[Air-l] internet research and confidentiality

[Oriana Solta Gatta]

Indeed, you have all given me much food for thought.
It's clear that I should have been more explicit about my interest in blogging practices and the way I want my research to proceed.  I am interested in looking at blogs that don't have the kind of wide circulation that blogs often discussed in the media do. More specifically, I'm interested in exploring the connections between journal writing and blogging and how the rhetoric of individualism (so intrinsic to Western notions of journal writing) plays out in blogging.  As such, the bloggers I want to look at may have a different perspective on how public their blogs are, despite the fact that publishing something online would seem to make it public.  And in addition to doing a content and formal analysis of blogs, I would like to dialogue with bloggers about their blogs and blogging practices.  To me, then, it seems that I should not assume that they will answer my questions or be willing for me to use their blogs in my research. The question I originally posted to the listserv was not as well formulated as it could have been, but the upshot is that the conversation it sparked allowed me to think more deeply about what I was asking.
Thanks for your multiple and informed perspectives,
Oriana 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mark D. Johns" <johnsmar at luther.edu>
To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:11:30 -0600
Subject: Re: [Air-l] internet research and confidentiality

At 10:42 AM 12/22/2004, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>What matters for me, is not assumptions or expectations, but the mere fact
>that something is obviously publicly available.

Thomas continues to support his points with language of "I think...," "I 
wish...," and "what matters for me." Well and good. He is entitled to his 
opinions (some of which I happen to share). However, I hope that anyone 
still reading this thread by now has caught my point that, despite what we 
might think or wish for (even at Christmastime), restrictions apply with 
which we might not agree, but by which we will nevertheless be forced to abide.

>When I hear "blogging" I assume, it is an unprotected webblog. What leads
>you to the assumption that it is not? Oriana would surely have mentioned
>this detail, as it seems obvious to me that password-protection might lead
>to different considerations.

Assumptions are what get us into trouble. My assumption was not that the 
site was public or not, but that Oriana needed to make her own 
determinations. To assume that everything is public unless protected in a 
certain way that WE would consider adequate does not make it so. Again, my 
personal opinion, or Thomas's, is rather beside the point.

>Yes, I agree, but I still have not seen any national laws, which would
>relegate the typical webblog to the private sphere.

There is not a lot of explicit legislation, for which I am very thankful. 
I, for one, would like to keep it that way by not having some huge public 
scandal about someone's misguided research. The track record of legislation 
in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would not suggest that it 
would go in our favor as researchers (see, for example, the highly 
restrictive Communications Decency Act of 1996 in the U.S. Fortunately that 
law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. But there's 
no guarantee, particularly in the climate of the current administration, 
that we would be as fortunate the next time.). Legislation governing 
research is already more restrictive in the E.U., generally, than in the U.S.

But the absence of legislation does not mean there is no law governing 
these issues. The body of law is expanded whenever a civil litigation is 
settled and precedents are set. In the U.S., certainly, and elsewhere, the 
litigious atmosphere has made institutions extremely cautious, and IRBs 
have become far more concerned with covering the institutional backside 
from lawsuits than in following the letter of the legislation while 
guaranteeing academic freedom. The pressure upon, and the level of 
apprehension within, IRBs is considerable.

The AoIR guidelines are designed to serve three purposes: First, they help 
us to be ethical researchers who respect the human subjects of our research 
-- that's a given. But more, they also help us design research projects 
that will not run afoul of these highly apprehensive IRBs. Third, they help 
IRBs set standards for Internet research that are reasonable. However 
restrictive some may find the AoIR guidelines to be, they have been a light 
burden, indeed, compared to some of the (in my view) completely 
unreasonable restrictions imposed upon many researchers by zealous IRBs who 
have neither understood nor cared to understand the technology or the 
nuances of what constitutes public or private, but who simply feared 
anything they didn't fully understand might get them sued. The guidelines 
can be used by researchers in their negotiations with IRBs to demonstrate a 
reasonable standard that enjoys wide, international acceptance. (By the 
way, the AoIR Ethics Committee hopes that any who have used the guidelines 
in this way will report their experience at 
http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/AoIR/AoIRform.htm.)

This will be my final word on this thread for now. However, it remains 
dangerous on many levels for us, as internet researchers, to make decisions 
based solely on our own opinions or assumptions. We owe it to ourselves, 
our research subjects, our institutions, and to the wider research 
community to be deliberate and careful about our methods and the reporting 
of our findings. This does not mean that we will all reach the same 
conclusions. It certainly does not mean that I, or AoIR, or anyone else, 
can dictate to Thomas or to Oriana how they must proceed. What it means is 
that none of us will be quick jump in and decide, without careful 
deliberation and negotiation, what is permitted and what is restricted in 
any given situation.

------
Mark D. Johns, Ph.D.
Asst. Professor of Communication/Linguistics,
Luther College, Decorah, Iowa
http://faculty.luther.edu/~johnsmar/
-----------------------------------------------
"Get the facts first. You can distort them later."
     ---Mark Twain  

_______________________________________________
The Air-l-aoir.org at 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://aoir.org/airjoin.html