SIeCommunities : Kraut2003

HomePage :: Categories :: PageIndex :: RecentChanges :: RecentlyCommented :: Login/Register
Most recent edit on 2005-01-18 20:45:56 by FrankLester

Additions:
(PaulResnick: it seems to me that since Wikipedia is a public space, quoting from it should be just fine.)

Deletions:
(PaulResnick: it seems to me that since Wikipedia is a public space, quoting from it should be just fine. FrankLester: A valid point, but see my comment below.)


Edited on 2005-01-18 20:26:52 by FrankLester [re-organize discussion points]

Additions:
Some of the many issues raised by Kraut et al. about online research include risks related to consequences of direct participation in online research and risks related to breach of confidentiality, and risks related to informed consent.
When we examine the issues related to direct participation, some of the questions that arise include:
When we examine the issues related to breach of confidentiality, some of the questions that arise include:
When we examine the issues related to informed consent, some of the questions that arise include:
[Note: Per PaulResnick's suggestion, I slightly re-organized the discussion points above to make it clearer that the article organizes the risks by dividing them into those that result from direct participation, and those that arise from breach of confidentiality. FrankLester]
(PaulResnick: it seems to me that since Wikipedia is a public space, quoting from it should be just fine. FrankLester: A valid point, but see my comment below.)

Deletions:
Some of the many issues raised by Kraut et al. about online research include:
PaulResnick: The article organizes the risks by dividing them into those that result from direct participation, and those that arise from breach of confidentiality. You might use this as an organizing principle for the writeup, so that you don't just end up with a long laundry list of points, as above. (Feel free to delete this comment if you reorganize the writeup based on it.)
(PaulResnick: it seems to me that since Wikipedia is a public space, quoting from it should be just fine.)


Edited on 2005-01-17 23:03:38 by PaulResnick

Additions:
(PaulResnick: it seems to me that since Wikipedia is a public space, quoting from it should be just fine.)

Deletions:



Edited on 2005-01-17 17:25:06 by MariaCervone

Additions:
MariaCervone: The issue of translating the meaning of informed consent to ecommunities is merely one example of the larger difficulties that are endemic in migrating from physical to electronic media: the ethical decisions and values implicit in past policies do not necessarily translate verbatim to the electronic world. What we had to worry about before may no longer be relevant; instead there are a whole new set of worries that are often (at least initially) overlooked. The trick is to take existing policies, such as the Belmont report in this case, and try to understand its underpinnings so that it can be translated according to the ramifications of the new medium. This is no small task, as Paul's comment elucidates.


Edited on 2005-01-17 17:20:30 by KathyLee

Additions:
Kraut, R. E., Olson, J., Manaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J. & Couper, M. (Under review). Psychological research online: Opportunities and challenges. Report prepared for the American Psychology Association's Taskforce on the Internet and Psychological Research. [available here∞]
Discussion leader/summarizer: FrankLester

Deletions:
Kraut2003 (FrankLester): Kraut, R. E., Olson, J., Manaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J. & Couper, M. (Under review). Psychological research online: Opportunities and challenges. Report prepared for the American Psychology Association's Taskforce on the Internet and Psychological Research. [available here∞]
Discussion leader/summarizer: FrankLester


Edited on 2005-01-17 15:15:49 by AlliWalk

Additions:
AlliWalk: Bloggers basically put their life into a semi-public spotlight. I guess it's like celebrities and questions about their privacy. Some work actively to protect it, while others crave attention. I thought that since "Internet users are unaware of [log files] and consider their behavior private, (pg. 13)" perhaps education for members of online communities about public vs. private space should be advocated by social science researchers.


Edited on 2005-01-17 14:57:14 by FrankLester [add itals]

Additions:
Kraut et al. generally seem to present a balanced and well-reasoned summary of the risks inherent in online research-gathering. They anticipate future developments by stressing the need for researchers to stay informed and to reflect about the constant changes in online culture. However, some developments are easier to anticipate than others.

Deletions:
Kraut et al. generally seem to present a balanced and well-reasoned summary of the risks inherent in online research-gathering. They anticipate future developments by stressing the need for researchers to stay informed and to reflect about the constant changes in online culture. However, some developments are easier to anticipate than others.


Edited on 2005-01-17 14:55:59 by FrankLester [insert punctuation]

Additions:
[PaulResnick: What does everyone think on this one?]

Deletions:
PaulResnick: What does everyone think on this one?]


Edited on 2005-01-17 11:29:37 by PaulResnick

Additions:
PaulResnick: Neither this nor the EysenbachTill article seems to directly answer the question of how a "community" collectively can give consent, as opposed to a bunch of individuals giving consent. If almost everyone in the community agrees, is it OK to observe? If someone else then joins, do they have to be informed, and would they then have veto power? It seems to me that the Belmont report correctly acknowledges rights and responsibilities beyond the individual, but that the procedures that have been institutionalized through IRBs seem to operate purely at the individual level.

Deletions:
PaulResnick: Neither this nor the EysenbachTill2001 article seems to directly answer the question of how a "community" collectively can give consent, as opposed to a bunch of individuals giving consent. If almost everyone in the community agrees, is it OK to observe? If someone else then joins, do they have to be informed, and would they then have veto power? It seems to me that the Belmont report correctly acknowledges rights and responsibilities beyond the individual, but that the procedures that have been institutionalized through IRBs seem to operate purely at the individual level.


Edited on 2005-01-17 11:24:53 by SooyeonHwang

Additions:
SooyeonHwang: That's an interesting point. And it makes me wonder... What about getting a consent from those who were selected to represent or serve a community? For instance, if a forum has moderators, would it be enough to get a consent from just the moderators or would it still be necessary to get a consent from everyone?

Deletions:
SooyeonHwang: That's an interesting point. And it makes me wonder... What about getting a consent from those who were selected to represent a community? For instance, if a forum has moderators, would it be enough to get a consent from just the moderators or would it still be necessary to get a consent from everyone?


Edited on 2005-01-17 11:24:02 by SooyeonHwang

Additions:
SooyeonHwang: That's an interesting point. And it makes me wonder... What about getting a consent from those who were selected to represent a community? For instance, if a forum has moderators, would it be enough to get a consent from just the moderators or would it still be necessary to get a consent from everyone?


Edited on 2005-01-17 09:57:44 by PaulResnick

Additions:
- PaulResnick: The article notes that when dealing with minors, in addition to ethical guidelines, there is the COPPA law∞ that limits collection of information from children.
PaulResnick: The article organizes the risks by dividing them into those that result from direct participation, and those that arise from breach of confidentiality. You might use this as an organizing principle for the writeup, so that you don't just end up with a long laundry list of points, as above. (Feel free to delete this comment if you reorganize the writeup based on it.)
PaulResnick: What does everyone think on this one?]
PaulResnick: Neither this nor the EysenbachTill2001 article seems to directly answer the question of how a "community" collectively can give consent, as opposed to a bunch of individuals giving consent. If almost everyone in the community agrees, is it OK to observe? If someone else then joins, do they have to be informed, and would they then have veto power? It seems to me that the Belmont report correctly acknowledges rights and responsibilities beyond the individual, but that the procedures that have been institutionalized through IRBs seem to operate purely at the individual level.
How would a researcher conducting research on Wikipedia be constrained from using quotations from (anonymous) Wikipedia users? Some of the posts contain obscene language, derogatory comments, etc., that the user might not choose to post if he or she were required to use his or her real name.

Deletions:
How would a researcher conducting research on Wikipedia be constrained from using quotations from (anonymous) Wikipedia users? Some of the posts contain obscene language, derogatory comments, etc., that the user might not choose to post if he or she were required to use his or her real name.


Edited on 2005-01-17 09:40:20 by PaulResnick

Additions:
Kraut2003 (FrankLester): Kraut, R. E., Olson, J., Manaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J. & Couper, M. (Under review). Psychological research online: Opportunities and challenges. Report prepared for the American Psychology Association's Taskforce on the Internet and Psychological Research. [available here∞]
Discussion leader/summarizer: FrankLester



Edited on 2005-01-15 18:53:42 by FrankLester [edit 2nd graf of Connections]

Additions:
On the topic of blogs, here is an article about "employer blog backlash"∞ (written by a blogger who was terminated by her employer, allegedly for keeping the blog). There is a related article at BBC News∞. Also, an article from the employer's viewpoint∞. All of these articles raise not only questions related to the topics they cover but to the ethics of researchers culling blog posts for research, especially without the knowledge or consent of the blogger.

Deletions:
On the topic of blogs, here is an article about "employer blog backlash"∞ (written by a blogger who was terminated by her employer, allegedly for keeping the blog). There is a related article at BBC News∞. Also, an article from the employer's viewpoint∞. All of these articles raise not only questions related to the topics they cover but to the ethics of researchers culling or mining blog posts for research, especially without the knowledge or consent of the blogger.


Edited on 2005-01-15 18:52:57 by FrankLester [correct 1st graf of Connections]

Additions:
As Jim Thomas states in his article in Information Society on the 1995 Carnegie Mellon/Marty Rimm study of online pornography use, it is easy to view the Internet as "bodiless and incorporeal" and to lose sight of the fact that it is not just a construct, but a community of real human beings. (The article is "When Cyberresearch Goes Awry: The Ethics of the Rimm 'Cyberporn' Study," Information Society, 12:189-198 [1996], accessible through the U of M Library’s Electronic Journals and Newspapers List).

Deletions:
As Jim Thomas states in his article in Information Society on the 1995 Carnegie Mellon/Marty Rimm study of online pornography use, it is easy to view the Internet as "bodiless and incorporeal" and to lose sight of the fact that it is not just a construct, but a community of real human beings. (The article is "When Cyberresearch Goes Awry: The Ethics of the Rimm 'Cyberporn' Study," Information Society, 12:189-1098 [1996], accessible through the U of M Library’s Electronic Journals and Newspapers List).


Edited on 2005-01-15 18:47:16 by FrankLester [edit last graf]

Additions:
How would a researcher conducting research on Wikipedia be constrained from using quotations from (anonymous) Wikipedia users? Some of the posts contain obscene language, derogatory comments, etc., that the user might not choose to post if he or she were required to use his or her real name.

Deletions:
Would a researcher conducting research on Wikipedia be constrained from using quotations from (anonymous) Wikipedia users? Some of the posts contain obscene language, derogatory comments, etc., that the user might not choose to post if he or she were required to use his or her real name.


Oldest known version of this page was edited on 2005-01-15 18:42:17 by FrankLester [create discussion page]
Page view:
In 1985, only 8.2% of US households had a personal computer. Nearly 20 years later, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project∞, 63% of US adults are online. The widespread use of the Internet has the potential for what Kraut et al. call "unparalleled impact on the conduct of psychological research." Some of the potential opportunity impacts include increasing the facility of working with geographically distant partners; increasing the ease of sharing information; enabling the proliferation of online surveys and observations of online behavior; and offering a rich archive of data sources. Some of the potential challenges include losing control of the context of procuring data; an increase in the difficulty of insuring informed consent; an increase in the difficulty of explaining instructions; and an increase in problems associated with conducting debriefings and other necessary steps in experimentation and research.
Conducting observational research and self-report surveys is aided by the economy of the Internet and by widespread access both to readily observable psychological phenomena and observation subjects. Online research also allows a greater degree of automation and control in certain types of experimentation. The Internet itself as a unique psychological and social phenomenon is a potentially rich field of psychological and sociological research.

Some of the potential challenges and risks associated with Internet research include:

  1. sample bias (the Internet, though widely used, does not necessarily provide a representative user sample),
  2. lack of control over the research setting (due to inherent characteristics of the Internet such as anonymity and an increase in deviant behavior associated with the lack of accountability provided by anonymity; and high dropoff-in-interest rates among Internet users),
  3. and ambiguity in ethical protections in online settings.

The 1979 Belmont Report∞ summarized basic ethical principles underlying research involving human subjects, including

  1. respect for persons as autonomous agents,
  2. beneficence (securing the well-being of subjects),
  3. and justice (fair distribution of burdens involved in acting as subjects).

These principles have been formalized in the Common Rule (the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects∞). The principles, according to Kraut et al., "depend upon key concepts such as risk, expectations of privacy, pre-existing records, and confidentiality, whose complex meanings are affected when research in conducted online." The meanings are affected by the ambiguity in assessing the criteria that researchers and IRB boards need to consider in deciding whether to require informed consent and to require documenting that consent.

Some of the many issues raised by Kraut et al. about online research include:


Kraut et al. conclude that although the risks involved in collecting online research are significant, they are not insurmountable. The main point that Kraut et al. ask the reader to carry away is that these risks demand that researchers and IRB boards to keep constantly informed about developments and transformations in "online behavior, community standards, and available technology." The nature of online community also demands that researchers engage in a "degree of reflection about the research process that may not be necessary in more established domains."

Critique


Kraut et al. generally seem to present a balanced and well-reasoned summary of the risks inherent in online research-gathering. They anticipate future developments by stressing the need for researchers to stay informed and to reflect about the constant changes in online culture. However, some developments are easier to anticipate than others.

Kraut et al., for instance, do not say anything about the emerging field of blogs∞, blog technology, and blog community/culture. Any hesitations about harvesting or gathering online communication in closed communities (i.e., listservs, online support groups, etc.) would seem to apply equally as much in a setting in which the user, whether he or she is anonymous or not, has posted his or her comments in a publicly viewable blog. This senstitivity is magnified by recent developments in which bloggers, even those who post anonymously, have been disciplined or terminated by employers for keeping blogs that contain material about their employment, as well as situations in which anonymous bloggers have posted sensitive material about the private lives of public figures that would not otherwise have been publicly available. The questions above would seem to apply just as much to blogs as they would to other communities.

My critique, or rather a suggestion for further discussion, is that given the explosion in publicly published material on blogs in the past 2 years, do bloggers have the same reasonable expectation of privacy and confidentiality that other online users do?

The issue is not limited to blogs. What about other burgeoning technologies and online communities with traits similar to blogs? What about text messaging? What about smart mobs∞?

Connections


As Jim Thomas states in his article in Information Society on the 1995 Carnegie Mellon/Marty Rimm study of online pornography use, it is easy to view the Internet as "bodiless and incorporeal" and to lose sight of the fact that it is not just a construct, but a community of real human beings. (The article is "When Cyberresearch Goes Awry: The Ethics of the Rimm 'Cyberporn' Study," Information Society, 12:189-1098 [1996], accessible through the U of M Library’s Electronic Journals and Newspapers List).

On the topic of blogs, here is an article about "employer blog backlash"∞ (written by a blogger who was terminated by her employer, allegedly for keeping the blog). There is a related article at BBC News∞. Also, an article from the employer's viewpoint∞. All of these articles raise not only questions related to the topics they cover but to the ethics of researchers culling or mining blog posts for research, especially without the knowledge or consent of the blogger.

Wikipedia∞ is another prime example of the ambiguity of online communication. The users are all "anonymous"; they all must choose handles to register and post to the wiki. They may also post anonymously by simply not registering; the Wiki software records their IP address and uses that as the handle for the post.

Would a researcher conducting research on Wikipedia be constrained from using quotations from (anonymous) Wikipedia users? Some of the posts contain obscene language, derogatory comments, etc., that the user might not choose to post if he or she were required to use his or her real name.
Page History :: 2005-01-18 20:45:56 XML :: Owner: FrankLester :: Search:
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional∞ :: Valid CSS∞ :: Powered by Wikka Wakka Wiki 1.1.5.3∞
Page was generated in 0.2389 seconds