<html>
I'll concur with Jenny. From what I understand, existing archives fall
under the category of "existing data" and thus are subject to a
less stringent overview. From a purely research perspective, these would
seem to me to be more genuine, since they were produced spontaneously,
and with no leading from the researcher. We try to remain neutral, but
often time we do indeed have an interest (whether financial,
professional, or personal) in the outcomes of research. It's just the
nature of the beast. <br><br>
I'm a little concerned about the discussion of what serves "the
greater good." We have a hard time even defining what the greater
good is. This term means many different things to different people,
especially when any kind of political flavoring gets thrown in. I
personally believe that the greater good can be defined as something that
serves the interest of society at large. Wrapped up in this definition,
of course, is my view of what the society at large would look like, which
may vary from my neighbor's. Whose is correct? <br><br>
Another danger is that some folks who are convinced that they are serving
the greater good can become very Machiavellian in their actions. Is
achieving the goal of the greater good worth sacrificing some of our
beliefs and ideals along the way?<br><br>
No answers, just a few more questions. Sometimes asking the questions is
as important as getting the answers.<br>
Laura<br><br>
At 04:19 PM 06/05/2002 -0400, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>Interesting
question. My sense is that if a researcher is looking at an archive of
discussion, as long as the participants remain anonymous in the research
findings write-up, such analysis is fine and ethical. My human subjects
board would require me to file with them to notify them that I was doing
such archival work, but such research would be exempt from any formal
oversight by the human subjects board. </font><br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>~Jenny</font>
<dl>
<dd>----- Original Message -----
<dd>From:</b> <a href="mailto:kgowen@facct.org">Kris Gowen</a>
<dd>To:</b> <a href="mailto:air-l@aoir.org">air-l@aoir.org</a>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:14 PM
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: [Air-l] Science News Online: The Social
Net<br><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">
<dd>Would it be different, ethically, for a researcher to analyze
archives on a message board discussing the same
topic?</font><font face="garamond" color="#800080">
<dd>L. Kris Gowen,
PhD</font><font face="garamond" size=2 color="#800080">
<dd>Senior Research
Associate</font><font face="garamond" size=2 color="#800080">
<dd>Foundation for
Accountability</font><font face="garamond" size=2 color="#800080">
<dd><a href="mailto:kgowen@facct.org">kgowen@facct.org</a></font><font face="garamond" size=2 color="#800080">
<dd><a href="http://www.facct.org/" eudora="autourl">www.facct.org</a></font>
</dl></blockquote></html>