Comments on: Mining Twitter and Informed Consent http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ethics and Health in Social Media | Health Is Social http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-705758 Ethics and Health in Social Media | Health Is Social Mon, 23 May 2011 18:58:07 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/#comment-705758 [...] are the ethics of scouring public posts, tweets, status updates,etc.? Can researchers mine public data without any ethical restraint just because that data are [...] [...] are the ethics of scouring public posts, tweets, status updates,etc.? Can researchers mine public data without any ethical restraint just because that data are [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: zachary Schrag http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-628693 zachary Schrag Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:56:58 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/#comment-628693 You may be interested in the latest draft of Canada's "Tri-Council Policy Statement, Article 2.3": http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/revised-revisee/chapter2-chapitre2/#toc02-1a/ "REB review is also not required where research uses exclusively publicly available information that may contain identifiable information, and for which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.For example, identifiable information may be disseminated in the public domain through print or electronic publications, film, audio, or digital recordings, press accounts, official publications of private or public institutions, artistic installations, exhibitions, or literary events freely open to the public, or publications accessible in public libraries. Research that is non-intrusive, does not involve direct interaction between the researcher and individuals through the Internet medium, is not required to obtain REB review. Cyber-material such as documents, records, performances, online archival materials or published third-party interviews to which the public is given uncontrolled access on the Internet for which there is no expectation of privacy is considered to be publicly available information." You may be interested in the latest draft of Canada’s “Tri-Council Policy Statement, Article 2.3″:
http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/revised-revisee/chapter2-chapitre2/#toc02-1a/

“REB review is also not required where research uses exclusively publicly available information that may contain identifiable information, and for which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.For example, identifiable information may be disseminated in the public domain through print or electronic publications, film, audio, or digital recordings, press accounts, official publications of private or public institutions, artistic installations, exhibitions, or literary events freely open to the public, or publications accessible in public libraries. Research that is non-intrusive, does not involve direct interaction between the researcher and individuals through the Internet medium, is not required to obtain REB review. Cyber-material such as documents, records, performances, online archival materials or published third-party interviews to which the public is given uncontrolled access on the Internet for which there is no expectation of privacy is considered to be publicly available information.”

Report this comment

]]> By: Zachary Schrag http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-628692 Zachary Schrag Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:41:15 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/#comment-628692 You may be interested in the latest draft of Canada's "Tri-Council Policy Statement, chapter 10": http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/revised-revisee/chapter10-chapitre10/ "REB review is also not required where research uses exclusively publicly available information that may contain identifiable information, and for which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.For example, identifiable information may be disseminated in the public domain through print or electronic publications, film, audio, or digital recordings, press accounts, official publications of private or public institutions, artistic installations, exhibitions, or literary events freely open to the public, or publications accessible in public libraries. Research that is non-intrusive, does not involve direct interaction between the researcher and individuals through the Internet medium, is not required to obtain REB review. Cyber-material such as documents, records, performances, online archival materials or published third-party interviews to which the public is given uncontrolled access on the Internet for which there is no expectation of privacy is considered to be publicly available information." You may be interested in the latest draft of Canada’s “Tri-Council Policy Statement, chapter 10″:
http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/revised-revisee/chapter10-chapitre10/

“REB review is also not required where research uses exclusively publicly available information that may contain identifiable information, and for which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.For example, identifiable information may be disseminated in the public domain through print or electronic publications, film, audio, or digital recordings, press accounts, official publications of private or public institutions, artistic installations, exhibitions, or literary events freely open to the public, or publications accessible in public libraries. Research that is non-intrusive, does not involve direct interaction between the researcher and individuals through the Internet medium, is not required to obtain REB review. Cyber-material such as documents, records, performances, online archival materials or published third-party interviews to which the public is given uncontrolled access on the Internet for which there is no expectation of privacy is considered to be publicly available information.”

Report this comment

]]> By: Douglas W. Boone http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-628676 Douglas W. Boone Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:37:20 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/#comment-628676 A conference is planned in Berlin at the end of March: "The international conference on Qualitative Research in Web 2.0/3.0 (QRWEB2010)" Theme: "Tackling issues and opportunities of integrating Web 2.0/3.0 into qualitative research" Among the topics is "Assessing ethical and practical dangers of research using social media". Conference Website http://www.merlien.org/upcoming-events/qrweb2010.html A conference is planned in Berlin at the end of March: “The international conference on Qualitative Research in Web 2.0/3.0 (QRWEB2010)”

Theme: “Tackling issues and opportunities of integrating Web 2.0/3.0 into qualitative research”

Among the topics is “Assessing ethical and practical dangers of research using social media”.

Conference Website
http://www.merlien.org/upcoming-events/qrweb2010.html

Report this comment

]]> By: Is it Ethical to Harvest Public Twitter Accounts without Consent? | Michael Zimmer.org http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-628671 Is it Ethical to Harvest Public Twitter Accounts without Consent? | Michael Zimmer.org Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:06:51 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/#comment-628671 [...] Interestingly, Adam Fish, who I’ve friended on Facebook, saw that discussion and wanted to repost the thread on his blog. Respectful of the delicate nature of re-posting other conversations and moving them from the [...] [...] Interestingly, Adam Fish, who I’ve friended on Facebook, saw that discussion and wanted to repost the thread on his blog. Respectful of the delicate nature of re-posting other conversations and moving them from the [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Jenny Cool http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-628662 Jenny Cool Sun, 14 Feb 2010 02:45:29 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/#comment-628662 Yes, thanks, Adam! Your post and informants really effectively raise and frame some key questions facing social science researchers who work on networked media. The ethical, legal, and utilitarian dimensions are keenly highlighted in the Facebook exchange you document, but other dimensions, such as disciplinary approach, are mostly implicit. What “can be considered legitimately collected data” strikes me as a matter of disciplinary approach. This makes the question of mixed methods you raise a tricky one. Whether one tends toward a broad or narrow interpretation of informed consent, I think networked media presents some new, or newly common, challenges. Temporal aspects of these media (persistence, as well as mutability and ephemerality)—touched on in Michael Zimmer’s example of taking a previously public stream private—shape expectations of privacy; and change the practicalities of individual identifiability. While human subjects might change their minds and settings, the persistence of data released into the stream looms large, not least of all in the mediating presence of third parties. In my research, I study people but also their documents, which include utterances (Tweets, web pages, chat transcripts, mailing lists, blogs) as well as trails (server logs, user stats, metadata). I look at these as lived social phenomena, as occasioned speech or action, which persist as artifacts long after their occasion has passed. While my own approach in taking, keeping, and writing about informant- and system-produced data has been to seek informed consent, I recognize this isn’t practical for every researcher or study. So, it’s great these issues raised here. Yes, thanks, Adam! Your post and informants really effectively raise and frame some key questions facing social science researchers who work on networked media. The ethical, legal, and utilitarian dimensions are keenly highlighted in the Facebook exchange you document, but other dimensions, such as disciplinary approach, are mostly implicit. What “can be considered legitimately collected data” strikes me as a matter of disciplinary approach. This makes the question of mixed methods you raise a tricky one.

Whether one tends toward a broad or narrow interpretation of informed consent, I think networked media presents some new, or newly common, challenges. Temporal aspects of these media (persistence, as well as mutability and ephemerality)—touched on in Michael Zimmer’s example of taking a previously public stream private—shape expectations of privacy; and change the practicalities of individual identifiability. While human subjects might change their minds and settings, the persistence of data released into the stream looms large, not least of all in the mediating presence of third parties.

In my research, I study people but also their documents, which include utterances (Tweets, web pages, chat transcripts, mailing lists, blogs) as well as trails (server logs, user stats, metadata). I look at these as lived social phenomena, as occasioned speech or action, which persist as artifacts long after their occasion has passed.

While my own approach in taking, keeping, and writing about informant- and system-produced data has been to seek informed consent, I recognize this isn’t practical for every researcher or study. So, it’s great these issues raised here.

Report this comment

]]> By: Michael Zimmer http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-628634 Michael Zimmer Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:00:42 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2010/02/12/mining-twitter-and-informed-consent/#comment-628634 Thanks for sharing this with your community of researchers, Adam. One point of clarification: I don't think I said that I consider tweets to be "private" per se, but rather than in the context of making them public, I'm not convinced that subjects consented for them to be automatically harvested. Thanks for sharing this with your community of researchers, Adam.

One point of clarification: I don’t think I said that I consider tweets to be “private” per se, but rather than in the context of making them public, I’m not convinced that subjects consented for them to be automatically harvested.

Report this comment

]]>