Re: [Air-L] avatar research ethics
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
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/
A common method for protecting individuals is obscuring their identity via pseudonyms etc. Isn't this sort of the function an avatar plays? Assuming you do not divulge the real world identity, isn't anonymizing or otherwise protecting avatars sort of redundant? I am all for leaning on the side of caution, but either avatars are already pseudonyms for people or the avatars aren't real and should not be covered by IRB. I can't see a case for them actually being human, though I am very much up for hearing one... Thoughts? -Gordon Carlson -PhD student, UIC On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Steve Jones <sjones@uic.edu> wrote:
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Gordon Carlson C: 541-990-1155
The avatar is an identity unto itself - with a logic and history and social location in-world in secondlife. If you name the avatar - there are community formations that link the avatar to various social contexts - so naming the avatar might lead to tracing the avatar even "RL" - but even if it does not, secondlifers are very particular about their avatar privacy as well. at least this is my perception - I have been in secondlife in various modes since 2003 - and have encountered many people (including myself) who identify quite strongly with their avatars in-world - we have lives there (ridiculous as this may sound) and really just as much as I would not like my living room to be broadcast online (twittering is selective - so those of you who see me avidly twittering - dont for a moment think that's everything that's going on;-)) - I would not like everything I do on secondlife revealed. But revealing my avatar name in someone's research will allow for connections to be made. Having said that - there are many in-character bloggers and those can probably be used as published texts - again taking all the other cautionary notes that were said earlier into account. On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Gordon Carlson wrote:
A common method for protecting individuals is obscuring their identity via pseudonyms etc. Isn't this sort of the function an avatar plays? Assuming you do not divulge the real world identity, isn't anonymizing or otherwise protecting avatars sort of redundant?
I am all for leaning on the side of caution, but either avatars are already pseudonyms for people or the avatars aren't real and should not be covered by IRB. I can't see a case for them actually being human, though I am very much up for hearing one...
Thoughts?
Well, I can think of a few situations in which this is an issue. I'm hesitant to give too many details for fear of causing someone further embarrassment, but I do know someone who was quoted in a published, peer-reviewed piece of research and identified by avatar name, which gave me (and plenty of other people) enough information to identify the "real person" behind the avatar. Anyone who can Google could have done the same, and it was not a flattering quotation! I teased him about it as a friend, but I'm sure some people were less kind! It's a bit like saying quoting Mark Twain is sufficient to make Samuel Clemens anonymous, I suppose. Even if that wasn't the case, I always further anonymize avatars and online handles in my work because using them is a threat to online identity as much as "real identity". Even if no one could associate my offline "real" persona with my avatar in a MMOG or Second Life or even on a message board, I can still be impacted by it in major ways. My avatar might not be "real", but the way other avatars interact with it is a very real part of my experiences, and things attributed to it are a very real part of my identity, even if "only" online. Kristin Lindsley On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Gordon Carlson <gordycarlson@gmail.com> wrote:
A common method for protecting individuals is obscuring their identity via pseudonyms etc. Isn't this sort of the function an avatar plays? Assuming you do not divulge the real world identity, isn't anonymizing or otherwise protecting avatars sort of redundant?
I am all for leaning on the side of caution, but either avatars are already pseudonyms for people or the avatars aren't real and should not be covered by IRB. I can't see a case for them actually being human, though I am very much up for hearing one...
Thoughts?
-Gordon Carlson -PhD student, UIC
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Steve Jones <sjones@uic.edu> wrote:
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Gordon Carlson C: 541-990-1155 _______________________________________________ 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/
Are you buying this stuff? I'm not. My response which was rejected for length and I am not going to resend follows: I see it this way, the options for interpretation are (as I see them): 1. Avatars are, unto themselves, close enough to people to warrant protection as subjects. 2. Avatars are artifacts created by people, akin to a lively blog with pictures and constant updating. 3. Avatars are just toys like a doll but that are visible to many people In each case: 1. I don't think IRB groups are ready to handle this. If not, it might merit caution before choosing to execute a study because an ignorant IRB cannot investigate the issues yet; they lack the nuance necessary. Their lack of ability to protect avatars makes the study unduly dangerous as only the investigator could protect subjects (which we don't trust, hence IRB in the first place). 2. If they are artifacts then you treat them like blogs or public texts and the determination is whether they are public and thus fair game or whether they are expecting some level of privacy. It becomes a content analysis of sorts. I personally argue that because Second Life is inherently interactive and visible, there cannot be a significant expectation of privacy or anonymity: I think it is mostly akin to walking around in the real life streets in daylight. So the data is fair game much like analyzing a book and knowing who the author is (much like a rhetorical criticism). 3. If they are just dolls then the study is how people use them (and the associated data as necessary and relevant). I don't know enough about this area of research to know how to handle it. Strikes me as part of the general umbrella of psychology. I would love to hear others' opinions. Thoughts? -Gordon Carlson On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Steve Jones <sjones@uic.edu> wrote:
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Gordon Carlson C: 541-990-1155
participants (5)
-
Gordon Carlson -
Kristin Lindsley -
Marj Kibby -
Radhika Gajjala -
Steve Jones