McKee, Heidi and James E. Porter. “The Ethics of Digital Writing Research: A Rhetorical Approach.” College Composition and Communication 59 4 (2008): 711. Print.

• Digital writing research is defined as focusing on 1) computer-generated, computer-based, or computer-delivered documents, 2)computer-based text production; and 3) the interactions of people who use computerized technologies to communicate through digital means.
• Rhet/Comp has an especially useful invention process for research in digital realms.  The authors call this approach a casuistic-heuristic approach.  It’s used to make tough ethical decisions.
• First section of the article concentrates on IRBs.  Digital research is often pushed off the IRB chart because it’s not “personal” in the sense that it’s avatarial.
• Lots of questions about how to define “public” on the internet.
• Authors are interested in developing “procedures” for figuring out the ethical conduct in research in digital contexts.
• The authors advocate “a rhetorical, case-based approach to ethical decision making that uses rhetorical principles of invention and analysis in order to address the tough ethical questions facing researchers studying writing in digital environments.’
• To do this, the authors rely on the casuistic ethics of Jonsen and Toulmin in The Abuse of Casuistry.
• Casuistry – synonymous with “moral laxity” this term is popularly thought of as “coming up with good moral reasons to support whatever you feel like doing – i.e., “moral rationalizing.”
• Paradigm cases – cases where there are clear examples of “right and wrong” (721).  An example would be the Nuremberg trials.
• To determine what is ethical, a researcher must take the position to “do no harm” ; however, she must also determine what “harm” means in some context.  To determine this, we should rely on rhetoric.
• Ethics is not a science but a practical art.
• Two big details from discussion of casuistry for researchers: 1) circumstantial details matter; and 2) casuistry and rhetoric can function together to assist in considerations of real participants in the study.
• Casuistry can lead researchers to phronesis or the practical judgment about research ethics because it asks, at heart, to consider audience.  This is the first place to begin in research ethics questions.
• Important sources: Anderson, “Simple,” Herrington and Curtis; Kirsch
• Since audience are co-constructors of the rhetorical triangle, they must be considered in the research process.
• Video and audio can be included in research practices because of multimodal compositions. . . this can complicate matters.
• Researchers should consider: 1) people being studied, 2) people outside the field, and 3) people inside the field when thinking of an audience for their works.
• Sources for self-reflective practice: Fine, Herndl, Herrington, “When Is My Business”
• Source from previous work: Edwards and McKee
• Sveningsson: source to discuss what is “public” and what is “private” on the web.
• Another question to consider is what constitutes an “author” in an on-line researched format.  Does it have to be published in a recognized forum?  What about a blog? – These are issues of copyright.
• There is not a author/person division in online publishing – all people are authors if the material is published on the web. .. according to M.
• Source: Bassett and O’Riordan – argue that the internet is a site for “cultural production of texts”
• Composition researchers should consider: risks to privacy, risks to participants’ relationships with other at the site being studied, risks of reprisal (legal or social) for the disclosure of private information.
• A great observation: most research ethics questions ask the 1) formulaic approach – general principles of “do no harm” and yes/no tree diagrams to deal with ethical questions or; 2) personal, aleatory approach that basically says, “here’s what I did with my research study, here’s how I made my ethical choices”
• Two goals in article: 1) recognize the complexity involved in digital writing research, and 2) to make the complexity manageable by providing some tools and procedures to help figure out all the complicatedness of this process (738).