[Air-L] IRB and blogs + invitation

[Michael Zimmer]

And to complicate _this_ a bit more, Elizabeth Buchanan, Montana Miller, John Palfry, and I recently presented to the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) on "The Internet in Human Subjects Research", highlighting how the current guidance by OHRP has considerable gaps wrt internet based research.

Details here:
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/mtgings/mtg07-10/mtg07-10.html
http://michaelzimmer.org/2010/07/20/presentation-research-ethics-in-the-2-0-era/

For those at IR11, while it's likely too late to register for the pre-conference workshop on "Ethics and Internet Research Commons:  Building a sustainable future", we are also holding a roundtable on "Internet Research Ethics Digital Library, Research Center, and Commons" on Thursday at 11:40am-12:40pm. 

Please join us!

-michael.


-- 
Michael Zimmer, PhD
Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies
Director, BS in Information Science & Technology Program
Associate, Center for Information Policy Research
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
e: zimmerm at uwm.edu
w: www.michaelzimmer.org


On Oct 17, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Steve Jones wrote:

> Complicated though this case may be from an ethical standpoint, since it involves an IRB and is in the U.S., the IRB must adhere to federal guiddlines for human subjects research as expressed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The "decision tree" HHS provides at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/decisioncharts.htm I think makes it pretty clear that IRB approval is not required. The two key points in the decision tree are whether the research involves intervention or interaction with human subjects (my assumption, which may be incorrect, is that the blogging in question is going on without contact from the researcher) and whether the information is private (my assumption, which may be incorrect, is that the blog is publicly available). In the event my assumptions are correct, the decision tree leads to the conclusion that "the research is not research involving human subjects." In other words, it is research that should not be subject to IRB review.The researcher's ethics may lead to different conclusions, but from what I can tell, unless something else is going on (communication with the bloggers, comments by the research on posts, or some other means of interacting with the bloggers) the IRB ought not be involved if it is following federal guidelines.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Oct 17, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Alex Halavais wrote:
> 
>> Thanks to Charles for complicating things :).
>> 
>> I think part of the issue here is a disconnect between ethical
>> protections of the source of the material studied and whether
>> submitting to an IRB is sensible or practical. Part of the idea behind
>> an IRB is that human subjects are human subjects and an oncologist, a
>> psychologist, and a pharmacologist sitting on the committee should be
>> able to tell whether there is significant risk of harm to the
>> subjects--or, as in this case, whether there are human subjects at
>> all. Frankly, as someone who has studied blog content without passing
>> my protocols through the IRB, I strongly suspect that they are not
>> prepared to make that call.
>> 
>> There is certainly evidence that bloggers expect scholarly attention
>> about as much as they expect the Spanish Inquisition. Fernanda Viégas
>> might be worth looking at on this:
>> 
>> http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/viegas.html
>> 
>> though I'm sure there is other work on the topic out there as well.
>> 
>> That said, journalists also don't expect scholarly attention, nor do
>> tourists walking through Times Square. That lack of expectation does
>> not mean that they should remain unstudied. And at some point I think
>> we have to say that there are competing values in research, and it is
>> harmful to scholarship--and by extension to humanity--to require
>> *everything* to be exposed to prior review by peers. So the question
>> is where to draw the line. I generally draw it such that utterances in
>> public should reasonably be open to interpretation by members of the
>> public, including scholars. Certainly, there are risks, but there are
>> always risks where communication is involved. Whether these risks rise
>> to the level that we should institutionalize protections is the
>> question.
>> 
>> I am less sanguine about this line in particular cases: say, studies
>> of blogging about self-harm, or by prison inmates, or similar groups.
>> In other words, I don't think there is a clear line. But the lack of
>> clarity also--I think--does not automatically necessitate submission
>> to a human subjects board.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> --
>> //
>> // This email is
>> // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded, but I certainly
>> don't expect it to be used as primary material in any sort of research
>> ;)
>> // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
>> //
>> // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur
>> // http://alex.halavais.net
>> //
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/