[Air-L] part 2 of 2

[Jeremy Hunsinger]

Ed,

it might help if you would explain how you think this is pertinent in  
this case.  we were talking about studying weblogs, or published  
texts on the internet.  texts that are published.  we were not  
talking about in this specific instance the creators were we?  is  
there even a human subject being researched?  are we making  
inferences about the text or about people?  i think coming to  
understand what you think is so important here is necessary because  
I'm failing to see how we are dealing with subjects at all, i'd argue  
we are just dealing with published texts.

what form of the study are you imagining here that requires anything  
more than a reference to an author.

I think in the case of illinois, it is likely stretching the federal  
mandate which speaks only of private data being protected.  I can see  
the illinois committee having an interest in all data, but only to  
discern which is private or public.

I think that we'd find as our colleagues at UI system have found, as  
i recall a few posts ago, that the study of weblogs and content  
analysis even for social research, has not required a system of  
informed consent, and was exempted from review.

you are arguing that if you use identifiable data, you require  
informed consent, I'm thinking that this will fall under the minimal  
risk doctrine, and informed consent will be only required if there  
is  real possibility of some harm, and I think the argument will be  
very hard to make as we've seen.

here i turn to things like media studies and newspaper analysis and  
we have the same problem.. will i have to get permission from mayor  
daley to represent his actions in my paper?  no, he is a public  
figure, will I have to get permission of the author of a newspaper  
story through informed consent.. again no.   but blogs?  you think  
yes.  why?  are you making some argument that bloggers do not know  
that their material is published or some argument that bloggers are  
not publishing?    Some other argument about the relationship between  
bloggers and their text?  or what?  are you thinking that blog  
research is some kind of implied ethnography which must then imply a  
subject?   i'm not sure, and I'm clearly not seeing your position  
very clearly.

my position is:

blogs are texts like books, magazines and bulletin boards
blogs are not like letters or medical records
Researching blogs does not imply that one is researching a person
IRB should waive blog research that deals only with published text
Researchers should not worry about repeating and citing prior  
published text as it falls under minimal risk doctrine.
Individual researchers should use their judgment and consult with  
their local irb, because doctrines vary, but a published text is  
different than a human subject.