Ch 13. Views from the IRB: What helps

Jen Kimbrough

Abstract:

Ch 14. Practical Matters: Visual Sociology and Working with

IRB Policy
Author: Marisol Clark-Ibáñez

Abstract: Many visual sociologists encounter difficulties with their

university’s Institutional Review Boards. This chapter will outline some
of the relevant aspects of the United States Federal Registry, the
document from which all university’s IRB’s must be created.
Participants will learn how to better frame their research within the
scope of IRB. Also, I will discuss common challenges and their solutions
when communicating visual research to an IRB. The goal of this paper
is help visual researchers negotiate and ultimately gain approval for
their research with IRB’s.

Biographical Information

Dr. Stephen J. Sills is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at The

University of North Carolina at Greensboro where he teaches research
methods and global social problems.
In the past eleven years, Dr. Sills has conducted research on
homelessness, immigration, poverty, fair housing, access to health and
social services, and social support networks for marginalized
peoples. His current scholarship includes research on the feminization
of labor migration, transnational identity, and immigrant access to
social and health services in the United States. His recent projects
have included studies of transnational Mexican communities in the
Southwest, health issues among Arab-Americans, social exclusion of
Filipino guest workers in Taiwan, and tests of fair housing laws for
immigrants in North Carolina. In addition to his theoretical work, he has
also authored peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters on
research methods and culturally sensitive evaluations.
While Director of Evaluation at the Center for Urban Studies at Wayne
State University, Dr. Sills served as an external evaluator for federal
and state programs, local social service agencies, and educational
institutions. He is experienced in the development of research
protocols for program evaluation, community needs assessment, and
demographic analysis. Dr. Sills draws upon various qualitative and
quantitative methods in his research and evaluations. He is also a
Certified Cultural Competency Consultant recognized by
the Georgetown University Center for Cultural Competency.
Dr. Sills is a former Middle and High School Spanish/ESL teacher who
has lived in Spain, Costa Rica, and Taiwan. He is a member of the
American Sociological Association, the Society for the Study of Social
Problems, the International Visual Sociologists Association, the
Southern Sociological Society, and the North Carolina Sociological
Association.
Dr. Sills holds a PhD in Sociology from Arizona State University with
concentrations in Methods and Globalization. Curriculum
Vitae at: http://stephensills.wordpress.com/curriculum-vitae/