Research question: interviewing online subjects?
Hello all I've been reading the general sociology literature on conducting interviews as part of a research project, and some of the literature I have come across makes a point of noting that interviewers should be warning interviewees that any illegal or immoral behaviours uncovered during the course of the research/interview may be reported (for example, Adler and Adler, 2003). My questions in regards to this are: 1) Are those who have or are conducting online interviews or even interviews about internet issues making a point of such cautions? ( I suspect the two approaches have two separate answers). What are others' experiences of this as practice? 2) If so, what is the benchmark for classifying acceptable and unacceptable behaviours? (i.e.: the laws and norms of the interviewers context? Those of the physical jurisdiction of the interviewee, if known? The norms of the virtual group, network, or community under study?) I browsed through the AoIR Ethics Committee document on Internet research, and (as I read it) there seemed to be an implication that the physical jurisdiction of the research subject was the prime candidate for setting a legal or ethical standard more generally in regards to proper treatment of research subjects, but that was just my sense on a first reading. I would be very interested to hear the thoughts and experiences of others on this matter. I admit, as I was reading this, my first thought was 'who would I report it to anyway!' I look forward to hearing your thoughts. with thanks erika ~~ Erika Pearson Dept. of Media, Film and Communication. University of Otago P.O. Box 56 Dunedin 9054 Aotearoa/New Zealand Ph: (+0064 3) 479-8680 E-mail: erika.pearson@otago.ac.nz
Hey Erika, As someone who's also in the social work field, I believe it is important to include this policy in your research program and make it clearly know to your participants, in that it allows them NOT TO DISCLOSE information. A policy like this I think is above all empowering - it facilitates trust between researcher and researched because the participant knows exactly where you stand. I wouldn't use the word immoral though, just illegal. We all engage in immoral activity from time to time, based on someone's definition of the word. (Would you report someone who was engaged in extra-marital, consensual sex? Who would you report it to?) With regard to "Who would you report it to?" - It can be a bit of a non-question, in that the policy itself can prevent disclosure and therefore the need to report. If I need to report something, I would report it to the Australian Federal police (because my research is based in Australia, and the AFP can act on reports involving people outside the jurisdiction of other police organisations in this country). The big issue would lie in research across borders - would you report someone who's profiting from pirated music sales in Thailand or a country where there are no copyright laws? Or would you report a twenty-one year old for having sex with a seventeen year-old in Victoria, Australia (it's legal here)? paul teusner -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Erika Pearson Sent: Friday, 18 May 2007 11:24 To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Research question: interviewing online subjects? Hello all I've been reading the general sociology literature on conducting interviews as part of a research project, and some of the literature I have come across makes a point of noting that interviewers should be warning interviewees that any illegal or immoral behaviours uncovered during the course of the research/interview may be reported (for example, Adler and Adler, 2003). My questions in regards to this are: 1) Are those who have or are conducting online interviews or even interviews about internet issues making a point of such cautions? ( I suspect the two approaches have two separate answers). What are others' experiences of this as practice? 2) If so, what is the benchmark for classifying acceptable and unacceptable behaviours? (i.e.: the laws and norms of the interviewers context? Those of the physical jurisdiction of the interviewee, if known? The norms of the virtual group, network, or community under study?) I browsed through the AoIR Ethics Committee document on Internet research, and (as I read it) there seemed to be an implication that the physical jurisdiction of the research subject was the prime candidate for setting a legal or ethical standard more generally in regards to proper treatment of research subjects, but that was just my sense on a first reading. I would be very interested to hear the thoughts and experiences of others on this matter. I admit, as I was reading this, my first thought was 'who would I report it to anyway!' I look forward to hearing your thoughts. with thanks erika ~~ Erika Pearson Dept. of Media, Film and Communication. University of Otago P.O. Box 56 Dunedin 9054 Aotearoa/New Zealand Ph: (+0064 3) 479-8680 E-mail: erika.pearson@otago.ac.nz _______________________________________________ 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/
Usually the original approach to the participant includes the information of who they can complain to. I think this is pretty standard in successful ethics applications. You would usually start by complaining to the ethics committee at the institution that sponsored or approved the research. Ethics committees usually provide guidelines for these things, although they may need some stretching to include online studies. There is usually someone employed by the institution to explain these guidelines. That said, I didn't mention this specific issue on my ethics application and the committee that approved it didn't either. M-H On 18/05/2007, at 11:23 AM, Erika Pearson wrote:
Hello all
I've been reading the general sociology literature on conducting interviews as part of a research project, and some of the literature I have come across makes a point of noting that interviewers should be warning interviewees that any illegal or immoral behaviours uncovered during the course of the research/interview may be reported (for example, Adler and Adler, 2003).
My questions in regards to this are: 1) Are those who have or are conducting online interviews or even interviews about internet issues making a point of such cautions? ( I suspect the two approaches have two separate answers). What are others' experiences of this as practice?
2) If so, what is the benchmark for classifying acceptable and unacceptable behaviours? (i.e.: the laws and norms of the interviewers context? Those of the physical jurisdiction of the interviewee, if known? The norms of the virtual group, network, or community under study?)
I browsed through the AoIR Ethics Committee document on Internet research, and (as I read it) there seemed to be an implication that the physical jurisdiction of the research subject was the prime candidate for setting a legal or ethical standard more generally in regards to proper treatment of research subjects, but that was just my sense on a first reading. I would be very interested to hear the thoughts and experiences of others on this matter. I admit, as I was reading this, my first thought was 'who would I report it to anyway!'
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
with thanks erika
I my diss proposal approved some months ago by my ethics board. They insisted I insert a phrase in the informed consent letter detailing that I would be unable to guarantee confidentiality in the event of legal investigations. It was ludicrous of course because my research involves nothing remotely illegal and is simply a set of interviews among interactive agency workers. They also insisted I insert a paragraph that my university would not hold anything against them based on their participation. I can only infer there was a rash of disappointed undergraduate applicants that had participated in university-based research....none of my participants understood the reason behind that phrase either. The long and short of it is, IMHO, the ethics boards are bureaucratic and therefore irrational bodies that, ironically, have only rationalism to guide them. They certainly have the Soviet heavy "one size fits all" approach. It was similar to a mortgage application. If I were interested in a question of legality and research ethics, I might actually ask a lawyer and not an ethics administrator, but that's just me. On 5/17/07, Mary-Helen Ward <mhward@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
Usually the original approach to the participant includes the information of who they can complain to. I think this is pretty standard in successful ethics applications. You would usually start by complaining to the ethics committee at the institution that sponsored or approved the research.
Ethics committees usually provide guidelines for these things, although they may need some stretching to include online studies. There is usually someone employed by the institution to explain these guidelines.
That said, I didn't mention this specific issue on my ethics application and the committee that approved it didn't either.
M-H
On 18/05/2007, at 11:23 AM, Erika Pearson wrote:
Hello all
I've been reading the general sociology literature on conducting interviews as part of a research project, and some of the literature I have come across makes a point of noting that interviewers should be warning interviewees that any illegal or immoral behaviours uncovered during the course of the research/interview may be reported (for example, Adler and Adler, 2003).
My questions in regards to this are: 1) Are those who have or are conducting online interviews or even interviews about internet issues making a point of such cautions? ( I suspect the two approaches have two separate answers). What are others' experiences of this as practice?
2) If so, what is the benchmark for classifying acceptable and unacceptable behaviours? (i.e.: the laws and norms of the interviewers context? Those of the physical jurisdiction of the interviewee, if known? The norms of the virtual group, network, or community under study?)
I browsed through the AoIR Ethics Committee document on Internet research, and (as I read it) there seemed to be an implication that the physical jurisdiction of the research subject was the prime candidate for setting a legal or ethical standard more generally in regards to proper treatment of research subjects, but that was just my sense on a first reading. I would be very interested to hear the thoughts and experiences of others on this matter. I admit, as I was reading this, my first thought was 'who would I report it to anyway!'
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
with thanks erika
_______________________________________________ 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/
Our informed consent template is here: http://www.compliance.gatech.edu/IRB/informed.shtml The old version used to say something like (paraphrasing) "We will keep records confidential. However, you should be aware that research records can be obtained by a court subpoena." Interestingly, I don't see it in the current template. I'm not sure when they took that out or why. How much you warn folks about stuff like this depends on the details of the study. There are definitely situations where this is important. Clearly my friend at CDC who is studying risky health behaviors among gay men meeting eachother in chatrooms needs a different level of precaution than someone studying ad-hominem attacks on the AoIR list, for example. ;-) This paper might be of interest: "Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet", http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bru_full.html Internet research ethics is HARD. And fascinating. Getting mad at your IRB is not constructive. It's your job to build a positive and gracious relationship with them, and do your best to educate them on the subtlety of the issues. Square one is making sure they know that you take this stuff seriously and recognize that IRB oversite is important and you appreciate all the mostly thankless hard work they do. Step two is investing the time to have a detailed conversation about the details, providing published references as appropriate. YMMV, Amy Amy Bruckman Associate Professor College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0760 Tel: 404-894-9222 Fax: 404-894-3146 Email: asb@cc.gatech.edu Web: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/
On 5/18/07, Sam Ladner <samladner@gmail.com> wrote:
They also insisted I insert a paragraph that my university would not hold anything against them based on their participation. I can only infer there was a rash of disappointed undergraduate applicants that had participated in university-based research....none of my participants understood the reason behind that phrase either.
I have heard a lot of folks in the social sciences express frustration at IRBs and ethics boards, but I think it's very important to remember the basics of why they exist: to protect research subjects and represent their interests. Most researchers in all of the sciences (life sciences, social sciences, etc.) are very conscientious in their work, and would not willingly harm their subjects or expose them to suffering (in the case of animals used in life sciences research, for example). However, there have been far too many cases where scientists acted in ways that harmed (or could have harmed) subjects for the sake of their research. The IRB is an entity that is supposed to represent the interests of subjects, just as researchers represent their own interests. Some of the protections or informed-consent clauses may seem strange and inappropriate for your particular line of research, but IMO, when protecting a group that has in the not-so-distant past been left unrepresented in the process or study design and implementation (I'm speaking of research subjects here), it is far better to be safe than sorry. Also, some of those clauses can seem weird for your work, but upon further reflection, it's not too much of a stretch to see how someone could feel coerced into participating or doing something else they'd rather not do. A large state university, for instance, can be a powerful entity in a research subject's community and may seem intimidating to people. Just to reiterate my overarching point: I try to view an IRB as an entity representing the interests of subjects, who get no say in the design and implementation of a study otherwise. My two cents as a (lowly) graduate student, Justin Reedy University of Washington Department of Communication
These are all important points -- I concur that the ethics board should be respected insofar as they protect subjects. That said, however, I believe their approach does very little to actually protect subjects. The informed consent letter I have for participants is 2 pages long. It is very verbose and largely unintellible to the uninitiated (this at the board's explicit direction). The net result is that the lived experience of my participants varies greatly from the "official" experience the board is attempting to engineer. Ethical obligations do not reside within rules or structures. Ethical obligations must transcend such structures. There is no "letter of the law" that ruled a very real ethical problem I encountered yesterday -- a person who knew one of my participants mentioned that I had interviewed him. I could not discuss this interview, or even the existence of such an interview, in accordance with what i perceive to be my ethical obligation of confidentiality. My ethics board says nothing about this specific case. I must infer the spirit of the rules, which I prefer to do instead of following letter of the law at the expense of its spirit. On 5/18/07, Justin Reedy <jsreedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/18/07, Sam Ladner <samladner@gmail.com> wrote:
They also insisted I insert a paragraph that my university would not
hold
anything against them based on their participation. I can only infer there was a rash of disappointed undergraduate applicants that had participated in university-based research....none of my participants understood the reason behind that phrase either.
I have heard a lot of folks in the social sciences express frustration at IRBs and ethics boards, but I think it's very important to remember the basics of why they exist: to protect research subjects and represent their interests.
Most researchers in all of the sciences (life sciences, social sciences, etc.) are very conscientious in their work, and would not willingly harm their subjects or expose them to suffering (in the case of animals used in life sciences research, for example). However, there have been far too many cases where scientists acted in ways that harmed (or could have harmed) subjects for the sake of their research. The IRB is an entity that is supposed to represent the interests of subjects, just as researchers represent their own interests.
Some of the protections or informed-consent clauses may seem strange and inappropriate for your particular line of research, but IMO, when protecting a group that has in the not-so-distant past been left unrepresented in the process or study design and implementation (I'm speaking of research subjects here), it is far better to be safe than sorry. Also, some of those clauses can seem weird for your work, but upon further reflection, it's not too much of a stretch to see how someone could feel coerced into participating or doing something else they'd rather not do. A large state university, for instance, can be a powerful entity in a research subject's community and may seem intimidating to people.
Just to reiterate my overarching point: I try to view an IRB as an entity representing the interests of subjects, who get no say in the design and implementation of a study otherwise.
My two cents as a (lowly) graduate student, Justin Reedy University of Washington Department of Communication _______________________________________________ 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 repeated message that I got in grad school was to consider any arguably illegal or immoral behavior as observed facts to be described and explained, not something to be reported beyond the role as researcher. One oft-repeated example (from someone whose courses I took but with whom I never worked closely) concerned having observed a policeman taking money from the wallet of a vagrant while nominally checking his ID. He did not report the theft either to the policeman's supervisors or to anyone else, though did report it as part of his study (and in class discussions of methods and ethics). That may be wrong, wrong-headed, unpopular, illegal, unapprovable now, and/or something else - but is the requirement to report such behavior now widespread? Universal? -eg Erika Pearson wrote:
I've been reading the general sociology literature on conducting interviews as part of a research project, and some of the literature I have come across makes a point of noting that interviewers should be warning interviewees that any illegal or immoral behaviours uncovered during the course of the research/interview may be reported (for example, Adler and Adler, 2003).
participants (7)
-
Amy S. Bruckman -
Ellis Godard -
Erika Pearson -
Justin Reedy -
Mary-Helen Ward -
Paul Teusner -
Sam Ladner