Jenny, To answer the point -- "upon what basis can a researcher declare that Americans who use the Internet give up their right to say no to being researched?" -- no offense, but how about common sense? We're not in the early adopter phase of the Internet in our country. Neilsen NetRatings for March 2004 indicated that 144,403,184 people were active users. That's half our population, and it grew by 3 million from February to March alone. Of those, 12 million were between the ages of 2-11. If you talk to children who use the Internet, even they know that what they post can be seen by others. And, if I as a citizen put my communication in a form that others can access, then I am giving up my right to say no to being researched. If I don't want to be subject to research, then I don't participate in communication activities where my interactions can be accessed by the public. It's the same as if I talk too loud about a sensitive topic. The moment my voice becomes a "public voice" in terms of volume, I have given up all rights to the communication being private. Thus, my point is that as researchers we don't have to carte blanche declare whatever we see online as "public" and therefore researchable. It is already public, and therefore researchable. Individual researchers can draw lines more narrowly if they want, but, for the community of scholars, as long as anonymity can be insured, people's public postings are fair game for research. Rod Rod Carveth, Associate Professor Department of Communication Rochester Institute of Technology 100 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623 585-429-6127 docrod@rit.edu "On the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog, but they do know if you are an ass."
From: "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@albany.edu> Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org To: <air-l@aoir.org> Subject: RE: [Air-l] Google is watching ! Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:47:16 -0400
Two thoughts to Rod's post.
First, upon what basis can a researcher declare that Americans who use the Internet give up their right to say no to being researched? Just because Americans are early adopters does not mean that they experience all of their interactions online as public. The premise that users of the Internet implicitly consent to be researched is unfounded. Not all Americans are savvy Internet users who understand how the Internet actually works. Even if they did, that does not entail that they have consented to be researched.
Second, it's not that "I" feel uncomfortable recording conversations. That's not my point. This conversation is about social ontology and ethics and not my personal psychology.
My point is that as researchers we cannot carte blanche declare whatever we see online as "public" and therefore researchable.
Sincerely, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley
-----Original Message-----
From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On Behalf Of Rod Carveth Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:59 PM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: RE: [Air-l] Google is watching !
Jenny,
<snip>
If a researcher wants to record the interactions of a GLBT support group, anonymity is pretty easy to insure -- just don't reveal the names (or any other identity revealing information) in the public dissemination of the data.
<snip>
This is not the same as the interactions of Internet users in the United States in an online support group. For example, people can lurk relatively anonymously in many groups, so the total number of people involved in the interaction is not known (unlike F2F). Second, the interactions are written down and can be archived, so there's a record of what is being said. In other words, participants in an online support group know that the nature of their communication is different than in F2F interaction. And, by agreeing to participate in an online forum, they are inherently agreeing to deal with those differences -- basically, they have given implied consent to having their interactions collected, analyzed, interpreted, etc.
Thus, given that participants' anonymity can easily be insured, and that interactants by their very participation have given their consent to their comments to be used as data, then I don't see anything ethically wrong with using their postings as data.
Jenny, if you are uncomfortable recording those conversations as data, then you can choose not to. I just happen to believe that those who choose to are not violating any ethical principles here.
Rod
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l