![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
It's time for me to take my annual "refresher course" in rights and protections for human research subjects. This is more or less something I can do in my sleep. Nothing changes about the Belmont Report or the informed consent requirement or the special federal protections afforded to prisoners from year to year.
But this year there was something new in the section on Internet research (emphasis mine):
I'm so glad they noticed both of these things.
I know the conventional wisdom is that you're an idiot if you think the things you say on the Internet are private. Yes, on the one hand, the public Internet is public. On the other hand, I think it is legitimate to say that in some Internet contexts, people are speaking to a particular assumed audience and may reasonably feel that their privacy is violated if the assumed audience is bent too far. No, I don't think that you have the right to rant about someone on your public blog or LJ and then complain if that person comes along and responds. But on the other hand, I think that, for example, people posting to a bereavement-focused message board expect that they are speaking to other bereaved people and would have reason to feel violated if a new poster later turned out to just be there collecting research data. It's complicated. Research guidelines acknowledging that it's complicated are an improvement.
And of course people's online identities are important. Given the number of public discussions of online activity that equate "accountability" with "using your legal name," it's good to see an acknowledgment that online identities are often stable, personally valuable, and backed up by history and reputation such that it would be damaging to discard them.
But this year there was something new in the section on Internet research (emphasis mine):
One of the most controversial issues regarding Internet research involves the observation of online communications. There is currently no consensus in the research community about whether online communications in open forums constitute private or public behavior. Conclusions about whether they are public or private behavior will affect if and how the regulations are applied. If the behavior is public, then this research could be considered exempt. If, however, there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" on the part of the subjects, then IRB review may be required.
Another issue in observing online communications is whether the individuals engaged in this communication are identifiable. Although the subjects' actual identities are not "readily accessible", for many individuals, their online identities are as important to them as their real identities. Again, whether the subjects are identifiable affects how the regulations are applied.
Researchers should consult their IRB for guidance on how these issues are applied at their institution.
I'm so glad they noticed both of these things.
I know the conventional wisdom is that you're an idiot if you think the things you say on the Internet are private. Yes, on the one hand, the public Internet is public. On the other hand, I think it is legitimate to say that in some Internet contexts, people are speaking to a particular assumed audience and may reasonably feel that their privacy is violated if the assumed audience is bent too far. No, I don't think that you have the right to rant about someone on your public blog or LJ and then complain if that person comes along and responds. But on the other hand, I think that, for example, people posting to a bereavement-focused message board expect that they are speaking to other bereaved people and would have reason to feel violated if a new poster later turned out to just be there collecting research data. It's complicated. Research guidelines acknowledging that it's complicated are an improvement.
And of course people's online identities are important. Given the number of public discussions of online activity that equate "accountability" with "using your legal name," it's good to see an acknowledgment that online identities are often stable, personally valuable, and backed up by history and reputation such that it would be damaging to discard them.