Unless I missed it no one has directly presented bloggers as journalists -- we don't ask journalists for their approval and get IRB forms when we do a content analysis on TV shows, news programs, or written items such as articles in newspapers, magazines, or journals. So, perhaps blogs aren't the new new media! (Two things: yes, people have stated that blogs are public, but I mean something different, and two, I'm thinking outloud, I'm not saying one should or should not get IRB approval -- this is a sort of meta-analysis of the ideas as I saw them -- blogs are often presented as an important adjunct to, or challenge to, journalism, but here were are clearly treating them differently -- this probably makes some sense given the often much more personal nature of some blogs, but nonetheless it is an interesting angle.) ndp... On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:40 PM, Mark D. Johns wrote:
At 11:48 AM 12/21/2004, you wrote:
We had this issue a while ago on this list, and I just want to repeat my view:
Blogging, Webpublishing and Usenet posting are demonstrably public activities. Unless you render the concept of "private" so ambigious that it becomes virtually unusable, this is an empirical fact, not a normative statement.
Therefore, publishing research on these kinds of communications does not violate any privacy/confidentialty laws. At least that is the case for most countries that guarantee some freedom of speech rights.
While I have no idea about the bylaws of specific universities or professional associations, I would strongly caution against regulations that curtail the rights of academics vis-a-vis non-affiliated citizens or even journalists.
Of course, some exceptions with respect to vulnerable persons apply, but by and large vulnerable persons do not do blogging.
BTW, you are not doing (experimental) research on human subjects, but on communications.
Thomas
That is your view, it is a common one, and you are entitled to it. However, there are other views that are equally valid. If you read the guidelines you would understand that they are simply that, not regulations. But, like it or not, some regulations, created not by AoIR but by various governments and institutions, do apply. What is legal in one jurisdiction is not always legal in another. What is legal is not always ethical. And what is legal and ethical is not always approved by an IRB. I'm simply pointing out -- as is AoIR in adopting the guidelines -- that this is not a simple, "one size fits all" issue. Much depends on the researcher, the nature of the research, where the institution happens to be located, and the views of the individual IRB. The guidelines are intended to help researchers like Oriana sort it all out.
------ Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Asst. Professor of Communication/Linguistics, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain _______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@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://aoir.org/airjoin.html
--------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. Lecturer Communication Studies University of Michigan www.umich.edu/~natpoor