On Aug 11, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
Doesn't this say clearly that if the blog (publicly available) already exists before your study begins, and was not set up for the purpose of your study then it is exempt?
Marj
Yes as along as the data set is "finished" before IRB review . . . HOWEVER, that's under the condition that the data cannot be tracked back to the individual. In that case, one would (at the U of I) need informed consent. And I think that's the core of the issue with web- netted stuff . . . the key feature (at least to me) is that the researcher can code and protect the data, and then array it later in publication, in such a way that the material used can't be tracked back to a subject who has not given informed consent. Not being able to do so problematizes the use of key/core passages as exemplars . . .If/when I collect materials from subjects f-2-f (in public or private with or without consent, depending on what I'm doing) I can keep indentifying materials safe by coding and lock and key; when I publish exemplars, there's no web-netted record of the material ever having been uttered as the words were written in the wind. But with blogs, the materials are present, available, and searchable and are often tied to the source with some expectation that others can track back and find them. If they can lead back to the subject, at least according to the UI protocol, the use of the materials may well require informed consent to qualify for the exemption from full review and vigilant committee oversight. Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program Bradley University