[Air-l] Research question: interviewing online subjects?

[Sam Ladner]

I my diss proposal approved some months ago by my ethics board. They
insisted I insert a phrase in the informed consent letter detailing that I
would be unable to guarantee confidentiality in the event of legal
investigations.

It was ludicrous of course because my research involves nothing remotely
illegal and is simply a set of interviews among interactive agency workers.

They also insisted I insert a paragraph that my university would not hold
anything against them based on their participation. I can only infer there
was a rash of disappointed undergraduate applicants that had participated in
university-based research....none of my participants understood the reason
behind that phrase either.

The long and short of it is, IMHO, the ethics boards are bureaucratic and
therefore irrational bodies that, ironically, have only rationalism to guide
them. They certainly have the Soviet heavy "one size fits all" approach. It
was similar to a mortgage application.

If I were interested in a question of legality and research ethics, I might
actually ask a lawyer and not an ethics administrator, but that's just me.



On 5/17/07, Mary-Helen Ward <mhward at usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Usually the original approach to the participant includes the
> information of who they can complain to. I think this is pretty
> standard in successful ethics applications. You would usually start
> by complaining to the ethics committee at the institution that
> sponsored or approved the research.
>
> Ethics committees usually provide guidelines for these things,
> although they may need some stretching to include online studies.
> There is usually someone employed by the institution to explain these
> guidelines.
>
> That said, I didn't mention this specific issue on my ethics
> application and the committee that approved it didn't  either.
>
> M-H
>
> On 18/05/2007, at 11:23 AM, Erika Pearson wrote:
>
> > Hello all
> >
> > I've been reading the general sociology literature on conducting
> > interviews as part of a research project, and some of the literature
> > I have come across makes a point of noting that interviewers should
> > be warning interviewees that any illegal or immoral behaviours
> > uncovered during the course of the research/interview may be reported
> > (for example, Adler and Adler, 2003).
> >
> > My questions in regards to this are:
> > 1)  Are those who have or are conducting online interviews or even
> > interviews about internet issues making a point of such cautions? ( I
> > suspect the two approaches have two separate answers).  What are
> > others' experiences of this as practice?
> >
> > 2)  If so, what is the benchmark for classifying acceptable and
> > unacceptable behaviours? (i.e.: the laws and norms of the
> > interviewers context?  Those of the physical jurisdiction of the
> > interviewee, if known?  The norms of the virtual group, network, or
> > community under study?)
> >
> > I browsed through the AoIR Ethics Committee document on Internet
> > research, and (as I read it) there seemed to be an implication that
> > the physical jurisdiction of the research subject was the prime
> > candidate for setting a legal or ethical standard more generally in
> > regards to proper treatment of research subjects, but that was just
> > my sense on a first reading.  I would be very interested to hear the
> > thoughts and experiences of others on this matter.  I admit, as I was
> > reading this, my first thought was 'who would I report it to anyway!'
> >
> > I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
> >
> > with thanks
> > erika
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>