[Air-l] Google is watching !

[Jennifer Stromer-Galley]

Two thoughts to Rod's post.

First, upon what basis can a researcher declare that Americans who use
the Internet give up their right to say no to being researched? Just
because Americans are early adopters does not mean that they experience
all of their interactions online as public. The premise that users of
the Internet implicitly consent to be researched is unfounded. Not all
Americans are savvy Internet users who understand how the Internet
actually works. Even if they did, that does not entail that they have
consented to be researched. 

Second, it's not that "I" feel uncomfortable recording conversations.
That's not my point. This conversation is about social ontology and
ethics and not my personal psychology. 

My point is that as researchers we cannot carte blanche declare whatever
we see online as "public" and therefore researchable. 

Sincerely,
~Jenny Stromer-Galley

 -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-admin at aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin at aoir.org] On 
> Behalf Of Rod Carveth
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:59 PM
> To: air-l at aoir.org
> Subject: RE: [Air-l] Google is watching !
> 
> 
> Jenny,
> 
<snip>
> 
> If a researcher wants to record the interactions of a GLBT 
> support group, 
> anonymity is pretty easy to insure -- just don't reveal the 
> names (or any 
> other identity revealing information) in the public 
> dissemination of the 
> data.
> 

<snip>

> This is not the same as the interactions of Internet users in 
> the United 
> States in an online support group.  For example, people can 
> lurk relatively 
> anonymously in many groups, so the total number of people 
> involved in the 
> interaction is not known (unlike F2F).  Second, the 
> interactions are written 
> down and can be archived, so there's a record of what is 
> being said.  In 
> other words, participants in an online support group know 
> that the nature of 
> their communication is different than in F2F interaction.  
> And, by agreeing 
> to participate in an online forum, they are inherently 
> agreeing to deal with 
> those differences -- basically, they have given implied 
> consent to having 
> their interactions collected, analyzed, interpreted, etc.
> 
> Thus, given that participants' anonymity can easily be 
> insured, and that 
> interactants by their very participation have given their 
> consent to their 
> comments to be used as data, then I don't see anything 
> ethically wrong with 
> using their postings as data.
> 
> Jenny, if you are uncomfortable recording those conversations 
> as data, then 
> you can choose not to.  I just happen to believe that those 
> who choose to 
> are not violating any ethical principles here.
> 
> Rod
>