[Air-L] blogs and confidentiality

Mon Nov 28 09:05:43 PST 2011

Thanks, Terri. Nice rant. Well stated.
--
Mark D. Johns, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Communication Studies
Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA
-----------------------------------------------
2011-12 Director, Luther Study Centre
23 Haslemere Road
Nottingham NG8 5GJ
United Kingdom
-----------------------------------------------
"Get the facts first. You can distort them later."
    ---Mark Twain


On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Terri Senft <tsenft at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi pals,
>
> Can I pose an alternative way of looking at this, one based on principles
> of regard rather than rule of law?  I'm going to write a little rant, and
> then I promise to never say anything more on this, at least not on our list
> :)
>
> The Rant:
>
> Instead of trying to figure out on an academic listserve what is private
> and what is public on a blog, what if we let the people who are writing
> these words decide?
>
> A radical proposal: treat everything on a health-related blog as private,
> until you make a relationship with the author to do an interview, either
> via email or in person. Then, as part of the interview process, explain TO
> THE INTERVIEWEE what you felt was compelling about their writing --for
> scholarship, for health advocacy, etc. After you've expressed your
> thoughts, you ask them permission to quote from their work.
>
>
> This would require two layers of consent. The first would be the interview
> consent form; the second would be the permission to quote parts of the blog
> form. I suggest you tell them precisely what it is you are thinking of
> quoting, since health advocacy issues are tricky and what is sensitive
> stuff for one person might be run of the mill for another.  The interviewee
> could choose one, or both options for consent.
>
>
> As a researcher, I've done this in the past with all sorts of success and
> recommend it for two reasons. First, it's a way of acknowledging your
> interviewee as a writer, which is different than acknowledging him/her a a
> speaker, regardless of whether or not you are typing during the interview.
> Second, and perhaps more important, this process has always gotten me
> clearer  on my reasons for taking someone else's thoughts out of one
> context, and putting them into another, and the political ramifications of
> such a re-arrangement.
>
>
> And one more thought:
>
> If you are really interested in making connections to these communities of
> bloggers, and I assume you are or why else study them, you might even show
> them what you've written after you've done your analysis. I've done this in
> my own research and it's provided me with amazing follow-up material. Plus,
> it's a way of thanking people for their time and thoughts.
>
> Sorry if this feels like I am advocating more work. It can see how it might
> seem like that, but trust me when I say the work will be front-loaded. The
> world doesn't need another conference paper, dissertation or book that
> comes to the conclusion that impartial observation is a ridiculous
> notion--especially when it comes to researching advocacy communities. We
> freaking KNOW this already. What we need is research that engages with the
> ethical and epistemological issues that arise from this knowing. One way to
> get at those issues would be to actually communicate with the  individuals
> writing the words we hope to take for our scholarship, aka our "subjects."
> Think and write deeply on those interactions, and your work will be
> published, I guarantee. Avoid these interactions because it will be easier
> to push your project past committees, and your research will die a pretty
> obscure death. I'm advocating paying now, so you don't pay later.
>
> Friends, we know we aren't intrepid reporters, and internet research isn't
> like cracking Watergate. It would be awesome if we stopped behaving like it
> was. I cannot tell you how many colleagues don't want their classroom
> lectures podcast because while they know they are in a public forum, they
> feel resistant to having their thoughts broadcast in a super-public
> environment. How is a 'public' conversation meant for a health forum that
> is then transported to your book any different?
>
> Honestly, would it kill us to talk to people outside the academy as equals,
> with the same rights to ownership of their thoughts and expression as the
> rest of us want? Of course it wouldn't. Let's start doing it.
>
> End of rant, and love to all
>
>
> Terri
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Burcu Bakioglu <bbakiogl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, my "not nuanced" comment was for the reference made earlier to password
>> protected sites only. In other words, if a site is password protected, IRB
>> is going to ask that you use your informed consent form even if the
>> password protection is "weak" and it takes 10 seconds to sign up. In other
>> words, they won't consider whether it is easy to sign up or hard to sign
>> up. When confronted with the option, IRB chooses the more conservative
>> ground and say "It is better to be safe than sorry" so distribute your
>> consent forms even if you think that anyone can access it in 10 seconds. In
>> that regard, they don't see the distinction. i am not saying this is good
>> or bad, I am saying this is usually the case.
>>
>> However, I do agree that IRB is not a monolithic entity and each
>> institution is different (a comment made earlier). And I do agree with what
>> Jeremy said in his previous email.
>>
>> BsB
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Porter, James E. Dr.
>> <porterje at muohio.edu>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > >> Rather than entering the research enterprise with the above points as
>> > >> assumptions, I would advise researchers to begin the process with
>> these
>> > >> points as questions: For example, Are there members of my
>> institution's
>> > IRB
>> > >> who actually have experience with Internet research and who could not
>> > only
>> > >> understand my research but actually productively help advise its
>> > design? Did
>> > >> the writers of this blog actually *intend* to publish this work for
>> > public
>> > >> display and circulation?
>> > >
>> > > i don't think this is a valid test, you can't get to the information
>> you
>> > want
>> > > without intervening and thus breaking the model of research.  Intent in
>> > any
>> > > case is mutable, they might intend it today and not intend it tomorrow.
>> >
>> > I agree, intent is tricky. But I was not proposing intent as a litmus
>> test
>> > or ethical prescription. I was proposing it as a question to be asked as
>> > part of the process of research ethics. If the answer happens to be, "No,
>> > as
>> > far as I can tell from available information, the writer did not intend"
>> > ...
>> > well, that doesn't necessarily mean consent is required or the data
>> cannot
>> > be used. Not at all. There may be other compelling reasons in force, such
>> > as
>> > the ones you mention (e.g., document already exists in a publicly
>> available
>> > archive). Again, my point is not an ethical prescription, it's a point
>> > about
>> > research process: (1) ask the question, and (2) answer the question in
>> > terms
>> > of particular circumstances. Your follow-up questions are just the kind
>> of
>> > circumstantial questions I think researchers should be asking.
>> >
>> > > The question I'd ask here is less intent but
>> > > 'where can i find the data?'  Is it in a search engine, is it in an
>> > archive,
>> > > is it in the library of congress archive, etc. etc.  Has it been
>> > referenced or
>> > > referred to by other people?  in other words is there clear evidence
>> > that the
>> > > public is using this published document?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Jim Porter
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> > James E. Porter, Professor
>> > Department of English and
>> > Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies
>> > Director of Composition
>> >
>> > Department of English
>> > Bachelor Hall 356A
>> > Miami University
>> > Oxford, OH  45056
>> > email: porterje at muohio.edu
>> > twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim
>> > web:
>> > http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D.
>> Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media
>> Lawrence University
>>
>> http://www.palefirer.com
>> http://palefirer.com/blog/
>>
>> --
>> "Come to the dark side, we have cookies."
>> ~Anonymous
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> <http://goog_689013053>
>
> <http://goog_689013053>
>
> Dr. Theresa M. Senft
> Global Liberal Studies Program
> School of Arts & Sciences
> New York University
> 726 Broadway  NY NY 10003
>
> home: *www.terrisenft.net <http://goog_689013053>**
> *(needs a serious updating)
> facebook: www.facebook.com/theresa.senft
> twitter: @terrisenft
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>