Editor for this issue: Elaine Halleck <elaine
linguistlist.org>
To help my question make sense, I provide the following background: My graduate students and I often conduct sociolinguistic type research that requires us to interview people and/or to have them fill out sociolinguistic surveys. In the past, if we were interviewing university students and if we felt that our research was going to be of a type that actually impinged upon an interviewee's privacy, or affected them in other ways, we sought approval from a university "human subjects review board." This process was usually fairly simple. Apparantly over the summer, university policy changed. We are now required to seek approval for every research project that involves "humans" anywhere by completing a complex 10 page approval form, submitting statements describing the specific aims of the project, background or significance, description of subjects, method or procedures, data analysis, risks and benefits, qualifications of the investigator, and references. We also have to submit a "consent" form which, when approved, needs to be given to every survey respondent or interviewee. The consent form looks and reads like a legal document. The review board makes no distinction between survey respondent/interviewee and "subject". They are all subjects. So, for example, I have to seek human subject approval when I interview a government official regarding bilingual education policy etc. This complex review process takes about a month, and often involves someone on the review board wanting additional information or clarification. Some of my colleagues and I have been strident in our objections to this approval process seeing it as an unnecessary complexity. We also feel that the consent form will taint the data. The administrator in charge of the review process defends these new rules by saying that U.S. Federal Guidelines have forced the university to enact this detailed level of review. Our plan now is to put together some sort of request for a review of the new policies -- which explains the rationale behind the following questions. 1. Are other universities requiring approval in such detail? 2. What review processes are followed at other universities? 3. Is BYU's new policy an aberration or is this hypersensitivity in protecting interviewee's rights/privacy part of a national trend which could seriously affect the quality of sociolinguistic/linguistic research? Any assistance would be welcome. I will summarize comments for the list. Bill Eggington ********* Dr. William Eggington Professor, English Language and Linguistics 3164 JKHB, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602 USA. Ph: (801) 378-3483; Fax: (801) 378-4720 e-mail: william_eggingtonMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuebyu.edu NOTE: AFTER DECEMBER 31 1997, THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS ADDRESSES I'VE USED. *********
Does anybody know of any sound files (wav, aiff, au, whatever) available of Arrernte, in particular demonstrating its four different coronal stops? (I've searched the Web, but found no sound files among the many references to Arrernte.) (What I *really* want is a CD to accompany Ladefoged and Maddieson "The Sounds of the World's Languages"---somebody ought to produce one!)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue