Q: field methods human subjects

[Christopher Miller]

This year I will be teaching a field methods course for second year
graduate students at Gallaudet University. Naturally, this course
involves working with a (paid) language consultant, in other words a
human subject. Over the year, students will obtain data from the
consultant and will prepare a descriptive paper at the end of the
course based on their data. Since this course deals with sign languages
(i.e. a sign language other than ASL), data will be recorded by
videotaping the consultant's productions. Just last week, the question
came up of whether filming our consultant requires the course to
receive a blanket approval from our university's Institutional Review
Board. (Since the consultant will be videotaped, this means s/he would
be readily identifiable in the future.) Additionally, the university
requires that unless the videotapes are archived, they must be
destroyed after two years.

I am scheduled to meet with the head of our IRB later this week, and
would like to get a feel for practice in other universities before I
talk with him. My position, supported elsewhere in the department, is
that given the nature of a field methods course, we would hope for
exemption from the normal approval needed prior to undertaking any
research with a human subject.

I realise that most people on LINGUIST will only have dealt with human
subjects issues in spoken languages, where videotaping (and subject
identifiability) probably wouldn't pose the same kind of difficulties.
Nonetheless, I would be grateful for any input other people involved in
field methods courses, involving either spoken or signed languages,
could give me. What has your experience been? Have you had to deal with
any unexpected or unusual ethical issues? Has your institution required
IRB approval for working with a human subject? Has the institution
required you to restrict in some way the subsequent use of data
obtained in the course? (E.g. destruction of original data, ban on
publication or dissemination of results, signed undertakings on the
part of course participants?)

I look forward to your feedback,

Chris Miller

=:=:=:=:= =:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=
Christopher Miller
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pasted Graphic.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 89730 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20030819/524e509c/attachment.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Chris Miller.vcf
Type: text/directory
Size: 532 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20030819/524e509c/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------


Gallaudet web page:

http://linguistics.gallaudet.edu/miller.html

Work:

Department of Linguistics
(Dawes House 203)
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue NE
Washington DC  20002
USA

+1 202 651-5674
christopher.miller at gallaudet.edu

Home:

4512 32nd Street
Mount Rainier MD  20712
USA

+1 514 995-0185 (mobile)
christophermiller at mac.com
(miller.christopher at uqam.ca - expiring soon)
=:=:=:=:= =:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=