- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: [Air-l] Re: internet research and confidentiality
by Dan L Burk 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

On 22 Dec 2004, elijah wright wrote: > usenet postings have always (afaik) enjoyed such protection. they're just > like any other piece of content authored by an individual. in the US, > author retains copyright by default, regardless of whether they file it or > not. Yes -- although the natural person may not always be considered the "author." And you can't enforce the copyright unless you register it. Neither of those rules would be true in most of the rest of the world. DLB Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** Voice: 612-626-8726 Fax: 612-625-2011

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Re: internet research and confidentiality
by Dan L Burk 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Hm -- No relevant change that I can think of. Anything fixed in a tangible medium of expression (including USENET feeds) is covered by copyright, certainly since 1989 and probably since 1976. This would be true in any Berne Convention or WTO country, including the U.S. DLB Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA *************************************** Voice: 612-626-8726 Fax: 612-625-2011 On 22 Dec 2004, Sheri Repucci wrote: > No one has mentioned copyright laws in this debate. > > US copyright laws have changed in recent years and it seems > that usenet postings now enjoy copyright protection in the US, > with some exceptions. From what I've read on this topic the > public/private nature of the posting site does not affect this > protection. > > -Sheri Repucci > National Coalition of Independent Scholars > ========================================== >

1 0

Re: internet research and confidentiality
by Sheri Repucci 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

No one has mentioned copyright laws in this debate. US copyright laws have changed in recent years and it seems that usenet postings now enjoy copyright protection in the US, with some exceptions. From what I've read on this topic the public/private nature of the posting site does not affect this protection. -Sheri Repucci National Coalition of Independent Scholars ========================================== > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:11:30 -0600 > From: "Mark D. Johns" <johnsmar(a)luther.edu> > Subject: Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041222121958.01a12008(a)pop.luther.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 10:42 AM 12/22/2004, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >What matters for me, is not assumptions or expectations, but the mere fact > >that something is obviously publicly available. > > Thomas continues to support his points with language of "I think...," "I > wish...," and "what matters for me." Well and good. He is entitled to his > opinions (some of which I happen to share). However, I hope that anyone > still reading this thread by now has caught my point that, despite what we > might think or wish for (even at Christmastime), restrictions apply with > which we might not agree, but by which we will nevertheless be forced to abide. > > >When I hear "blogging" I assume, it is an unprotected webblog. What leads > >you to the assumption that it is not? Oriana would surely have mentioned > >this detail, as it seems obvious to me that password-protection might lead > >to different considerations. > > Assumptions are what get us into trouble. My assumption was not that the > site was public or not, but that Oriana needed to make her own > determinations. To assume that everything is public unless protected in a > certain way that WE would consider adequate does not make it so. Again, my > personal opinion, or Thomas's, is rather beside the point. > > >Yes, I agree, but I still have not seen any national laws, which would > >relegate the typical webblog to the private sphere. > > There is not a lot of explicit legislation, for which I am very thankful. > I, for one, would like to keep it that way by not having some huge public > scandal about someone's misguided research. The track record of legislation > in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would not suggest that it > would go in our favor as researchers (see, for example, the highly > restrictive Communications Decency Act of 1996 in the U.S. Fortunately that > law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. But there's > no guarantee, particularly in the climate of the current administration, > that we would be as fortunate the next time.). Legislation governing > research is already more restrictive in the E.U., generally, than in the U.S. > > But the absence of legislation does not mean there is no law governing > these issues. The body of law is expanded whenever a civil litigation is > settled and precedents are set. In the U.S., certainly, and elsewhere, the > litigious atmosphere has made institutions extremely cautious, and IRBs > have become far more concerned with covering the institutional backside > from lawsuits than in following the letter of the legislation while > guaranteeing academic freedom. The pressure upon, and the level of > apprehension within, IRBs is considerable. > > The AoIR guidelines are designed to serve three purposes: First, they help > us to be ethical researchers who respect the human subjects of our research > -- that's a given. But more, they also help us design research projects > that will not run afoul of these highly apprehensive IRBs. Third, they help > IRBs set standards for Internet research that are reasonable. However > restrictive some may find the AoIR guidelines to be, they have been a light > burden, indeed, compared to some of the (in my view) completely > unreasonable restrictions imposed upon many researchers by zealous IRBs who > have neither understood nor cared to understand the technology or the > nuances of what constitutes public or private, but who simply feared > anything they didn't fully understand might get them sued. The guidelines > can be used by researchers in their negotiations with IRBs to demonstrate a > reasonable standard that enjoys wide, international acceptance. (By the > way, the AoIR Ethics Committee hopes that any who have used the guidelines > in this way will report their experience at > http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/AoIR/AoIRform.htm.) > > This will be my final word on this thread for now. However, it remains > dangerous on many levels for us, as internet researchers, to make decisions > based solely on our own opinions or assumptions. We owe it to ourselves, > our research subjects, our institutions, and to the wider research > community to be deliberate and careful about our methods and the reporting > of our findings. This does not mean that we will all reach the same > conclusions. It certainly does not mean that I, or AoIR, or anyone else, > can dictate to Thomas or to Oriana how they must proceed. What it means is > that none of us will be quick jump in and decide, without careful > deliberation and negotiation, what is permitted and what is restricted in > any given situation. > > ------ > Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. > Asst. Professor of Communication/Linguistics, > Luther College, Decorah, Iowa > http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ > ----------------------------------------------- > "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." > ---Mark Twain >

3 2

Re: Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality
by Oriana Solta Gatta 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Indeed, you have all given me much food for thought. It's clear that I should have been more explicit about my interest in blogging practices and the way I want my research to proceed. I am interested in looking at blogs that don't have the kind of wide circulation that blogs often discussed in the media do. More specifically, I'm interested in exploring the connections between journal writing and blogging and how the rhetoric of individualism (so intrinsic to Western notions of journal writing) plays out in blogging. As such, the bloggers I want to look at may have a different perspective on how public their blogs are, despite the fact that publishing something online would seem to make it public. And in addition to doing a content and formal analysis of blogs, I would like to dialogue with bloggers about their blogs and blogging practices. To me, then, it seems that I should not assume that they will answer my questions or be willing for me to use their blogs in my research. The question I originally posted to the listserv was not as well formulated as it could have been, but the upshot is that the conversation it sparked allowed me to think more deeply about what I was asking. Thanks for your multiple and informed perspectives, Oriana -----Original Message----- From: "Mark D. Johns" <johnsmar(a)luther.edu> To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:11:30 -0600 Subject: Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality At 10:42 AM 12/22/2004, Thomas Koenig wrote: >What matters for me, is not assumptions or expectations, but the mere fact >that something is obviously publicly available. Thomas continues to support his points with language of "I think...," "I wish...," and "what matters for me." Well and good. He is entitled to his opinions (some of which I happen to share). However, I hope that anyone still reading this thread by now has caught my point that, despite what we might think or wish for (even at Christmastime), restrictions apply with which we might not agree, but by which we will nevertheless be forced to abide. >When I hear "blogging" I assume, it is an unprotected webblog. What leads >you to the assumption that it is not? Oriana would surely have mentioned >this detail, as it seems obvious to me that password-protection might lead >to different considerations. Assumptions are what get us into trouble. My assumption was not that the site was public or not, but that Oriana needed to make her own determinations. To assume that everything is public unless protected in a certain way that WE would consider adequate does not make it so. Again, my personal opinion, or Thomas's, is rather beside the point. >Yes, I agree, but I still have not seen any national laws, which would >relegate the typical webblog to the private sphere. There is not a lot of explicit legislation, for which I am very thankful. I, for one, would like to keep it that way by not having some huge public scandal about someone's misguided research. The track record of legislation in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would not suggest that it would go in our favor as researchers (see, for example, the highly restrictive Communications Decency Act of 1996 in the U.S. Fortunately that law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. But there's no guarantee, particularly in the climate of the current administration, that we would be as fortunate the next time.). Legislation governing research is already more restrictive in the E.U., generally, than in the U.S. But the absence of legislation does not mean there is no law governing these issues. The body of law is expanded whenever a civil litigation is settled and precedents are set. In the U.S., certainly, and elsewhere, the litigious atmosphere has made institutions extremely cautious, and IRBs have become far more concerned with covering the institutional backside from lawsuits than in following the letter of the legislation while guaranteeing academic freedom. The pressure upon, and the level of apprehension within, IRBs is considerable. The AoIR guidelines are designed to serve three purposes: First, they help us to be ethical researchers who respect the human subjects of our research -- that's a given. But more, they also help us design research projects that will not run afoul of these highly apprehensive IRBs. Third, they help IRBs set standards for Internet research that are reasonable. However restrictive some may find the AoIR guidelines to be, they have been a light burden, indeed, compared to some of the (in my view) completely unreasonable restrictions imposed upon many researchers by zealous IRBs who have neither understood nor cared to understand the technology or the nuances of what constitutes public or private, but who simply feared anything they didn't fully understand might get them sued. The guidelines can be used by researchers in their negotiations with IRBs to demonstrate a reasonable standard that enjoys wide, international acceptance. (By the way, the AoIR Ethics Committee hopes that any who have used the guidelines in this way will report their experience at http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/AoIR/AoIRform.htm.) This will be my final word on this thread for now. However, it remains dangerous on many levels for us, as internet researchers, to make decisions based solely on our own opinions or assumptions. We owe it to ourselves, our research subjects, our institutions, and to the wider research community to be deliberate and careful about our methods and the reporting of our findings. This does not mean that we will all reach the same conclusions. It certainly does not mean that I, or AoIR, or anyone else, can dictate to Thomas or to Oriana how they must proceed. What it means is that none of us will be quick jump in and decide, without careful deliberation and negotiation, what is permitted and what is restricted in any given situation. ------ Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Asst. Professor of Communication/Linguistics, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain _______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org/airjoin.html

1 0

Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality
by Mark D. Johns 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

At 04:03 PM 12/21/2004, Thomas Koenig wrote: >If, under such circumstances, sociologists have any doubt whatsoever about >the need for informed consent, they consult with institutional review >boards or, in the absence of such boards, with another authoritative body >with expertise on the ethics of research before proceeding with such research. The ASA guidelines you quote are actually very consistent with the AoIR guidelines. In the portion excerpted above, they indicate that there may be ambiguous situations that require careful thought and negotiation with the IRB. Beyond this quote, the ASA guidelines go on to be more restrictive about the study of populations at risk. Your focus on only the first sentence, permitting study in public, is a highly selective reading of what you have quoted. They do not imply that one can go do whatever one wants in research. As others have pointed out here, blogs are not all the same and there are various circumstances in which a blog -- or other internet site --may not be entirely "public." Because the original post on this question did not detail the circumstances, it is simply irresponsible to tell the person, "hey, go ahead, it's all public," without knowing all of the facts. It may be the case that the material is public, it may not be. I'm on vacation and frankly am not looking for a fight on this. Personally, I don't disagree with you that much of what is available on the 'net is public and fair game for study, and I do that kind of work myself. I don't know your research and am not trying to criticize it. But I would never recommend that another researcher simply do what I have done without knowing to what degree the situation is the same. To do so assumes that "one size fits all." >I do not think that I advocate a "one size fits all" approach. But I do >want to have a law that allows in principle for quotation of blogs and the >like, and then specifies some narrow exemptions to that rule. Just like >the ASA guidelines do. Yeah, and I want Santa to bring me a new Porsche for Christmas. But I don't have a lot of control over that. And (aside from the fact that the ASA and AoIR guidelines are essentially saying the same thing) we as researchers don't simply get to wish for the rules by which we conduct research -- we have to live with the rules governments and institutions lay out for us. The guidelines, once again, are not "a law," but are there, as are the ASA and other disciplinary guidelines, to help us not run afoul of those governmental and institutional rules. ------ Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Asst. Professor of Communication/Linguistics, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain

2 2

internet research and confidentiality
by Oriana Solta Gatta 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Hello, I am now in the middle of filling out an IRB form for research that I intend to do on blogging practices, and it seems that any research done on "human subjects" must keep personally identifying information confidential. This is a difficult issue, since one's username and blog title would identify an individual, but they may also be understood as published/public information. If anyone has encountered a similar situation and can advise as to how I should proceed or who can offer research references that deal with this issue, that would be much appreciated. Take care, Oriana Gatta Women's Studies M.A. candidate Georgia State University

5 4

Re: internet research and confidentiality
by Michele H Jackson 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Hi - About a year ago, I polled list members about this and received great answers, most of which are included in the ethics guideline Mark Johns pointed to. HOWEVER, we found that our IRB here at CU was not very well educated on online communication and interaction, so I would add two things: (1) be very explicit in describing what the data are, and use layperson's language. (2) work from your institutions PI Handbook/Guidelines for "exempt" research. Publicly available discourse/public discourse is "exempt" (for example, rhetoricians who study political speeches don't have to change the name of the politicians they are studying). We were able to get exempt approval (which usually does not require informed consent and may not require confidentiality) by making clear that we were analyzing publicly available *texts.* Good luck - mj ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michele H. Jackson | jackson(a)colorado.edu Associate Professor | http://comm.colorado.edu/jackson Department of Communication | v:303-492-8139 University of Colorado | f:303-492-8411 Boulder, CO 80309-0270 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Graduate Study in Group Interaction at CU. see http://comm.colorado.edu/whitec/groupinteraction Associate Editor, Women's Studies in Communication. see http://www.orwac.org/

1 0

Re: Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality
by Oriana Solta Gatta 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Hello again, Thank you for the informative and thought-provoking responses to my questions. I think I will need to alternately consider blogs both public information and information that requires consent to use. Since my research will explore the interactions between blogging practices and identity construction, I intend to dialogue with bloggers (in addition to peforming a content and formal analysis of the blogs). I think this dialogue should include asking permission to use the blogs and the communication between us, since the relationship between the blog and the individual's personal identity will be an important part of my analysis. Elijah, I think looking at the "public information" wording of your IRB form will be helpful to the extent that it can explain the minimal risk bloggers would incur above and beyond everyday interaction. Again, your insights are much appreciated, Oriana Gatta M.A. Candidate Georgia State University -----Original Message----- From: elijah wright <elw(a)stderr.org> To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:29:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality Our IRB here (Indiana University) has taken the stance, with some coaxing from us, of considering weblogs public information - and thus not requiring any anonymization whatsoever. You should probably be prepared to fend off an angry message or two from bloggers who do not appreciate that you're using their blog in your research; people will probably figure out that something's going on from reading their referer logs. If you think that it would help, I think we could probably share the language we used in our last IRB applications in order to address just this issue. My personal understanding of the situation is that the information is public, but that you should certainly treat individuals with as much care and as ethically as possible. For our purposes (largely examination of genre characteristics and coding of features) the characteristics of individuals do not often seem to pose a problem, but for many types of study (for example, a piece of research that discusses blogging about sexual orientation or drug use) there may be repercussions for the studied blogger that need to be taken into very careful consideration. --elijah IU SLIS / Blog Research on Genre project http://www.blogninja.com > I am now in the middle of filling out an IRB form for research that I > intend to do on blogging practices, and it seems that any research done > on "human subjects" must keep personally identifying information > confidential. This is a difficult issue, since one's username and blog > title would identify an individual, but they may also be understood as > published/public information. If anyone has encountered a similar > situation and can advise as to how I should proceed or who can offer > research references that deal with this issue, that would be much > appreciated. > Take care, > Oriana Gatta > Women's Studies M.A. candidate > Georgia State University _______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org/airjoin.html

1 0

Question about undergrad courses on computing for Biology
by mboudour＠upatras.gr 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Hello Air, Next semester I am going to teach an undergrad course on computing for students of Biology in my University. Up to last year, I was just coordinating a group of co-workers graduate students who were presenting the elements and history of computing and the Internet together with some very introductory lessons on how to use MS Office and to surf the net. Since our students' computer literacy is becoming better every year and it appears in the recent years that almost all of them already have acquired a satisfactory level of computer skills (either by their own or in high school), I was thinking to do something more interesting this year. What I would like to do in this course might be an introduction to elementary ideas in CMC and a first discussion of the social impact of new media. Moreover, I was thinking of presenting some basic ideas of how the configurations of distributed knowledge or e-science might be used by Biology students and professionals. So, I would like to ask you to give me your suggestions about possible undergrad courses on computing for Biology or other relevant introductory courses that you might know (and that are around basic CMC and impact or e-science facts). Of course, net resources (links of syllabi, online courses etc.) are mostly welcomed. Best, --Moses M.A. Boudourides Associate Professor Department of Mathematics University of Patras 265 00 Rio-Patras Greece Tel.: +30-2610-996318 Fax: +30-2610-996318, +30-2610-992965 http://www.math.upatras.gr/~mboudour

2 1

second Yale ISP / IJCLP writing competition announcement: deadline February 1, 2005
by Rotenberg, Boris 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

http://www.ijclp.org http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/GlobalFlow/writingcompetition.html The Yale Law School Information Society Project ( ISP ), The Yale Journal of Law & Technology (YJoLT) and the International Journal of Communications Law and Policy ( IJCLP ) are pleased to announce their second interdisciplinary writing competition and a call for papers in conjunction with The Global Flow of Information Conference taking place on April 1-3, 2005 at Yale Law School. We invite students, scholars, policy makers, activists and practitioners to submit papers for the writing competition and/or for publication by YJoLT/IJCLP. Conference Description Patterns of information flow are one of the most important factors shaping globalization. Today individuals, groups, countries, and international organizations are trying to promote and control the flow of different kinds of information across national borders— information ranging from intellectual property and scientific research to political discourse, brand names and cultural symbols. And digitally networked environments subject information to ever new methods of distribution and manipulation. Fights over information flow are going to help define who holds power in the global information economy. The groundbreaking conference on Global Flows of Information, will explore these emerging patterns of information flow, and their political, economic, social, and cultural consequences. We will be looking at the following key questions in six different contexts: (1) governance; (2) economics; (3) culture; (4) politics; (5) science; (6) warfare: Can the flow of information across borders be controlled? If so, how? Whose interests are going to be affected by flows of information across borders? Who will be empowered and who will lose influence and authority? What role can or should law play in securing freedoms, rights, and democratic accountability as individuals, groups, and nations struggle over control of information flows? What lessons can we learn about how to regulate information flow from past experience with other kinds of flow across borders— for example, flows of goods, services, people, and capital? For a full conference description, list of speakers, schedule, and resources, please visit the Yale ISP web site ( http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/ ). Writing Competition Submissions for the writing competition must be received by noon EST, February 1st, 2005. The author of the best paper, as well as two runners-up will be invited to present their work at a panel during the conference. The author of the winning paper will receive coverage of his/her travel to and accommodations at Yale University for the conference. Selected papers will be announced by March 1st, 2005. The authors of the award-winning papers will automatically be invited to publish their work in special Fall 2005 volumes of the Yale Journal of Law & Technology (http://yjolt.org) and the International Journal of Communications Law and Policy ( http://www.ijclp.org ) devoted to the conference topic. Journal Publication Submissions for publication must be received by noon EST, May 1st, 2005 . The selection committee, composed of the editorial boards of YJoLT and IJCLP, will review and consider all submissions for publication in the special Fall Volume 2005 of the journals, including submissions for the writing competition. Authors will be notified of acceptance by June 1st, 2005. The journals reserve the right to decide which journal will publish which work, based on the journals' respective audiences and editorial expertise. Submission Guidelines All submissions should be written in English in .doc or .pdf format. They should conform to academic citation standards, be no longer than 25,000 words, and include an abstract of up to 250 words. Submissions should be e-mailed simultaneously to Simone Bonetti (simo.bonetti(a)tiscalinet.it) and Boris Rotenberg (boris_rotenberg(a)yahoo.it) lead editors IJCLP; as well as to Lawrence Cogswell (lawrence.cogswell(a)yale.edu) Editor-in-Chief, YJoLT. Inquiries may be addressed to any of the above.

2 1