Anderson, Paul V. “Simple Gifts: Ethical Issues in the Conduct of Person-Based Composition Research.” College Composition and Communication 49 1 (1998). Print.

• This article heralds a new investigation into the ethical obligations to “persons whose words and actions we transform into ‘data’ of our research” (63).
• There are multiple reasons why Anderson sees a need for this sort of work:
  • Much of the contemporary research and literature comes from this sort of research
  • These issues of person-based research are complex; hence, a discipline wide discussion would probably enhance the discipline both research-wise and teaching-wise.
  • Article is a call for not only personal responsibilities with ethics, but also responsibilities to the field with ethical considerations so that research built on research is ethically sound.
  • Seminal book-length text in the development of research ethics in rhet/comp. is Kirsch & Mortenson’s Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy.
  • The author is using the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report to shed new light on the ethical issues associated with persons-based research.
  • The author wants researchers to consider the Belmont Report’s preposition that all research persons “should be treated as autonomous agents whose freedom to deliberate their own goals and act in accordance with their decisions must be protected” (68)
  • Belmont Report required informed consent to participate in research.
  • A good portion of this paper urges folks in composition to adhere to the established IRB guidelines for research.
  • Obviously, this is the one of the earliest times that this discussion becomes important to the discipline.
  • Anderson insists on compliance in this article.
  • The author hopes that the field is able to cover the places not filled by the government regulations by develpoping “local” ethical questions and answers that are specific to the field of composition.
  • Besides informed consent, the author hopes that new studies will “protect the rights and welfare of persons who might be especially vulnerable to coercion or undue influence when recruited for a study”  - This presents an interesting case for students as research participants.
  • Anderson considers two student created texts in the section on privacy and confidentiality to demonstrate: 1) the issues that arise when researchers desire to include information about specific students that they have obtained outside formally planned research; and 2) the questions around when researchers wish to quote or paraphrase students’ unpublished words.
  • There is a tension between the pedagogue’s desire to have personal information in the classroom and the researcher’s desire to use said information.
  • The ethics of unpublished writing – copyright versus consent – Though primarily an oral argument at the time of this writing,
  • Source on student writing fair use – Joseph Harris
  • The shrink-wrapped approach to student work appropriation shows up on the 20^th page of the article – you know, consent to use student work in syllabus. . .
  • Anderson hopes this article will make the discipline much more reflective about their research practices and the ethics contained therein.
  • Anderson’s concept of research subjects as gifting is useful.

Important Works:

• Harris, Joseph. “From the Editor: The Work of Others.” CCC 45 (1994): 439–41. – Done
• Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. “Informed Consent in Anthropological Research: We are Not Exempt.” Human Organization 53 (1994): 1–10. – Done
• Anderson, Paul V. “Ethics, Institutional Review Boards and the Use of Human Subjects in Composition Research.” Kirsch and Mortenson 260–85. – ILL