[Air-L] public/private [part 1 of 2]

[Lois Ann Scheidt]

Ed, It's interesting to me that you say you have no agenda but you
chose to reply to a private message in public...and you quoted my email
without asking me in advance.  Very interesting

You have now wound back to my first email, where I addressed the
confusion about   the unit of analysis.  If the unit of analysis is the
webpage only, then of course application to an IRB is required in the
US.  But it will, most likely be exempt level research.  You are not
analyzing people, you are analyzing the artifacts they produce...the
text.  And publicly available text, etc. is similar  to a letter to the
editor in any major newspaper...the producer placed the work in a
publicly accessible location and unlocked it for the standard uses
allowed under the law.  Do the producers always know that's what they
did...of course not...and in those cases we educate.

As Marj has said, ethnographic work is different, assuming that you are
"participating" as well as "observing" and everything is in a publicly
accessible local.  I sincerely hope that the newbie researchers reading
this  thread made note of an earlier post that pointed out the
sometimes dichotomous definitions of "public" and "private".  Sometimes
the term "publicly accessible" is clearer...in that a mall may be
private property but the owners of that private property are running a
publicly assessable establishment and have very few reasons they can
legally ask someone to leave.  Another example would be that you can't
yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater but you can study the way people
sit physically while they are there, and that too would be exempt level
research...as long as you are only observing.

Ed, your most recent email appears to be saying that you are concerned
that research is being conducted without IRB review.  I think you will
find that others share that concern.  However no where in your previous
posts do I find that being stated as your primary concern...nor do I
find the concern about IRB oversight being clearly articulated.  It's a
very different discussion than saying that the creator's of
intellectual property have final say on that properties use in any
situation...assuming they didn't post their blogs with an explicit
statement that research is allowed.

And finally, neither here or in my private email to you did I express a
need for guidance.  Your "mind-reading" decision that a title makes you
the "expert" and my lack of that title makes me the "learner" is
interesting, and while I can't address your qualifications I can
address my own...and I am not in need of guidance related to the
material I have discussed here or in my private email.  While it is
wonderful that AoIR and other listservs reach out to assist students
who ask for help, it is also best for those who answer to do more than
express their opinions...opinions alone are very unhelpful to grad
students as many of them are looking for "the right" answer and may
confuse an opinion with the actual process.

I have to note, that in a previous email I commented on the problems
with "mind-reading" subjects rather than asking them about their
expectation of privacy.  Mind-reading is never good, and it is always
both a controlling behavior and one that places the mind-reader above
the mind-read person...the mind-reader knows best.  I for one do not
believe that my studies, and my good fortune in both being able to take
the time for PhD studies or for having the access to funding to gain my
degree, gives me some superior insight into another persons thinking,
asking is always best.  Now if a blogger posted "NO RESEARCH HERE." I
would have to think twice before I would know if I would use that site
in my research.  No doubt I would be consulting with some of my
colleagues on this list who are experts in ethics, law, and human
subjects work.

I would have remained in this "public/private" discussion, prior to you
calling me out, had I felt that it was actually an academic
discussion...rather then one person using a baseball bat to force their
"opinion" on others.  As I have said previously in this thread, it's
like watching someone who thinks they are arguing against the Tuskegee
Syphilis Studies with people who are supporting that research...when no
one here is supporting harm to subjects or the creators of the
artifacts we study.

I want to caution anyone new to the "human subjects" debate, that when
you read IRB rules or any Human Subjects legal documentation please
remember these documents were created, in very legalistic language, to
primarily address historic problems with medical and psychological
research.  I am in no way saying they do not apply to social science
research, rather that they don't fit us neatly...hence so many of these
discussions must be had as we work through how old rules apply to new
situations.  I would also caution new researchers to talk to experts,
and to read published ethical and IRB essays and research so they know
the prevailing point of view...don't just take a faculty members word
for it, you need to take the time to learn it yourself, because you
will be held responsible for your own research ethics.

Lois Ann Scheidt

Doctoral Student - School of Library and Information Science, Indiana
University, Bloomington IN USA

Adjunct Instructor - School of Informatics, IUPUI, Indianapolis IN USA and
IUPUC, Columbus IN USA

Webpage:  http://www.loisscheidt.com
Blog:  http://www.professional-lurker.com