Ed Lamoureux said:
My good friend Jeremy has even
taken the position that the people that produce these texts aren't even subjects. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree.
Jeremy Hunsinger said:
They are 'subjects' just not the type of subject defined by human subject research, which as I've said several times is clear, a subject is someone you intervene with or someone whose private information you have. that is what the fed says they are. THat does not mean that they are not ethical subjects or that we do not have certain responsibilities of care in our research, it just means that for the terms of human subjects review, studying texts is not studying human subjects.
I can't agree with the definition of a subject as simply *someone* you intervene with or *someone* whose private information you have. A subject should be a *unique someone* in one's research, a single person and not a single persona (unless of course your research design specifically addresses this issue of multiple personas). While the opinions expressed in a blog like Jeremy's can be attributed relatively safely to him, opinions in a forum or behaviors in an online world cannot be attributed to any single person. In my book, failing to convincingly address the issue of web anonymity is sloppy research. A signed consent form goes some way (but not all the way) in addressing this very real problem. just my two euro-cents. George Floros, MD MSc Medical research methodology, Thessaloniki , Greece.