thank you to those who responded and thank you Charles for your long reply.
I appreciate the fact that you must have taken a fair sized chunk out of
your day to write your reply.
To set the scene...
1. Yes, I have read the AOIR Ethics document.
2. When I make a comment like "results are more important to me than
process", one should not feel at liberty to assume that I am making such
a statement with an absence of any respect for human rights. I am well
versed in what human rights are and have a very strong awareness of the
issues. My respect for human rights doesnt exist because such rights are
written in a document, my respect for them exists within me naturally.
Any comment on any issue that I make is governed by my own ethics, by my
own respect for human rights.
And I note that whilst it is true that people obsessed with results have
committed many hideous crimes upon humankind, so too have those obsessed
with process and simply "doing what they are told".
To reply...
The problems with setting standards for ethics in online research are many.
Firstly, ethical people probably dont need a great deal of guidance,
they may naturally fall within your consensus boundaries most of the
time, whilst someone hell bent on working outside of your ethical
boundaries will do so anyway - and such a person may have no problem
dishonestly manipulating their processes etc so that they appear to be
ethical. Its like the tax department tightening a few rules to catch tax
avoiders. All they usually achieve is making life more difficult for the
honest whilst the dishonest just find a new way of cheating.(maybe US
citizens pay their taxes honestly, here tax avoidance is a national pastime)
I dont believe a set of guidelines will ever prevent unethical
behaviour, all it does is make some people feel good :-)
Secondly, looking at the AOIR document as an example, whilst it tries to
be a guideline does it really change anything?
Does it really address all areas adequately or even consistently?
If I want to observe a usenet newsgroup are the AOIR guidelines
adequate? And are the guidelines for usenet research tactics beyond
controversy?
Do the restrictions contained in the guidelines make sense to everyone
for all circumstances and are they beyond argument?
And as another list member pointed out - arguments or justifications
about importance of a project are all matters of personal opinion.
Thirdly, I also wonder why AOIR members place such a high standard
against intrusion into peoples lives when our society has significantly
lower standards.
Everyday we see on our TV screens and in the paper, and in online news
services, intrusive photos of people and intrusive or revealing
information about them. Our society allows people to be identified when
only alleged to have committed a crime with no regard for how destroyed
their lives might be if found not guilty.
Cameras are poked into faces at times of grief, hardship etc with no
consideration at all for the individual.
Walk down the street and you can photographed and your picture published
in the paper without your consent.
Why is it that when you deliberately post in an unsecure and non private
forum on the internet you should enjoy perfect anonymity and privacy
when we live in a society that does not have the same standard?
What privacy did Mrs Beckham enjoy when allegations about her husbands
behaviour started to surface?
Was anyones identity protected?
................................................
I read a case study yesterday, by a commercial research company. They
observed both a usenet group and a moderated Yahoo forum.
They reasoned that since there was no moderator on the usenet forum they
did not need to seek permission - and I imagine there would be many who
would feel sympathetic to this view. They also argued that they did not
believe copyright was an issue for information on the usenet forum - I
imagine they would get a strong argument from many on this approach.
They did reason that they needed to ask permission from the moderators
of the Yahoo forum to enter the forum. Yet even this raises ethical
issues in my mind.
How can the moderators speak on behalf of all the members, and how can
the moderators hand over the copyright ownership of individual posts?
The other interesting issue in this instance was the fact that both
forums had archived posts going back to the mid and early 90's. This was
an attraction to the researchers. They happily went about using the
archived posts in their research.
But from an ethical viewpoint, isnt this also a problem? If its
necessary to ask for permission of members of a forum today to be able
to view their posts, shouldnt it also be ethical to ask permission from
those who posted in the past? And this is probably impossible since many
earlier members may have disappeared into thin air.
There was one other very interesting ethical question raised by the
study. The researchers observed that there were a few very regular
posters. They asked a few of them if they could reproduce the posting
exchanges in their study. The posters agreed, although one poster, who
was famous for his contributions, requested that his identity NOT be
concealed. It appears that the researchers agreed to this condition but
later changed their minds.Isnt this unethical?
Ethics appears to be a movable beast.
The problem with ethical "rules" is that in an area such as research of
a usenet forum, even though you might have general consensus on some
issues, you are also likely to have quite significant disagreement over
others. One might agree with everything in your AOIR guidelines but
passionately disagree over how to access usenet forums. Should one then
feel compelled to tow the "party line" over usenet forums, or is one at
risk of being branded "unethical" merely because one disagrees in one
area of endeavour.
.......................................................................
Let me conclude by exploring the area of human rights - an area you
brought up, Charles, in your reply.
At the ultimate level in scoiety I am bound by everyone elses universal
human rights and my need to respect the inalienable rights of others.
At the secondary level I am bound by the laws and standards that the
society I live in maintains.
Do I really need another set of rules telling me what I can and cant do
in matters of research when I am already bound by the rules above?
Do I need "ethical" guidelines to tell me how to deal with the privacy
of others when there are already laws in place to deal with this issue?
And, in imposing guidelines upon the researcher, arent you reducing
their enjoyment of their own human rights?
As I said above, the society that we live in has lesser standards than
your guidelines - and it is a basic human right for one to enjoy the
same rights as others in society.
Why should an internet researcher enjoy lesser rights than a journalist,
for example?
If the owner of a TV station is free to put a photo of me on the news
and identify me, why shouldnt I be free to capture a public moment in
time in a newsgroup and identify the words or actions of others?
I am not expecting the right to invade their privacy by entering a
private room, but I am expecting the right to discuss freely and openly
that which people have put on the public record. To me, posting in a
newsgroup is like walking down the street - you do so knowing everyone
can see you.
Well, thats just a few thoughts in reply Charles.
regards,
Eero Tarik
Adelaide
