I hate to see this discussion become corrosive, but I also think it is a mistake to abandon the discussion entirely because of some differences of opinion. I'll reiterate that in my experience, studying public blogs--or for that matter any intentionally public page on the web--is usually the equivalent of studying newspaper articles. In both media, I have done the work with *no* IRB oversight. In early cases of looking at weblog content, I consulted informally with the chair of an IRB and verified that since no subjects were involved, no IRB application (expedited or otherwise) was necessary. And so, to Lois's comment... On 8/13/07, Lois Ann Scheidt <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
If the unit of analysis is the webpage only, then of course application to an IRB is required in the US. But it will, most likely be exempt level research.
That does not follow as an "of course" to me. Exemptions are generally for minimally invasive studies of subjects: i.e., of individuals. This includes, for example, materials that have already been made public through earlier work. But it does not apply to, for example, newspaper articles. I can see why the dichotomy between subjects and their communications could lead to confusion. Take, for example, the AOL Search Data that was made available. I think the ethical issues were discussed here on AIR-L. Could you make the argument that you are not studying people but their communications in that case? No, because any reasonable person typing their searches into a search engine would not expect those searches--especially streams of queries--to be made publicly available and identifiable. I acknowledge that bloggers may not always be cognizant of the *repercussions* of the public nature of their blogging. We are all familiar with stories of bloggers being "dooced" in one form or another, and I'll admit to having the "ZOMG my Mom reads my blog" moment more than once. Despite the fuzziness of the "reasonable person" and "reasonable expectation" language that shows up in so much US jurisprudence, I think it is fair to assume that when someone publishes something to the world, they mean for people to read it. Discussion and disagreements are important in this and in any ethical issue, but I am surprised by Ed's suggestion that there are substantial differences of opinion on the question on whether IRBs require full review for content analysis of blogs. But then, I'll also admit surprise that Lois's IRB requires expedited review of her group's studies. Without suggesting that the wider ethical question is without merit (I think that it is), I would be interested in hearing from those on the list who have published or presented content analyses of blogs, whether anyone has heard of an actual case where the IRB required review. I would also be interested in a clarification from Lois & Elijah, since they have published research in this area, whether they were required by their IRB to submit a formal application for exemption. I also wonder if someone on this very large list has served on an IRB and would be willing to add their voice. I admit that I am operating under the assumption that there is no substantial controversy on this topic from the perspective of IRBs--that their interpretation is that blogs are public--but I am willing to correct that understanding if there are examples of research of blog content for which local IRBs *have* required review. Best, Alex -- -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //