Protecting Subjects, Research, and Researchers in Virtual World Ethnographic Research Monterey Bay, June 12, 2009

1. Protecting Subjects, Research, and Researchers in Virtual World Ethnographic ResearchMonterey Bay, June 12, 2009 Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph.D. Associate Professor Interactive Media Program & Department of Communication Bradley University Peoria, IL, USA ell@bradley.edu

2. Rule #1: Never apologize or revise the titleRule #2: Never define terms in fuzzy waysSorry • “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.

3. Do Good Do No Harm

4. 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). Do Good Do No Harm 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.

5. Do Good How much time in IRB review gets spent discussing the GOODS? Do No Harm How much time in IRB review gets spent discussion the HARMS TO SUBJECTS and especially, the POTENTIAL HARMS?

6. Who are we protecting?(as though this is straightforward) • Human subject behind the avatar (HSBA). • The Avatar. • Community of practice. • The researcher’s institution. • The researcher. • The research enterprise (our fields).

7. Do Good 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)? Do No Harm

8. Who are we protecting?(noting only suggestive contestations) • 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.

9. Diverse situations work against fixed standards IRBs often want to apply fixed standards

10. Diverse situations work against fixed standards 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. IRBs often want to apply fixed standards 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.

11. General contestations • 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.

12. Specific contestations • 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.”

13. Suggestions • 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.

14. References • 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.