IRB And Power Relationship

IRB is a body that cubs the excessiveness of researchers, for example researcher that researchers who do not have access to their research population may pride themselves to deceive and violate the privacy of respondent (Berg and Lune 2012) and protects the vulnerable group of people in the society and also the researcher. Irwin (2006) believed that researchers usually have more power than research participants, the responsibility of overcoming this injustices lies with the researcher.

Power relationship is one of the issues that researchers face when they engage in field work. Gonzalez-Lopez (2011) posits that many research participants regards the researcher as an authority figure which invariably shape motivation for participating in the

Gonzalez-Lopez (2011), posits that researchers should place participants at the center of their ethical preoccupations either while identifying potential study participants or conducting interviews-mindful ethics established clear limits to my intellectual curiosity, which in the end became secondary to the most obvious, but also the more nuanced and delicate risks participants or potential participants faced. Irwin (2006), argued that there is no basic ethical advantage of subjectivity over objectivity, friendship over friendliness, intimacy over distance, celibacy over sex, crime over legality, disclosure over silence, or experimental writing over traditional discourse but researchers should locate how intimate or distant relationship, behaviors, emotions, writing and other research choices are constrained by, work against, or reinforce social structures. Rupp and Taylor (2011) reflected about their experiences that confirmed that researcher’s commitment to engaging in ethical field research can help bring about social change by going back to the research participant after

La Pastina (2006), wondered why he has to tell research participant about his sexual identity and thought of the consequences of revealing his identity made him to frame his sexual identity which was suitable for the research participants. The increase directive and movement focusing on the features of informants, the topic, the context in which research is embedded rather than in researcher’s role/identity sometimes can prevent methodological stumbles that originate in a researcher’s strategies (Brown-Saracino 2014). We are not denying the linkages of social categories with other aspects of community life, but contend that these correlates represent comparatively superficial reflections (Grills and Prus