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

[jcu]

HI Lois,

I appreciate your thoughts here.

I have already stated that I use the form of the
blog as a writing tool. There is more than one
way to use a blog space (ie. everyone
has assumed that it only serves one purpose,
that of a social networking tool, because that
is their research agenda).

Since my work in print has a visual element,
since its visual form matters to me, I see it in
a blog format and can play with layout and design,
tweeking it on a daily basis as I reread it there/ rethink
it, in a way that word programs don't allow.

By the same token, if a tourist takes my photo without my
permission, I usually ask them to delete it. Usually they do.
Ethics boards and rules, or not.

Thanks for your reply.
jcu


From: "Lois Ann Scheidt"
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Air-L] public/private [part 1 of 2]


> First, let me note that someone "peering through a window," as you've
> implied into a private space like a home, would not be exempt level
> research.  It would not gain that distinction because first such
> peering is illegal in the US...trespassing, peeping-Tom's, etc.  But if
> you had the same conversations or wore the same clothes - whatever the
> researcher was studying - in your local Walmart, then it's your
> decision to be in public and so that would be open to research.
>
> I'm sorry if this is an inappropriate question, but if you are the only
> consumer of your work you expect to see using your cite and you seem
> very offended by the idea that anyone - including a researcher - could
> appropeiate your work for whatever is legal under local law, then why
> do you post your multiple blogs publicly?
>
> 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 jcu >
>> Thank you for your reply here.
>> Here is a personal anecdote ...
>>
>>
>> I keep a few blogs because I use the blog format
>> as a writing tool. Although I do allow comments,
>> I do not actively solicit commenters (ie. I do not 'blog'
>> by visiting others' blogs and dropping comments on
>> their sites to get them to visit mine). Nor do I often
>> respond to any comments that may get left on my blogs
>> (ie. I do not encourage blog traffic or blog noise).
>> The main purpose of my blogs is to use them as writing
>> tools, for me to 'see' my writing 'published' for the sake
>> of playing with literary form and visual design.
>>
>> My blogs are for me, even if, every once in a
>> while, someone discovers them. But based on your comments,
>> I will now add a disclaimer to the bottom of my blog which
>> states "No research here".
>>
>> It would be highly unethical to me if any researcher quietly
>> observed my blogs for the sake of "research".  Like someone
>> peering through an open window in the name of research and
>> claiming the contents of the window as 'public domain'
>> (even though I do not publish my actual name anywhere on my
>> blogs, nor do I write any questionable material that names
>> or harms others). If a researcher were to reveal their presence
>> and their research agenda to me, I would say no without
>> hesitation. If they refused, I would immediately remove my blogs.
>>
>> The point is, you can't assume anything about anything
>> in virtual space.
>>
>> respectfully,
>> jcu
>>

>> From: "Lois Ann Scheidt" >> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:21 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Air-L] public/private [part 1 of 2]
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>