Nov 24th 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 3rd Gen – Harris

Harris, Joseph. “From the Editor: The Work of Others.” CCC 45 (1994): 439–41.

• This piece is a meditation on the new editor of CCCs in 1994 on the ethics involved with citation of student work and other forms of writing.  There is an explicit directive in this piece that instructors must “get written permission from any student whose work you wish to include in an article for CCC” (440).  In other words, this is the first time that a directive comes directly from the chair of the discipline’s flagship journal requiring informed consent of student work.
• The editor also hopes that researchers will allow responses from the researched about their work before sending to publish.
• There is not a need – according to the editor – to publish students in the works cited of the document researchers create.  Perhaps this position is (or should be) different today.
• The editor characterizes the “see XXX 2004” as a “paying of rent, a granting of rights to certain terms or ideas, as well as proof that the author has done some homework” (441).
• Overall, a neat meditation on what the author would like to see in the way of disciplinary conventions in CCC in the mid 1990s.

Nov 23rd 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 3rd Gen – Frankel & Siang

Mark S. Frankel and Sanyin Siang.  Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet:  A Report of a Workshop June 10-11, 1999.  American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), November, 1999 – www.aaas.org/ssp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf

• Internet research has ranged widely from naturalistic observation to surveys.  Some difficulties in this sort of research include: anonymity, pseudonym use, informed consent in online contexts, supposed privacy in cyberspace, and the tensions between private and public spaces online.
• IRBs are still grappling with the net as a research forum because of the ethical, legal, and technical issues surrounding online research.
• Human subject research takes into account the following: autonomy of the subject in the research area, beneficence for the researched subject (minimize harm and maximize benefits of research subjects).
• Benefits are defined as “gain to society or science through contribution to knowledge base, gain to the individual through improved well being, or empowerment of the individual by giving voice” (5).
• Internet research can lead to confusion about one’s geographic location, race, and gender.
• Email can be problematic because: who owns the computer, who owns the servers, who has access to the servers files, etc.  This could raise issues of possible harm.
• Vulnerable populations like children or mentally handicapped folks are exposed to risk because of the pseudonymity of many online transactions.  The researcher has a difficult time discovering the “real” identities of people studied.
• Privacy in public spaces – through shared forums – creates a problem as the space is thought of as private, but is accessible as public.
• Questions about informed consent online:  When is it required?  How can it be obtained?  How can it be validated? (9).
• Informed consent considers the following things: relate the information to the subjects, ensure the subjects comprehend the information, and obtain the voluntary agreement from the subjects to participate.
• Deception on both the part of the researcher and the researched creates an interesting question for online research.  This can be as a “lurking” researcher or someone who makes up an identity to participate in the community.
• The debriefing process post-study is difficult for the online researcher because of anonymity.
• There is a technical (is the data accessible) and a psychological (how private is the internet space thought to be) aspect to privacy online.
• The technical “know-how” of the researched online can further complicate notions of privacy and confidentiality. (15)
• The authors give a great “action agenda” to determine how to answer some of the questions I’ve created in this blog post on pgs. 17-19.

Important Sources:

• Herring, S. “Linguistic and Critical Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication: Some Ethical and Scholarly Considerations.” The Information Society 1996. 12:153-168.
• Kelman, HC. “Privacy and Research with Human Beings.” Journal of Social Issues 1977 33(3):169.
• Reid, E. “Informed Consent in the Study of On-line Communities: A reflection on the Effects of Computer-Mediated Social Research.” The Information Society. 1996 12:169-174.
• Childress, CA and Asamen, JK. “The Emerging Relationship of Psychology and the Internet: Proposed Guidelines for Conducting Research.” Ethics and Behavio.r 1998 8(1):19-35.

Nov 23rd 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 3rd Gen – Fluehr

Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. “Informed Consent in Anthropological Research: We are Not Exempt.” Human Organization 53 (1994): 1–10.

• The article investigates the history of the idea of informed consent and attempts to articulate why anthropology has not incorporated it into their research methods.
• The idea of “Informed Consent without Forms” is used to show that the “spirit of informed consent can be fulfilled without the intrusive and unnecessarily legalistic use of a signed form” (1).
• Informed consent is ultimately viewed as a process that “encourages greater openness and disclosure on the part of researchers, empowers voluntary participants in social research, and engenders a more collaborative relationship between researcher and researched” (1).
• Informed consent grew out of the 1972 supreme court case Cantebury v. Spence.
• The question of harm motivated “informed consent” studies.  The harm could be psychological or physical.
• This piece also traces consent to the Nazi experiements in WWII.
• Milgram’s electroshock experiments dealing with authority began the discussion of consent in the social sciences.
• Some interesting tensions are discussed considering social science research in places where the “outing” of the research would get the researcher in trouble – Communist China for example.
• Social science research is often not consented because “it is either unobtrusive, face-to-face participant observation, where voluntary consent is presumed by the open nature of the research situation” (4).
• The issue of IRB’s suitability when dealing with non-biomedical/experimental research is a real issue.
• Informed consent is protested by social scientists because: it difficult to obtain, it affects subjects behavior, it is obtuse/obtrusive, cannot be explained in non-literate societies, is an impediment to finding out info about illegal activities, It is impractical to obtain consent to every newcomer in a research situation.

Important Sources:

• Wax, Murray Lionel, and Joan Cassell. Federal Regulations : Ethical Issues and Social Research. Aaas Selected Symposium. Boulder, Colo.: Published by Westview Press for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1979. Print.
• Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology : Dialogue for a New Era. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. Print.
• Faden, Ruth R. Beauchamp Tom L. King Nancy M. P. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. 1986.