Alex, I will have to think about some of your post and respond later, because one concept has my head spinning around backwards. Nowhere that I know of in the regs, does it say that the decision as to what type of studies or data used is left up to the researcher to decide if they need to seek IRB approval. Now I am by nature not a huge lover of rules and regs and authority boards...but when it comes to IRBs I see how we got here and I understand why all research requires peer vetting. If the researcher could make the decision then 1) IRB's would not be needed because no errors would be made, and 2) lots of researchers would be saying they were exempt just to avoid going through the administrative process. My personal research on teens and their online lives, etc. has required me to apply for IRB approval when my peers working with adults did not have the same requirement. In short, all of my classroom research had to be approved - intended publication or not - where students not looking at protected populations didn't have to apply unless they intended to publish or present. This exception is not available to faculty, so all research that loosely is tied to humans must be vetted by the IRB. I know of colleges/universities that have taken a "old school" stance on what connotes "research" so that qualitative methods were not considered research - since findings are not generalizable - so application is not made. I think these institutions are changing though...if nothing else because the feds have sent out lots of guidance of late on how to handle qualitative studies, within the current legal framework. Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Student - School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Adjunct Instructor - School of Informatics, IUPUI, Indianapolis IN USA and IUPUC, Columbus IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com