Prof. Johnson shared with me that this was a multipart study with the second part being ethnographic interviews. As it was submitted to the irb as one study, and each part was not separate, I think it is easy to see how the irb could think there were privacy issues created between the published article and the private interviewee. I could see this too. For this to be documentary research to be treated as documentary research, the two must be kept separate. Research on the documents, should not allow inference to research on the people beyond what the documents say about the people as that is published knowledge, unless of course one is doing oral history, then the documents and people can be intertwined apparently. this comment is u.s. centric. -j