[Air-L] public/private

[Lois Ann Scheidt]

Ed, I'm having real problems understanding where you are coming from.  
I feel like I'm reading someone arguing that the Tuskegee Syphilis 
Research was bad...with people who are arguing the reverse. I don't 
think that is really where the rest of us are positioned.

Many years ago, I did EEO case preparation.  One of the rules we lived 
by was called The Rule of Ten, and I think it applies to what we do as 
researchers as well.  The rule works like this...if I went up to ten 
random people on the street...now they have to be "similar" to the 
complainant, so ten black women or ten men over 50 years of age...and 
did to them or said to them, etc. what was done to the complainant 
would they be upset?  It's a pretty good test to think your way 
through, and to use in discussion with others.

So would ten random people on the street be harmed if I took their 
public words and used them in a study?  And harmed doesn't mean not 
joyously happy...it means harmed. A journal article that is published 
in an academic venue is no more likely to lead someone back to the real 
life person behind the blog then their everyday postings.  You are not 
exposing them to a new audience, maybe a bit brighter light I 
agree...but the audience is already there and much larger than any 
group an academic article will tap, they have a potential audience of 
everyone on the planet who has any access to the internet.

Also I would like to say that getting a release doesn't mean 
participants can't be harmed by the research.  It simply means they 
were informed of possible harms...it passes responsibility to them for 
their decision to be part of, say an MRI study.  They could conceivably 
still be physically, emotionally, etc. harmed by the research.

Is there a chance of harm from any of the research we do...a small one 
for most projects.  And I can be hit by a falling satellite when I take 
my walk this evening...life is full of minimal risks, and more than a 
few maximal ones as well.

The issue is not making anything risk-free, that's impossible.  The 
issue is are the risks known, and are the known risks low enough that 
subjects are protected...if the known risks aren't low enough then the 
subjects must be informed of the risks and allowed to make a personal 
decision on their participation.

Nothing in the law or the Human Subjects documentation I've read has 
ever said "risk-free" it says, and rightly so, "minimal risk."

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


Quoting Ed Lamoureux <ell at bumail.bradley.edu>:

>
> On Aug 11, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Lois Ann Scheidt wrote:
>
>> The only way to respectfully judge an author?s choice of an ?intended
>> audience? is to ask them, otherwise we are using mind-reading to
>> ?protect? those we see and vulnerable in some fashion.  I will say
>> here
>> that I have much more problem with the idea of ?mind-reading? people?s
>> intentions than I have with saying publicly accessible
>> communication is
>> ?overheard? or equivalent to a letter to the editor, and therefore
>> open
>> country for research.
>
> further, informed consent is about consenting to allowing ones
> material to be used IN RESEARCH.... not just read. A lot of the
> arguments presented in favor of not asking/informing have to do with
> the material being readily available for READING . . . which strikes
> me as a different matter than material that is knowingly allowed to
> be treated as research data.  I know.... if the stuff if fully
> public, one doesn't have to ask for that informed consent. But I
> believe that there are so many grey areas in online communication
> (both in terms of private/public expectations AND intentions about
> recipients) that seeking informed consent of subjects is pretty
> important.  I have to wonder how many bloggers who willingly and self-
> consciously put their stuff out for everyone to read would respond
> when informed that their material was used as research data in a
> specific study . . . one that, perhaps, isn't about what they are
> interested in (or thought they were doing) at all?
>
> Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D.
> Associate Professor, Multimedia Program
> and Department of Communication
> Co-Director, New Media Center
> 1501 W. Bradley
> Bradley University
> Peoria IL  61625
> 309-677-2378
> <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html>
> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/>
> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam
> Second Life: Professor Beliveau
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L 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://www.aoir.org/
>