Colleagues: My great thanks to Prof. Walther for taking the time to respond to my post: his constructively critical observations are precisely the sort of comments I had hoped might emerge here, as a way of helping the Ethics Working Committee move further along in its discussion, now with the infusion of additional insight and reflection. In particular, he is precisely right (so far as I can tell, at least) to point out
While there may be emerging consensus that human subjects research protections should extend to Internet research, there is a distinct non-consensus about what kinds of Internet research is Human Subjects Research. including his carefully developed argument that So at one extreme end, Usenet postings, at least as interpreted within the U.S. codes, are not protected. Precisely. Beyond the very helpful references to current U.S. codes, however, we are also faced with the larger questions: (1) since codes, including IRB standards, may well change, especially in light of various social and political pressures that emerge from the diffusion of a new technology - in what ways _should_ those codes be changed (if anyone bothers to ask us - smile!), in order to better represent the legitimate claims of researchers, ethical rights and responsibilities of both users and researchers, etc.? and (2) as important as current U.S. codes are - do they/will they provide sufficient ethical guidelines for a global medium and global community of researchers? Clearly, the latter is an especially difficult nut to crack - consider just the contrast between U.S. and U.K. attitudes and law towards protecting privacy online. As I understand it, at least, current U.S. law tends to privilege the right of individuals and corporations to "mine" data first, with concerns about protecting privacy left to individuals and special interest groups - in contrast with the default understanding in the UK that privacy as a right comes first, such that the burden of proof for any possible compromise of that privacy must be first established by interested corporations and individuals. (I have a similar - if somewhat more dated - sense that this is likewise the stance represented by various "data commissioners," etc., established especially in the Scandanavian countries - can somebody correct/update me here?) As we (I'm presuming here that the current majority of Internet researchers are U.S.-based - wrong again?) attempt to take into account even larger differences in cultural and ethical sensibilities - obviously (a) it will be incumbent upon researchers in any given locale to be aware of how far their own values, traditions, practices, etc., may or may not cohere with those associated with folk in different places and (b) it becomes proportionately harder (but not, I think, impossible) to find some coherency and/or consensus regarding at least some base-level guidelines. (One possibility here is a pluralist approach, one that distinguishes between those values and guidelines appropriate for work _within_ a specified cultural domain and those - more or less by definition, less specific because more global ["thin" in Michael Walzer's terms] - that might stand as a kind of moral common denominator among diverse cultural domains. Researcher/s might shape their work according to one or both sets of guidelines, depending on the "target" of their work - i.e., a specific local cultural domain and/or a broader/global cultural domain.) Still...
Some will argue that ethics and laws are not the same, and that these legalistic interpretations are US-centric. These points are valid. However, as Ess's argument implies, they are strongly related issues. No quarrel with you there!
Nor here:
I hope that the following is clear and obvious: Guidelines and concerns that may fit one kind of Internet venue (e.g. a live chat in which a researcher actively participates) may not fit other venues (e.g. the analysis of extant, publicaly-accessible postings). Guidelines and concerns that fit one kind of treatment of data (e.g. ethnographic analysis and reporting of texts) may not fit other treatments (e.g. abstraction through content analysis, feature analysis, etc.).
Precisely so.
I appreciate the work of those who are trying to articulate ethical guidelines. It is critical to avoid, however, claims about emerging consensus that do not explicitly consider the wide variation in research approaches, types of data, or the detailed aspects that define some procedures as human subjects research and others as exempt, that ultimately could constrain researchers from doing work that should otherwise proceed unencumbered. And I apologize for giving the impression of any strong sense of consensus that did _not_ take such variations into account, etc. I would say that the discussions we've had on the ethics list so far have done fair justice to the sorts of variation and detail that Prof. Walther rightly foregrounds here - but he has enriched that discussion (at least for me) with these fine-grained comments and observations.
Again, that was precisely my hope - many thanks! Additional comments, corrections, counterexamples, resources, etc., warmly welcomed. Cheers and best wishes, Charles Ess Chair, Philosophy and Religion Department Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/Departments/phil-relg/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC 2000: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/catac00/ "Egos appear by setting themselves apart from other egos. Persons appear by entering into relation to other persons." -- Martin Buber, _I and Thou_