Comments on: Responses to comments (continued!) http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 24 May 2012 01:47:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Consent and the Ethics of the ‘Reseach Relation’ http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-59248 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Consent and the Ethics of the ‘Reseach Relation’ Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:30:16 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/#comment-59248 [...] About Chris Kelty’s (03/15/07 this site) suggestive comparisons between copyright and informed consent, and particularly the notion that both “actually diminish rights of subjects regarding the control of information, rather than protecting them”: remember that, even though the IRB system is federal (with a central Office of Human Research Protections apparently coordinating the application of regulations), IRBs are local and control their own procedures. As far as I know, IRB researchers agree that local IRB practice “varies”. The point here is that there is no standard IRB consent form. [...] [...] About Chris Kelty’s (03/15/07 this site) suggestive comparisons between copyright and informed consent, and particularly the notion that both “actually diminish rights of subjects regarding the control of information, rather than protecting them”: remember that, even though the IRB system is federal (with a central Office of Human Research Protections apparently coordinating the application of regulations), IRBs are local and control their own procedures. As far as I know, IRB researchers agree that local IRB practice “varies”. The point here is that there is no standard IRB consent form. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-58968 ckelty Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:15:57 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/#comment-58968 these comments are exactly on target. The issues of confidentiality/anonymity and the "credit where credit is due" are precisely the point of overlap between IRB and IP. In the US, whenever I write, speak into a recorder, or do anything that fixes my expressions in a tangible medium, I am automatically granted copyright over those expressions--which means I have legal control over their dispensation. While we are being extra-ordinarily overconscious (through our IRB overlords) about "consent"-- we are also being incredibly cavalier about our rights to expropriate those words absent a copyright license. Expand the research aross legal jursidictions and the problem only ramifies. Now in most cases, an interview, for instance, can be consider a "joint" production, owned by both parties, but ethically speaking this just fudges the issue, which is that we consider (in most, but not all cases) that our informants are the owners and originators of their expressions--if not theoretically (they may speak for the community in all the sundry ways Michael B. has detailed in his work, and not as individuals per se), then at least politically in the sense that we might (usually) want them to get the credit for their ideas in the spirit of "collaboration." To make things worse, many IRB's assume different definitions of confidentiality/anonymity. At my institution, anonymous means that I as a researcher do not know who my subjects are (i.e. a randomized clinical trial in which I know "samples" only by number). Such a situation is obviously impossible in fieldwork, and so I fail the anonymity test. By the same token they take confidential to mean that none of the information I collect will ever be revealed outside of the research setting (assuming, in clinical terms, that the data will be so abstracted from the people as to render specific, or even general, attribution unnecessary). I fail on that count too, since I 1) need to make the information public in order to write at all and 2) give my informants the choice of being either anonymous or not. Both definitions also make me run afoul of IP law, since 1) I can't "anonymize" someone's expressions without owning them and 2) I have no right to distribute or make derivative works of such information, nor to keep them secret-- I have no rights over them at all... the copyright holder does. Alas... I had to think through many of these issues to do <a href="http://frazer.rice.edu/epit" rel="nofollow">this project</a>. As such I have a folder full of forms that are both consent forms and copyright licenses/ terms of use... which I had to invent for the purpose... these comments are exactly on target. The issues of confidentiality/anonymity and the “credit where credit is due” are precisely the point of overlap between IRB and IP. In the US, whenever I write, speak into a recorder, or do anything that fixes my expressions in a tangible medium, I am automatically granted copyright over those expressions–which means I have legal control over their dispensation. While we are being extra-ordinarily overconscious (through our IRB overlords) about “consent”– we are also being incredibly cavalier about our rights to expropriate those words absent a copyright license. Expand the research aross legal jursidictions and the problem only ramifies. Now in most cases, an interview, for instance, can be consider a “joint” production, owned by both parties, but ethically speaking this just fudges the issue, which is that we consider (in most, but not all cases) that our informants are the owners and originators of their expressions–if not theoretically (they may speak for the community in all the sundry ways Michael B. has detailed in his work, and not as individuals per se), then at least politically in the sense that we might (usually) want them to get the credit for their ideas in the spirit of “collaboration.”

To make things worse, many IRB’s assume different definitions of confidentiality/anonymity. At my institution, anonymous means that I as a researcher do not know who my subjects are (i.e. a randomized clinical trial in which I know “samples” only by number). Such a situation is obviously impossible in fieldwork, and so I fail the anonymity test. By the same token they take confidential to mean that none of the information I collect will ever be revealed outside of the research setting (assuming, in clinical terms, that the data will be so abstracted from the people as to render specific, or even general, attribution unnecessary). I fail on that count too, since I 1) need to make the information public in order to write at all and 2) give my informants the choice of being either anonymous or not. Both definitions also make me run afoul of IP law, since 1) I can’t “anonymize” someone’s expressions without owning them and 2) I have no right to distribute or make derivative works of such information, nor to keep them secret– I have no rights over them at all… the copyright holder does. Alas…

I had to think through many of these issues to do this project. As such I have a folder full of forms that are both consent forms and copyright licenses/ terms of use… which I had to invent for the purpose…

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-58851 John McCreery Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:16:47 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/#comment-58851 In the spirit of free choice, isn't the correct procedure to offer the local collaborator the option of either anonymity and confidentiality or a name and publicity? The ethical dilemmas involved are neither more nor less than those involved in journalists' allowing politicians to speak either on or off the record, to be named or cited anonymously, the old "Highly placed sources tell us...." The marketing researchers whom I interviewed for my book on Japanese consumer behavior were, like Strong's Melanesians, delighted to be named and get credit for their work. It would have been churlish not to. In the spirit of free choice, isn’t the correct procedure to offer the local collaborator the option of either anonymity and confidentiality or a name and publicity? The ethical dilemmas involved are neither more nor less than those involved in journalists’ allowing politicians to speak either on or off the record, to be named or cited anonymously, the old “Highly placed sources tell us….”

The marketing researchers whom I interviewed for my book on Japanese consumer behavior were, like Strong’s Melanesians, delighted to be named and get credit for their work. It would have been churlish not to.

Report this comment

]]> By: lmichael http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-58353 lmichael Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:02:15 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/#comment-58353 Strong -- I've encountered a similar issue in the Amazon Basin where I work: peope actively *want* to be associated by name with the products of the research process. Here's how I handled it: I explained to the people in the communities in which I work that my superiors in my land (i.e. the IRB) were concerned about the use of personal names (and I explained as best I could why). Then I asked the people I was working with (in two different field sites) what I should say to my superiors about the issue of names. And they responded that I should tell my superiors not to worry about anonymity but, in essence, about giving credit where credit is due. When I did my IRB paperwork, I included mention of the community member's opinions on the issue of anonymity, and explained why I did not wish to make anonymity a central feature of data-handling and storage, and of the publication of results. The IRB did not balk at this. Two observations: 1) I typically make one or more `pre-research' trips to talk with community members about research projects, but not to collect data. So I use these trips to negotiate a number of issues, some of them IRB-related like this, before I start collecting data and need to go through the IRB process. 2) I get the impression that the IRB I deal with is not as rigid as some others that people are talking about, so this may not end up working for you. But it might be worth a shot. Strong — I’ve encountered a similar issue in the Amazon Basin where I work: peope actively *want* to be associated by name with the products of the research process. Here’s how I handled it: I explained to the people in the communities in which I work that my superiors in my land (i.e. the IRB) were concerned about the use of personal names (and I explained as best I could why). Then I asked the people I was working with (in two different field sites) what I should say to my superiors about the issue of names. And they responded that I should tell my superiors not to worry about anonymity but, in essence, about giving credit where credit is due. When I did my IRB paperwork, I included mention of the community member’s opinions on the issue of anonymity, and explained why I did not wish to make anonymity a central feature of data-handling and storage, and of the publication of results. The IRB did not balk at this.

Two observations: 1) I typically make one or more `pre-research’ trips to talk with community members about research projects, but not to collect data. So I use these trips to negotiate a number of issues, some of them IRB-related like this, before I start collecting data and need to go through the IRB process. 2) I get the impression that the IRB I deal with is not as rigid as some others that people are talking about, so this may not end up working for you. But it might be worth a shot.

Report this comment

]]> By: Strong http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-58048 Strong Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:44:59 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/#comment-58048 Brilliant observations Dr. Kelty! Are consent/copyright both procedures of cutting the network, so to speak? Of rendering the relevant relational milieu legible to an institutional gaze? I am curious about this problem in relation to a specific conundrum: naming and confidentiality. My sense is that there is a conventional understanding that ethnographic knowledge and products will ensure confidentiality and even anonymity. Yet, one goal of IPR as applied to indigenous knowledges may be to ensure that the sources of knowledge are seen in the products of it. Where consent requires confidentiality, how would such recognition occur? For example, the Papua New Guineans with which I work would find the idea that their names would not be attached to anything they tell me for my research is absurd and offensive. A big motivation for contributing to my research would be to expand their names or their fame and renown. Your thoughts here highlight and return us to Michael's excellent suggestion that anthropologists are especially entangled in these conundrums because of the claims of the people we (often) work with. Who 'owns' our data? Do the presuppositions involved in consent procedures of certain sorts run up against an ethic of openess with respect to subjects of research, such as indigenous folks, who may see that there is more at stake in the control of knowledge than just one person's personal discomfort. Brilliant observations Dr. Kelty!

Are consent/copyright both procedures of cutting the network, so to speak? Of rendering the relevant relational milieu legible to an institutional gaze?

I am curious about this problem in relation to a specific conundrum: naming and confidentiality. My sense is that there is a conventional understanding that ethnographic knowledge and products will ensure confidentiality and even anonymity.

Yet, one goal of IPR as applied to indigenous knowledges may be to ensure that the sources of knowledge are seen in the products of it. Where consent requires confidentiality, how would such recognition occur?

For example, the Papua New Guineans with which I work would find the idea that their names would not be attached to anything they tell me for my research is absurd and offensive. A big motivation for contributing to my research would be to expand their names or their fame and renown.

Your thoughts here highlight and return us to Michael’s excellent suggestion that anthropologists are especially entangled in these conundrums because of the claims of the people we (often) work with. Who ‘owns’ our data? Do the presuppositions involved in consent procedures of certain sorts run up against an ethic of openess with respect to subjects of research, such as indigenous folks, who may see that there is more at stake in the control of knowledge than just one person’s personal discomfort.

Report this comment

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-57135 ckelty Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:33:42 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/03/15/responses-to-comments-continued/#comment-57135 The relationship between IRBs and IPR is something I've thought a great deal about, and maybe a few other people, like Michael have, but generally speaking no one is paying attention to the bizarre and troubling overlaps that emerge in between these two regimes. On the one hand IPR is far more expansive, and because it is a federal statutory regime, and not a regulatory one, it tends to be more, um, egalitarian, in the sense of making everyone suffer regardless of where their money comes from. One issue is the increasing similarity, at a formal level, between the informed consent form and the copyright license--especiallly in cases primarily covering the use of personal information. Both increasingly employ arcane "boilerplate" legalese, both attempt to control the reproduction, circulation and derivative uses of information, both are troubled by new technologies such as the internet, and both of them are frequently signed by people without an airy clue what they mean. Another issue, brought to light by Free Software and related practices, is that informed consent, like standard copyright, actually diminish rights of subjects regarding the control of information, rather than protecting them. In the case of copyright, the transfer of ownership (think, signing an author agreement) is a way of transferring control away from individuals and to institutions; in the case of consent forms, the problem of downstream/derivate uses is often uncontrolled, so that information that is collected for one purpose is often used for other purposes that the consentor may or may not have agreed to. But because informed consent starts to look much like a transfer of property rights, but cannot be discussed as such (because it is legally murky, if not meaningless to speak of the ownership of one's own private information or informationally abstracted body, i.e. genetic sequences and fMRI scans), it is impossible for IRBs to imagine how such permanent control on the part of individuals might be constructed, short of literally bringing them into the research enterprise as partners-- which may actually be the solution, but then they wouldn't be research subjects, would they? The relationship between IRBs and IPR is something I’ve thought a great deal about, and maybe a few other people, like Michael have, but generally speaking no one is paying attention to the bizarre and troubling overlaps that emerge in between these two regimes. On the one hand IPR is far more expansive, and because it is a federal statutory regime, and not a regulatory one, it tends to be more, um, egalitarian, in the sense of making everyone suffer regardless of where their money comes from.

One issue is the increasing similarity, at a formal level, between the informed consent form and the copyright license–especiallly in cases primarily covering the use of personal information. Both increasingly employ arcane “boilerplate” legalese, both attempt to control the reproduction, circulation and derivative uses of information, both are troubled by new technologies such as the internet, and both of them are frequently signed by people without an airy clue what they mean.

Another issue, brought to light by Free Software and related practices, is that informed consent, like standard copyright, actually diminish rights of subjects regarding the control of information, rather than protecting them. In the case of copyright, the transfer of ownership (think, signing an author agreement) is a way of transferring control away from individuals and to institutions; in the case of consent forms, the problem of downstream/derivate uses is often uncontrolled, so that information that is collected for one purpose is often used for other purposes that the consentor may or may not have agreed to. But because informed consent starts to look much like a transfer of property rights, but cannot be discussed as such (because it is legally murky, if not meaningless to speak of the ownership of one’s own private information or informationally abstracted body, i.e. genetic sequences and fMRI scans), it is impossible for IRBs to imagine how such permanent control on the part of individuals might be constructed, short of literally bringing them into the research enterprise as partners– which may actually be the solution, but then they wouldn’t be research subjects, would they?

Report this comment

]]>