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

[Alex Halavais]

I hate to see this discussion become corrosive, but I also think it is
a mistake to abandon the discussion entirely because of some
differences of opinion.

I'll reiterate that in my experience, studying public blogs--or for
that matter any intentionally public page on the web--is usually the
equivalent of studying newspaper articles. In both media, I have done
the work with *no* IRB oversight. In early cases of looking at weblog
content, I consulted informally with the chair of an IRB and verified
that since no subjects were involved, no IRB application (expedited or
otherwise) was necessary.

And so, to Lois's  comment...

On 8/13/07, Lois Ann Scheidt <lscheidt at indiana.edu> wrote:
> 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.

That does not follow as an "of course" to me. Exemptions are generally
for minimally invasive studies of subjects: i.e., of individuals. This
includes, for example, materials that have already been made public
through earlier work. But it does not apply to, for example, newspaper
articles.

I can see why the dichotomy between subjects and their communications
could lead to confusion. Take, for example, the AOL Search Data that
was made available. I think the ethical issues were discussed here on
AIR-L. Could you make the argument that you are not studying people
but their communications in that case? No, because any reasonable
person typing their searches into a search engine would not expect
those searches--especially streams of queries--to be made publicly
available and identifiable.

I acknowledge that bloggers may not always be cognizant of the
*repercussions* of the public nature of their blogging. We are all
familiar with stories of bloggers being "dooced" in one form or
another, and I'll admit to having the "ZOMG my Mom reads my blog"
moment more than once. Despite the fuzziness  of the "reasonable
person" and "reasonable expectation" language that shows up in so much
US jurisprudence, I think it is fair to assume that when someone
publishes something to the world, they mean for people to read it.

Discussion and disagreements are important in this and in any ethical
issue, but I am surprised by Ed's suggestion that there are
substantial differences of opinion on the question on whether IRBs
require full review for content analysis of blogs. But then, I'll also
admit surprise that Lois's IRB requires expedited review of her
group's studies.

Without suggesting that the wider ethical question is without merit (I
think that it is), I would be interested in hearing from those on the
list who have published or presented content analyses of blogs,
whether anyone has heard of an actual case where the IRB required
review. I would also be interested in a clarification from Lois &
Elijah, since they have published research in this area, whether they
were required by their IRB to submit a formal application for
exemption.

I also wonder if someone on this very large list has served on an IRB
and would be willing to add their voice.

I admit that I am operating under the assumption that there is no
substantial controversy on this topic from the perspective of
IRBs--that their interpretation is that blogs are public--but I am
willing to correct that understanding if there are examples of
research of blog content for which local IRBs *have* required review.

Best,

Alex



-- 


--
//
// This email is
// [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
//
// Alexander C. Halavais
// Social Architect
// http://alex.halavais.net
//