Nov 22nd 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 2nd Gen. – Bassett and O’Riordan

Bassett, Elizabeth H., and Kate O’Riordan. “Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subjects Research Model.” Ethics and Information Technology 4 3 (2002): 233-47. Print.

• The authors in this piece argue that the spatial metaphors used in descriptions of the Internet has shaped the adoption of the human subjects research model.  This model is appropriate in some areas of internet research like email; however, the authors feel that researchers need to consider the Internet as cultural production of texts.
• Some interesting aspects of internet research: virtual ethnography, linguistic and discoursed based analyses of computer-mediated communication, research into the internet as culture.
• Herring is a major source – “social realism”
• Human subjects research ethics considers the rights of the human subject as primary and the aims of the researcher as secondary.
• Sherry Turkle’s work has been referred to throughout these readings.  – Life on the Screen – ur text
• Human subjects research model has two lines of thought backing it: 1) the dominant metaphor of spatiality.  This is a problem because this view supports the idea that the activity carried out through this medium is the same as the action of human actors in social space.  This view also supports the argument that “any manifestation of Internet activity should be regarded as a virtual person.
• The authors argue against this contending that the internet is also a medium through which a wide variety of statements are produced.
• The second line of thought backing the human subjects research model is the acceptance of virtuality – or the idea that the expressions of the self and simulations of persons made through the internet and computing technologies can be translated as the self or person who authored them – in other words, the virtual has a direct analog in the real.
• By invoking the internet as a “site” of research, invokes space as the paradigm through which to study the subjects; hence, these virtual spaces must be inhabited by human research subjects. . . hence the model.
• The internet as a site of cultural production – one paradigm shift the authors would like to achieve – states that the internet and it’s attendant textualities exists as a form of cultural production.
• By treating parts of the Internet as public space, the IRB wouldn’t need to get involved because the research subjects are already producing public knowledge.  These sorts of sites – like a clearinghouse for global justice organizations wherein some members risk punishment for participation  – need to be public for exposure but private for protection.  This is the main argument in the piece.
• Three models of what a text is:  text as reflection of author, text as object, text as reader-response.
• Text as object underlies copyright law.
• Sources for text as reader-response – Ricouer / Barthes / Foucault – Death of an Author, etc.
• When you have a dialogue from a chat room, is it a dialogue as people’s positions (hence needing human research subject designation), or a text like in literary studies?
• In essence, some contexts should be used as textual productions of the internet instead of spaces where human research subjects must be recognized.
• The human research subjects model is appropriate if the folks being researched could be hurt because of the research; however, this does not mean that all internet research should follow this method.
• Because the internet is a complex intersection “of technologies, form, genre, and content” it must sometimes be taken as a “text” instead of a “space.”
• The choice isn’t between internet as text or internet as space; rather, the authors hope that a research method that acknowledges the hybridity of the net is possible.  Using Salazar as a model, the authors hope to undertake “reading a text that includes content, form, history and researchers’ response as part of the relations of production – power is also a central issue”

Important Sources:

• 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 – Done
• Herring, Susan C. Linguistic and Critical Analysis of Computer Mediated Communication:  Some Ethical and Scholarly Considerations.  The Information Society 12 (2): 153-168, 1996 - Acquired
  
• Robert Jones.  The Ethics of Research in Cyberspace.  Internet Research, 4(3): 30-35, 1994 – ILL
• Salazar, C.  A Third World Women’s Text:  Between the Politics of Criticism and Cultural Politics.  In S.B. Gluck and D. Patai, editors, Women’s Word:  The Feminist Practice of Oral History.  Routledge, NY and London, 1991. – Done
  

Nov 22nd 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 2nd Gen – Anderson

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

Nov 22nd 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 1st Gen – McKey and Porter

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).