Not really wishing to extend this thread too much longer - but just wanted to back up Terri's suggestion of involving the blogger in the research. While I interviewed the blogger of the site I was discursively analysing, I also arranged as part of my ethics procedure to send her my work in progress for feedback. I found that my interpretation of her postings as well as the construction of her website sometimes differed from her views given that we had different ethnic backgrounds and experiences. I was able to relate this in my research to show the transparency of my interpretive processes and given that I was analysing identity construction, the blogger's involvement indeed showed the complexity of how we view ourselves and others, and how that we can interpret identity differently. That's my five cents worth. Back to the analysis... Philippa Philippa K Smith PhD Candidate Institute of Culture, Discourse & Communication AUT University Auckland New Zealand

...

...

Terri Senft <tsenft@gmail.com> 11/29/11 5:46 AM >>> 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 _______________________________________________ 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/