Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:16:24.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

National Science Foundation, Institutional Review Boards, and Political and Social Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2016

Lee Demetrius Walker*
Affiliation:
National Science Foundation

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Profession Symposium: Local Control and Realities in the Relationship between Institutional Review Boards and Political Science Research
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heimer, Carol A., and Petty, JuLeigh. 2010. “Bureaucratic Ethics: IRBs and the Legal Regulation of Human Subjects Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6 (3): 601–26.Google Scholar
Plattner, Stuart. 2006. “Comment on IRB Regulation of Ethnographic Research.” American Ethnologist 33 (4): 525–8.Google Scholar
Schrag, Zachary M. 2011. “The Case against Ethics Review in the Social Sciences.” Research Ethics 7 (4): 120–31.Google Scholar
Seligson, Mitchell A. 2008. “Human Subjects Protection and Large-N Research: When Exempt Is Non-Exempt and Research Is Non-Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (3): 477–82.Google Scholar
Winslow, Deborah. 2006. “NSF Supports Ethnographic Research.” American Ethnologist 33 (4): 519–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar