Ed, Doesn't this say clearly that if the blog (publicly available) already exists before your study begins, and was not set up for the purpose of your study then it is exempt? Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604
Ed Lamoureux <ell@bumail.bradley.edu> 08/12/07 12:35 PM >>>
4. Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records . . . if these sources are publicly available OR if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a maner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects. Note: in order to be eligible for this exemption, all data, documents, records, or specimens must exist prior to IRB review and must have been collected for purposes other than the proposed research. (To qualify for an exemption in this category, the proposed research must be strictly retrospective).
On Aug 11, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
Doesn't this say clearly that if the blog (publicly available) already exists before your study begins, and was not set up for the purpose of your study then it is exempt?
Marj
Yes as along as the data set is "finished" before IRB review . . . HOWEVER, that's under the condition that the data cannot be tracked back to the individual. In that case, one would (at the U of I) need informed consent. And I think that's the core of the issue with web- netted stuff . . . the key feature (at least to me) is that the researcher can code and protect the data, and then array it later in publication, in such a way that the material used can't be tracked back to a subject who has not given informed consent. Not being able to do so problematizes the use of key/core passages as exemplars . . .If/when I collect materials from subjects f-2-f (in public or private with or without consent, depending on what I'm doing) I can keep indentifying materials safe by coding and lock and key; when I publish exemplars, there's no web-netted record of the material ever having been uttered as the words were written in the wind. But with blogs, the materials are present, available, and searchable and are often tied to the source with some expectation that others can track back and find them. If they can lead back to the subject, at least according to the UI protocol, the use of the materials may well require informed consent to qualify for the exemption from full review and vigilant committee oversight. Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program Bradley University
On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:06 AM, Ed Lamoureux wrote:
On Aug 11, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
Doesn't this say clearly that if the blog (publicly available) already exists before your study begins, and was not set up for the purpose of your study then it is exempt?
Marj
Yes as along as the data set is "finished" before IRB review . . . HOWEVER, that's under the condition that the data cannot be tracked back to the individual.
this is not the way it works. individual data can be tracked back if it is published. private data is the issue. private data is not broadly defined, but includes financial data and medical data so long as it isn't published. for instance, paris hilton's finances are private on the one hand but huge parts are now made public. we can research and reveal the public parts. similarly talking about president bushes bowel health as reported in the media... is fine.
In that case, one would (at the U of I) need informed consent.
nope, it is published text, no subjects involved. It depends on the argument that you make, but the federal guidelines are pretty clear.
.If/when I collect materials from subjects f-2-f (in public or private with or without consent, depending on what I'm doing)
what is a subject? what are the defining characteristics? a. someone intervened with b. someone whose private data is used there is no federally defined subject in blog research until you interact with them, or use data that they have not made publicly available. for instance, if you reveal the name of a pseudonymous blogger... you have created a subject by mixing private knowledge with public knowledge. 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
of interest to this thread: http://www.legalandrew.com/2007/07/21/facebook-and-the-law-8-things-to-know/ "Facebook Isn't Private, and 7 Other Things You Should Know" and http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/magazine/12wwln-lede-t.html The Way We Live Now: Not Being There ========================================================================== Paul Jones "Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation." Alasdair Gray http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/blog/ pjones@ibiblio.org NEW voice: (919) 360-7740 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== â
participants (4)
-
Ed Lamoureux -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
Marj Kibby -
Paul Jones