On Aug 11, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
The only way to respectfully judge an author’s choice of an “intended audience” is to ask them, otherwise we are using mind-reading to “protect” those we see and vulnerable in some fashion. I will say here that I have much more problem with the idea of “mind-reading” people’s intentions than I have with saying publicly accessible communication is “overheard” or equivalent to a letter to the editor, and therefore open country for research.
further, informed consent is about consenting to allowing ones material to be used IN RESEARCH.... not just read. A lot of the arguments presented in favor of not asking/informing have to do with the material being readily available for READING . . . which strikes me as a different matter than material that is knowingly allowed to be treated as research data. I know.... if the stuff if fully public, one doesn't have to ask for that informed consent. But I believe that there are so many grey areas in online communication (both in terms of private/public expectations AND intentions about recipients) that seeking informed consent of subjects is pretty important. I have to wonder how many bloggers who willingly and self- consciously put their stuff out for everyone to read would respond when informed that their material was used as research data in a specific study . . . one that, perhaps, isn't about what they are interested in (or thought they were doing) at all? Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau