Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 357.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 07:01:26 +0000
From: Charles Ess <cmess@lib.drury.edu>
Subject: preliminary report - internet research ethics
Colleagues:
I'm pleased to call to your attention the preliminary report of the ethics
working committee of the association of internet researchers, as presented
to the aoir 2.0 conference this past October in Minneapolis, MN. It can be
found at
aoir.org/reports/ethics.html
As the report notes, this is a very preliminary first effort at
circumscribing the ways in which research into online behaviors is both
similar to and, in specific circumstances, distinct from traditional human
subjects research. Accordingly, the traditional guidelines for human
subjects research (articulated in various national and disciplinary codes -
some of which are collected as an addendum to our report) are ethically
relevant to online research - but only up to a point. Beyond the point of
strong analogies between traditional human subjects research and some
contexts of online research - there further appear to be distinctive new
contexts in online research that represent strong _dis-analogies with
traditional human subjects research, thus calling for novel ethical
reflection on what rights (e.g., to privacy, anonymity, confidentiality,
informed consent) subjects may be reasonably expected to enjoy, and thereby
what researchers may and may not do in the course of their studies.
There is general agreement - across a number of national borders (committee
members represent cultures and traditions from around the world, as is
required for a communications medium with a global reach) - regarding the
basic values that should guide internet research, _and_ their application to
specific cases - e.g., whether the communicative behavior of persons in
chatrooms can be observed without consent. (The committee agrees that it
can, given that peoples' behavior in public spaces, according to traditional
guidelines, can be observed without consent - and given a strong analogy
between a publicly-accessible chatroom and a public space in the embodied
world.)
Of course, there is also spirited disagreement as to the application of
those values in other cases. We highlight one such case, as a way of
illustrating that
a) that distinctive details of a given research context can result in more
than one ethical interpretation/application of the general guidelines, and
b) that just as in our real-world efforts to ascertain generally binding
values and apply them to specific cases (e.g., in law) - disagreement is
common.
This latter point is _not_ taken as an argument for ethical relativism. On
the contrary, in keeping with ethics in other domains, there is consensus on
a broad range of behaviors that are acceptable, as well as a broad range of
behaviors that are not acceptable. Disagreement regarding the cases "in the
grey" between those two ranges is to be expected and worked through.
Another way of making this point: the application of ethical principles is
_not_ to be taken as a mechanical - indeed, algorithmical! - process, in
which general principles are somehow applied unproblematically to specific
cases with specific rulings 'yea' or 'nay' somehow deductively cranked out.
Rather, as ethicists from Aristotle through Simone de Beauvoir have noted,
ambiguity, uncertainty, and disagreement are intrinsic to the process.
This further means, however, that despite the intriguing ways in which
online research presents both strong analogies and important dis-analogies
with traditional human subjects research - precisely the dis-analogies, and
the correlative requirement that we struggle to extend our ethical judgment
into new areas reiterate other ancient philosophical insights. What is
needed, Aristotle noted, is _phronesis_, a kind of seasoned and informed
ethical judgment that, partly through the lessons of experience and
attempting to apply theory to _praxis_, gradually develops into a largely
reliable ethical sensibility that can indeed cope with new contexts and
situations. Confucius would not disagree.
As the report itself emphasizes, this document is but the first step in an
on-going process. On behalf of the committee, I welcome any comments and
feedback HUMANISTS may wish to provide.
With hopes for peace,
Charles Ess
Director, Interdisciplinary Studies Center
Drury University
900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230
Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435
Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html
Co-chair, CATaC 2002: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/catac02/
"...to be non-violent, we must not wish for anything on this earth which the
meanest and lowest of human beings cannot have." -- Gandhi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Nov 03 2001 - 02:24:13 EST