Hi everyone There has been a development on an internal Faculty Association listserv at my university that I thought those of you interested in research ethics may wish to advise or comment on. First a little background. The provincial government hasdpromised to increase funding by 2% to postsecondary educaton sector last year. They reneged on that promise and slashed the budget by 7%. Our university Administration responded almost instantly by using a "financial stringency" clause in our collective agreement, giving lay off notices to about 25 academic and professional staff, included tenured faculty. We are a small university and so we have a faculty association listserv set up specifically for discussion of university issues. Tensions as you can imagine are running high and the listserv is very active. Like at most universities, there is tension between the Faculty of Business and the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Yesterday one member sent around an spreadsheet with what he described as "research" on how representative the discussion list was of the total membership. It included a list of the names of those who had contributed and ranked them in terms of the number of posts. He never stated his reasons for conducting such "research", although he did say that it is was an "internal document" for membership. Reaction was swift and explosive. Some people were outraged, claiming he had misused the list and their information. The list shows that majority of frequent posters were from one Faculty, leading some to state that this member, from the other faculty, was really trying to demonstrate that their opinions, almost all critical of the university administration, were overrepresented. Others expressed fear that this information could be forwarded on to the Administration (the member is apparently tight with the Acting VPA) and then used to shape the next round of lay offs (ie get rid of the "trouble makers.") Still others thought there was nothing wrong with sharing such "data", some suggesting that it could be useful information to encourage more diverse opinion. My feeling that it is completely unethical though because it is not formal research, it probably falls outside the purview of the Research Ethics Board. Still it does name names--had he just presented aggregated data grouped by Faculty, I don't think anyone would have said much of anything. It would be like me collecting data on everyone's posts here and then presenting my findings with your names here out of the blue Interested in your thoughts. Rhiannon Rhiannon Bury Associate Professor Women's and Gender Studies Athabasca University rbury@athabascau.ca @television2pt0
I don't see the problem with it. It is a compilation of data you all had access to and he released that data back to the same group. If he didn't release the names, it would be of no difficulty to figure out the outliers as, again, you all have access to the same source data. If all of you were in sitting in a circle, taking turns talking. And this 'researcher' took notes and said that 'Prof. Smith' is over representing his argument and I have the statistics, would that be objectionable? Again, it wasn't privileged information and from your information it wasn't released to outside sources. All it did was add clarity to the arguments represented (and pseudonyms in this case would offer no real protection, only weaken data). I think is situation sheds light on a problem with Computer-Mediated-Communications, there is often a false sense of distance between the speakers and the computer acts as shield when that simply is not the case. On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Rhiannon Bury <bury417@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Hi everyone
There has been a development on an internal Faculty Association listserv at my university that I thought those of you interested in research ethics may wish to advise or comment on.
First a little background. The provincial government hasdpromised to increase funding by 2% to postsecondary educaton sector last year. They reneged on that promise and slashed the budget by 7%. Our university Administration responded almost instantly by using a "financial stringency" clause in our collective agreement, giving lay off notices to about 25 academic and professional staff, included tenured faculty. We are a small university and so we have a faculty association listserv set up specifically for discussion of university issues. Tensions as you can imagine are running high and the listserv is very active. Like at most universities, there is tension between the Faculty of Business and the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Yesterday one member sent around an spreadsheet with what he described as "research" on how representative the discussion list was of the total membership. It included a list of the names of those who had contributed and ranked them in terms of the number of posts. He never stated his reasons for conducting such "research", although he did say that it is was an "internal document" for membership. Reaction was swift and explosive. Some people were outraged, claiming he had misused the list and their information. The list shows that majority of frequent posters were from one Faculty, leading some to state that this member, from the other faculty, was really trying to demonstrate that their opinions, almost all critical of the university administration, were overrepresented. Others expressed fear that this information could be forwarded on to the Administration (the member is apparently tight with the Acting VPA) and then used to shape the next round of lay offs (ie get rid of the "trouble makers.") Still others thought there was nothing wrong with sharing such "data", some suggesting that it could be useful information to encourage more diverse opinion.
My feeling that it is completely unethical though because it is not formal research, it probably falls outside the purview of the Research Ethics Board. Still it does name names--had he just presented aggregated data grouped by Faculty, I don't think anyone would have said much of anything. It would be like me collecting data on everyone's posts here and then presenting my findings with your names here out of the blue
Interested in your thoughts.
Rhiannon
Rhiannon Bury Associate Professor Women's and Gender Studies Athabasca University rbury@athabascau.ca
@television2pt0 _______________________________________________ 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/
This response makes a technical sense - especially if there were no clear terms of service / ethical requirements, etc. that needed to be agreed to before an account was given. But if there were such a ToS, then it might contain provisions that would apply one way or another? Moreover, the AoIR guidelines (in both 2002 and 2012) point to the importance of researchers taking into consideration the _sensitivity_ of information and whether or not release of sensitive information would possibly / likely result in harm. In general, the greater likelihood of harm, the more the burden lies on the researcher to ensure protection of anonymity, etc. What's interesting to me, after more than a decade of reading various ethical sections in diverse research reports, dissertations, etc. are the number of times researchers will in fact "go the extra mile" (a good Samaritan ethics) to do what they believe / feel / think to be the right thing - protecting their subjects from disclosure of potentially damaging information - even where extant policies and practices make no such requirement. FWIW: based on that reading and affiliated discussions with scores of researchers from a variety of cultures and traditions - I think it fair to say most of them would _not_ do something like this as so very likely to result in serious damage to those named, etc. A more minimalist approach - intended as a descriptive, not normative statement - might go along the lines suggested here; but again, there might be one or more statements in a ToS that would shed important light on that. But finally, it seems clear that this is not "research" in the sense we are usually interested in and that would thus fall under the guidelines and suggestions of the relevant research communities. Rather, it seems clearly politically motivated and designed to serve as a form of intimidation, which in my tiny little mind disqualifies it as research in the sense I'm interested in and that the research communities we have worked with are concerned with. Whether or not the collector of the data has a right to disseminate this sort of data - e.g., in the name of freedom of speech - is another complication. Hope these are useful reflections in some way or another. - charles Associate Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication Director, Centre for Research on Media Innovations <http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/research/center/media-innovations/> University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no On 02.05.13 20:59, "Joshua Treadway" <listserv.aoir.org@elkears.com> wrote:
I don't see the problem with it. It is a compilation of data you all had access to and he released that data back to the same group. If he didn't release the names, it would be of no difficulty to figure out the outliers as, again, you all have access to the same source data.
If all of you were in sitting in a circle, taking turns talking. And this 'researcher' took notes and said that 'Prof. Smith' is over representing his argument and I have the statistics, would that be objectionable?
Again, it wasn't privileged information and from your information it wasn't released to outside sources. All it did was add clarity to the arguments represented (and pseudonyms in this case would offer no real protection, only weaken data).
I think is situation sheds light on a problem with Computer-Mediated-Communications, there is often a false sense of distance between the speakers and the computer acts as shield when that simply is not the case.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Rhiannon Bury <bury417@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Hi everyone
There has been a development on an internal Faculty Association listserv at my university that I thought those of you interested in research ethics may wish to advise or comment on.
First a little background. The provincial government hasdpromised to increase funding by 2% to postsecondary educaton sector last year. They reneged on that promise and slashed the budget by 7%. Our university Administration responded almost instantly by using a "financial stringency" clause in our collective agreement, giving lay off notices to about 25 academic and professional staff, included tenured faculty. We are a small university and so we have a faculty association listserv set up specifically for discussion of university issues. Tensions as you can imagine are running high and the listserv is very active. Like at most universities, there is tension between the Faculty of Business and the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Yesterday one member sent around an spreadsheet with what he described as "research" on how representative the discussion list was of the total membership. It included a list of the names of those who had contributed and ranked them in terms of the number of posts. He never stated his reasons for conducting such "research", although he did say that it is was an "internal document" for membership. Reaction was swift and explosive. Some people were outraged, claiming he had misused the list and their information. The list shows that majority of frequent posters were from one Faculty, leading some to state that this member, from the other faculty, was really trying to demonstrate that their opinions, almost all critical of the university administration, were overrepresented. Others expressed fear that this information could be forwarded on to the Administration (the member is apparently tight with the Acting VPA) and then used to shape the next round of lay offs (ie get rid of the "trouble makers.") Still others thought there was nothing wrong with sharing such "data", some suggesting that it could be useful information to encourage more diverse opinion.
My feeling that it is completely unethical though because it is not formal research, it probably falls outside the purview of the Research Ethics Board. Still it does name names--had he just presented aggregated data grouped by Faculty, I don't think anyone would have said much of anything. It would be like me collecting data on everyone's posts here and then presenting my findings with your names here out of the blue
Interested in your thoughts.
Rhiannon
Rhiannon Bury Associate Professor Women's and Gender Studies Athabasca University rbury@athabascau.ca
@television2pt0 _______________________________________________ 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/
Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. This does help clarify in my mind thatsharing of the so-called "data" was a political and ideological strategy done under theguise of "objective research." The Faculty union who administers the listserv stated later today that they will be discussing a moderation policy at the next Executive meeting. They recognize freedom of speech and open debate need to be balanced with the desire for an inclusive community and safe space and that such a balance is a difficult one to strike. Rhiannon ________________________________ From: Charles Ess <charles.ess@gmail.com> To: Joshua Treadway <listserv.aoir.org@elkears.com>; Rhiannon Bury <bury417@yahoo.ca>; Air list <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 1:51:12 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] ethics and listservs This response makes a technical sense - especially if there were no clear terms of service / ethical requirements, etc. that needed to be agreed to before an account was given. But if there were such a ToS, then it might contain provisions that would apply one way or another? Moreover, the AoIR guidelines (in both 2002 and 2012) point to the importance of researchers taking into consideration the _sensitivity_ of information and whether or not release of sensitive information would possibly / likely result in harm. In general, the greater likelihood of harm, the more the burden lies on the researcher to ensure protection of anonymity, etc. What's interesting to me, after more than a decade of reading various ethical sections in diverse research reports, dissertations, etc. are the number of times researchers will in fact "go the extra mile" (a good Samaritan ethics) to do what they believe / feel / think to be the right thing - protecting their subjects from disclosure of potentially damaging information - even where extant policies and practices make no such requirement. FWIW: based on that reading and affiliated discussions with scores of researchers from a variety of cultures and traditions - I think it fair to say most of them would _not_ do something like this as so very likely to result in serious damage to those named, etc. A more minimalist approach - intended as a descriptive, not normative statement - might go along the lines suggested here; but again, there might be one or more statements in a ToS that would shed important light on that. But finally, it seems clear that this is not "research" in the sense we are usually interested in and that would thus fall under the guidelines and suggestions of the relevant research communities. Rather, it seems clearly politically motivated and designed to serve as a form of intimidation, which in my tiny little mind disqualifies it as research in the sense I'm interested in and that the research communities we have worked with are concerned with. Whether or not the collector of the data has a right to disseminate this sort of data - e.g., in the name of freedom of speech - is another complication. Hope these are useful reflections in some way or another. - charles Associate Professor in Media Studies Department of Media and Communication Director, Centre for Research on Media Innovations <http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/research/center/media-innovations/> University of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern NO-0317 Oslo Norway email: charles.ess@media.uio.no On 02.05.13 20:59, "Joshua Treadway" <listserv.aoir.org@elkears.com> wrote:
I don't see the problem with it. It is a compilation of data you all had access to and he released that data back to the same group. If he didn't release the names, it would be of no difficulty to figure out the outliers as, again, you all have access to the same source data.
If all of you were in sitting in a circle, taking turns talking. And this 'researcher' took notes and said that 'Prof. Smith' is over representing his argument and I have the statistics, would that be objectionable?
Again, it wasn't privileged information and from your information it wasn't released to outside sources. All it did was add clarity to the arguments represented (and pseudonyms in this case would offer no real protection, only weaken data).
I think is situation sheds light on a problem with Computer-Mediated-Communications, there is often a false sense of distance between the speakers and the computer acts as shield when that simply is not the case.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Rhiannon Bury <bury417@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Hi everyone
There has been a development on an internal Faculty Association listserv at my university that I thought those of you interested in research ethics may wish to advise or comment on.
First a little background. The provincial government hasdpromised to increase funding by 2% to postsecondary educaton sector last year. They reneged on that promise and slashed the budget by 7%. Our university Administration responded almost instantly by using a "financial stringency" clause in our collective agreement, giving lay off notices to about 25 academic and professional staff, included tenured faculty. We are a small university and so we have a faculty association listserv set up specifically for discussion of university issues. Tensions as you can imagine are running high and the listserv is very active. Like at most universities, there is tension between the Faculty of Business and the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Yesterday one member sent around an spreadsheet with what he described as "research" on how representative the discussion list was of the total membership. It included a list of the names of those who had contributed and ranked them in terms of the number of posts. He never stated his reasons for conducting such "research", although he did say that it is was an "internal document" for membership. Reaction was swift and explosive. Some people were outraged, claiming he had misused the list and their information. The list shows that majority of frequent posters were from one Faculty, leading some to state that this member, from the other faculty, was really trying to demonstrate that their opinions, almost all critical of the university administration, were overrepresented. Others expressed fear that this information could be forwarded on to the Administration (the member is apparently tight with the Acting VPA) and then used to shape the next round of lay offs (ie get rid of the "trouble makers.") Still others thought there was nothing wrong with sharing such "data", some suggesting that it could be useful information to encourage more diverse opinion.
My feeling that it is completely unethical though because it is not formal research, it probably falls outside the purview of the Research Ethics Board. Still it does name names--had he just presented aggregated data grouped by Faculty, I don't think anyone would have said much of anything. It would be like me collecting data on everyone's posts here and then presenting my findings with your names here out of the blue
Interested in your thoughts.
Rhiannon
Rhiannon Bury Associate Professor Women's and Gender Studies Athabasca University rbury@athabascau.ca
@television2pt0 _______________________________________________ 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/
Dear List, I'm running a course in Social Media Analysis in Sydney, 1-5 July. This course will provide students with an introduction to social media analysis in the context of social research. The course is designed for social researchers interested in social media, and covers methods of accessing and analysing digital trace data from websites, blogsites, Twitter and Facebook. While there is emphasis on social networks (e.g. WWW hyperlink networks, follower networks in Twitter, friendship networks in Facebook), analysing text content from social media is also covered. There will also be an introduction to using Virtual Worlds (e.g. Second Life and Massively Multiplayer Online Games) and online experiments for social research. Analytic approaches include social network analysis and text content analysis. The course also provides practical training in two software tools that can be used for social research using social media data: VOSON (for hyperlink network construction and analysis) and NodeXL (an Excel 2007/2010 template for social media network analysis). You can find out more about the course and how to book here: https://www.acspri.org.au/node/1080 Regards, Rob -- Dr Robert Ackland Associate Professor, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, The Australian National University e-mail: robert.ackland@anu.edu.au homepage: https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/ackland-rj project: http://voson.anu.edu.au Information about the Master of Social Research (Social Science of the Internet specialisation): http://adsri.anu.edu.au/graduate-study/msr CRICOS No: 061772F My book Web Social Science (SAGE) will be in bookstores in July --
From: Rhiannon Bury <bury417@yahoo.ca> Subject: [Air-L] ethics and listservs Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
My feeling that it is completely unethical though because it is not formal research, it probably falls outside the purview of the Research Ethics Board. Still it does name names--had he just presented aggregated data grouped by Faculty, I don't think anyone would have said much of anything. It would be like me collecting data on everyone's posts here and then presenting my findings with your names here out of the blue
integrity of data was not harmed, no data breach happened -- before and after the event the same people can access the same data. if the person released findings outside the mailing list, that could be problematic. but just to show what can be done with the data that all members have access to is a good thing. it's also something that can be called research, although not professional. if some people find the results surprising, it could have a positive educational effect. if you don't like that the data you produce can be digested in this way, you should refine your data handling / security / etc. policies, not shoot the messenger! ps: maybe you are trying to use 'ethics' here just to disqualify the arguments of another person in a debate? (just a hunch.) maxigas, kiberpunk When people say “society” i usually ask myself who the fuck is this society. ~ Angelo Lucia -- * * |metatron * * |research * * |unit FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166
participants (5)
-
Charles Ess -
Joshua Treadway -
maxigas -
Rhiannon Bury -
Robert Ackland