[Air-L] Online research ethics

[Charles Ess]

Hello all,

Most interesting! (And please see extended thanks, below).

I think the AoIR guidelines and subsequent discussion / literature may be
helpful here in two ways,
1) as they distinguish between posters as "subjects" in approaches shaped by
the social sciences, drawing on the medical model of Human Subjects
Protections, and posters as authors in approaches shaped more by humanities.
The latter _want_ acknowledgment, publicity, etc. - and in any case, if
their work is published online, under U.S. Copyright law, it is copyrighted.
The ethical issue then becomes one of how far one can cite under "fair use"
(very muddy for digital materials, as Dan Burk has helpfully reminded us) -
and when one must ask permission for, in effect, re-publishing published
materials.  (They didn't happen to license their work with a Creative
Commons license or something similar, did they?  That would help, I think
...),
And
2) as they highlight the importance of posters' expectations regarding their
material.

To begin with then, if the primary debate is between

> 1) One of my advisors argues that the group is posting
> on public websites and explicitly states that their
> stories are for public consumption, so should be
> treated as document data and cited using standard
> citation practices for blogs and websites.
> 2) A second advisor disagrees and argues that the
> group should be considered individual subjects,
> including requests of permission to use statements,
> pseudonyms for screen names and perhaps even consent
> forms of some sort.
> 3) A third person says that no, it should be treated
> as participant observation, that I should inform
> members that I am using data from the authors notes
> and feedback but not require consent forms.
> Specifically, since the participants use screenames
> and thus are unlikely to want to give me access to
> their real names. Their "real" names are anonymous, so
> I should focus on how to protect or not their screen
> names...

Then I would lean strongly in favor of "1)" - with regard to material drawn
from public sites.  These are fiction writers working towards publication
and publishing their work on public sites.

At the same time, however, it gets sticky with regard to
> their authors notes, where
> the talk to and about other members of their group and
> somewhat in their feedback, which is sometimes posted
> with the stories.
If the authors' notes were originally posted in a smallish, "members only"
venue with either explicit or at least implicit expectations that these
materials would not be shared with a larger public without the authors'
permission, then advisor 2 makes important points.
If, on the other hand (which is not likely), the authors' notes were
published in a larger, more open venue with little expectation that these
materials are somehow private, then we're back to advisor 1.
[This is not to say that advisor 3 is completely off-track.  Au contraire -
this is a defensible position, but one that I would characterize as the
ethical minimum.  Advisor 2 is moving towards what may be more than
absolutely necessary - but interestingly enough, this is characteristic
among several researchers in these domains.  The fancy term for it in ethics
"supererogatory" - above and beyond an ethical minimum; Judith Jarvis
Thomson coined the phrase "Good Samaritan Ethics" back in the 1970s to make
the same point.  Take your pick - though the latter, of course, is heavily
culturally laden.]

So you might divide your ethical treatment of the materials into at least
two approaches, depending on where the materials appear.

Moreover, I keep returning to the continuum of possible options for informed
consent originally developed by Danielle Lawson to be helpful for providing
still more nuance - but also more complication, perhaps:

n1. consent to having their nickname and communicative text used for data
analysis only (no publication of name or text);
n2. consent to having either their nickname or text published in an academic
work, but never together (i.e., no identifiers);
n3. consent to having either their nickname or text published in an academic
work, but never together (i.e., no identifiers) and providing they get to
see the Œwrite up¹ prior to publication;
n4. consent to having both their nickname and text published in academic
work, thereby being credited as the authors of their own words; or
n5. consent to having both their nickname and text published in academic
work, thereby being credited as the authors of their own words, providing
they get to see the Œwrite up¹ prior to publication. The last two options
deal directly with the issue of CMC copyright.
[Blurring the boundaries: Ethical considerations for online research using
synchronous CMC forums, p. 93.  In E. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in Virtual
Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies, pp. 80-100 (Hershey: Idea Group,
2004).]

These possibilities may be helpful for refining your response to advisor 2?

In any event, hope these comments are useful - please do keep us posted as
to the outcome!

- charles ess


>> 
>> On 7/3/08 2:50 PM, "Alecea Standlee" <stan0504 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear List Members,
>>> 
>>> I was hoping I could get some feedback on an ethical
>>> issue that I am trying to work through with my
>>> dissertation commitee.
>>> 
>>> I am conducting community and social network research
>>> with a group online. Essentially, the group is a
>>> collection of fiction writer hobbists, who write and
>>> then 'publish" their work online. They publish in a
>>> variety of venues, including personal websites, story
>>> archives and public liveJournals. The interesting data
>>> (for me) is in the form of their authors notes, where
>>> the talk to and about other members of their group and
>>> somewhat in their feedback, which is sometimes posted
>>> with the stories.
>>> 
>>> The dilemma is this. How do I consider this group with
>>> regard to informed consent. I have three different
>>> sets of recommendations
>>> 1) One of my advisors argues that the group is posting
>>> on public websites and explicitly states that their
>>> stories are for public consumption, so should be
>>> treated as document data and cited using standard
>>> citation practices for blogs and websites.
>>> 2) A second advisor disagrees and argues that the
>>> group should be considered individual subjects,
>>> including requests of permission to use statements,
>>> pseudonyms for screen names and perhaps even consent
>>> forms of some sort.
>>> 3) A third person says that no, it should be treated
>>> as participant observation, that I should inform
>>> members that I am using data from the authors notes
>>> and feedback but not require consent forms.
>>> Specifically, since the participants use screenames
>>> and thus are unlikely to want to give me access to
>>> their real names. Their "real" names are anonymous, so
>>> I should focus on how to protect or not their screen
>>> names...
>>> 
>>> What do you all think about the issue? Should I
>>> contact the authors and not use the feedback, which
>>> sometimes comes from people "outside" the core group?
>>> Should I treat it like document websites? I am really
>>> torn about what the ethical thing to do here is.
>>> 
>>> Alecea Standlee MA. MA. PhD Student.
>>> Syracuse University
>>> Maxwell School of Citizenship
>>> Department of Sociology