Re: [Air-L] blogs and confidentiality
Googling vs password protection is a weak distinction. Not all public sites are crawlable by Google. And many password "protected" sites require no validation, verification, or even confirmation to restrict access, and are therefore "accessible to all" who invest 12 seconds to "register" a password. Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Burcu Bakioglu" <bbakiogl@gmail.com> To: "jeremy hunsinger" <jhuns@vt.edu> Cc: "C Sosnowy" <c_sosnowy@yahoo.com>, "air-l@listserv.aoir.org" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Subject: [Air-L] blogs and confidentiality Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 1:20 pm The rule of thumb is this: if you can access the same information just by Googling, you don't need IRB or any consent. If forum threads are accessible by all, it is free game. If the information is on password protected sites than you *must* get permission (and IRB). If online discussions are on a closed site, they require permission etc... The fact that they are using usernames and their identities are protected only means is irrelevant. This only means that IRB will give you an exempt permission, that is, they won't have to review the process every other month or so. You would get your permission from the IRB regardless and they will be off your back till the finish time comes. At least that is my understanding and I conducted 3 field works for my dissertation. This is what the IRB told me. Best. On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:24 AM, jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
I am confused, you said they weren't public when they were on a closed site. then you said they were publicly available. if it is closed, it isn't publicly available without permission. On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:19 PM, C Sosnowy wrote:
For my dissertation on personal health blogs, I will be conducting a visual content analysis of 40-50 blogs. I will then be conducting an online discussion with 10-12 bloggers on a closed site. Their identity will be protected by a username of their choice, but can I use the real URL and name of their blogs (I would tell them that I'm doing this)? I'm of the opinion that I can because they are publicly-available, but one of my more traditional advisers has doubts. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Collette Sosnowy _______________________________________________ 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/
Jeremy Hunsinger Communication Studies Wilfrid Laurier University Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
_______________________________________________ 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, Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media Lawrence University http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/ -- "Come to the dark side, we have cookies." ~Anonymous _______________________________________________ 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/
I agree, this "rule of thumb" is fraught with danger, and I suspect far from compliance with federal regulations. Thinking of the general project, the attempt to use interview pseudonyms to protect subject privacy could easily fail given the small set of subjects & blogs. If, for example, only one of these pseudonymous interviews deals with health risks of gay sex, I can then find which of the blogs also deals with such issues, and make possible reidentification that much easier of your interview subjects. Given there are only 40 blogs and 10 interviews, this isn't too difficult. I'd take your "traditionalist" advisors advice and bounce this past your IRB. If they decide to give you the exemption, you've only lost a few days in the process. -- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Co-Director, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm@uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org On Nov 26, 2011, at 6:27 PM, egodard@csun.edu wrote:
Googling vs password protection is a weak distinction. Not all public sites are crawlable by Google. And many password "protected" sites require no validation, verification, or even confirmation to restrict access, and are therefore "accessible to all" who invest 12 seconds to "register" a password.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
----- Reply message ----- From: "Burcu Bakioglu" <bbakiogl@gmail.com> To: "jeremy hunsinger" <jhuns@vt.edu> Cc: "C Sosnowy" <c_sosnowy@yahoo.com>, "air-l@listserv.aoir.org" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Subject: [Air-L] blogs and confidentiality Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 1:20 pm
The rule of thumb is this: if you can access the same information just by Googling, you don't need IRB or any consent. If forum threads are accessible by all, it is free game. If the information is on password protected sites than you *must* get permission (and IRB). If online discussions are on a closed site, they require permission etc... The fact that they are using usernames and their identities are protected only means is irrelevant. This only means that IRB will give you an exempt permission, that is, they won't have to review the process every other month or so. You would get your permission from the IRB regardless and they will be off your back till the finish time comes.
At least that is my understanding and I conducted 3 field works for my dissertation. This is what the IRB told me.
Best.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:24 AM, jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
I am confused, you said they weren't public when they were on a closed site. then you said they were publicly available. if it is closed, it isn't publicly available without permission. On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:19 PM, C Sosnowy wrote:
For my dissertation on personal health blogs, I will be conducting a visual content analysis of 40-50 blogs. I will then be conducting an online discussion with 10-12 bloggers on a closed site. Their identity will be protected by a username of their choice, but can I use the real URL and name of their blogs (I would tell them that I'm doing this)? I'm of the opinion that I can because they are publicly-available, but one of my more traditional advisers has doubts. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Collette Sosnowy _______________________________________________ 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/
Jeremy Hunsinger Communication Studies Wilfrid Laurier University Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
_______________________________________________ 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,
Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media Lawrence University
http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/
-- "Come to the dark side, we have cookies." ~Anonymous _______________________________________________ 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/
Well, I used Google merely as an example. What I meant to say was that if the site is open access, meaning anyone can stumble upon this site while browsing one way or another, generally it is considered to be OK to quote from because technically it has been "published" online. As for password protection, as far as the IRB is concerned,they don't make any distinctions between easy-to-register sites versus hard-to-register sites or how many seconds it takes to register to a site to grant access. If you have to create an account, then it is behind closed doors, so you would need to use informed consent to publish any information you retrieve there. I don't think IRB people are big on nuances nor do they know how the Internet works really. Only you and I (meaning the Internet people) would make the distinctions you mention below. On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:27 PM, egodard@csun.edu <ellis.godard@csun.edu>wrote:
Googling vs password protection is a weak distinction. Not all public sites are crawlable by Google. And many password "protected" sites require no validation, verification, or even confirmation to restrict access, and are therefore "accessible to all" who invest 12 seconds to "register" a password.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
----- Reply message ----- From: "Burcu Bakioglu" <bbakiogl@gmail.com> To: "jeremy hunsinger" <jhuns@vt.edu> Cc: "C Sosnowy" <c_sosnowy@yahoo.com>, "air-l@listserv.aoir.org" < air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Subject: [Air-L] blogs and confidentiality Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 1:20 pm
The rule of thumb is this: if you can access the same information just by Googling, you don't need IRB or any consent. If forum threads are accessible by all, it is free game. If the information is on password protected sites than you *must* get permission (and IRB). If online discussions are on a closed site, they require permission etc... The fact that they are using usernames and their identities are protected only means is irrelevant. This only means that IRB will give you an exempt permission, that is, they won't have to review the process every other month or so. You would get your permission from the IRB regardless and they will be off your back till the finish time comes.
At least that is my understanding and I conducted 3 field works for my dissertation. This is what the IRB told me.
Best.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:24 AM, jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
I am confused, you said they weren't public when they were on a closed site. then you said they were publicly available. if it is closed, it isn't publicly available without permission. On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:19 PM, C Sosnowy wrote:
For my dissertation on personal health blogs, I will be conducting a visual content analysis of 40-50 blogs. I will then be conducting an online discussion with 10-12 bloggers on a closed site. Their identity will be protected by a username of their choice, but can I use the real URL and name of their blogs (I would tell them that I'm doing this)? I'm of the opinion that I can because they are publicly-available, but one of my more traditional advisers has doubts. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Collette Sosnowy _______________________________________________ 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/
Jeremy Hunsinger Communication Studies Wilfrid Laurier University Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
_______________________________________________ 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,
Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media Lawrence University
http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/
-- "Come to the dark side, we have cookies." ~Anonymous _______________________________________________ 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, Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media Lawrence University http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/ -- "Come to the dark side, we have cookies." ~Anonymous
Let's be careful about some facile assumptions that are flying around in this conversation, for instance ... 1. That "IRB people" are not "Internet people." Some on this list are both. In fact many on this list are long time AOIR'ers who also serve or have served as IRB members -- like myself, at two different institutions (Purdue, Michigan State). In general I would say that IRB members are usually very "big on nuances," particularly as pertains to human subjects' rights and researchers' responsibilities. Some of them know a fair amount about Internet research. 2. That the private-public distinction is a clearcut one, easily determinable, and that, ergo, ethical decisions can be very clearly and easily made by determining whether the collected date falls into the one category or the other. No, not that clear or simple. Public/Private is not a binary, it's more like a continuum, with many shades and variations of public-ness and private-ness depending on the particular circumstances of the locale (e.g., level of password protectedness), as Michael Zimmer and others on this list have pointed out. 3. That "public" = "published," at least for purposes of research ethics. No again, not that simple. "Published" means much more then simply "displayed or occurring in public." Historically the word also implies (a) some degree of authorial intention, and (b) some degree of editorial review and screening. 4. That all Internet behaviors that occur on "public" sites should be treated, for the purposes of research, as public and published documents. No, not that simple ... see Items #2 and #3 above. (Are game actions the same as "published documents"?) Rather than entering the research enterprise with the above points as assumptions, I would advise researchers to begin the process with these points as questions: For example, Are there members of my institution's IRB who actually have experience with Internet research and who could not only understand my research but actually productively help advise its design? Did the writers of this blog actually *intend* to publish this work for public display and circulation? I would also advise researchers to answer the questions in terms of particular locale, venue, people, texts, behaviors, etc. -- i.e., the particular circumstances and conditions of what they are studying -- rather than in terms of broad generic principles. Best, Jim Porter ------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
3. That "public" = "published," at least for purposes of research ethics. No again, not that simple. "Published" means much more then simply "displayed or occurring in public." Historically the word also implies (a) some degree of authorial intention, and (b) some degree of editorial review and screening.
actually no, the word does not imply a or b historically or otherwise. Newsletters, pamphlets, etc. written by one person and distributed hand to hand are published. as best as i could determine in the last round of discussions on this 'published' is merely that an object has been created and then distributed to some section of the public. The care needs to be taken on determining whether like an operations manual for a large corporation the group of people is private. This is usually indicated by the media itself with signs saying things like 'not for distribution, for eyes only' or 'not for public dissemination'. Otherwise, if it can be or has been distributed it can be considered published. I do agree that sometimes published information might be private information and then there are other questions involved.
4. That all Internet behaviors that occur on "public" sites should be treated, for the purposes of research, as public and published documents. No, not that simple ... see Items #2 and #3 above. (Are game actions the same as "published documents"?)
Documentary research usually requires that the objects already exist, like a newspaper, and aren't continually ergodicly produced. Blog archives, such as one can retrieve from archive.org, fit that description, and so do most blogs these days. However, I think that in most cases blogs are going to fall under documents more than not. One can imagine some odd blogs that would not be documents or amenable to the document model, but those would be at one end of a spectrum and many people would not necessarily even think of them as blogs.
Rather than entering the research enterprise with the above points as assumptions, I would advise researchers to begin the process with these points as questions: For example, Are there members of my institution's IRB who actually have experience with Internet research and who could not only understand my research but actually productively help advise its design? Did the writers of this blog actually *intend* to publish this work for public display and circulation?
i don't think this is a valid test, you can't get to the information you want without intervening and thus breaking the model of research. Intent in any case is mutable, they might intend it today and not intend it tomorrow. However the key is that 'intent' certainly isn't a test for whether something is published, i don't think i ran into any definition of published that required 'intent'. Traditionally millions of things have been published without the authors intent. The question I'd ask here is less intent but 'where can i find the data?' Is it in a search engine, is it in an archive, is it in the library of congress archive, etc. etc. Has it been referenced or referred to by other people? in other words is there clear evidence that the public is using this published document? jeremy hunsinger Communication Studies Wilfrid Laurier University Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
Rather than entering the research enterprise with the above points as assumptions, I would advise researchers to begin the process with these points as questions: For example, Are there members of my institution's IRB who actually have experience with Internet research and who could not only understand my research but actually productively help advise its design? Did the writers of this blog actually *intend* to publish this work for public display and circulation?
i don't think this is a valid test, you can't get to the information you want without intervening and thus breaking the model of research. Intent in any case is mutable, they might intend it today and not intend it tomorrow.
I agree, intent is tricky. But I was not proposing intent as a litmus test or ethical prescription. I was proposing it as a question to be asked as part of the process of research ethics. If the answer happens to be, "No, as far as I can tell from available information, the writer did not intend" ... well, that doesn't necessarily mean consent is required or the data cannot be used. Not at all. There may be other compelling reasons in force, such as the ones you mention (e.g., document already exists in a publicly available archive). Again, my point is not an ethical prescription, it's a point about research process: (1) ask the question, and (2) answer the question in terms of particular circumstances. Your follow-up questions are just the kind of circumstantial questions I think researchers should be asking.
The question I'd ask here is less intent but 'where can i find the data?' Is it in a search engine, is it in an archive, is it in the library of congress archive, etc. etc. Has it been referenced or referred to by other people? in other words is there clear evidence that the public is using this published document?
Best, Jim Porter ------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
OK, my "not nuanced" comment was for the reference made earlier to password protected sites only. In other words, if a site is password protected, IRB is going to ask that you use your informed consent form even if the password protection is "weak" and it takes 10 seconds to sign up. In other words, they won't consider whether it is easy to sign up or hard to sign up. When confronted with the option, IRB chooses the more conservative ground and say "It is better to be safe than sorry" so distribute your consent forms even if you think that anyone can access it in 10 seconds. In that regard, they don't see the distinction. i am not saying this is good or bad, I am saying this is usually the case. However, I do agree that IRB is not a monolithic entity and each institution is different (a comment made earlier). And I do agree with what Jeremy said in his previous email. BsB On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Porter, James E. Dr. <porterje@muohio.edu>wrote:
Rather than entering the research enterprise with the above points as assumptions, I would advise researchers to begin the process with these points as questions: For example, Are there members of my institution's IRB who actually have experience with Internet research and who could not only understand my research but actually productively help advise its design? Did the writers of this blog actually *intend* to publish this work for public display and circulation?
i don't think this is a valid test, you can't get to the information you want without intervening and thus breaking the model of research. Intent in any case is mutable, they might intend it today and not intend it tomorrow.
I agree, intent is tricky. But I was not proposing intent as a litmus test or ethical prescription. I was proposing it as a question to be asked as part of the process of research ethics. If the answer happens to be, "No, as far as I can tell from available information, the writer did not intend" ... well, that doesn't necessarily mean consent is required or the data cannot be used. Not at all. There may be other compelling reasons in force, such as the ones you mention (e.g., document already exists in a publicly available archive). Again, my point is not an ethical prescription, it's a point about research process: (1) ask the question, and (2) answer the question in terms of particular circumstances. Your follow-up questions are just the kind of circumstantial questions I think researchers should be asking.
The question I'd ask here is less intent but 'where can i find the data?' Is it in a search engine, is it in an archive, is it in the library of congress archive, etc. etc. Has it been referenced or referred to by other people? in other words is there clear evidence that the public is using this published document?
Best, Jim Porter
------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition
Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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, Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media Lawrence University http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/ -- "Come to the dark side, we have cookies." ~Anonymous
Hi pals, Can I pose an alternative way of looking at this, one based on principles of regard rather than rule of law? I'm going to write a little rant, and then I promise to never say anything more on this, at least not on our list :) The Rant: Instead of trying to figure out on an academic listserve what is private and what is public on a blog, what if we let the people who are writing these words decide? A radical proposal: treat everything on a health-related blog as private, until you make a relationship with the author to do an interview, either via email or in person. Then, as part of the interview process, explain TO THE INTERVIEWEE what you felt was compelling about their writing --for scholarship, for health advocacy, etc. After you've expressed your thoughts, you ask them permission to quote from their work. This would require two layers of consent. The first would be the interview consent form; the second would be the permission to quote parts of the blog form. I suggest you tell them precisely what it is you are thinking of quoting, since health advocacy issues are tricky and what is sensitive stuff for one person might be run of the mill for another. The interviewee could choose one, or both options for consent. As a researcher, I've done this in the past with all sorts of success and recommend it for two reasons. First, it's a way of acknowledging your interviewee as a writer, which is different than acknowledging him/her a a speaker, regardless of whether or not you are typing during the interview. Second, and perhaps more important, this process has always gotten me clearer on my reasons for taking someone else's thoughts out of one context, and putting them into another, and the political ramifications of such a re-arrangement. And one more thought: If you are really interested in making connections to these communities of bloggers, and I assume you are or why else study them, you might even show them what you've written after you've done your analysis. I've done this in my own research and it's provided me with amazing follow-up material. Plus, it's a way of thanking people for their time and thoughts. Sorry if this feels like I am advocating more work. It can see how it might seem like that, but trust me when I say the work will be front-loaded. The world doesn't need another conference paper, dissertation or book that comes to the conclusion that impartial observation is a ridiculous notion--especially when it comes to researching advocacy communities. We freaking KNOW this already. What we need is research that engages with the ethical and epistemological issues that arise from this knowing. One way to get at those issues would be to actually communicate with the individuals writing the words we hope to take for our scholarship, aka our "subjects." Think and write deeply on those interactions, and your work will be published, I guarantee. Avoid these interactions because it will be easier to push your project past committees, and your research will die a pretty obscure death. I'm advocating paying now, so you don't pay later. Friends, we know we aren't intrepid reporters, and internet research isn't like cracking Watergate. It would be awesome if we stopped behaving like it was. I cannot tell you how many colleagues don't want their classroom lectures podcast because while they know they are in a public forum, they feel resistant to having their thoughts broadcast in a super-public environment. How is a 'public' conversation meant for a health forum that is then transported to your book any different? Honestly, would it kill us to talk to people outside the academy as equals, with the same rights to ownership of their thoughts and expression as the rest of us want? Of course it wouldn't. Let's start doing it. End of rant, and love to all Terri On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Burcu Bakioglu <bbakiogl@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, my "not nuanced" comment was for the reference made earlier to password protected sites only. In other words, if a site is password protected, IRB is going to ask that you use your informed consent form even if the password protection is "weak" and it takes 10 seconds to sign up. In other words, they won't consider whether it is easy to sign up or hard to sign up. When confronted with the option, IRB chooses the more conservative ground and say "It is better to be safe than sorry" so distribute your consent forms even if you think that anyone can access it in 10 seconds. In that regard, they don't see the distinction. i am not saying this is good or bad, I am saying this is usually the case.
However, I do agree that IRB is not a monolithic entity and each institution is different (a comment made earlier). And I do agree with what Jeremy said in his previous email.
BsB
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Porter, James E. Dr. <porterje@muohio.edu>wrote:
Rather than entering the research enterprise with the above points as assumptions, I would advise researchers to begin the process with
these
points as questions: For example, Are there members of my institution's IRB who actually have experience with Internet research and who could not only understand my research but actually productively help advise its design? Did the writers of this blog actually *intend* to publish this work for public display and circulation?
i don't think this is a valid test, you can't get to the information you want without intervening and thus breaking the model of research. Intent in any case is mutable, they might intend it today and not intend it tomorrow.
I agree, intent is tricky. But I was not proposing intent as a litmus test or ethical prescription. I was proposing it as a question to be asked as part of the process of research ethics. If the answer happens to be, "No, as far as I can tell from available information, the writer did not intend" ... well, that doesn't necessarily mean consent is required or the data cannot be used. Not at all. There may be other compelling reasons in force, such as the ones you mention (e.g., document already exists in a publicly available archive). Again, my point is not an ethical prescription, it's a point about research process: (1) ask the question, and (2) answer the question in terms of particular circumstances. Your follow-up questions are just the kind of circumstantial questions I think researchers should be asking.
The question I'd ask here is less intent but 'where can i find the data?' Is it in a search engine, is it in an archive, is it in the library of congress archive, etc. etc. Has it been referenced or referred to by other people? in other words is there clear evidence that the public is using this published document?
Best, Jim Porter
------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition
Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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,
Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media Lawrence University
http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/
-- "Come to the dark side, we have cookies." ~Anonymous _______________________________________________ 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/
-- <http://goog_689013053> <http://goog_689013053> Dr. Theresa M. Senft Global Liberal Studies Program School of Arts & Sciences New York University 726 Broadway NY NY 10003 home: *www.terrisenft.net <http://goog_689013053>** *(needs a serious updating) facebook: www.facebook.com/theresa.senft twitter: @terrisenft
Thanks, Terri. Nice rant. Well stated. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA ----------------------------------------------- 2011-12 Director, Luther Study Centre 23 Haslemere Road Nottingham NG8 5GJ United Kingdom ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Terri Senft <tsenft@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi pals,
Can I pose an alternative way of looking at this, one based on principles of regard rather than rule of law? I'm going to write a little rant, and then I promise to never say anything more on this, at least not on our list :)
The Rant:
Instead of trying to figure out on an academic listserve what is private and what is public on a blog, what if we let the people who are writing these words decide?
A radical proposal: treat everything on a health-related blog as private, until you make a relationship with the author to do an interview, either via email or in person. Then, as part of the interview process, explain TO THE INTERVIEWEE what you felt was compelling about their writing --for scholarship, for health advocacy, etc. After you've expressed your thoughts, you ask them permission to quote from their work.
This would require two layers of consent. The first would be the interview consent form; the second would be the permission to quote parts of the blog form. I suggest you tell them precisely what it is you are thinking of quoting, since health advocacy issues are tricky and what is sensitive stuff for one person might be run of the mill for another. The interviewee could choose one, or both options for consent.
As a researcher, I've done this in the past with all sorts of success and recommend it for two reasons. First, it's a way of acknowledging your interviewee as a writer, which is different than acknowledging him/her a a speaker, regardless of whether or not you are typing during the interview. Second, and perhaps more important, this process has always gotten me clearer on my reasons for taking someone else's thoughts out of one context, and putting them into another, and the political ramifications of such a re-arrangement.
And one more thought:
If you are really interested in making connections to these communities of bloggers, and I assume you are or why else study them, you might even show them what you've written after you've done your analysis. I've done this in my own research and it's provided me with amazing follow-up material. Plus, it's a way of thanking people for their time and thoughts.
Sorry if this feels like I am advocating more work. It can see how it might seem like that, but trust me when I say the work will be front-loaded. The world doesn't need another conference paper, dissertation or book that comes to the conclusion that impartial observation is a ridiculous notion--especially when it comes to researching advocacy communities. We freaking KNOW this already. What we need is research that engages with the ethical and epistemological issues that arise from this knowing. One way to get at those issues would be to actually communicate with the individuals writing the words we hope to take for our scholarship, aka our "subjects." Think and write deeply on those interactions, and your work will be published, I guarantee. Avoid these interactions because it will be easier to push your project past committees, and your research will die a pretty obscure death. I'm advocating paying now, so you don't pay later.
Friends, we know we aren't intrepid reporters, and internet research isn't like cracking Watergate. It would be awesome if we stopped behaving like it was. I cannot tell you how many colleagues don't want their classroom lectures podcast because while they know they are in a public forum, they feel resistant to having their thoughts broadcast in a super-public environment. How is a 'public' conversation meant for a health forum that is then transported to your book any different?
Honestly, would it kill us to talk to people outside the academy as equals, with the same rights to ownership of their thoughts and expression as the rest of us want? Of course it wouldn't. Let's start doing it.
End of rant, and love to all
Terri
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Burcu Bakioglu <bbakiogl@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, my "not nuanced" comment was for the reference made earlier to password protected sites only. In other words, if a site is password protected, IRB is going to ask that you use your informed consent form even if the password protection is "weak" and it takes 10 seconds to sign up. In other words, they won't consider whether it is easy to sign up or hard to sign up. When confronted with the option, IRB chooses the more conservative ground and say "It is better to be safe than sorry" so distribute your consent forms even if you think that anyone can access it in 10 seconds. In that regard, they don't see the distinction. i am not saying this is good or bad, I am saying this is usually the case.
However, I do agree that IRB is not a monolithic entity and each institution is different (a comment made earlier). And I do agree with what Jeremy said in his previous email.
BsB
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Porter, James E. Dr. <porterje@muohio.edu>wrote:
Rather than entering the research enterprise with the above points as assumptions, I would advise researchers to begin the process with
these
points as questions: For example, Are there members of my institution's IRB who actually have experience with Internet research and who could not only understand my research but actually productively help advise its design? Did the writers of this blog actually *intend* to publish this work for public display and circulation?
i don't think this is a valid test, you can't get to the information you want without intervening and thus breaking the model of research. Intent in any case is mutable, they might intend it today and not intend it tomorrow.
I agree, intent is tricky. But I was not proposing intent as a litmus test or ethical prescription. I was proposing it as a question to be asked as part of the process of research ethics. If the answer happens to be, "No, as far as I can tell from available information, the writer did not intend" ... well, that doesn't necessarily mean consent is required or the data cannot be used. Not at all. There may be other compelling reasons in force, such as the ones you mention (e.g., document already exists in a publicly available archive). Again, my point is not an ethical prescription, it's a point about research process: (1) ask the question, and (2) answer the question in terms of particular circumstances. Your follow-up questions are just the kind of circumstantial questions I think researchers should be asking.
The question I'd ask here is less intent but 'where can i find the data?' Is it in a search engine, is it in an archive, is it in the library of congress archive, etc. etc. Has it been referenced or referred to by other people? in other words is there clear evidence that the public is using this published document?
Best, Jim Porter
------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition
Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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,
Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media Lawrence University
http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/
-- "Come to the dark side, we have cookies." ~Anonymous _______________________________________________ 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/
Dr. Theresa M. Senft Global Liberal Studies Program School of Arts & Sciences New York University 726 Broadway NY NY 10003
home: *www.terrisenft.net <http://goog_689013053>** *(needs a serious updating) facebook: www.facebook.com/theresa.senft twitter: @terrisenft _______________________________________________ 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/
Instead of trying to figure out on an academic listserve what is private and what is public on a blog, what if we let the people who are writing these words decide?
I agree with the presumption of your rant, Terri. Actually I don't think it's rant, it's a perfectly sensible ethical presumption. However, as an operating principle "ask the writer" might not work or might not need to be applied in certain circumstances. I'm thinking, for instance ... 1. The writer is dead, or for whatever reason inaccessible, practically speaking. (This applies moreso to archival material, but increasingly, too, to older Internet material.) 2. The writing is published in a clearly public publication forum, something like Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. You would agree, I assume, that for such venues, permission would not not required. The question on the table -- a good one, I think -- is, Does that apply to blogs? Well, I think there is not a universal answer for all blogs ... the principle does apply to some blogs but not others. For personal, health-related blogs, I would say that the presumption of privacy should be stronger. 3. The researcher wishes to quote for purposes of critique or unflattering analysis -- and the writer might not wish to provide consent. We have to be careful not to set up research protocols that impede or prevent legitimate criticism. 4. The researcher is doing aggregate analysis, not quoting excerpts, not identifying people by name, not using any personally identifiable or trackable information. Best, Jim Porter ------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
Heya James, Thanks for the kind words! I was addressing the specifics of this case, rather than trying to carve out a generalized dictum, here. Luckily I have shot my ranting wad, so to speak, or I would launch into my tirade against anti one-size-fits all discussions of internet ethics. To your points, regarding possible exceptions on the "ask the writer for permission" stuff: 1. What if the writer is dead? Yah know, I am not sure this precludes trying to secure permissions. I will leave the question of ownership of internet identity beyond death to the lovely and talented Tama Leaver, who I believe is writing on such issues. But I will raise some questions for you: How come Beckett gets protection, even though he is dead? If I publish print material, like Beckett did, my written work is protected to some extent. But if I die, according to your logic, ever say anywhere in any context is might be fair game because you can't find me to secure consent. What about my estate? These issues became very real for me after people made a Facebook memorial page for my brother, a man who loathed Facebook. The page included images, stories and bits of email correspondences, posted without consulting family. The local newspaper likewise had a "electronic guest book" on his obituary, never consenting the family on the matter, and providing no means to moderate. 2. What if the writing is published in a clearly public publication forum, something like Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Aren't blogs likewise public? Blogs aren't published papers, for the same reason your lecture notes online aren't the same as the journal article you publish in JCMC. Different forums, different reader expectations, different vetting process. Not.The. Same. Btw, it would be great if reporters could get that through their heads. Just because I am an academic and I like to put my thoughts out for people to dialog with, it does not follow that I have released formal findings. danah boyd is probably the one who has to deal with this the most, but I've had it happen to me as well, and it blows. 3. What if the researcher wishes to quote for purposes of critique or unflattering analysis -- and the writer might not wish to provide consent. Don't we need space to do this? Back in the olden days of bulletin boards, we had an expression that went: "Attack the post, not the poster." It's worth bringing back. It's not hard for a researcher to allude to a trend in an online space in which people argue such and such, and then to refute or critique that line of analysis. Individual quotes are very rarely necessary to do this, provided you have some actual writing skills. Which, by the way, is an other rant of mine. Again, I speak from experience, here. I have an entire chapter in a book dealing very critically with someone who attempted suicide while on webcam. I showed my chapter to the individual in question, we worked together to obscure details that would identify her, including a reference to her specific psych medications. We went back and forth. I got upset. She got upset. We worked something out. The piece ran. To this day, when I speak in public about this woman--and I get asked a lot by people who read the book-- I continue to refer by her pseudonym. This, in spite of the fact that she just published a well-reviewed book about her struggle with mental health issues. My feeling is that her identity is hers to disclose, not mine. When she asks me to behave otherwise, I will. Sorry to detail this at length, but I'm working on a piece that re-visits this issue and this individual--she is now a mental health awareness advocate--and this stuff is very much on my mind. 4. What if the researcher is doing aggregate analysis, not quoting excerpts, not identifying people by name, not using any personally identifiable or trackable information. I leave answering this question to those more qualified in quantitative analysis, since like Barbie, I find math hard. Back to grading! Terri -- <http://goog_689013053/> Dr. Theresa M. Senft Global Liberal Studies Program School of Arts & Sciences New York University 726 Broadway NY NY 10003 home: *www.terrisenft.net <http://goog_689013053/>** *(needs a serious updating) facebook: www.facebook.com/theresa.senft twitter: @terrisenft On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Porter, James E. Dr. <porterje@muohio.edu>wrote:
Instead of trying to figure out on an academic listserve what is private and what is public on a blog, what if we let the people who are writing these words decide?
I agree with the presumption of your rant, Terri. Actually I don't think it's rant, it's a perfectly sensible ethical presumption. However, as an operating principle "ask the writer" might not work or might not need to be applied in certain circumstances. I'm thinking, for instance ...
1. The writer is dead, or for whatever reason inaccessible, practically speaking. (This applies moreso to archival material, but increasingly, too, to older Internet material.)
2. The writing is published in a clearly public publication forum, something like Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. You would agree, I assume, that for such venues, permission would not not required. The question on the table -- a good one, I think -- is, Does that apply to blogs? Well, I think there is not a universal answer for all blogs ... the principle does apply to some blogs but not others. For personal, health-related blogs, I would say that the presumption of privacy should be stronger.
3. The researcher wishes to quote for purposes of critique or unflattering analysis -- and the writer might not wish to provide consent. We have to be careful not to set up research protocols that impede or prevent legitimate criticism.
4. The researcher is doing aggregate analysis, not quoting excerpts, not identifying people by name, not using any personally identifiable or trackable information.
Best, Jim Porter
------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition
Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
Hi Terri, How come Beckett gets protection, even though he is dead? If I publish print material, like Beckett did, my written work is protected to some extent. But if I die, according to your logic, ever say anywhere in any context is might be fair game because you can't find me to secure consent. What about my estate? Thanks for your response. I didn't reveal the entirety of my logic in that last post ... in fact, I agree with your point. In an article titled "The Ethics of Archival Research" (currently under review), Heidi McKee and I consider as one of our key questions the rights of the dead. To summarize, the dead do have legal and ethical rights, and not only copyrights transferred to heirs. Best, Jim Porter ------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of Composition Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
For my dissertation on personal health blogs, I will be conducting a visual content analysis of 40-50 blogs. I will then be conducting an online discussion with 10-12 bloggers on a closed site. Their identity will be protected by a username of their choice, but can I use the real URL and name of their blogs (I would tell them that I'm doing this)? I'm of the opinion that I can because they are publicly-available, but one of my more traditional advisers has doubts. Any thoughts?
I find it a bit problematic that you turn to your collegues or to some committee for the authorisation of the correct way of the scientific exploitation of your subjects. The questions you are asking are good, and it is good practice indeed to turn to your peers in case of doubt, especially technical or ethical. However, I believe that the answers to your questions lie with the people that you study. They are more authorised and possibly more knowledgable/experienced (for example about mechanisms of repression that health bloggers are faced with) to take decisions about how your research could affect their lives. I believe that the general rule is to respect and especially protect your subjects in a contextual way based on your *and* their best understanding of their particular culture and its interaction with its wider cultural environment. ps: I hope my wording is not discouraging, it is 04:37 here, so I am a bit used up already. :) -- The opinions expressed in this email are not mine. Magic: http://maxigas.hu/maxigas.gpg EE2E D824 B5C3 4544 C2B8 B75F 2183 52B5 8EC1 57C1
participants (8)
-
Burcu Bakioglu -
egodard＠csun.edu -
jeremy hunsinger -
Mark D. Johns -
maxigas -
Michael Zimmer -
Porter, James E. Dr. -
Terri Senft