Hi all! Before tossing in my opinions, let me give you a little bit of my background since it does make a difference here. I'm a grad student doing research with Amy Bruckman (who helped draft the AoIR guidelines, AAAS guidelines, forthcoming APA guidelines, etc.). I'm also a member of Georgia Tech's IRB, however. So, I've had that formal training and often approach things from that perspective. Nonetheless, I'll say the standard disclaimer that these are all my opinions and my interpretation of the ethics and regulation of the situation. That said, this is all really nasty and complicated. Consider the case of using the archived messages from a discussion group. On one hand, Jenny makes a nice point about work being exempt if the subjects remain anonymous. Unfortunately, that's a really big "if". In all likelihood, the person doing this research would want to quote the messages to make some of the points. Most likely, a Google search on the quote would pull up the archive. Therefore, anonymity cannot be taken for granted even if the researcher actively changes the names in written accounts. Now, even if that work was exempted from IRB oversight, that does not exempt the researchers from requirements of consent. My filing with the IRB in the first place, the researcher acknowledges that this is human subjects research. And, it does in fact fit the formal definition of human subjects research (gathering personally identifiable information). So, we have to get consent from people in the archive before we use their data. By definition, this means that our hypothetical researcher must get consent from everyone who's data they use. The researcher is not excused if they cannot reach someone because the email address was shut off years ago. But, there's another side to that story. What about the take that the archive is actually an archive of copyrighted work? In this case, we don't need consent, but we, instead, have to actively cite all of the messages. If we are wanting to say critical things or talk about sensitive topics, this may not be appropriate. As for the answer, I don't know. I usually try to think about it on a case by case basis. Nonetheless, this is a really difficult issue that Amy has explored in more detail in a journal article she is working on. I also want to add a little to Nancy's point about the greater good. She asks the question: "Is the knowledge gain really going to outweigh potential damage done to those studied?" As an IRB member, this is the first question that I ask about any study I see. Sometimes, research holds the potential to harm subjects, but the knowledge gain justifies the potential harm. I would just clarify, however, that asking this question focuses attention on both the question the researcher is trying to answer and their method. If the research question justifies the harm, but the method won't satisfactorily answer the question, maybe the study shouldn't be done. There's a second question, however. Are the subjects aware of the risk and voluntarily consenting to the study nonetheless? Subjects have a right to be fully informed in choosing whether or not to consent. When researchers do not answer this question, they run the risk of the university not standing behind them. So, when is consent not necessary? Some research cannot be done if subjects must consent. In the US, consent can be waived by an IRB if four conditions are met (45 cfr 46.116d): 1. Research involves no more than minimal risk 2. Waiving consent would not "adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects" 3. "Research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver" 4. Debriefing subjects afterwards, when appropriate. It's been a while since I read the details of the Glaser case, so I won't comment on whether or not he met these conditions and how ethical his research was. It's important to note, however, that the guidelines for waiving consent are rather stringent. Waiving documentation of consent, however, is a different issue and is typically significantly easier. This leads to my response to Laura's question about some people misinterpreting the "greater good." Yes, researchers tend to see anything they want to do as serving the greater good. This is human nature. That is why these decisions need to be a result of an interactive discussion between the researcher, the research community, and the IRB. Typically, IRBs are viewed as the enemy (and sometimes they are). Often, I believe this is because the IRBs simply are not well informed on the issues surrounding every academic community. This can be overcome, however, through the type of discussion I'm advocating. I think it's great to see this type of discussion on the aoir list. I know my response has been long winded, but I think this is a really important issue that we need to actively consider as a community. After all, there are no easy answers here. Thanks, Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Hudson | Ph.D. Student College of Computing | jhudson@cc.gatech.edu Georgia Tech | http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~jhudson Atlanta, GA 30332-0280 | Phone: 404-894-9761 | Fax: 404-894-0673 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jenny Stromer-Galley Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:19 PM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Science News Online: The Social Net Interesting question. My sense is that if a researcher is looking at an archive of discussion, as long as the participants remain anonymous in the research findings write-up, such analysis is fine and ethical. My human subjects board would require me to file with them to notify them that I was doing such archival work, but such research would be exempt from any formal oversight by the human subjects board. ~Jenny ----- Original Message ----- From: Kris Gowen To: air-l@aoir.org Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:14 PM Subject: RE: [Air-l] Science News Online: The Social Net Would it be different, ethically, for a researcher to analyze archives on a message board discussing the same topic? L. Kris Gowen, PhD Senior Research Associate Foundation for Accountability kgowen@facct.org www.facct.org