If a professor is conducting oral histories about a public figure, what can they expect from the IRB?

The appropriate expectation from the IRB, in this case, is that the study may not qualify for review because it might fall outside the typical parameters of research involving human subjects. Oral histories, while they do involve human subjects, can sometimes be considered a form of historical documentation rather than research aimed at generating generalizable knowledge. If the project is primarily concerned with capturing personal narratives without the intention of contributing to systematic inquiry or creating new knowledge for broader applications, it may indeed be categorized differently, leading to the conclusion that it does not require review by the IRB.

It’s important to note that the classification of a study can often hinge on its methodology and goals. In cases where the primary focus is on documenting lived experiences or producing records for historical purposes, and if it is not intended for that generalizable research output, IRB oversight might be deemed unnecessary. This context is crucial for understanding how certain types of projects, particularly those involving oral histories, may be treated under human subjects regulations.