OK, my "not nuanced" comment was for the reference made earlier to password protected sites only. In other words, if a site is password protected, IRB is going to ask that you use your informed consent form even if the password protection is "weak" and it takes 10 seconds to sign up. In other words, they won't consider whether it is easy to sign up or hard to sign up. When confronted with the option, IRB chooses the more conservative ground and say "It is better to be safe than sorry" so distribute your consent forms even if you think that anyone can access it in 10 seconds. In that regard, they don't see the distinction. i am not saying this is good or bad, I am saying this is usually the case. However, I do agree that IRB is not a monolithic entity and each institution is different (a comment made earlier). And I do agree with what Jeremy said in his previous email. BsB On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Porter, James E. Dr. <porterje@muohio.edu>wrote:
Rather than entering the research enterprise with the above points as assumptions, I would advise researchers to begin the process with these points as questions: For example, Are there members of my institution's IRB who actually have experience with Internet research and who could not only understand my research but actually productively help advise its design? Did the writers of this blog actually *intend* to publish this work for public display and circulation?
i don't think this is a valid test, you can't get to the information you want without intervening and thus breaking the model of research. Intent in any case is mutable, they might intend it today and not intend it tomorrow.
I agree, intent is tricky. But I was not proposing intent as a litmus test or ethical prescription. I was proposing it as a question to be asked as part of the process of research ethics. If the answer happens to be, "No, as far as I can tell from available information, the writer did not intend" ... well, that doesn't necessarily mean consent is required or the data cannot be used. Not at all. There may be other compelling reasons in force, such as the ones you mention (e.g., document already exists in a publicly available archive). Again, my point is not an ethical prescription, it's a point about research process: (1) ask the question, and (2) answer the question in terms of particular circumstances. Your follow-up questions are just the kind of circumstantial questions I think researchers should be asking.
The question I'd ask here is less intent but 'where can i find the data?' Is it in a search engine, is it in an archive, is it in the library of congress archive, etc. etc. Has it been referenced or referred to by other people? in other words is there clear evidence that the public is using this published document?
Best, Jim Porter
------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition
Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@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://www.aoir.org/
-- Thanks, Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media Lawrence University http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/ -- "Come to the dark side, we have cookies." ~Anonymous