I'd like to ask then a sort of meta question here. I am working with internet research ethics, particularly with regards to 3D virtual environments (SL) but also about how/if ethics may differ depending on application and other contextual factors. If I wanted to analyze this discussion on research ethics that has been going on on this list, what would you suggest would be the right way to approach the issue of consent? While this list is publicly archived (at http://listserv.aoir.org/pipermail/air-l-aoir.org/) some people here have explicitly claimed that might not be a sufficient requirement to use data without consent. This ties in to a problem I have pondered already before. If you disagree with your research participants wether not getting consent or not would be harmful, is it your word or theirs that count? (An odd, but authentic example: You research publicly posted material, political blogs for example, and encounter a blog that has a post that says they hate researchers who dont get consent). It seems that when we say that "the ground rule is that if you post it on the web its public" we mean that as a truth that disqualifies the expectations and wishes of some people. Do we follow the participants wishes against what we think is better knowledge or do we own up to the fact that research sometimes involves dominance? -asa -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fran: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org]For Charlie Balch Skickat: den 13 augusti 2007 20:11 Till: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Amne: Re: [Air-L] Public/ Private It should be noted that the act of deleting internet content does not remove its availability. Sites like http://archive.org claim to record the entire internet history and provide free access and comparisons of content changes. I've occasionally explored the evolution of content using archive.org (I've no association other than an occasional user). My interest has mostly been how business and government sites change but the possibility of looking at revisionist blogs is a fascinating research opportunity. I've also written software that allows me to "scrape" or aggregate public information when the owners would not or could not provide the database for analysis. I've not published the information collected from my scrapes for a variety of reasons. Mostly because I'm lazy and the value of self-selected responses to surveys are very questionable. Then again, I suspect I could find "serious flaws" in almost *any* research design. I continue to be amazed that research provides useful results despite how easy it is to find errors in the research process. As a bottom line, if you post it on the net, it is public. The publisher might regret their post but that does not make it private. Yes, additional exposure might bring some greater harm to the poster but the poster has brought it upon themselves. IRBs should focus on research where an *intervention* might cause the participant harm. Charlie Balch Me.D, MBA, Ph.D yada yada professor of Computer Information Systems Arizona Western College http://charlie.balch.org _______________________________________________ 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/