Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality
At 04:03 PM 12/21/2004, Thomas Koenig wrote:
If, under such circumstances, sociologists have any doubt whatsoever about the need for informed consent, they consult with institutional review boards or, in the absence of such boards, with another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research before proceeding with such research.
The ASA guidelines you quote are actually very consistent with the AoIR guidelines. In the portion excerpted above, they indicate that there may be ambiguous situations that require careful thought and negotiation with the IRB. Beyond this quote, the ASA guidelines go on to be more restrictive about the study of populations at risk. Your focus on only the first sentence, permitting study in public, is a highly selective reading of what you have quoted. They do not imply that one can go do whatever one wants in research. As others have pointed out here, blogs are not all the same and there are various circumstances in which a blog -- or other internet site --may not be entirely "public." Because the original post on this question did not detail the circumstances, it is simply irresponsible to tell the person, "hey, go ahead, it's all public," without knowing all of the facts. It may be the case that the material is public, it may not be. I'm on vacation and frankly am not looking for a fight on this. Personally, I don't disagree with you that much of what is available on the 'net is public and fair game for study, and I do that kind of work myself. I don't know your research and am not trying to criticize it. But I would never recommend that another researcher simply do what I have done without knowing to what degree the situation is the same. To do so assumes that "one size fits all."
I do not think that I advocate a "one size fits all" approach. But I do want to have a law that allows in principle for quotation of blogs and the like, and then specifies some narrow exemptions to that rule. Just like the ASA guidelines do.
Yeah, and I want Santa to bring me a new Porsche for Christmas. But I don't have a lot of control over that. And (aside from the fact that the ASA and AoIR guidelines are essentially saying the same thing) we as researchers don't simply get to wish for the rules by which we conduct research -- we have to live with the rules governments and institutions lay out for us. The guidelines, once again, are not "a law," but are there, as are the ASA and other disciplinary guidelines, to help us not run afoul of those governmental and institutional rules. ------ Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Asst. Professor of Communication/Linguistics, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain
Selon "Mark D. Johns" <johnsmar@luther.edu>:
At 04:03 PM 12/21/2004, Thomas Koenig wrote:
If, under such circumstances, sociologists have any doubt whatsoever about the need for informed consent, they consult with institutional review boards or, in the absence of such boards, with another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research before proceeding with such research.
The ASA guidelines you quote are actually very consistent with the AoIR guidelines.
Sure, they are, but they are also consistent with a number of other guidelines, since they are less specific.
In the portion excerpted above, they indicate that there may be ambiguous situations that require careful thought and negotiation with the IRB.
And I agree on that. But there is nothing ambigious to me about, if a non-password protected blog, whose link is published, a website with a published link or a Usenet posting is public. The AoIR guidelines are far more specific and too restrictive here. They say, when it comes to the determination of what is public and what is private one should ask questions like: "Is there is a posted site policy that establishes specific expectations e.g., a statement notifying users that the site is public, the possible technical limits to privacy in specific areas or domains, etc." That to me is a too high of a demand. Should you only be allowed to quote a journalist, if he or she states somewhere in the paper: "I am aware that the New York Times is available at low cost to the general public. Therefore I waive my right to privacy."? What matters for me, is not assumptions or expectations, but the mere fact that something is obviously publicly available.
Beyond this quote, the ASA guidelines go on to be more restrictive about the study of populations at risk.
And they name the poulations at risk: Children, immgrants, mentally ill persons. I am unsure about immigrants, but, of course, children and mentally ill do deserve special protection.
Your focus on only the first sentence, permitting study in public, is a highly selective reading of what you have quoted. They do not imply that one can go do whatever one wants in research.
And neither did I.
As others have pointed out here, blogs are not all the same and there are various circumstances in which a blog -- or other internet site --may not be entirely "public."
And I agree.
Because the original post on this question did not detail the circumstances, it is simply irresponsible to tell the person, "hey, go ahead, it's all public," without knowing all of the facts. It may be the case that the material is public, it may not be.
When I hear "blogging" I assume, it is an unprotected webblog. What leads you to the assumption that it is not? Oriana would surely have mentioned this detail, as it seems obvious to me that password-protection might lead to different considerations.
But I would never recommend that another researcher simply do what I have done without knowing to what degree the situation is the same. To do so assumes that "one size fits all."
I did not make an explicit recommendation, but I just gave the guideline: "Chances are, your webblogs are fair game when it comes to national laws. Your IRB or professional association may still see it differently." The AoIR guidelines seem to imply: "Chances are, you will have a hard time to establish if webblogs are private or public."
Yeah, and I want Santa to bring me a new Porsche for Christmas.
Good luck on that one. :-)
we as researchers don't simply get to wish for the rules by which we conduct research -- we have to live with the rules governments and institutions lay out for us.
Yes, I agree, but I still have not seen any national laws, which would relegate the typical webblog to the private sphere. -- thomas koenig, ph.d. department of social sciences, loughborough university, u.k. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html
At 10:42 AM 12/22/2004, Thomas Koenig wrote:
What matters for me, is not assumptions or expectations, but the mere fact that something is obviously publicly available.
Thomas continues to support his points with language of "I think...," "I wish...," and "what matters for me." Well and good. He is entitled to his opinions (some of which I happen to share). However, I hope that anyone still reading this thread by now has caught my point that, despite what we might think or wish for (even at Christmastime), restrictions apply with which we might not agree, but by which we will nevertheless be forced to abide.
When I hear "blogging" I assume, it is an unprotected webblog. What leads you to the assumption that it is not? Oriana would surely have mentioned this detail, as it seems obvious to me that password-protection might lead to different considerations.
Assumptions are what get us into trouble. My assumption was not that the site was public or not, but that Oriana needed to make her own determinations. To assume that everything is public unless protected in a certain way that WE would consider adequate does not make it so. Again, my personal opinion, or Thomas's, is rather beside the point.
Yes, I agree, but I still have not seen any national laws, which would relegate the typical webblog to the private sphere.
There is not a lot of explicit legislation, for which I am very thankful. I, for one, would like to keep it that way by not having some huge public scandal about someone's misguided research. The track record of legislation in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would not suggest that it would go in our favor as researchers (see, for example, the highly restrictive Communications Decency Act of 1996 in the U.S. Fortunately that law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. But there's no guarantee, particularly in the climate of the current administration, that we would be as fortunate the next time.). Legislation governing research is already more restrictive in the E.U., generally, than in the U.S. But the absence of legislation does not mean there is no law governing these issues. The body of law is expanded whenever a civil litigation is settled and precedents are set. In the U.S., certainly, and elsewhere, the litigious atmosphere has made institutions extremely cautious, and IRBs have become far more concerned with covering the institutional backside from lawsuits than in following the letter of the legislation while guaranteeing academic freedom. The pressure upon, and the level of apprehension within, IRBs is considerable. The AoIR guidelines are designed to serve three purposes: First, they help us to be ethical researchers who respect the human subjects of our research -- that's a given. But more, they also help us design research projects that will not run afoul of these highly apprehensive IRBs. Third, they help IRBs set standards for Internet research that are reasonable. However restrictive some may find the AoIR guidelines to be, they have been a light burden, indeed, compared to some of the (in my view) completely unreasonable restrictions imposed upon many researchers by zealous IRBs who have neither understood nor cared to understand the technology or the nuances of what constitutes public or private, but who simply feared anything they didn't fully understand might get them sued. The guidelines can be used by researchers in their negotiations with IRBs to demonstrate a reasonable standard that enjoys wide, international acceptance. (By the way, the AoIR Ethics Committee hopes that any who have used the guidelines in this way will report their experience at http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/AoIR/AoIRform.htm.) This will be my final word on this thread for now. However, it remains dangerous on many levels for us, as internet researchers, to make decisions based solely on our own opinions or assumptions. We owe it to ourselves, our research subjects, our institutions, and to the wider research community to be deliberate and careful about our methods and the reporting of our findings. This does not mean that we will all reach the same conclusions. It certainly does not mean that I, or AoIR, or anyone else, can dictate to Thomas or to Oriana how they must proceed. What it means is that none of us will be quick jump in and decide, without careful deliberation and negotiation, what is permitted and what is restricted in any given situation. ------ Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Asst. Professor of Communication/Linguistics, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain
participants (2)
-
Mark D. Johns -
Thomas Koenig