[Air-L] avatar research ethics

[Gordon Carlson]

Are you buying this stuff?  I'm not.

My response which was rejected for length and I am not going to resend
follows:

I see it this way, the options for interpretation are (as I see them):

1.  Avatars are, unto themselves, close enough to people to warrant
protection as subjects.
2.  Avatars are artifacts created by people, akin to a lively blog with
pictures and constant updating.
3.  Avatars are just toys like a doll but that are visible to many people

In each case:

1. I don't think IRB groups are ready to handle this.  If not, it might
merit caution before choosing to execute a study because an ignorant IRB
cannot investigate the issues yet; they lack the nuance necessary.  Their
lack of ability to protect avatars makes the study unduly dangerous as only
the investigator could protect subjects (which we don't trust, hence IRB in
the first place).

2.  If they are artifacts then you treat them like blogs or public texts and
the determination is whether they are public and thus fair game or whether
they are expecting some level of privacy.  It becomes a content analysis of
sorts.  I personally argue that because Second Life is inherently
interactive and visible, there cannot be a significant expectation of
privacy or anonymity: I think it is mostly akin to walking around in the
real life streets in daylight.  So the data is fair game much like analyzing
a book and knowing who the author is (much like a rhetorical criticism).

3.  If they are just dolls then the study is how people use them (and the
associated data as necessary and relevant).  I don't know enough about this
area of research to know how to handle it.  Strikes me as part of the
general umbrella of psychology.  I would love to hear others' opinions.

Thoughts?

-Gordon Carlson


On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Steve Jones <sjones at uic.edu> wrote:

> If I may ask: Why? Is it because the avatars somehow "represent"
> humans (or vice versa)? Can we be sure that the "harms" we may
> identify in the case of human subjects are ones that could also harm
> avatars? Might there be avatar-specific "harms" to which we should
> attend? What was behind the Review Board's decision? And how does it
> define "online identity?"
>
> Sj
>
> On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Marj Kibby wrote:
>
> > Dr Marjorie Kibby,
> > Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture
> > Faculty of Education and Arts
> > The University of Newcastle,  Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia
> > Marj.Kibby at newcastle.edu.au
> > +61 2 49216604
> >>>> Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns at vt.edu> 03/08/08 4:26 AM >>>
> > The question was.... "When I take pictures of any random person using
> > a building in sl, am I doing human subjects research?'
> >
> >
> > Our Review Board guidelines say that online identities must be
> > afforded the same protection from harm as real world identities.
> > They would see avatars as human subjects.
> >
> >
> > Marj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>



-- 
Gordon Carlson
C: 541-990-1155