Journalism and Institutional Review Boards

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

The author opposes any Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) overseeing the work of journalism professors and journalism students in any academic institution. He argues that the tendency for IRBs to require anonymity for persons interviewed immediately reduces the credibility of any journalistic story. The composition of an IRB is questioned on grounds that its faculty and public members may be uncomfortable with the thrust of a journalistic inquiry and, in reaction, thwart the intention of a journalist by refusing approval. The medical human subject IRB model of oversight is supported, but the author is perplexed how this medical model has awkwardly extended into such areas a social science. The journalist's first obligation is to the public's right to know under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and IRB oversight unconstitutionally interferes with that obligation. Moreover, IRB oversight amounts to "prior restraint," a practice the U. S. Supreme Court ruled is unconstitutional in the "Pentagon Papers" case.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)871-874
Number of pages4
JournalQualitative Inquiry
Volume13
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2007

Fingerprint

journalism
journalist
obligation
anonymity
credibility
amendment
Supreme Court
constitution
university teacher
social science
human being
student

Keywords

  • First Amendment
  • Journalism
  • Prior restraint
  • Unconstitutional

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anthropology
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Journalism and Institutional Review Boards. / Dash, Leon Decosta.

In: Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 13, No. 6, 01.09.2007, p. 871-874.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{13e7f8ace1c44b37ada8513715207b79,
title = "Journalism and Institutional Review Boards",
abstract = "The author opposes any Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) overseeing the work of journalism professors and journalism students in any academic institution. He argues that the tendency for IRBs to require anonymity for persons interviewed immediately reduces the credibility of any journalistic story. The composition of an IRB is questioned on grounds that its faculty and public members may be uncomfortable with the thrust of a journalistic inquiry and, in reaction, thwart the intention of a journalist by refusing approval. The medical human subject IRB model of oversight is supported, but the author is perplexed how this medical model has awkwardly extended into such areas a social science. The journalist's first obligation is to the public's right to know under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and IRB oversight unconstitutionally interferes with that obligation. Moreover, IRB oversight amounts to {"}prior restraint,{"} a practice the U. S. Supreme Court ruled is unconstitutional in the {"}Pentagon Papers{"} case.",
keywords = "First Amendment, Journalism, Prior restraint, Unconstitutional",
author = "Dash, {Leon Decosta}",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1077800407304412",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "871--874",
journal = "Qualitative Inquiry",
issn = "1077-8004",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Journalism and Institutional Review Boards

AU - Dash, Leon Decosta

PY - 2007/9/1

Y1 - 2007/9/1

N2 - The author opposes any Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) overseeing the work of journalism professors and journalism students in any academic institution. He argues that the tendency for IRBs to require anonymity for persons interviewed immediately reduces the credibility of any journalistic story. The composition of an IRB is questioned on grounds that its faculty and public members may be uncomfortable with the thrust of a journalistic inquiry and, in reaction, thwart the intention of a journalist by refusing approval. The medical human subject IRB model of oversight is supported, but the author is perplexed how this medical model has awkwardly extended into such areas a social science. The journalist's first obligation is to the public's right to know under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and IRB oversight unconstitutionally interferes with that obligation. Moreover, IRB oversight amounts to "prior restraint," a practice the U. S. Supreme Court ruled is unconstitutional in the "Pentagon Papers" case.

AB - The author opposes any Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) overseeing the work of journalism professors and journalism students in any academic institution. He argues that the tendency for IRBs to require anonymity for persons interviewed immediately reduces the credibility of any journalistic story. The composition of an IRB is questioned on grounds that its faculty and public members may be uncomfortable with the thrust of a journalistic inquiry and, in reaction, thwart the intention of a journalist by refusing approval. The medical human subject IRB model of oversight is supported, but the author is perplexed how this medical model has awkwardly extended into such areas a social science. The journalist's first obligation is to the public's right to know under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and IRB oversight unconstitutionally interferes with that obligation. Moreover, IRB oversight amounts to "prior restraint," a practice the U. S. Supreme Court ruled is unconstitutional in the "Pentagon Papers" case.

KW - First Amendment

KW - Journalism

KW - Prior restraint

KW - Unconstitutional

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548179377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548179377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1077800407304412

DO - 10.1177/1077800407304412

M3 - Review article

VL - 13

SP - 871

EP - 874

JO - Qualitative Inquiry

JF - Qualitative Inquiry

SN - 1077-8004

IS - 6

ER -