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

[Monica Barratt]

This is a question I have also been considering over the last few
weeks, prior to beginning my online interviews which should happen
over the next month.

Paul has stated this very well. For me, in researching activities
relating to illicit drugs, I must make sure that participants under
that:
- what they tell me is confidential
- the exception to this is if they disclose a serious and imminent
threat to harm themselves or others
- they are free to choose not to answer any particular questions.

 So the participant, if they were (for example) running a drug
trafficking operation, can choose not to inform me of this, and surely
wouldn't suddenly tell me such details! When we do ask questions about
crime, we always have a preamble which stresses that we are not in any
way interested in details, just general frequency levels of types of
crime. This way we do not end up with the sort of information that
would require us to breach confidentiality.

Research materials in Australia are subject to legal subpoena; we
can't apply for protection from this as I believe can be done in the
USA.

The issue I am faced with is that my consent form for online
interviewing of drug users does not contain an exception clause at
this point (and was passed by my ethics committee). My supervisor and
I have been discussing including this exception clause. However we did
both ask ourselves, what would we do if such information came out in
an online interview, where we don't have concrete details of the
person's identity? If they told me they were going to commit suicide
and I wanted to inform someone to help them, how would I do this? I
could certainly direct them to resources (online and face-to-face) but
none of this breaks confidentiality.

However we did conceive of situations where the confidentiality
exception clause is necessary in the case where the participant
disclosed details of their identity and a serious/imminent threat to
themselves or others. We would then have enough information to get
help for them. And they would be aware from the start that this would
be the outcome should they disclose this sort of information.

I agree that this should only be in regards to illegal (rather than
'immoral') acts. I also think it would be a bit strange to have this
clause in all types of research - however, although it may seem
unlikely, you just never know when you might find yourself in this
ethically tricky situation. Best that participants know exactly where
they stand from the outset.

Let us know what you decide to do Erika!

regards
monica


Monica Barratt
PhD Student
National Drug Research Institute
http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/staff.asp?persid=650
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mbarratt



On 19/05/07, Sam Ladner < samladner at gmail.com> wrote:
> These are all important points -- I concur that the ethics board should be
> respected insofar as they protect subjects.
>
> That said, however, I believe their approach does very little to actually
> protect subjects. The informed consent letter I have for participants is 2
> pages long. It is very verbose and largely unintellible to the uninitiated
> (this at the board's explicit direction). The net result is that the lived
> experience of my participants varies greatly from the "official" experience
> the board is attempting to engineer.
>
> Ethical obligations do not reside within rules or structures. Ethical
> obligations must transcend such structures. There is no "letter of the law"
> that ruled a very real ethical problem I encountered yesterday -- a person
> who knew one of my participants mentioned that I had interviewed him. I
> could not discuss this interview, or even the existence of such an
> interview, in accordance with what i perceive to be my ethical obligation of
> confidentiality.
>
> My ethics board says nothing about this specific case. I must infer the
> spirit of the rules, which I prefer to do instead of following letter of the
> law at the expense of its spirit.
>
>
>
> On 5/18/07, Justin Reedy <jsreedy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/18/07, Sam Ladner <samladner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > I have heard a lot of folks in the social sciences express frustration at
> > IRBs and ethics boards, but I think it's very important to remember the
> > basics of why they exist: to protect research subjects and represent their
> > interests.
> >
> > Most researchers in all of the sciences (life sciences, social sciences,
> > etc.) are very conscientious in their work, and would not willingly harm
> > their subjects or expose them to suffering (in the case of animals used in
> > life sciences research, for example). However, there have been far too
> > many
> > cases where scientists acted in ways that harmed (or could have harmed)
> > subjects for the sake of their research. The IRB is an entity that is
> > supposed to represent the interests of subjects, just as researchers
> > represent their own interests.
> >
> > Some of the protections or informed-consent clauses may seem strange and
> > inappropriate for your particular line of research, but IMO, when
> > protecting
> > a group that has in the not-so-distant past been left unrepresented in the
> > process or study design and implementation (I'm speaking of research
> > subjects here), it is far better to be safe than sorry. Also, some of
> > those
> > clauses can seem weird for your work, but upon further reflection, it's
> > not
> > too much of a stretch to see how someone could feel coerced into
> > participating or doing something else they'd rather not do. A large state
> > university, for instance, can be a powerful entity in a research subject's
> > community and may seem intimidating to people.
> >
> > Just to reiterate my overarching point: I try to view an IRB as an entity
> > representing the interests of subjects, who get no say in the design and
> > implementation of a study otherwise.
> >
> > My two cents as a (lowly) graduate student,
> > Justin Reedy
> > University of Washington
> > Department of Communication
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>