If I may ask: Why? Is it because the avatars somehow "represent" humans (or vice versa)? Can we be sure that the "harms" we may identify in the case of human subjects are ones that could also harm avatars? Might there be avatar-specific "harms" to which we should attend? What was behind the Review Board's decision? And how does it define "online identity?" Sj On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604
Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> 03/08/08 4:26 AM >>> The question was.... "When I take pictures of any random person using a building in sl, am I doing human subjects research?'
Our Review Board guidelines say that online identities must be afforded the same protection from harm as real world identities. They would see avatars as human subjects.
Marj
_______________________________________________ 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/