Ethics Review and the Minority Ethnographer: A Case Study in Racialized Invalidation

This article examines some of the implications of the current human subjects regulatory landscape for conducting "high-risk" ethnographic research. We synthesize a classical Weberian framework with recent sociological literature on bureaucratic hybridization to theorize on this aspect of the academy. This perspective frames an autoethnographic case study on administrative dynamics at a large, public university to illustrate how certain racialized biases can hinder a research agenda. Broader issues in the current institutional review board (IRB) reform process contextualize this study on the potential for the invalidation of certain forms of criminological ethnography by pretenured minority scholars. To the extent that such experiences are common among untenured minority ethnographers, this article addresses racialized bias at the institutional, ideological, and individual levels. These forces can stratify even the most egalitarian of institutions along race-ethnic lines, impacting the production and legitimation of knowledge. We make recommendations to young academics engaging in high-risk research with human subjects and call for a more systematic investigation of researchers' experiences with the IRB.