[Air-L] ethics and listservs

Thu May 2 12:51:12 PDT 2013

This response makes a technical sense - especially if there were no clear
terms of service / ethical requirements, etc. that needed to be agreed to
before an account was given.
But if there were such a ToS, then it might contain provisions that would
apply one way or another?

Moreover, the AoIR guidelines (in both 2002 and 2012) point to the
importance of researchers taking into consideration the _sensitivity_ of
information and whether or not release of sensitive information would
possibly / likely result in harm.  In general, the greater likelihood of
harm, the more the burden lies on the researcher to ensure protection of
anonymity, etc. 
What's interesting to me, after more than a decade of reading various
ethical sections in diverse research reports, dissertations, etc. are the
number of times researchers will in fact "go the extra mile" (a good
Samaritan ethics) to do what they believe / feel / think to be the right
thing - protecting their subjects from disclosure of potentially damaging
information - even where extant policies and practices make no such
requirement.  FWIW: based on that reading and affiliated discussions with
scores of researchers from a variety of cultures and traditions - I think it
fair to say most of them would _not_ do something like this as so very
likely to result in serious damage to those named, etc.

A more minimalist approach - intended as a descriptive, not normative
statement - might go along the lines suggested here; but again, there might
be one or more statements in a ToS that would shed important light on that.

But finally, it seems clear that this is not "research" in the sense we are
usually interested in and that would thus fall under the guidelines and
suggestions of the relevant research communities.  Rather, it seems clearly
politically motivated and designed to serve as a form of intimidation, which
in my tiny little mind disqualifies it as research in the sense I'm
interested in and that the research communities we have worked with are
concerned with. 

Whether or not the collector of the data has a right to disseminate this
sort of data - e.g., in the name of freedom of speech - is another
complication.

Hope these are useful reflections in some way or another.
- charles
Associate Professor in Media Studies
Department of Media and Communication
Director, Centre for Research on Media Innovations
<http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/research/center/media-innovations/>
University of Oslo 
P.O. Box 1093 Blindern
NO-0317 
Oslo Norway
email: charles.ess at media.uio.no

On 02.05.13 20:59, "Joshua Treadway" <listserv.aoir.org at elkears.com> wrote:

> I don't see the problem with it. It is a compilation of data you all had
> access to and he released that data back to the same group. If he didn't
> release the names, it would be of no difficulty to figure out the outliers
> as, again, you all have access to the same source data.
> 
> If all of you were in sitting in a circle, taking turns talking. And this
> 'researcher' took notes and said that 'Prof. Smith' is over representing
> his argument and I have the statistics, would that be objectionable?
> 
> Again, it wasn't privileged information and from your information it wasn't
> released to outside sources. All it did was add clarity to the arguments
> represented (and pseudonyms in this case would offer no real protection,
> only weaken data).
> 
> I think is situation sheds light on a problem with
> Computer-Mediated-Communications, there is often a false sense of distance
> between the speakers and the computer acts as shield when that simply is
> not the case.
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Rhiannon Bury <bury417 at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone
>> 
>> There has been a  development on an internal Faculty Association listserv
>> at my university that I thought those of you interested in research ethics
>> may wish to advise or comment on.
>> 
>> 
>> First a little background. The provincial government hasdpromised to
>> increase funding by 2% to postsecondary educaton sector last year. They
>> reneged on that promise and slashed the budget by 7%. Our university
>> Administration responded almost instantly by using a "financial stringency"
>> clause in our collective agreement, giving lay off notices to about 25
>> academic and professional staff, included tenured faculty. We are a small
>> university and so we have a faculty association listserv set up
>> specifically for discussion of university issues. Tensions as you can
>> imagine are running high and the listserv is very active. Like at most
>> universities, there is tension between the Faculty of Business and the
>> Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.
>> 
>> 
>> Yesterday one member sent around an spreadsheet with what he described as
>> "research" on how representative the discussion list was of the total
>> membership. It included a list of the names of those who had contributed
>> and ranked them in terms of the number of posts. He never stated his
>> reasons for conducting such "research", although he did say that it is was
>> an "internal document" for membership. Reaction was swift and explosive.
>> Some people were outraged, claiming he had misused the list and their
>> information. The list shows that majority of frequent posters were from one
>> Faculty, leading some to state that this member, from the other faculty,
>> was really trying to demonstrate that their opinions, almost all critical
>> of the university administration, were overrepresented. Others expressed
>> fear that this information could be forwarded on to the Administration (the
>> member is apparently tight with the Acting VPA) and then used to shape the
>> next round of
>>  lay offs (ie get rid of the "trouble makers.") Still others thought there
>> was nothing wrong with sharing such "data", some suggesting that it could
>> be useful information to encourage more diverse opinion.
>> 
>> My feeling that it is completely unethical though because it is not formal
>> research, it probably falls outside the purview of the Research Ethics
>> Board. Still it does name names--had he just presented aggregated data
>> grouped by Faculty, I don't think anyone would have said much of anything.
>> It would be like me collecting data on everyone's posts here and then
>> presenting my findings with your names here out of the blue
>> 
>> 
>> Interested in your thoughts.
>> 
>> 
>> Rhiannon
>> 
>> 
>> Rhiannon Bury
>> Associate Professor
>> Women's and Gender Studies
>> Athabasca University
>> rbury at athabascau.ca
>> 
>> @television2pt0
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/