› “Protecting Subjects, Research, and Researchers in Second Life Ethnographic Research.”

› Ethnography, in the most generally fuzzy way,= field methods for participant observation and interviewing in communities of practice.

Advance knowledge/literature. Increase disciplinary knowledge of the community of practice. Increase lay knowledge of the community of practice. Increase the self awareness of the community of practice. Aid the community of practice in a needed area (help right social wrongs).

No physical damage. No psychological damage.

No adverse deception. No forced participation.

No legal damage. No economic/property loss (virtual or real). Protect privacy.

Protect community viability.

How much time in IRB review gets spent discussing the GOODS?

How much time in IRB review gets spent discussion the HARMS TO SUBJECTS and especially, the POTENTIAL HARMS?

Human subject behind the avatar (HSBA).

The Avatar. Community of practice. The researcher’s institution. The researcher. The research enterprise (our fields).

How much time in IRB review gets spent discussing the HARMS TO THE DISCIPLINE, KNOWLEDGE, OR RESEARCHER (by the IRBs

restrictions or otherwise narrow view)?

Human subject behind the avatar (HSBA) › Human data can sometimes be collected without invoking

procedural protections of HSBA.› protecting ghosts is not easy.

The Avatar› Not everyone commits to protecting the virtual agent.

Community of practice› Which “special” communities” require special protection?

The researcher’s institution› If the institution isn’t activist in these matters, their IRB is

probably more “standards” oriented, so way more rigid. The researcher

› Some have decision making latitude; others little. The research enterprise (our fields)

› Ethnography is exceedingly multi-disciplinary. That usually means fragmentation rather than broad political support.

Over-focus on regulations often misses the right thing & does

the wrong thing (harms knowledge and/or researcher). Online work crosses regulatory boundaries. Even within regulatory boundaries, IRB

experiences and tendencies vary wildly. Everyday practices in social computing bring standards-based constraints into question.

The “Common Rule” is followed, though it’s often inappropriate to qual/ethno work.

Some “compromise” traditional exemptions. Sometimes they identify more with paperwork and institutional protection than human subjects.

IRB mission creep is a serious problem for ethnographers.

Differing national philosophies standards applied in the “same” space (including those places that don’t do protocol reviews at all).

IRBs with wildly varied experience with qual/ethno and/or online research.

Holding qual/ethnos to bio-medically influenced protocols.

Application of the exemptions, esp. with regard to › Do they apply?› From what do they exempt?› Do TOS and avi-ids cancel the exemptions?

Status & role of TOS in general and LL’s in particular.

Public/Private continua› Is anything public? Private?

Data replication and security› So many copies, so little control.

HSBA/avatar protection continua› Most focus on HSBA; should avi get more?

“Special” populations› Does avi identity invoke special protection?› What does not knowing about special status of HSBA

imply? Informed consent protocols

› Land owners? Proprietors? All present? Virtual agreement? Age verification

› Should we induce them to lie, yet again, to cover our tails? Publication & blogging.

› Few if any bloggers protect identities or “data.”

Institutions MUST require diverse representation of research traditions in membership.

IRBs MUST be pro-active in filling knowledge gaps.

The “Common Rule” (and it’s procedures) should not be the default template for all research.

Researchers must be familiar with, and follow, both general and disciplinary specific standards and practices.

Buchanan, Elizabeth, A. Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2004.

Buzinkay, Marek and David Moore. "Ethical Standards in the Field of MMORPG Research." <http://www.buzinkay.net/blog-en/2009/05/ethical-standards-in-the-field-of-mmorpg-research/> May, 2009.

Code of Federal Regulation, Title 45. Public Welfare Department of Health and Human Services, Part 46: “Protection of Human Subjects.” (Revised June 23, 2005; Effective June23, 2005; also known as the Common Rule).

Duranske, Benjamin. Virtual Law: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Virtual Worlds. Chicago: ABA, 2008. Ess, Charles and the Association of Internet Researchers. Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations

from the AOIR ethics working committee, 2002. Iltis, Ana Smith (ed). Research ethics. Routledge, 2006. IRB Guidebook. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm Israel, Mark and Iain Hay. Research ethics for social scientists : between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006. Johns, Mark D. , Shing-Ling Sarina Chen & G. Jon Hall (eds) Online social research : methods, issues & ethics. NY: Peter Lang,

Pub. 2004. Markham, Annette N. and Nancy K. Baym (eds). Internet Inquiry: Conversations about Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE,

2008. Markham, Annette N. Virtual ethnography: Methodological and ethical issues in online research. April 2, 2008. Mini-forskerkurs

ved Institutt for informasjons- og medievitenskap. Mazur, Dennis John. Evaluating the science and ethics of research on humans : a guide for IRB members. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 2007. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. “The Belmont Report:

Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1978). DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0008.

Pace, Larry A. and Mary M. Livingston. “Protecting Human Subjects in Internet Research.” Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 10, No. 1 (2005): 35-41.

University of Illinois, Center for Advanced Research. The Illinois White Paper--Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB “Mission Creep.” 2005.

Tavani, Herman T. Ethics and technology: ethical issues in an age of information and communication technology. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

"The Ethics of Research in Virtual Communities" MediaMOO SymposiumJanuary 20th, 1997. <http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/asb/MediaMOO/ethics-symposium-97.html>

Tolich, Martin and Maureen H. Hitzgerald. "If ethics committees were designed for ethnography." Journal of empirical research on human research ethics, 1 (2) June, 2006: 71-78.

Wolf, Mark J.P. (ed) Virtual morality : morals, ethics, + new media. Peter Lang, 2003.