美国口述历史伦理审查机制研究被引量：7

American Ethics Review Mechanism and the Study of Oral History

导出

摘要从20世纪50年代以来,在"以人为对象的研究"中,美国联邦政府就开始关注和规范研究过程中的伦理问题,并形成一套较为完善的伦理审查与监管机制。而口述历史作为一种主要基于活生生的当事人与目击者口述回忆的互动性访谈的方法与研究领域,从20世纪90年代中期开始,它也不断受到这套原本以生物医学与行为研究为主要导向的伦理审查制度的监管与制约。与此同时,美国口述历史学界也一直以违背口述历史基本原则与侵犯学术自由为理由而要求改革口述历史伦理审查机制,并极力主张将口述历史直接排除在审查范围之外。不过,在实际运作中,由于联邦法规与政策的模糊性以及伦理审查委员会的风险规避思维,美国绝大部分大学和研究机构仍然要求根据具体情况来决定是否排除对口述历史的伦理审查或采取何种类型的审查模式。 From the 1950 s,the US federal government began paying attention to and regulating ethical issues involving human subject research, for which it established a set of ethical review and regulatory mechanisms. Since the mid-1990 s,oral history study,which requires interactive interviewing method and research based upon the oral memories of participants and eyewitnesses,has also been subject to the system of ethical review and regulation that was originally established for biomedical and behavioral researches.Meanwhile,American oral historians have been trying to reform the ethical review mechanism; they regard such mechanism as contrary to the fundamental principles of oral history study,such as academic freedom.They have strongly advocated that oral history be fully excluded from the ethical review process. However,because of the ambiguity of federal regulations and policies and risk-averse mindset of the Institutional Review Boards,most universities and research institutions in the United States remain careful in deciding whether or not a specific research project in oral history should go through a certain type of ethical review process or even avoid any ethical review mechanism.

作者杨祥银

机构地区温州大学人文学院邮编:

出处《史学理论研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第2期86-97,159,共12页 Historiography Bimonthly

关键词口述历史伦理审查伦理审查委员会

分类号 K097.12 [历史地理—历史学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献77

1John A. Neuenschwander, A Guide to Oral History and the Law, Oxford University Press, second edition, 2014, p. xiii.
2Rachel Vagts, "Clashing Discipline: Oral History and the Institutional Review Board", Archival Issues, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2002, pp. 145 - 152.
3Linda Shopes, "Oral History, Human Subjects, and Institutional Review Boards", Oral History Association, 2009.
4Zachary M. Sehrag, Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965 -2009, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010, pp. 145 -148, 152 -159.
5Martin Meeker, "The Berkeley Compromise: Oral History, Human Subjects, and the Meaning of ' Research' ", in Claire Bond Potter and Renee C. Romano, eds. , Doing Recent History: On Privacy, Copyright, Video Games, Institutional Review Boards, Activist Scholarship, and History that Talks Back, University of Georgia Press, 2012, pp. 115 - 138.
6Donald A. Ritchie, Doing Oral History, Oxford University Press, third edition, 2014, pp. 227 - 233.
7Susan K. Grove, Nancy Burns and Jennifer R. Gray, The Practice of Nursing Research : Appraisal, Synthesis, and Generation of Evidence, Saunders/Elsevier, 2013, pp. 159 - 163.
8http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html[2015—07—28].
9“45CFR46.102(2009)”(http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.102[2015-07—28]).
10Richard A. Shweder, "Protecting Human Subjects and Preserving Academic Freedom: Prospects at the University of Chicago", American Ethnologist, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2006, pp. 507 - 508.