Are you buying this stuff? I'm not. My response which was rejected for length and I am not going to resend follows: I see it this way, the options for interpretation are (as I see them): 1. Avatars are, unto themselves, close enough to people to warrant protection as subjects. 2. Avatars are artifacts created by people, akin to a lively blog with pictures and constant updating. 3. Avatars are just toys like a doll but that are visible to many people In each case: 1. I don't think IRB groups are ready to handle this. If not, it might merit caution before choosing to execute a study because an ignorant IRB cannot investigate the issues yet; they lack the nuance necessary. Their lack of ability to protect avatars makes the study unduly dangerous as only the investigator could protect subjects (which we don't trust, hence IRB in the first place). 2. If they are artifacts then you treat them like blogs or public texts and the determination is whether they are public and thus fair game or whether they are expecting some level of privacy. It becomes a content analysis of sorts. I personally argue that because Second Life is inherently interactive and visible, there cannot be a significant expectation of privacy or anonymity: I think it is mostly akin to walking around in the real life streets in daylight. So the data is fair game much like analyzing a book and knowing who the author is (much like a rhetorical criticism). 3. If they are just dolls then the study is how people use them (and the associated data as necessary and relevant). I don't know enough about this area of research to know how to handle it. Strikes me as part of the general umbrella of psychology. I would love to hear others' opinions. Thoughts? -Gordon Carlson On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Steve Jones <sjones@uic.edu> wrote:
If I may ask: Why? Is it because the avatars somehow "represent" humans (or vice versa)? Can we be sure that the "harms" we may identify in the case of human subjects are ones that could also harm avatars? Might there be avatar-specific "harms" to which we should attend? What was behind the Review Board's decision? And how does it define "online identity?"
Sj
On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604
Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> 03/08/08 4:26 AM >>> The question was.... "When I take pictures of any random person using a building in sl, am I doing human subjects research?'
Our Review Board guidelines say that online identities must be afforded the same protection from harm as real world identities. They would see avatars as human subjects.
Marj
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@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://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@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://www.aoir.org/
-- Gordon Carlson C: 541-990-1155