By: Josiah Beharry, Graduate Student Researcher, Center for Humanities, University of California Merced

For many graduate students, the words Institutional Review Board can trigger instant anxiety. The IRB is often imagined as an intimidating gatekeeper. But a recent workshop, “Working with IRB,” hosted by our center, offered a much more useful and humane picture. What emerged was guidance, ethics, and the shared responsibility of protecting people involved in research.

Led by Danielle Dai’Re Benziger, Executive Director and Rhanda Rylant, Research Compliance Analyst of UC Merced’s Office of Research Compliance and Integrity, the session walked attendees through what the IRB actually is, what it does, and what researchers should understand before they begin projects involving human participants. The tone was practical, candid, and refreshingly clear; ask questions, do not guess, and do not wait until the last minute to figure out whether your project needs review.

At its core, the IRB exists to protect human subjects in research. But one of the most important clarifications from the workshop was that the IRB and the IRB office are not the same thing. The IRB itself is an independent campus committee tasked with reviewing research protocols and assessing risk. The IRB office, by contrast, is there to help researchers navigate the process– guiding faculty, staff, and students through federal regulations, UC policy, California law, and campus procedures. That distinction matters. The office is not there to punish researchers; it is there to help them conduct ethical, compliant research.

One of the most valuable parts of the workshop was its breakdown of the definitions that determine whether a project falls under IRB oversight at all. Research, in the federal sense, is defined as a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. A human subject is a living individual about whom a researcher obtains data through interaction, intervention, or identifiable private information. Those definitions sound straightforward until they are applied to real projects, especially in the humanities and social sciences, where the line is often less obvious.

That is where many researchers get tripped up. Not every project involving people requires IRB review. A survey, for instance, is not automatically human subjects research simply because a person is answering questions. If the questions are about a program, a process, or an environment—and not actually about the individual—then the project may fall outside IRB purview. The same is true of some forms of program evaluation or internal assessment. The workshop made clear that researchers need to think carefully not just about how they are collecting information, but what that information is about and why it is being collected.

Oral history came up as a particularly important example for humanities scholars. In most cases, oral histories do not require IRB review. But there is a major caveat, if those oral histories are being collected to build a repository or archive that will be made available to other researchers, then IRB review may be required. A paper based on interviews is one thing; a maintained, accessible research collection is another. The workshop underscored how oral history often does not fit neatly into standard IRB categories because its goals can differ so dramatically from traditional human subject’s research. Oral history may prioritize identity, voice, and public record, whereas IRB frameworks are often built around privacy, confidentiality, and minimizing harm.

And harm, the speakers reminded the audience, is broader than many researchers assume. Harm is not just physical injury. It can also be psychological, social, reputational, or tied to confidentiality breaches. A participant may face consequences if sensitive information becomes public, even unintentionally. The discussion highlighted how privacy violations can themselves constitute harm, even when the content disclosed seems minor. This was especially important in examples involving politically charged or criminalized topics, where data exposure could place participants at serious risk.

The presenters also demystified what happens once a study does require IRB review. Researchers must complete CITI training, prepare a protocol in Cayuse, and respond to detailed questions about recruitment, eligibility, data collection, risks, benefits, participant protections, and data security. Some of these questions may seem excessive at first, but the workshop showed why they matter. A small detail—such as offering raffle-based compensation instead of a direct payment—can trigger entirely different legal considerations under California law. What feels minor to a researcher may have serious regulatory implications.

The different levels of review were also explained clearly. Exempt review still involves IRB review, despite the confusing name. Expedited review is used for certain minimal-risk studies that need closer attention. Full board review is reserved for studies that fall outside those categories or involve greater than minimal risk. Most graduate student projects, attendees were assured, do not end up at full board. Even so, the timeline varies, and researchers were encouraged to build in more time than they think they need.

Perhaps the most reassuring takeaway from the session was that researchers do not need to have everything perfectly figured out before contacting the IRB office. In fact, they should not wait. The office wants researchers to ask questions early, especially when they are unsure whether their work constitutes human subjects research at all. That point matters for graduate students, who are often navigating these systems for the first time while also trying to complete theses, dissertations, and degree milestones on tight timelines.

What this workshop ultimately offered was a reframing. The IRB is part of the ethical architecture of research. It asks researchers to slow down and think seriously about people, who is involved, what is being asked of them, what risks they may face, and what responsibilities the researcher carries. For graduate students and early-career scholars, that is not a burden to resent. It is part of becoming a better researcher.