Comments on: IRBs, Ethnography, and Blogging http://madisonian.net/2006/03/23/irbs-ethnography-and-blogging/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:59:42 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mike Madison http://madisonian.net/2006/03/23/irbs-ethnography-and-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-21517 Mike Madison Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:26:24 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=599#comment-21517 Dave, Everything is creeping (creepy?). For example, Orin Kerr has what I think is a reasonable commenting policy at <a>orinkerr.com</a>, but Orin is privately rating his commenters. If Orin writes up something about his rating experience, does that make his system "research"? If I write it up (relying on observations of Orin's blog, for example), is that different? We could spin out a lot of examples. I'd put privacy claims high on your list of serious potential problems, however, behind copyright and related IP issues, and before IRB meltdown. Mike Dave,
Everything is creeping (creepy?). For example, Orin Kerr has what I think is a reasonable commenting policy at orinkerr.com, but Orin is privately rating his commenters. If Orin writes up something about his rating experience, does that make his system “research”? If I write it up (relying on observations of Orin’s blog, for example), is that different?
We could spin out a lot of examples. I’d put privacy claims high on your list of serious potential problems, however, behind copyright and related IP issues, and before IRB meltdown.
Mike

]]> By: Dave Hoffman http://madisonian.net/2006/03/23/irbs-ethnography-and-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-21512 Dave Hoffman Thu, 06 Apr 2006 04:26:58 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=599#comment-21512 Mike, I agree with you that blogging presents a line-drawing problem, which is made particularly acute by comment threads. To complicate the problem, what about slashdot rating systems for commentators, which are well-known on political blogs. Now law blogs, w/the exception of the VC, haven't really needed traffic management of comments to date, but maybe one day they will. Does encouraging folks to rate each other, with the possible effects on human subjects, make it look more or less like research? If you were to later write about the rating system as a part of a project on deliberative democracy? I'm tempted, of course, to see this as mission creep in the regs., that could be solved by HHS, but which won't be until someone, somewhere, is taken to task for blogging-like activity. Thus, I evaluate the legal risks facing law professor bloggers in order of seriousness as copyright infringment, IRB meltdown, and libel. And libel is a distant third. Mike, I agree with you that blogging presents a line-drawing problem, which is made particularly acute by comment threads. To complicate the problem, what about slashdot rating systems for commentators, which are well-known on political blogs. Now law blogs, w/the exception of the VC, haven’t really needed traffic management of comments to date, but maybe one day they will. Does encouraging folks to rate each other, with the possible effects on human subjects, make it look more or less like research? If you were to later write about the rating system as a part of a project on deliberative democracy?

I’m tempted, of course, to see this as mission creep in the regs., that could be solved by HHS, but which won’t be until someone, somewhere, is taken to task for blogging-like activity. Thus, I evaluate the legal risks facing law professor bloggers in order of seriousness as copyright infringment, IRB meltdown, and libel. And libel is a distant third.

]]> By: Mike Madison http://madisonian.net/2006/03/23/irbs-ethnography-and-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-21508 Mike Madison Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:16:58 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=599#comment-21508 Dave, I'm inclined to think that blogging is a spectrum rather than an either/or, and that the spectrum applies intra-blog as well as inter-blog. The way you've phrased your hypo illustrates some of the problematic gradations. If I merely open comments, do I "encourage discussion"? Does it matter if the post specifically includes questions for discussion? What if I post something that I know is provocative, subjectively hoping that commenters will respond? Does it matter if I'm subjectively "targeting" certain commenters (or classes of commenters)? What if the blog dialogue is connected to off-line dialogues? Explicitly? Conceptually? Mike Dave,
I’m inclined to think that blogging is a spectrum rather than an either/or, and that the spectrum applies intra-blog as well as inter-blog. The way you’ve phrased your hypo illustrates some of the problematic gradations. If I merely open comments, do I “encourage discussion”? Does it matter if the post specifically includes questions for discussion? What if I post something that I know is provocative, subjectively hoping that commenters will respond? Does it matter if I’m subjectively “targeting” certain commenters (or classes of commenters)? What if the blog dialogue is connected to off-line dialogues? Explicitly? Conceptually?
Mike

]]> By: Dave Hoffman http://madisonian.net/2006/03/23/irbs-ethnography-and-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-21504 Dave Hoffman Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:16:34 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=599#comment-21504 Actually, a small nit: the post you kindly referred to was at Concurring Opinions. Actually, a small nit: the post you kindly referred to was at Concurring Opinions.

]]> By: Dave Hoffman http://madisonian.net/2006/03/23/irbs-ethnography-and-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-21503 Dave Hoffman Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:10:44 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=599#comment-21503 Mike, The more I think about this problem, the more I think that my initial views were wrong. "[D]esigned to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge": we can't have it both ways. Either blogging is frivolous, an outcome that I bet most law prof. bloggers would find unfortunate, or it is meaningful, in which case IRB approval may be needed under current standards. It is a serious problem. And I don't think that the interview-hypo is where it hurts: it is when you open up your blog to comments and encourage discussion there. Mike,

The more I think about this problem, the more I think that my initial views were wrong. “[D]esigned to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge”: we can’t have it both ways. Either blogging is frivolous, an outcome that I bet most law prof. bloggers would find unfortunate, or it is meaningful, in which case IRB approval may be needed under current standards. It is a serious problem. And I don’t think that the interview-hypo is where it hurts: it is when you open up your blog to comments and encourage discussion there.

]]> By: MT http://madisonian.net/2006/03/23/irbs-ethnography-and-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-21457 MT Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:28:25 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=599#comment-21457 You could look for an intermediary layer of journalism or some other IRB-neutral activity. e.g. If your research were a planned meta-analysis of many news stories, you'd be in the clear I suppose. So maybe one could argue that self-selected cyber respondents are in effect their own journalists, for which in the first stage you are only a cyber publisher (having set the theme of this week's issue). I suppose though that IRB rules just need updating. You could look for an intermediary layer of journalism or some other IRB-neutral activity. e.g. If your research were a planned meta-analysis of many news stories, you’d be in the clear I suppose. So maybe one could argue that self-selected cyber respondents are in effect their own journalists, for which in the first stage you are only a cyber publisher (having set the theme of this week’s issue). I suppose though that IRB rules just need updating.

]]> By: Joe Miller http://madisonian.net/2006/03/23/irbs-ethnography-and-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-21405 Joe Miller Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:59:42 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=599#comment-21405 Mike, A little more than a month ago, David Hoffman made <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/02/blogging_and_ir_1.html" rel="nofollow">a great post at CoOp</a> raising some interesting, and related, IRB questions. As I said in a comment to Hoffman's post, "It is interesting to note, in connection with IRBs that, so far as I could tell, nothing in the schedule at the recent AALS annual meeting in DC addressed IRB questions for the law professor. Given that the topic of the annual meeting was empirical research in law, it seems a rather glaring omission." Anyone interested in the topic should also look at a few cool posts on IRBs Jason Czarnezki at the Empirical Legal Studies blog, <a href="http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/02/working_with_ir.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/02/are_irbs_uncons.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/02/irb_faqs.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Mike,

A little more than a month ago, David Hoffman made a great post at CoOp raising some interesting, and related, IRB questions. As I said in a comment to Hoffman’s post, “It is interesting to note, in connection with IRBs that, so far as I could tell, nothing in the schedule at the recent AALS annual meeting in DC addressed IRB questions for the law professor. Given that the topic of the annual meeting was empirical research in law, it seems a rather glaring omission.”

Anyone interested in the topic should also look at a few cool posts on IRBs Jason Czarnezki at the Empirical Legal Studies blog, here, here, and here.

]]>