Edward writes: "if you are chatting in the knowing presence of others, you know who can hear you and you can moderate your volume based on who you want to listen. <snip> so in the case of data collected from the internet . . . did the subject have a reasonable expectation that YOU would be observing them? Did they have the chance to modulate their transmission based on your presence?" I find this very interesting. Clearly, most people will moderate their tone and volume in a coffee shop or other venue where others are around. We can assume that what is easily heard is not "private," or relatively less so than communications made at a volume below the hearing threshold. In web communications, it seems according to this thread, that which is available for millions of people to easily overhear can not be so easily considered to be "public" as the loud bragging of the oaf at the bar (though this can be overheard by only a few people). I do not contest this, but I am curious as to why someone may consider an easily read document (or viewed pictures) to be at all safe from prying eyes. I think there is something fundamental going on here that ought to be investigated. Its not just blogs, but also the phenomenon of recording one's crimes on their phone, which makes prosecution astoundingly easy. What's going on in a broader cultural sense that makes people publicly broadcast, or close to it, what they really intend to be privately held? I just can't believe that there are that many deeply ignorant people out there.... Cheers, Cam
The expectation of privacy argument is a slippery slope. I think it is important to work through the slippery slime but we cant forget its still slippery and will never be clear-cut. Here is my thinking on the topic. The teens I study have made a decision, knowledgeable or not, to post their blogs on public spaces. As many of us who study teens have found in discussions with young blog authors, they know their blogs are publicly accessible but dont think anyone but their friends would want to read their posts (see Bortree, 2005, March). Is that an expectation of privacy or the authors ignoring the possibility that their public musings will not be overlooked? These are not equivalent terms, an expectation of privacy implies that they understood their work was private I can say that as well but if Im disclosing private personal information to a single person, but Im doing so on a cell phone in a crowded elevator its not private even if I want to think that it is. As for the audience issue, whose definition of audience gains primacy? I really think this is the core of the of the public/private debate in that we all use the word audience but we mean totally different things by the term. Does the authors intended audience get the most points, even though the work is available to anyone who has access to an internet connection? Does the actual audience count more than the authors intentions, personally I never thought anyone outside my department would read my blog I was wrong the actual audience is quite different than my initial intended audience. Plus the text itself has an implied intended audience, what if the authors stated intentions and their communicative ones differ? The only way to respectfully judge an authors choice of an intended audience is to ask them, otherwise we are using mind-reading to protect those we see and vulnerable in some fashion. I will say here that I have much more problem with the idea of mind-reading peoples intentions than I have with saying publicly accessible communication is overheard or equivalent to a letter to the editor, and therefore open country for research. I know other disciplines have struggled with the mind-reading part of the intent debate. Because those struggles have gone before us and IRBs have a history to judge the overheard conversation between two people in a public venue. Check out sociology and anthropology literature, among other disciplines, to see how they handle overheard dialogue. Reference List Bortree, D. (2005, March). Presentation of self on the web: An ethnographic study of teenage girls' weblogs. Education, Communication & Information, 5(1), 25-39. Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Student - School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Adjunct Instructor - School of Informatics, IUPUI, Indianapolis IN USA and IUPUC, Columbus IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com
On Aug 11, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
The only way to respectfully judge an author’s choice of an “intended audience” is to ask them, otherwise we are using mind-reading to “protect” those we see and vulnerable in some fashion. I will say here that I have much more problem with the idea of “mind-reading” people’s intentions than I have with saying publicly accessible communication is “overheard” or equivalent to a letter to the editor, and therefore open country for research.
further, informed consent is about consenting to allowing ones material to be used IN RESEARCH.... not just read. A lot of the arguments presented in favor of not asking/informing have to do with the material being readily available for READING . . . which strikes me as a different matter than material that is knowingly allowed to be treated as research data. I know.... if the stuff if fully public, one doesn't have to ask for that informed consent. But I believe that there are so many grey areas in online communication (both in terms of private/public expectations AND intentions about recipients) that seeking informed consent of subjects is pretty important. I have to wonder how many bloggers who willingly and self- consciously put their stuff out for everyone to read would respond when informed that their material was used as research data in a specific study . . . one that, perhaps, isn't about what they are interested in (or thought they were doing) at all? Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau
A lot of the arguments presented in favor of not asking/informing have to do with the material being readily available for READING . . . which strikes me as a different matter than material that is knowingly allowed to be treated as research data .
what isn't research data? I mean... as researchers, only very few research traditions allow one to make clear demarkations and I know that I generally make no differentiation between what what I read and think about and my topics of research. Some people are more formal, sure, but I think that the tendency to formalize and demarkate that barrier is one of the many things that pushes research toward irrelevancy. I keep in mind the idea of a research journal as recommended to almost all researchers in all kinds of fields, in a journal one takes notes on anything that might be of interest... I think that so far the public/private debate has been put forth by people who think that there are real and discernable barriers between public and private, owned and not, original author and not. I think we need to be highly skeptical about any barrier to research, barrier to interpretation, and barriers in general.
I know.... if the stuff if fully public, one doesn't have to ask for that informed consent. But I believe that there are so many grey areas in online communication (both in terms of private/public expectations AND intentions about recipients) that seeking informed consent of subjects is pretty important. I have to wonder how many bloggers who willingly and self- consciously put their stuff out for everyone to read would respond when informed that their material was used as research data in a specific study . . . one that, perhaps, isn't about what they are interested in (or thought they were doing) at all?
I don't think they can have a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy, and given the history of research on the web and the public coverage of that research in the blogosphere, i don't think anyone that is not behind a password should have an expectation that they publicly available words will not be used in research. Indeed, I can point to probably 100 or so people on the list who have archives of some type not only of various blogs, blog communities, or otherwise online content. Keep in mind also that there are licenses and other ways that bloggers and other web content creators can use to require prior contact before use of their published materials. That those exist, and are used by some, to me indicates to me that the ones that do not are either not informed of their existence, and thus do not care to be informed, or are otherwise indisposed to use them. Informed consent comes into play when there is a possibility of harm. I do not think it comes into play to protect property rights or otherwise dealing with the ethics of property. Jeremy Hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. --Byron
On Aug 11, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
don't think they can have a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy, and given the history of research on the web and the public coverage of that research in the blogosphere, i don't think anyone that is not behind a password should have an expectation that they publicly available words will not be used in research. Indeed, I can point to probably 100 or so people on the list who have archives of some type not only of various blogs, blog communities, or otherwise online content.
Ok So you are studying "abnormal sexual proclivities in everyday American life." You find a REAL juicy blog . . . in which person X writes some pretty darned racy stuff for the entire world to see (if they want) ... but normally, really, only their friends go there.... (but you are right, anyone could). Down the road, you publish the piece in an online journal. That item is SO important to your argument that you publish a nice long quote from the data. Some readers come along, google the string, and get led back to your subject and write to them, wondering why they are SO damned abnormal, sexually speaking. Now . . . I would say that the subject has not been protected. I would say that without their permission, you've exposed their character to personal damage. You've not only used their material without permission and used their material as data for a study, you've also labeled them as abnormal AND drawn people's attention to them as such . . . WITH your university-researcher's authority as an expert, without so much as asking them if they understand what you are up to or it it's ok to use their material. Gee... I kinda think that's the sort of thing that human subject protection is supposed to stop, isn't it? Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau
OK, Similar hypothetical: A group of people engage in a fetish festival on a public street. Pretty racy and revealing stuff going on. As a researcher, I take pictures and observe the interactions and include them in a best seller called "Weird fetishists and the weird fetishes they engage in weirdly." Years later, this gets back to the participants, and they are tres embarrassed. Have I violated... anything? Certainly not anything legally. I can take pictures of a public festival on public property. Have I invaded their privacy? No. They might not have *expected* to encounter their conservative mother-in-law at the festival, but they knew it was a public happening, and anyone could drop by. If they were concerned about people knowing they had an "unnatural" affinity to balloons and Scotch tape, they would either (a) wear a mask, or (b) do it behind closed doors--both of which are options online as well. Of course, people often would rather their prior public acts could be covered up. But human subject protection is not absolute! Mitigating the harm (e.g., by asking everyone in the festival for their permission to be studied) in many cases is just an unreasonable burden for studying public behavior. The benefit of understanding society--our work has worth--is more important. Alex On 8/11/07, Ed Lamoureux <ell@bumail.bradley.edu> wrote:
Ok So you are studying "abnormal sexual proclivities in everyday American life." You find a REAL juicy blog . . . in which person X writes some pretty darned racy stuff for the entire world to see (if they want) ... but normally, really, only their friends go there.... (but you are right, anyone could).
Down the road, you publish the piece in an online journal. That item is SO important to your argument that you publish a nice long quote from the data.
Some readers come along, google the string, and get led back to your subject and write to them, wondering why they are SO damned abnormal, sexually speaking.
Now . . . I would say that the subject has not been protected. I would say that without their permission, you've exposed their character to personal damage. You've not only used their material without permission and used their material as data for a study, you've also labeled them as abnormal AND drawn people's attention to them as such . . . WITH your university-researcher's authority as an expert, without so much as asking them if they understand what you are up to or it it's ok to use their material.
Gee... I kinda think that's the sort of thing that human subject protection is supposed to stop, isn't it?
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau
_______________________________________________ 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 email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [X] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //
Alex, correct, roughly, on one level. that is . . . you could probably publish without running afoul of "rights of privacy" torts in most states. No guarantee that you'd not end up in court challenged over it... but you might well win due to the "public" factors you mention. However, there is a HUGE difference, in my view. Your photos, and this hypothetical, were not posed as a data collection in social science, approved by an IRB, sort of activity. In fact, as posed, you weren't doing social scientific research at all. Were you doing social scientific research and had you selected those people as research subjects in your work, your IRB would probably have wanted to have a talk with you about the use of photography . . . for one of the hallmarks of human subjects protection is that the data NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT IN A WAY THAT CAN HARM THEM. You violated that. They had the right to be asked. In public or not. On Aug 11, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Alex Halavais wrote:
Similar hypothetical: A group of people engage in a fetish festival on a public street. Pretty racy and revealing stuff going on. As a researcher, I take pictures and observe the interactions and include them in a best seller called "Weird fetishists and the weird fetishes they engage in weirdly." Years later, this gets back to the participants, and they are tres embarrassed.
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau
. for one of the hallmarks of human subjects protection is that the data NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT IN A WAY THAT CAN HARM THEM.
actually, no, that's not a great interpretation of the current guidelines. that might be the interpretation of your board, but it is not a universal interpretation of the rules. there is no prohibition on harm, it is a balancing of harm, or a minimal risk of harm in relation to the public benefit. It is not important that the data be connected to the individual, it is that it is private data. published data is very hard to claim as private data. for those very interested in these topics: http://www.irbforum.org/ jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
Ed, I'm really enjoying everything you say, and I wanted to say thanks again for continuing to participate in this discussion. More to follow, naturally. ;) Ed Lamoureux wrote:
Down the road, you publish the piece in an online journal. That item is SO important to your argument that you publish a nice long quote from the data.
Some readers come along, google the string, and get led back to your subject and write to them, wondering why they are SO damned abnormal, sexually speaking.
I think Alex's response to this was quite good, but it didn't mention explicitly the dimension that jumped out at me: the subject is not being exposed "in person"; rather, a link to the online identity is exposed. I know that online identity issues and correlation with real-world personas is a whole 'nother can of worms, but that's definitely how I see it. I agree with Alex's analogy about street festivities. This whole "don't put it on your MySpace thing or prospective employers will see it!" fear is not new. People have been managing identities for as long as they've been able to communicate. It's only been a newsworthy trope because it was a surprise to some people who are fundamentally uneducated in the ways of the web.
Now . . . I would say that the subject has not been protected. I would say that without their permission, you've exposed their character to personal damage. You've not only used their material without permission and used their material as data for a study, you've also labeled them as abnormal AND drawn people's attention to them as such . . . WITH your university-researcher's authority as an expert, without so much as asking them if they understand what you are up to or it it's ok to use their material.
Gee... I kinda think that's the sort of thing that human subject protection is supposed to stop, isn't it?
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau
_______________________________________________ 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/
Some readers come along, google the string, and get led back to your subject and write to them, wondering why they are SO damned abnormal, sexually speaking.
and that wouldn't have happened otherwise? I'm afraid i don't see where the addition of the quotation has added any new harm. It might have opened up the material to a new community.
Now . . . I would say that the subject has not been protected.
protected from what? people's opinion? public scorn? now, if a person could be fired for their blogging, which is the case, then perhaps that would be a harm, but... to what extent is my article harming them? is the materials existence in the world harming them, is there actions harming them, is google or other search engine harming them. did they receive harm from their public action? or from me?
I would say that without their permission, you've exposed their character to personal damage. You've not only used their material without permission and used their material as data for a study, you've also labeled them as abnormal AND drawn people's attention to them as such . . . WITH your university-researcher's authority as an expert, without so much as asking them if they understand what you are up to or it it's ok to use their material.
I've not in this case added any more harm to the possible body of harm that already exists. It is a public blog, if a person finds the quote through my article is no different than them stumbling upon it via google, a newspaper, or any other position. that i've quoted it may add something, but I don't necessarily see that addition of harm.
Gee... I kinda think that's the sort of thing that human subject protection is supposed to stop, isn't it?
not necessarily. human subject protection is supposed to balance the possible harms to the subject against the possible benefits of the research... at least that's the position of the irb manuals i've read. In this case, the harm that would be added to the possible harm that exists for the subject is minimal in relation to the public good of the research. jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
Ed, I'm having real problems understanding where you are coming from. I feel like I'm reading someone arguing that the Tuskegee Syphilis Research was bad...with people who are arguing the reverse. I don't think that is really where the rest of us are positioned. Many years ago, I did EEO case preparation. One of the rules we lived by was called The Rule of Ten, and I think it applies to what we do as researchers as well. The rule works like this...if I went up to ten random people on the street...now they have to be "similar" to the complainant, so ten black women or ten men over 50 years of age...and did to them or said to them, etc. what was done to the complainant would they be upset? It's a pretty good test to think your way through, and to use in discussion with others. So would ten random people on the street be harmed if I took their public words and used them in a study? And harmed doesn't mean not joyously happy...it means harmed. A journal article that is published in an academic venue is no more likely to lead someone back to the real life person behind the blog then their everyday postings. You are not exposing them to a new audience, maybe a bit brighter light I agree...but the audience is already there and much larger than any group an academic article will tap, they have a potential audience of everyone on the planet who has any access to the internet. Also I would like to say that getting a release doesn't mean participants can't be harmed by the research. It simply means they were informed of possible harms...it passes responsibility to them for their decision to be part of, say an MRI study. They could conceivably still be physically, emotionally, etc. harmed by the research. Is there a chance of harm from any of the research we do...a small one for most projects. And I can be hit by a falling satellite when I take my walk this evening...life is full of minimal risks, and more than a few maximal ones as well. The issue is not making anything risk-free, that's impossible. The issue is are the risks known, and are the known risks low enough that subjects are protected...if the known risks aren't low enough then the subjects must be informed of the risks and allowed to make a personal decision on their participation. Nothing in the law or the Human Subjects documentation I've read has ever said "risk-free" it says, and rightly so, "minimal risk." Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Student - School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Adjunct Instructor - School of Informatics, IUPUI, Indianapolis IN USA and IUPUC, Columbus IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com Quoting Ed Lamoureux <ell@bumail.bradley.edu>:
On Aug 11, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
The only way to respectfully judge an author?s choice of an ?intended audience? is to ask them, otherwise we are using mind-reading to ?protect? those we see and vulnerable in some fashion. I will say here that I have much more problem with the idea of ?mind-reading? people?s intentions than I have with saying publicly accessible communication is ?overheard? or equivalent to a letter to the editor, and therefore open country for research.
further, informed consent is about consenting to allowing ones material to be used IN RESEARCH.... not just read. A lot of the arguments presented in favor of not asking/informing have to do with the material being readily available for READING . . . which strikes me as a different matter than material that is knowingly allowed to be treated as research data. I know.... if the stuff if fully public, one doesn't have to ask for that informed consent. But I believe that there are so many grey areas in online communication (both in terms of private/public expectations AND intentions about recipients) that seeking informed consent of subjects is pretty important. I have to wonder how many bloggers who willingly and self- consciously put their stuff out for everyone to read would respond when informed that their material was used as research data in a specific study . . . one that, perhaps, isn't about what they are interested in (or thought they were doing) at all?
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau
_______________________________________________ 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/
On Aug 11, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
So would ten random people on the street be harmed if I took their public words and used them in a study?
if their words weren't traceable to them as individuals . . . and those words were in public . . . would probably be ok But their pictures are traceable directly to them... for years to come . . . if that's the data . . .then to protect them from harm.... by given them a chance to decide if they want to be involved in research in which their data is connected to them . . . you'd need to ask. I didn't bring photos into the discussion. But they ARE an interesting addition.... in that they illustrate, by analogy, the problem on the web, with words. Often, now, words CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THEIR ORIGINATOR in ways that f-2-f data that we collected and protected cannot. Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau
And, as a result of this constant recording and archiving, maybe society will change and become more accepting, because it will become clear that pretty much no-one is squeaky clean. We can hope. Here's another angle on the public/private debate: what is the ethical position regarding an easily-overheard (ie impossible to avoid) conversation in a public place? http://london-underground.blogspot.com/2007/08/you-never-know-who-youre-sitt ing-next.html M-H On 12/8/07 9:15 AM, "Ed Lamoureux" <ell@bumail.bradley.edu> wrote:
I didn't bring photos into the discussion. But they ARE an interesting addition.... in that they illustrate, by analogy, the problem on the web, with words. Often, now, words CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THEIR ORIGINATOR in ways that f-2-f data that we collected and protected cannot.
As an aside, I confronted this issue of public/private myself in my dissertation proposal and IRB application: http://reagle.org/joseph/2006/disp/proposal.html#heading27 This was difficult for me because I find it difficult to strictly place my work in a particular discipline. That is, I feel myself to be much closer to a historian than a sociologist, but many of my sources are still presently alive. I think in the case of Wikipedia I do benefit from the fact that there are both explicit (e.g., privacy policies) and implicit (e.g., the wiki culture, a great deal of interest) markers of the public character of wiki actions and discourse. But, to consider another case. There are a number of prominent intellectuals criticizing Wikipedia in one form or another, often publishing on their blogs; these might not have the same explicit privacy policies -- this is not surprising as the blog and blogging is under the direct control the person. I also, reasonably IMHO, treat these as publications and available for comment by me. Indeed, there is an expectation of response and argumentation. Could it be possible that in comparing criticism of Wikipedia with that that occurred in 1968 around the publication of Merriam-Webster's Third Edition one of these critics might not like how I characterize their position? Yes. But they publish that position in public, under a chosen identity, and to require a consent form to engage the arguments of prominent journalists or librarians seems, again IMHO, ridiculous. Even to speak with them, or to speak to other important folks about the historical record of electronic encyclopedic reference works, under a consent form seems inappropriate and not something most historians practice -- though they do of course have their own ethics and practices. However, so as to move my dissertation proposal forward, this is one of the concessions I made: subsequent nonpublic conversations that I use as a source in my work will be covered by a consent form. Note here, another caveat. I might have nonpublic conversations with people, that I do not use, and are not covered by a consent form. Because of my topic, Wikipedia, I actually think it would be impossible to not go about my daily life and not speak, or even just hear, something about Wikipedia. Once when I was in the elevator, I heard two other people speaking about Wikipedia, perhaps this influenced me in some way -- though of course I'm not citing this conversation in my dissertation -- and I mused to myself that under the consent-maximalist position I would have to either put my fingers in my ears, or ask them to stop until they sign a consent form. In the end, this is why I found AoIR Ethics Working Committee "questions to ask when undertaking Internet research" (Ess et al. 2002) to be useful. There are a number of factors that the researcher, regardless of discipline, should consider (e.g., venue, expectations, participants, type of content, sensitivity, etc.). But I think it is inappropriate to have every single type of study which might involve a human evaluated in a binary fashion as if it were a psychological or medical study. -- Regards, http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/ Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
participants (8)
-
Alex Halavais -
Cameron Adams -
Conor Schaefer -
Ed Lamoureux -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
Joseph Reagle -
Lois Ann Scheidt -
Mary-Helen Ward