Janet Salmons

Two different situations, similar answers:

"So if I am talking to different people in a forum and want to use their posts, then I need each one of them to sign a consent form?"

Yes. You need to explain the nature of the study, discuss how the data will be used, how it will be protected, whether they can be quoted or want to be anonymous (e.g. "participant A", first name only), voluntary participation and right to discontinue without penalty, etc..

"Also, what if I'm talking to an avatar and that person does not want his/her true identity exposed? " Two possible pathe: don't want to expose identity to you, as a researcher? That is tricky. How do you know the person is over 18 and can legally sign the agreement? (If under 18, parent/guardian must sign.) If they will expose identity to you as researcher, you can mask identity in the data analysis and report (again, "participant A").

If you are looking at the book, follow the Researchers' Notebook story of Jon Cabiria. He got his proposal through the IRB with avatars signing the consent agreement. It took six months-- and required a research design with multiple interactions/interviews so he could cross check and verify data.

There are other issues that must be considered in 2nd Life, related to observation, viewing the information included in the profile, etc that must be negotiated with the participant as part of the agreement.

For those following along in the text,Jeffrey is referring to Chapter 4, figures 4.1 and 4.2. I extend this discussion of public and private online spaces in Chapter 5's exploration of sampling.

I am suggesting that observations about the nature and practices etc. of a public online community, social networking site or online event can be safely made without identifying yourself as a "researcher" and obtaining consent.

If you are going to quote a specific participant, then you are in the gray area. What are the norms of the community? Do people expect they are in a restricted environment or do they expect they are in public? For example, if you post a comment on CNN.com you probably expect it is public. If you post something in an online community for people recovering from sexual abuse, your expectations might be different. It is a judgment call whether, based on the nature of the environment and the way you want to use data collected, you need to identify yourself and ask for consent. In some cases a community has a moderator who can be consulted, which can help you decide what to do.

Is it ethical, for example, for a researcher who is not recovering from sexual abuse to join a community/email list with the sole purpose of scholarly observation, without identifying oneself to the group as a researcher? In the literature I read there was much disagreement on this point. If the list is free and open where is the harm, some argue, and declaring one's presence as a researcher might influence the path of discussion. You can cite and reference the webpage as you would for any other online resource. 

My bias would be to err on the side of caution, and either consult a moderator or be honest about my intentions in the case where participants are likely to expect that they are sharing within a like-minded community or where personal, sensitive topics are being discussed. Then if specific participants make comments you want to quote, contact the person and ask permission.

At the private end of the spectrum, consent would be always be required.

What do you think? Would you construct the continua any differently?

Ethics and Visual Research

See the ESRC research methods site where you will find Visual Ethics:Ethical Issues in Visual Research http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/421/

Papademas, D. (2004). Editor's introduction: ethics in visual research. Visual Studies, 19,No 2, 122-125.
Ruby, Jay 2003 Image Ethics in the Digital Age University of Minnesota Press 592 60420
Wang, C. C., & Redwood-Jones, Y. A. (2001). Photovoice Ethics: Perspectives from Flint Photovoice. Health Education Behavior Health Educ Behav, 28(5), 560-572.
Wheeler, T. H. (2002). Phototruth or Photofiction?: Ethics and Media Imagery in the Digital Age. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc,US.

In the Elluminate session (see recorded session if you missed it live https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/jwsdetect/playback.jnlp?psid=2010-01-25.1311.M.AC456DEF2B5841109A2E4E2783A336.vcr) we explored the use of visual elicitation, visual communication and visual collaboration in online interviews. In the Vidyo CoroCall session we will explore visual communications of a different kind-- and discuss why you would choose one tool or another given your research purpose and design. The Vidyo session will be recorded and we'll post that link here as well, for follow-up discussion.

Log into the session using the following URL : http://bit.ly/scope-conf. We encourage you to log in ahead of the session to check your configuration.

You will see the following Login dialog screen:

Sign in as a guest (as illustrated) in the Guest Name box – and please make the name so we can identify you.

Please refer to the “User Minimum Requirements” document prior to joining the session.

We are offering the same session twice to add scheduling flexibility. Please join us! SEE you there!

It sounds like you have mainly used VOIP as you might a phone interview. I hope the sessions in Elluminate and Vidyo Corocall will give you some new ideas...

I can introduce you to my friend (and co-editor for the Handbook of Research on Electronic Collaboration) Lynn Wilson. She is experienced with Q method.