One of our upper-level undergrads would like to write a paper about privacy using a slightly unusual methodology: he wants to find five informants who are willing to let him google them exhaustively in order to find out everything he can about them using legal, public online methods. Then he wants to show each informant the information and interview them, asking things like "did you know this information about you was accessible?" and more in order to find out something about what information people think is available about them, what is actually available about them, and how people feel about all the information out there about them and the possible disconnect between what they think and what is in fact out there. My gut reaction is that I wouldn't want to let a researcher "stalk" me online like that, and if I wouldn't want to be an informant maybe I shouldn't allow the project, right? But I'm also guessing that the project might be approved by the ethics board so long as there is clear, informed consent. And it'd be interesting to see the results. But beyond the ethics board: what do you think about a methodology like this? Do you share my gut reaction or am I overreacting? Would you let a student do it? And what might be better ways for a student to do a small scale research project on this topic? Jill Jill Walker Rettberg Professor of Digital Culture Dept of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies University of Bergen Postboks 7800 5020 Bergen + 47 55588431 Blog - http://jilltxt.net Twitter - http://twitter.com/jilltxt My latest book, Blogging (2nd ed), will be available from Polity from September 20: http://www.politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=0745663648