[Air-l] internet research and confidentiality
Mark D. Johns
johnsmar at luther.edu
Wed Dec 22 11:11:30 PST 2004
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
More information about the Air-L
mailing list