mariporntime

HeatherKanuka,PhD,AssociateProfessorandCanadaResearchChair,eLearning,AthabascaUniversity,Alberta,CanadaTerryAnderson,PhD,ProfessorandCanadaResearchChairinDistanceEducation,AthabascaUniversity,Alberta,CanadaAbstract:Inthemid1980seducationresearchersbeganexploringtheuseoftheInternetwithinteachingandlearningpractices,nowcommonlyreferredtoase-learning.
Atthesametime,manye-learningresearcherswerediscov-eringthattheapplicationofexistingethicalguidelinesforqualitativere-searchwasresultinginconfusionanduncertaintyamongbothresearchersandethicsreviewboardmembers.
Twodecadeslaterwecontinuetobeplaguedbythesesameethicalissues.
OnreflectiononourresearchpracticesandexaminationoftheliteratureonethicalissuesrelatingtoqualitativeInternet-andWeb-basedresearch,theauthorsconcludethattherearethreemainareasofconfusionanduncertaintyamongresearchersinthefieldofe-learning:(a)participantconsent,(b)publicversusprivateownership,and(c)confidentialityandanonymity.
Keywords:Internet,Web,e-learning,ethicalissuesCitationKanuka,H.
,&Anderson,T.
(2007).
Ethicalissuesinqualitativee-learningresearch.
InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods,6(2),Article2.
Retrieved[date]fromhttp://www.
ualberta.
ca/~iiqm/backissues/6_2/kanuka.
pdfInternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007EthicalIssuesinQualitativeE-LearningResearchHeatherKanukaandTerryAndersonResearcherswhohaveusedqualitativedatacollec-tionmethodstoinvestigatee-learninghavedis-coveredthattheapplicationofexistingethicalguidelinescansometimesresultinconfusionandun-certaintyamongbothresearchersandethicsreviewboardmembers.
Weweremotivatedtowritethispaperbasedonourexperiencesconductinge-learningre-searchforoveradecade,althoughmanyofthedifficul-tieswehaveexperiencedarenotuniquetoqualitativeresearchinthefieldofe-learning(Ess,2002).
Indeed,withinsocialsciencesandhumanitiesheateddebateshavebeenongoingformorethanadecadebecauseex-istingcodesofethicalpracticehave,attimes,failedtoprovideappropriateandworkableguidelinesforInternet-andWeb-basedresearch(e.
g.
,Allen,1996;King,1996;Mann&Stewart,2000;Reid,1996;Thomas,1996a;Turkle,1997).
Onreflectiononourre-searchpracticesandexaminationoftheliteratureonethicalissuesrelatingtoqualitativeInternet-andWeb-basedresearch,weconcludetherearethreemainareasofconfusionanduncertaintyamongresearchersinthefieldofe-learning:(a)participantconsent,(b)publicversusprivateownership,and(c)confidenti-alityandanonymity.
Originsofethicaldiscordine-learningExpressionsofethicaldiscordwithinthequalitativere-searchliteraturearenotnew(e.
g.
,deLane,2000;Hemmings,2006;Lincoln,1998;McNamee,2002;McNamee&Bridges,2002;Pritchard,2002;Small,2002;Tickle,2002;Usher,2000).
Thecontinuallyevolvingresearchpracticesthatmarkqualitativere-searchparadigmsmakethecreationofethicalguide-linesanongoingchallenge.
ComplicatingthischallengefurtheristheincreasingfrequencyoftheuseoftheInternetandWebinqualitativeresearchandedu-cationalcontexts.
TherearetwousesoftheInternetandWeb(whichwerefertoassimplytheNet)ineducationalcontextsthathaveinfluencedqualitativeresearchand,asare-sult,createdethicaldiscord(Kanuka&Picard,2005).
First,theNetisbeingusedasaneducationalcontext,augmentingorreplacingtheexistingclassroom-based(face-to-face)environment.
Thisenvironmentsup-portsthemanyfamiliarclassroom-basedinteractionsbutalsosupportsnovelNet-basedformsofinteraction,broadeningthecommunicationboundariesofspace,time,andidentity.
Metaphorically,theNetisalsousedtocreatevirtuallearningenvironmentsinwhichourphysicalpresenceappearstobetranscended,some-timesreferredtoasdisembodiment(e.
g.
,Dreyfus,2001)orhypercommunication,potentiallycreatingslippagebetweentherealandthevirtual(e.
g.
,Bassett&O'Riordan,2002).
Itisnosurprisethatinsuchenvironmentsexistingethicalvalueswithinqualitativeresearchparadigmsandnormspracticedbythosewhofrequenttheseenvironmentsmightalsobetranscended(Bakardjieva&Feenberg,2000),causingwhatBynum(2001)citedaspolicyvacuumsandconceptualmud-dles.
Inourexperienceconductinge-learningresearch,thiscontextualandconceptualchangehascreatedcomplicatedsetsofpersonalandinterpersonalinterac-tionwithintheeducationrealmaswellasinawiderso-cialdomain.
Second,theNetisbeingusedtocollectdatathroughwhichresearchersusingnaturalisticinquirycanobservebothnetworkedandreal-worldactivities.
Forexample,Web-basedcameras(webcams),listen-ingdevices,trackingsoftware,andotherdata-miningNet-baseddevicesallowresearcherstoobserve,moni-tor,andstudyreal-timeaswellasasynchronousactivi-tieshappeninganywhereintheworld.
Thesedatacollectiontoolsmightbevisibleandobtrusive,buttheyaremorelikelytobeunseen,therebychallengingoursenseofprivacyandaloneness.
IthasbeenarguedthattheuseofNet-basedinformation-gatheringtoolssupportsaperceptivelybenignaccumulationofinfor-mationthatcanbecomeanassaultonourindividualprivacy(e.
g.
,H.
Kitchin,2003;Reiman,2004).
TheuseoftheNetinanyoftheseapplicationscangenerateethicalissuesandconcernsforwhichtherearenosim-plesolutionsorrecommendations.
Deontologicalandteleological:PhilosophicalperspectivesforethicalresearchpracticeDebatesrevolvingaroundmoralandethicalbehaviorhavebeenongoingsincethetimesofPlato,Socrates,andAristotle.
Inmorerecenttimes,Kant(1956)broughtsomeresolutiontothesedebatesthroughthefollowingreasonedargument:Theonlythingthatisgoodwithoutqualificationorrestrictionisagoodwill.
Thatistosay,agoodwillaloneisgoodinallcircumstancesandinthatsenseisanabsoluteorunconditionalgood.
Wemayalsodescribeitastheonlythingthatisgoodinitself,goodindependentlyofitsrelationtootherthings.
.
.
.
Thisdoesnotmeanthatagoodwillistheonlygood.
Onthecon-trary,thereareplentyofthingswhicharegoodinmanyrespects.
These,however,arenotgoodinallcircumstances,andtheymayallbethor-oughlybadwhentheyareusedbyabadwill.
.
.
.
Thegoodnessofagoodwillisnotde-rivedfromthegoodnessoftheresultsitpro-InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/2Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCHduces.
Theconditionedgoodnessofitsproductscannotbethesourceoftheunconditionedgood-nesswhichbelongstoagoodwillalone.
Be-sides,agoodwillcontinuestohaveitsownuniquegoodnessevenwhere,bysomemisfor-tune,itisunabletoproducetheresultsatwhichitaims.
(p.
17,emphasisinoriginal)AccordingtoKant,goodwillaloneisanuncondi-tionedgood.
Inrecentdebatesonresearchethics,Kant'sargumentofethicalbehaviorisoftenabsent.
Contemporaryphilosophershavemoreoftenreasonedthatethicalperspectivesarebasedononeoftwocom-petingviews:deontologicalorteleological(Thomas,1996b).
Thedeontologicalperspective(relatingtophilosophicaltheoriesthatstatethatthemoralcontentofanactionisnotwhollydependentonitsconse-quences)assertsthatcodesofethicsneedtobedevel-opedwithclear,articulate,andexplicitrulestowhichresearchersmustadhere.
Deontologicalperspectivesdevelopandevolveovertimeandareeffectiveinsta-bleresearchcontexts.
Incontrast,theteleologicalper-spective(anapproachtoethicsthatstudiesactionsinrelationtotheirendsorutility)maintainsthatethicalbehaviorisdeterminedbytheconsequenceofanact,orthegreatestsocialgoodandtheleastsocialharm.
Tele-ologicalsolutionscanevolverapidlyasactorscloselyobservetheresultsoftheirbehaviorandadjusttheirethicalguidelinesinresponsetoobservedresults.
Rule-basedsolutions(e.
g.
,thedeontologicalview)areattractiveintheirsimplicityandcanbeparticularlyappealinginsituationsthatlackclearprescriptiveguidelines.
Followingrulescanprovideatangiblepresenceofprotectionforresearchersintermsofknowingwhethertheirresearchactivitiesareethicalornot.
Specifically,ifduringtheinquiryprocessre-searchersfindthemselvesinasituationthatraisesethi-calissues,followingaprescriptivesetofrulesonethicalconductisdesirable(Bernard,1999)andcanbeadvantageousintermsofprovidingcleardirectionforethicallyambiguoussituations.
Incontrast,ethicalrelativism(e.
g.
,theteleologicalview)requiresresearcherstolookbeyondtherulestoeitherimmediateorlong-termeffectsorconsequencesasabasisforethicalaction.
Thestrengthofthisper-spectiveisthatethicalactionrestsontheneedforre-searcherstoself-reflectontheirresearchpracticesandassumeresponsibilityfortheconsequencesoftheirac-tionswhenconductingresearch.
AsBakhtin(1993)noted,eachactisinherentlyethicalandhasconse-quences.
Roth(2004)arguedfurtherthatbecauseeachactraisesanethicalissue,everyresearcher'sactcon-tributestothecultureofresearch.
Researchethics,then,isinaconstantstateofevolving,makingrulefol-lowingapproacheslessfunctional.
Moreover,aseachresearchprojectisuniqueandtransitory,theprematurecreationofgoverningrulesandregulationsforpractice"wouldleadustoafutileexerciseinperpetualruleconstruction"(Thomas,1996b,54).
Thiskindofethicalrelativism,however,hasthreemainproblems.
First,itcanbeuncomfortablyvagueintermsofprovidingdirection,especiallyforinexperi-encedresearchers,andrunstheriskofremovingsitu-atedethics(Morson&Emerson,1990).
Inthisrespect,regulatingbodiesconstitutedbymembersofthecom-munitywhohaveknowledgeofandexperiencewithethicalissuescanbeinvaluable(McGinn&Bosacki,2004;Roth,2004).
However,theyinevitablybringadeontologicalperspectivethatisoftenreinforcedwithaprofessionalmandate.
Second,itdoesnotaccountfortheopposingprotectionsandtraditionsofethicaldeci-sionsbydifferentnationsandcultures.
Forexample,intheUnitedStatesthereisvirtuallynoprotectionforworkers'privacy.
ThisisincontrasttoEuropeanlaw,whichforbidsemployers'surveillanceandmonitoringoftheiremployees(Spinello,2002).
Third,andonadarkernote,historyhasshownthatoccasionallyre-searchershaveviolatedKant's(1956)imperativeofgoodwill(Roth,2004).
Wecanassumethatonocca-sionresearcherswillcontinuetoviolateKant'simper-ativeofgoodwill,makingtheteleologicalperspectiveproblematicinitsassumptionthatallresearcherswillself-regulateinamannerthatisethicallyresponsibleratherthanintheirowninterests.
Inanefforttoaddresstheproblemsofinexperience,culturaldiversity,andoccasionallackofgoodwillwhileavoidingformallegislationofstrictadherencetoethicalresearchpractices,associationshavebeende-velopedfordiscipline-orprofessional-basedmembers(e.
g.
,theAmericanPsychologicalAssociation).
Suchassociationsprovideguidelinesratherthanrules,ontheassumptionthattheguidelineswillbecriticallyre-flectedonandregularlyupdatedwithinthecontextofeachresearchsetting.
Inuniversityandpublichealthcontexttheseareusuallyoverseenonacase-by-casebasisbyinstitutionalethicsreviewboards.
Althoughnotallresearchersaresatisfiedwiththissolution,itdoesaddresstheneedtoacknowledgediverseethicalperspectives,contexts,andmotivations.
TheethicalcontextoftheNetineducationPriorresearchhasshownthatNet-basedcommunica-tiontechnologiescreateenvironmentsinwhichpartici-pantscreatedifferentsocialanddisciplinarycultures(e.
g.
Bakardjieva&Feenberg,2000;Turkle,1997)withuniquecommunicationpatterns,norms,values,InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCH3andinteractionsystems(Straus,1997;Whittaker,2003).
Thesedifferencesincommunicationpatterns,inturn,transformclassroom-basedconceptionsofteaching,learning,andresearch.
Earlyresearchersone-learninghavetendedtoapplyethicalguidelinesfromapre-Internetcontext,withlittleornoacknowledg-mentandaccommodationofthesetransformations(Anderson&Kanuka,2003).
McLuhan(1964)pointedoutthatwetendtointerpretnewmediathroughourex-perienceofoldermedia.
WithrespecttomediatedlearningresearchontheNet,wehavealsotendedtoin-terpretNet-basedcommunicationtechnologiesthroughourexperienceswitholdermediatedcommu-nicationtechnologies(Kanuka,2002).
Itis,however,thelackofacknowledgmentofthesekindsoftransformationsthatistherootcauseofmanyoftheethicaluncertaintiesthatcurrentlyexistwithNet-basedresearch(Ess,2002).
Currentguidelinesforethicalpracticeinthefieldofeducationaregreatlyin-fluencedbyguidelinesdevelopedbyprofessionalas-sociationsand/orgoverningcouncils.
Theseorganizationshavenotbeenabletodealquicklyandknowledgeablywithevolvingethicalconcernsthatre-latetothepracticeofresearchingonand/orwiththeInternetandtheWeb(Anderson&Kanuka,2003).
FollowingisanexampleofastatementbytheAmeri-canPsychologicalAssociation(APA,2003)relatingtostandardsthatdonotyetexist:Inthoseemergingareasinwhichgenerallyrec-ognizedstandardsforpreparatorytrainingdonotyetexist,psychologistsneverthelesstakereasonablestepstoensurethecompetenceoftheirworkandtoprotectpatients,clients,stu-dents,researchparticipants,andothersfromharm.
(Section2,5)Althoughwellintended,thesetypeofbroadguide-linescontinuetobesparseonspecificguidelinesforre-searchorpracticethatismediatedinanyformat.
Ourreviewuncoveredonlyonedocumentofferingspecificethicalguidelinesforresearchonline(seeBruckman,2002).
Thus,althoughtherehasbeenastatedneedforgreaterawarenessforevolvingethicalguidelines,therehasyettobeaconcertedefforttoprovidetheseguide-lineswithregardtoNet-basedresearch.
Theresultisthatthisevolvingplatformforresearch,althoughpro-vidingresearcherswithmanyexcitingnewpossibili-tiesforgaininginsightswithregardtoe-learning,isalsocreatingdifficultieswithrespecttoethicalprac-tice.
Newplatforms,newpossibilities,newproblemsUnderstandingthecomplexities,andensuingprob-lems,ofconductingethicalNet-basedresearchbecameclearwiththeinfamousRimm(1996)study.
Thisstudy,publishedintheGeorgetownLawJournal(Rimm,1995)alsofeaturedasacoverstudyinTimeMagazine(Elmer-Dewitt,1995),providesuswithanexampleoftheneedtoopenthedoortoopenandhon-estdialogueregardingethicalNet-basedresearchandtounderstandthetechnicalandsocialcomplexitiesofthisenvironment.
Thestudy,asdescribedbyThomas(1996a),revealshowaresearchprojectthatusedtheInternetasasourcefordatacollectionresultedinama-jorethicaloffense.
TheoriginalaimoftheRimm(1996)studywastoconductananalysisoftextdescriptionsoferoticafilesfromelectronicbulletinboardsandidentifydemo-graphicsofthosewhoaccesspornographicmaterialonaregularbasis.
Attheresearcher'srequest,thecom-putersystemadministratorprovidedcopiesofprivateuserfilesfromauniversitycomputersystem.
Otherin-formationprovidedbythesystemoperatorsincludedsecondarydataondetailsoftheusers,suchasposition(faculty,staff,student),age,sex,nationality,andmari-talstatus.
Thesedataallowedtheresearchertostudyapproximately4,000individualswhoaccessedporno-graphicand/ornonpornographicfilesonUsenetnewsgroups.
Notsurprisingly,manyoftheindividualswhohadaccessedthepornographicUsenetgroupfeltthattheirrightshadbeenviolated.
Atfirstglance,itmightseemobviousthatvoluntaryandinformedconsentshouldhavebeenobtained.
However,therearecertainproper-tiesinherenttotheInternetthatmakeitunclearif,infact,consentwasrequired.
TheRimm(1996)studybroughttotheforequestionsthatarenoteasytoanswerwhenconductingNet-basedresearch.
Forexample,isconsentrequiredwheninvestigatingpostingsinapub-licforum,suchaspublicmailinglistsorchatrooms,orarethesecommunicationforumsconsideredprivatespaces(doesapasswordimplytheseforumsarepri-vate)Ifso,whoistheconsentrequiredfromThemailinglistownerTheparticipantsBothWhoownsthedataThepostingauthorTheowneroftheserverAllthreeThesearesimplyafewoftheethicaldilem-masunansweredthatemergedfromtheRimmstudy,andtheRimmstudyisonlyoneexampleofhowtheInternetraisesnewformsofethicaldiscordbetweenandamongresearchers,participants,andethicreviewboardmembers.
InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/4Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCHTenyearslaterwecontinuetostrugglewithethicaldiscordine-learningresearch.
Ourexperiencesasbothe-learningresearchersandmembersofethicreviewboardshavetendedtorevolvearoundnonconsensuswithrespectto(a)informedandvoluntaryconsent,(b)whatispublicandwhatisprivate,and(c)anonym-ity,privacy,andconfidentialityofthedatacollected.
ConsentConsentisoneofthecornerstonesofethicalresearchpracticeswithinthefieldofeducation(Gall,Gall,&Borg,2007)andqualitativeresearchingeneral(Chris-tians,2000).
Exceptincaseswheredeceptionisrela-tivelybenignandintegraltotheresearchpurpose,informedandvoluntaryconsentmustbeobtainedfromallparticipants.
Inthefewcaseswhenconsentisnotobtainedbeforeparticipation,itmustbeobtainedassoonaspossibleafterparticipation,usuallyindebrief-ingsessionsimmediatelyfollowingtheresearcher'sintervention.
However,inourexperienceswehavedis-coveredthatobtainingconsentcanbecomeacompli-catedprocesswhenconductinge-learningresearch.
Forexample,acommonpracticeinclassroom-basededucationalresearchisforaresearchertodistributeconsentformstostudentsandhavethemimmediatelysignedbythewillingparticipants.
Inane-learningcoursesetting,thissameprocedurecanbecomediffi-culttoexecute.
First,privacylegislationmightprohibitinstitutionsfromprovidingcontactinformation(suchase-mailaddresses)toresearchersthatcanbeusedtosolicitparticipation.
Second,thereisoftenreluctancebye-learningstudentstoagreetoparticipate,yettheyveryrarelyrefusetoparticipateeither;thatis,apropor-tionofstudentsjustdonotanswertheinvitatione-mailstoparticipate.
HavetheyrefusedtoparticipateHavetheyevenreceivedtheinvitationtoparticipateIsitunethicaltoadopt"reversetechniques,"wherebyparticipantsmustinformtheresearcheriftheydonotwishtoparticipateWehaveheardfromourcolleaguesandreadintheliteratureextremedivergenceofopinionsbetweenandamongeducationresearchers,participants,andethicreviewboardswithregardtoinformedandvoluntaryconsent.
Onepossiblesolutionistoinformstudentsthatactivities(postings,pathstraversedonWebsites,timespentonparticularresources,etc.
)arebeingcol-lectedinamannersimilartotheannouncementthattelephonecallsarebeingrecordedatmanycallcenters(seeforexample,http://cde.
athabascau.
ca/stu-dents/online.
htm).
Byimplication,researchpartici-pantswhodonotwishtopartakeinsuchinvestigation,likecallcentercustomers,arefreetowithdrawfromthecourse,andthustheircontinuedpresenceisanim-pliedconsent.
Unfortunately,labelingsuchdefaultparticipationasvoluntaryimpliesthattheresearchpar-ticipants(inthiscasestudents)havealternativemeansofobtainingthedesiredservices.
Insomeeducationalprograms,coursesand/orindividualassignmentsarenotoptional(e.
g.
,requiredprogramcoursesofferedatspecifiedtimesanddates),andthusstudentsmightnotbefreetowithdrawfromthecourseorrelatedlearningactivity.
Assuch,researchersusingsuchtechniquesforobtainingconsentmustensurethattherearerealisticandaccessibleoptionsforparticipantswhodonotwishtoparticipate.
SecondaryanalysisofdataandconsentMorerecently,therehasbeenanincreasedinterestinobserving,classifying,andcomingtounderstandstu-dentbehaviorinavarietyofe-learningcontexts.
Oneofthemostfrequentlyusedtechniquesissomethingre-ferredtoasdatamining(Zaiane,2001).
ThistechniquereliesonextensiveanalysisofWeblogentriescreatedbystudentrequestsforpagedeliveryandothercallstoaneducationalWebserver.
Thistechniquemightalsomakeuseofcookies,whicharesmallpiecesofcodeat-tachedtotheWebbrowserthatidentifyeachuserandhisorheractivitiesonaWebsite.
Generally,thesedataareconsideredtobesecondary,astheyarenotusedtoidentifyactivitiesofidentifiableindividuals,andassuch,thereisnoneedforinformedconsentforaccessbyresearchers.
However,someofourcolleaguesinthefieldofeducationwhohaveusedthistechniquewithe-learningcourseshavebeguntoaskthemselvesifthistechniquealsorequiresinformedconsent.
Thereason-ingbehindthisisthatthesetechniquescanbeusedtotrackindividualbehavior,whichcanalsobematchedtoindividualidentities(e.
g.
,whentheclasssizeisrela-tivelysmall).
Inaddition,ifthistechniquedoesrequireinformedconsent,doestheresearchparticipantneedtobemadeawareofallofthepossiblewaysinwhichthesedatacanbeputtouseduringtheresearchpro-cessSomeofourcolleagues,aswellassomeauthorsonthistopic,haverespondedtothisquestionbyarguingthattheNetisapubliclyaccessibleenvironmentsand,therefore,consenttodatamineontheInternetorWebisnotneeded.
Walther(2002),forexample,hasmain-tainedthattheNetispublic,and"whilesomepartici-pantshaveanexpectationofprivacy,itisextremelymisplaced"(11).
Yet,reflectingbackonnon–Net-basedresearch,ifstudentsenrolledinaneducationalinstitutionarebeingobservedandrecordedbyare-searcherinaclassroom,theresearcherwouldnormallyberequiredtoobtainconsentfromthestudentsandin-structors,eventhoughmosteducationinstitutionsareInternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCH5accessibletothepublic.
Assuch,othershavemain-tainedthatusingdatafrome-learningcoursesdo,infact,requireconsent(e.
g.
,Schrum,1997).
Thedebateontheneedforconsentfordataminingwithine-learn-ingcoursescontinues.
Issuesofinformedconsentalsoconfoundtheprac-ticeoftranscriptanalysisofe-learningcourses(Garri-son&Anderson,2003).
Asmorestudentsenrolline-learningcourses,thereisacorrespondingincreaseintheneedtostudytheeffectsthate-learningishavingonlearningandteachingprocesses.
Transcriptsofcoursesgatheredautomaticallyinmachine-readableformat(e.
g.
,text-based,threadeddiscussionsinWebCT)areavaluableandconvenientformofdataforeducationre-searchers.
However,fromourresearchontranscriptanalysiswediscoveredthatthefluidityofmanyonlinecourseparticipants,whoareoftengeographicallydis-persed,makesitdifficulttonotonlytrackandidentifycourseparticipantsbutalsotocommunicatewiththem.
Giventhecriticalneedtoinvestigatetheimpactofe-learning,someprogramadministratorsarerequest-ingstudentswhoenrolline-learningcoursestonotifyeithertheircourseinstructororprogramadministratoriftheydonotwishtohavetheircoursetranscriptsusedinfutureresearch.
FollowingisanexampleofsucharequesttakenfromauniversitycourseWebsite:Finally,youshouldbeawarethatwhenconfer-encesareover,theyarearchivedforpossiblelateruseinvariousformsofresearch.
Whenconferencetranscriptsareusedinresearch,careistakentoensurethattheconferencetranscriptsareanonymous;thatis,allinformationthatmightidentifythecontributorisremoved.
Lit-eralquotationsintranscriptsmaynotbereusedwithoutspecificpermissionfromtheoriginalauthor.
Ifyouhaveanyproblemswithyourcon-ferenceentriesbeingusedinresearchinthismanner,youshouldcontactyourinstructor,im-mediately,priortoparticipatinginyourcourseconference(s).
(AthabascaUniversity,2007,Importantnotes,3)Althoughthisoptioniscertainlyappealingtous(aswearebothcurrentlyemployedatthisinstitution),wehaveaskedourselvesifthisstatementiscompleteenoughtofulfillcurrentrequirementsforvoluntaryandinformedconsent.
Aseducationresearcherswearecompelledtoadheretoasetofguidelinesinterpretedandenforcedbyethicsreviewboards.
Withregardtoinformedconsent,theseguidelinesrequireustopro-videfivetypesofinformationtoensurethatpartici-pantsareinformed:(a)astatementoftheresearchpurpose,(b)theidentityoftheresearcher,(c)theex-pectedduration,(d)thenatureoftheparticipation,and(e)adescriptionofresearchprocedures.
Intheaboveexample,doesthisinformationtoourcoursepartici-pantsprovidethesefivetypesofinformationFirst,theidentityoftheresearcherisunknown.
Second,thepur-poseoftheresearchhasnotbeenprovided;neitherhastheexpecteddurationandnatureoftheparticipation,andadescriptionofresearchproceduresisnotpresent.
Indeed,averysparsedescriptionisprovidedofthein-tendedanalysisprocess,whichmightexpandand/orchangeastheresearchcontinues.
Althoughweacknowledgethattherearecurrentlyethicalproblemswiththisexampleofopenconsent,weandmanyofourcolleagueslookforwardtothedaywhenlargerepositoriesoftextualeducationalconferencingtranscriptscanbeanalyzedthroughso-phisticatedtechniquessuchaslatentsyntaxanalysis(LSA),socialnetworkanalysis(SNA),andneuralnets.
Thesekindsofanalyseswithlargedatabasesprovideopportunitiesfore-learningresearcherstoconductim-portantkindsofresearch.
Atpresent,however,theguidelinesforinformedandvoluntaryconsentcreateasituationwherebytheexamplegivenabovedoesnotprovidevoluntaryandinformedconsent.
AsMannandStewart(2000)observed,"Thereareclearethicalcon-siderationsaboutusingdatabases,asmostindividualshavenoknowledgeofwheresuchdataarestoredandlittlepowertocontroluseofthedata"(p.
42).
Someresearchersandinstitutions(suchastheex-ampleprovidedabove)havearguedthatethicsap-proval(whichincludesinformedconsent)isneededonlywhentextualdatacontaininformationthatallowsidentificationofparticipants.
Specifically,ifthedatacanbedisembodied(strippedofloginnames)with,forexample,searchandreplacefeaturesofanalysissoft-ware,thedatacanthenbeusedwithoutethicsapproval(Garrison&Anderson,2003).
FahyandSpencer(2004)movedthisargumentfurtherandmaintainedthatwhentext-baseddiscussiontranscriptsarestrippedofidentifyingmarkers,theythenbecomessecondarydataand,therefore,theirusedoesnotrequireethicsap-proval.
Mostoften,secondarydataaredatathathavebeencollectedforaprimarypurposeandarethenmadeavailableforresearchbyotherindividualsorgroups.
Researchthatusessecondarydatatypicallyseekstoreplicateanalysesalreadycarriedoutbyprimaryre-searcherstoverify,extend,orelaborateontheoriginalresultsortoanalyzethedatafromadifferentperspec-tive.
Censuses,vitalstatistics,newspapers,marketre-search,Galloppolls,andcustomertrackingareexamplesofcommonsecondarydatasources.
How-ever,theinclusionoftextualcoursetranscriptsasasecondarydatasourcehasnotbeenwidelyadoptedbymanyresearchinstitutions.
Inparticular,itisdifficultInternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/6Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCHtounderstandhowthetextualconversations(whichin-cludetheopinionsandthoughtsofbothstudentsandinstructors)thatoccurine-learningclassroomsaresuf-ficientlysimilartolargedatasourcesreportedintheaggregate.
Onthispoint,Allen(1996)arguedthattheremovalofdemographicmarkersontextualdatausedinNet-basedconversationsconstitutesafacileidentityprotectionratherthanprovidingrealidentityprotec-tion.
Likewise,Bruckman's(2002)guidelinesforethi-calonlineresearchstatethatonlineinformationmaybefreelyquotedandanalyzedonlywhen(a)itisoffi-cially,publiclyarchived;(b)nopasswordisrequiredforarchiveaccess;(c)nositeprohibitsit;and(d)thetopicisnothighlysensitive.
Everythingnotelsetypi-callyrequiresconsent,includingtext-basede-learningcoursetranscripts.
Inthecaseoftheexaminationofephemeralcoursetranscriptsrecordedbyawebcamoraudiorecorder,ithasalsobeenarguedthattheindividualsbeingstudiedarenotresearchparticipantsinthenormaluseofthewordbecausetheyarenotbeingaskedtodoanythingspecificbytheresearcherand,assuch,obtainingcon-sentisnotrequired.
Specifically,researchparticipantsarenormallyunderstoodtobeindividualsaboutwhomaresearchercollectsdatathroughinterventionorinter-action.
Distinguishingbetweensuchresearchmethodsasactionresearch,inwhich,forexample,there-searchertakespartintheconferenceunderinvestiga-tion,versusoneinwhichtheresearchermerelyexaminesthesubsequenttranscriptorrecordchangesthenatureoftheinterventionorinteractionbetweentheresearcherandtheresearchsubject.
Thus,itcan,andhas,beenarguedthatresearcherscollectingandanalyzingephemeralNet-basedcommunicationwith-outparticipatinghavenotintervenedorinteractedintheprocess,andthusthecourseparticipantsarenotconsideredtoberesearchparticipants,eliminatingtheneedforconsentandethicsapprovalfromtheinstitu-tionalreviewboard(e.
g.
,Garrison&Anderson,2003;Walther,2002).
Nevertheless,althoughasresearcherswemightseethemeritinthisrationale,participantsdonotnecessarilyagree.
Inacasestudyonthisissue,HudsonandBruckman(2002)notedthat,totheirsur-prise,theparticipantswhowerebeingobservedintheirresearchprojectwereangeredattheideaofbeingob-servedwithouttheirpriorconsent.
HudsonandBruckmanconcludedthatwrittenconsentshouldhavebeenobtainedandthatresearcherscannotethicallycollectNet-basedephemeraldatawithoutconsentfromparticipants.
Incontrast,Waltherarguedthat"morefruitfuleffortsmightbemadeineducatingthepublicaboutthevulnerabilityofInternetpostingstoscrutiny.
.
.
[rather]thanbydebatingwhetherornotsuchscrutinyshouldbesanctionedinresearch"(11).
Finally,issuesrevolvingaroundconsentbecomeevenmorecomplexwhenweconsidertheproblemofownershipofe-learningtranscripts.
Intheliteraturethereisnoclearagreementonwhoactuallyownsmes-sagespostedonNet-basedspaces.
CavazosandMorin(1994),forexample,havemaintainedthatallNet-basedcommunicationshouldbeconsideredpublishedwrittenmaterialandthat,aswithothercopyrightedmaterial,quotingwithoutcitingthesourceisaviola-tionofcopyrightlaws.
However,asMannandStewart(2000)pointedout,thereisalsoanimpliedlicensethatmitigatesabsolutecopyright.
Inparticular,ifcopyrightlawsweretobefollowedinaliteralsenseinNet-basedcommunication,thennoonecoulddownloadorreadamessagewithoutexplicitpermissionfromthecopy-rightowner(normallytheauthor)astheirlocalma-chinehascreatedanelectroniccopyofthedata.
Furthermore,whenanindividualsendsthemessage,MannandStewart(2000)argued,"thereisanimpliedlicensetoread,orevenarchive,theinformationitcon-tains"(p.
46).
R.
Kitchin(1998)addedtotheconfusiononownershipbyaskingifperhapstheserveradminis-trator,theowneroftheserversystem,orthemoderatorofadiscussiongroupmightalsohaveownershiprights.
Typically,whenwehaverequestedconsentfrome-learningstudents,anumberofstudentsdonotreplytoe-mailsolicitationsrequestingtheirconsent.
Suchascenariohasforcedustomakeadecisiontoeitherabandonthesamplegrouporremovethepostingsofindividualswhohavenotgivenpermission.
Removalofindividualnonparticipatingpostingsispossible,intheory,usingsearchanddeletetechniquesoftheanaly-sissoftware.
However,inpracticewehavefoundthatthisbecomesproblematicbecausepostingsoftencon-tainexcerptsandquotationsfrompreviouspostings,anyofwhichmighthavebeenmadebynonparticipat-ingindividuals.
Inaddition,useofpersonalnamesiscommon,andremovingallreferencestonon-participantscanbearduousandtimeconsuming.
Further-more,wehavealsoconsideredthatthisprocesscouldnarrowlydefineremovalofanonparticipants'postingasananalysisprocessrequiringpermissionofthepar-ticipants.
Finally,wehavealsodiscoveredthatthere-movalofoneormoreperson'spostingscanmakeunderstandingoftheconferencethreadimpossibleanddecontextualizesubsequentpostings.
Manyofourcol-leagueshavealsoencounteredthisproblem.
Inre-sponsethisproblem(thefewparticipantswhotypicallydonotreplytotheinvitationtoparticipantorrefusetoparticipate),FahyandSpencer(2004)havearguedthatthe"rightsofthemajoritytoparticipateinresearchareprotectedovertheobjectionsofthosewhomaynotwishtodoso"(p.
33)andthat"itmaywellbeInternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCH7agreaterethicalviolationtodenytherightsofthewill-ingmajoritythanitwouldbetoaccedetothewishesofthereluctantminority"(p.
34).
However,indisagree-mentwithFahyandSpencer,BakardjievaandFeenberg(2000)arguedthatallparticipantsshouldbeaskedforconsent.
Intheeventthatthereisarefusalofonegroupmembertoparticipateinaresearchproject,researchersshouldbepreparedforthispossibilityandplananalternativecourseofaction.
Bruckman(2002)concurredandcautionedresearchersnottomaketheconclusionthatFahyandSpenserformulated:[When]facedwithsituationswheregettingcon-sentfrompotentialstudyparticipantsinacom-puter-mediatedcommunicationforumislogisticallydifficultorpotentiallydisruptivetotheenvironment,someresearchershavecon-cludedthatconsentisnotrequired.
Infact,con-sentisstillrequired,andsubstantiallydisruptingtheenvironmentisnotacceptable.
Insuchasitu-ation,theinvestigatormustfundamentallyre-thinktheresearchplanorevenabandonit,notlessentheirethicalobligations.
Manyerrorsinresearchethicsstemfromaresearcher'ssincerededicationtothequalityofresults.
Whilepro-ducingqualityresearchresultsisinitselfaneth-icalimperative,italwaystakesbackseattotheneedsofsubjects.
Becarefulnottomakethiscommonmistake.
(p.
2)MannandStewart(2000)havemaintainedthatin-formedconsentis"perhapsthekeyissuetobead-dressedanewwhencreatingaframeworkforethicalonlineresearchpractice"(p.
48).
AttheotherendoftheopinionspectrumtoGarrisonandAnderson(2003)andFahyandSpencer(2004),whohavearguedthatmajorityrulesandconsentisnotrequiredwhentherisksarelow,WaskulandDouglass(1996)assertedthatifinformedconsentisnotobtained,thenadegreeofdeceptionisimplied.
Deceptiveresearchisconsid-eredbysomeresearcherstobeonsoftethicalgroundsandisgenerallyconsideredtobeunethicaliftherearealternativewaystoconducttheresearch(Bulmer,1982).
Moreover,althoughdeceptioninvokesethicalconflictsinresearchinphysicalenvironments,itiscomplicatedfurtherinvirtualenvironments.
Spe-cifically,ine-learningresearchtheparticipantsdonothavephysicalcluestoidentifyaresearcher(e.
g.
,thephysicalpresenceofaresearchertakingfieldnotes).
Assuch,inonlineenvironmentswherearesearcherdoesnotinformparticipantsofhisorherresearchroleandtheparticipantcannotseetheresearcher,thisim-pliesadegreeofdeceptionbyexploitingthepartici-pant'signoranceofsomethingthatheorshecouldnotpossiblyknowabout(Waskul&Douglass,1996).
Giventheethicalimplicationsofconductingre-searchwithoutinformedconsent,ontheonehand,andthedifficultyofobtaininginformedconsentbycourseparticipants,ontheother,ithasbeenourexperiencethereiscurrentlyverylittleagreementabouthowtoproceed.
Isitenoughtogetapprovalforthepossibilityofresearchonhumansubjects,ordoparticipantshavetherighttoknowthespecificsoftheresearchandthespecificsofhowinformationfromandaboutthemistobeusedandstoredIfso,canresearchersgainthislevelofspecificitywhentheymighthavemanytypesofinvestigationandsecondaryanalysisinmindCanarchivede-learningcoursetranscriptsthathavebeenstrippedofpersonalidentifiers(e.
g.
,names,geo-graphiclocations)butincludethepersonalthoughtsandopinionsofthecourseparticipantsbecategorizedassecondarydataEvenwhenthetranscriptsarestrippedofpersonalidentifiers,istherestillariskofbeingidentifiedthroughpersonalexpression,forex-ample,theinstructorShouldtherightsofthemajoritybeoverruledbytherightsoftheminorityWehavefoundthatthesearenoteasyquestionstoanswer.
AuthenticityandconsentEthicalissuesrelatedtoe-learningresearchoccurwhenobtainingelectronicconsentandensuringitsau-thenticity.
Althoughtheseissuesarenotentirelyuniquetoe-learningresearch,theydotendtobecomemorecomplexandhencemoreproblematicwhenre-searchisconductedovertheNet.
Forexample,thepro-cessofacquiringconsentusuallyinvolvessigningaconsentforminwhichtheresearcheroutlinestherele-vantcomponentsoftheresearch.
Insomecasescon-sentisimpliedbythecompletionofasurveyorquestionnaire.
Normallyasignatureauthenticatescon-sent;however,manypotentialresearchparticipantsdonotusedigitalsignaturetechnologiesthatinsureen-cryptionandauthentication.
Thus,educationresearch-erswhoarecollectinge-mailsorWebforms,inatechnicalsense,aremorelikelytobesubjectto"era-sureandcorruptionthroughpowerdrops,operatorer-ror,etc.
"(Ess,2002,p.
6)aswellasidentitydeception(Frankel&Siang,1999).
Bruckman(2002)recom-mendedthatelectronicconsentshouldbeobtainedonlyif"thesubjectsare18yearsofageorolder.
Theonlineconsentformstepspeoplethrougheachsub-ele-ment,oneatatime.
Theriskstosubjectsarelow.
Oth-erwise,consentmustbeobtainedwithasignatureonpaper"(7).
Inspiteofthepossiblelimitationsofelectroniccon-sent,thegeneralpracticetodateisthatunlessthere-InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/8Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCHsearcherhasreasontobelievethattheparticipantshaveanincentivetomisrepresentthemselves,unsecuredelectronicconsentformsaredeemedtobeacceptable,althoughnotallresearchersandethicreviewboardmembersagreewiththispractice(e.
g.
,Mann&Stew-art,2000).
Toresolvetheproblemofverifyingwhoac-tuallysenttheconsentform,someeducationresearchersuseauthenticationsoftwareforbothpartic-ipantsandthemselves.
Authenticationsoftwarealsoeffectivelyeliminatesthepossibilityofthird-partyin-terference.
Theseservicesareprovidedatarelativelylowcostthroughcertificateauthoritiesandpublickeyinfrastructurefirms(forexample,seehttp://www.
verisign.
com/).
Aproblemwithusingauthenticationsoftware,however,isthatboththeresearcherandtheresearchparticipant(s)mustpossesscertaintechnicalknowledgeandskillstousethesefeatures,nowbuiltintoWebbrowsers.
Besidesfinancialconsiderations,insistingonsecuretransmissionmightstresstechnicalandsupportskillsofbothresearchersandparticipantsaswellasincreasethetimeandcommitmentrequiredbyboththeparticipantsandtheresearcher.
Assuch,relativelyfewresearchersuseauthenticationsoftwarewhenobtainingelectronicconsent.
ResearcherswhochoosetoobtainconsentovertheInternetalsohavetobeawareoftheriskofhavingvul-nerablepopulationsparticipateintheirstudy.
Roberts(2000)(seealsoTeich,Frankel,Kling,&Lee,1999;Turkle,1997),forexample,observedthatparticipantsoccasionallyconcealand/ormisrepresentimportantdemographicinformation.
Thismightleadtovulnera-blepopulations(e.
g.
,childrenorpersonsofdiminishedmentalcapacity)beingrecruitedandincludedinastudywithouttheresearcher'sknowledgeand/orpa-rentalconsent(Frankel&Siang,1999).
Schrum(1995)maintainedthatthislackofknowledgeofparticipantsalonepresentsaseriousproblemofNet-basedre-search.
Drawingfromourexperiences,wehavecon-cludedthattherearepossiblerisksassociatedwithobtainingonlineconsentandthatweneedtobeawareoftheproblemsthatcanoccurwiththispractice.
Wheneverpossiblewetrytoobtainasignedstatementofconsentfromeachparticipant,whichwebelievecanbestprotecttheresearcher,theresearcher'sinstitution,fundingsources,andresearchparticipants.
Unfortu-nately,ithasalsobeenourexperiencethatwhencon-ductinge-learningresearchwehavefoundthatthisisnotalwayseasyorpossible.
Forexample,wehavehadoccasionswhentheuseoftheInternetistheonlyprac-ticalmeansofobtainingthisconsent.
Althoughweac-knowledgethatidentitydeceptionandattractingvulnerableparticipantsisanever-presentpossibility,theInternetalsogivesustheabilitytoaccesspartici-pantswhomightotherwisebeunabletoparticipateorwhotraditionallymightnothavebeenabletohaveavoiceinresearchprojectsforavarietyofreasons(e.
g.
,geographic,disabilities,situational).
Incertaincircum-stances,communicationviatheInternetcanaccessthesepopulations,which,inturn,providesgreaterin-clusively.
Withthisexample,theethicalproblemforusrevolvesaroundthefollowingissue:DoesobtainingconsentforcertainpopulationsandpeopleovertheInternetoutweighthepossiblerisksofattractingunau-thorizedparticipantsPrivacy,confidentiality,anonymityConfidentialityinresearchreferstoanagreementastohowinformationcollectedinthestudywillbekeptse-cureandprivate(e.
g.
,throughcontrolledaccess).
Thetermsofconfidentialityareusuallytailoredtotheneedsoftheparticipants.
Privacyreferstotheresearchparticipants'righttocontroltheaccessofotherstoin-formationaboutthem.
Anonymityreferstothere-movalofanyuniquecharacteristics(e.
g.
,names,addresses,affiliatedinstitution,geographicalareas)thatwouldallowuniqueidentificationofparticipants.
Asmentionedearlierinthediscussiononconsent,un-derstandingparticipants'needforprivacy,confidenti-ality,oranonymityisawayinwhicharesearcherrespectstheparticipantsandisdeemedafundamentalrequirementofethicalpracticeamongeducationre-searchers.
Thisrespectisshownmostclearlybyallow-ingtheparticipantstoshareintheresponsibilityfordecisionmakingthataffectsthemandinparticulartoshareknowledgeablyinthedecisiontoparticipate(ornot)inaresearchproject.
Tomakedecisionsappropri-atelyandknowledgeably,theparticipantmustbein-formedofalltherelevantdetailsoftheresearch,withanopportunitytorefusetoparticipate.
Formosttypesofeducationresearch,inaphysicalcontextprovisionofrelevantinformationandproceduresforobtainingconsentisrelativelystraightforward.
Thesearede-tailedbyorganizationssuchastheAmericanPsychol-ogyAssociation(2003).
Thegeneralprinciplesincludecompetence,integrity,professionalandscientificre-sponsibility,respectforpeople'srightsanddignity,concernforothers'welfare,andsocialresponsibility.
Inadditiontotheseprinciplesareethicalstandardsthatinclude,amongotherthings,privacyandconfidential-ity.
Inreality,however,itisnotalwaysstraightforwardorsimpletoupholdmanyoftheseprincipleswhenus-ingtheNetasaresearchtoolorcommunicationme-diumduringtheresearchprocess.
Inparticular,promisingabsoluteprivacy,confidentiality,andano-InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCH9nymitymightnotbepossiblewhenusingtheNetintheresearchprocess.
Researchersneedtobecognizantthatotherpeoplemighthaveaccessto—ormightbeabletoaccess—datathatarekeptonanInternetserver.
Hence,assurancesforprivacy,confidentiality,andanonymitycannotbeprovidedbytheresearchertotheresearchparticipantsascomparedtopaperdocumentsthatarekeptsecurelyunderlockandkey,althoughweac-knowledgethattherearerisksheretoo(e.
g.
,fire,break-ins).
Withe-learningresearch,forexample,servermaintenancepersonnelwillhaveaccesstothedatathatresidesontheserver,andtheseindividualswilllikelyhavetosignaformpromisingthattheywillnotsharethedatatowhichtheyhaveaccess.
TheRimm(1996)studycitedatthebeginningofthispaperillustratestheneedtoattendtothisdetail.
Moretrou-blesome,however,isthathackerscanbealoomingthreattosafelysecuringdatathatresidesonanInternetserver.
Thisthreatisthreefold:accessingandmakingpublicthedatathatarecollected,changingresearchdata,ordestroyingdatathroughdistributedviruses.
Areresearcherscompelledtoadviseparticipantsthattheycannotguaranteethatelectronicdatathatresidesoncomputerswillnotbeaccessedandused,changed,ordestroyed,byothers,orcanresearchersandpartici-pantsassumethatsecuritystandardsaremaintainedtotheequivalentofdatathatarestoredunderlockandkeyintheresearcher'sofficePrivatelypublicOrpubliclyprivateResearchconductedinpublicspacesgenerallydoesnotrequiretheresearchertoobtainconsent.
Examplesofsuchcasesincludeobservingcheeringchantsatfootballgamesornightclubqueuinghabitsonpublicstreets.
ManykindsofNetspaces,suchasblogs,bulle-tinboards,andnewsgroupswithoutpasswords,arealsopublicspaces.
Inparticular,theInternet—or,morespecifically,theWeb—isanartifactofpopularculture,whichmakesitapublicspace,andassuchweshouldnotexpectthesame(orany)assurancesofconfidenti-alityorprivacy(Bassett&O'Riordan,2002;H.
Kitchin,2003;Walther,2002).
AnyonewithInternetaccesscanfreelyreadmostnewsgroupsorblogsandpostmessages.
Kitchin(seealsoAllen,1996)hasmaintainedthatbecausethesediscussionforumsareopentothepublic,thereisnoneedtogaininformedconsentforNet-basedresearchusingothers'writtencommentsandideas;researcherscanfeelfreetouseanymaterialpostedontheNetbecauseitisapublicspace.
Incontrasttothisposition,others(e.
g.
,Bakardjieva&Feenberg,2000;Waruszynski,2002)havearguedforethicalguidelinestoprotectparticipantsandre-searchersinthesepublicspacesontheNet.
Asnotedearlier,whenaresearcherisobservingpeopleinpublicspaces,thosebeingobservedcanseetheresearcher.
IthasbeenarguedthatinNet-basedpublicspaces,re-searchersshouldalsomaketheirpresenceknowntoalertthosebeingobservedthatdataarebeingcollectedbasedontheiractivities.
Schrum(1997),forexample,assertedthatresearchersneedtomaketheirpresenceknowninanyelectroniccommunity(e.
g.
,mailinglists,discussiongroup,electronicclassformat).
BothBakardjievaandFeenbergandHudsonandBruckman(2002)providedexampleswheretheirparticipantsfeltasenseofviolationwhentheydiscoveredtheywerepartofastudyandtheirconsentwasnotobtainedpriortodatacollection.
AccordingtoWaruszynisk,re-searcherswhomaketheirpresenceknowncanavoidasenseofviolationshouldthosebeingobserveddis-covertheyarepartofaresearchproject.
King(1996)arguedthatfeelingsofprivacyviola-tionareproportionaltoourexpectationofprivacy,ir-respectiveofwhether,technically(asH.
Kitchin[2003]andAllen[1996]haveargued),theInternetinallitsformsisapublicspaceornot.
Hawk(2001)agreed,stating,"Asageneralrule,anexpectationofprivacywillbefoundtoexistwhentheindividualhasbothasubjectiveandobjectiveexpectationthathisorherelectroniccommunicationsareprivate"(p.
108).
Mostofus,forexample,wouldfeelthatourprivacywasbeingviolatedifwewerebeingaudio-orvideo-tapedinapublicspace.
Therewouldalsolikelybelittlequestioninthemindsofethiccommitteemembersthatvoluntaryandinformedconsentisrequiredfromeachparticipantwhendataarebeingcollectedthroughtheuseofvideoand/oraudiotapes,irrespectiveofwhetheritisinapublicspaceornot.
Withthisinmind,nowconsiderthisquestion:Howdifferentistheresearcherwhotaperecordsapersonalconversationinapublicspacefromtheresearcherwhoarchivescommunica-tiononapublicnewsgroupThisisnotaneasyquestiontoanswerandcirclesbacktoaproblemdescribedearlier.
Specifically,al-thoughpermanentlyrecordingtheephemeraldis-coursethatarisesinapublicspaceisnotpartofanormalpublicconversation,postingatextmessageonapublicnewsgroup,whichautomaticallycreatesaper-manentandpublicrecordofactivity,isanormalpartofonlineconversation.
Itisthisdifference(theperma-nentandpublicrecordingofNet-basedcommunica-tion)thatmakesitdifficulttodecidewhenstudyingelectronictranscriptsifthistypeofresearchrequiresvoluntaryandinformedconsentpriortothedatacol-lectionprocessfromthosewhopostedthemessages.
Researchershavewrittenaboutthisambiguitywithop-posingopinions.
Wilkins(1991)(seealsoSchrum,InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/10Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCH1997),forexample,citedopinionsthatpublicNet-basedforums(suchaspublicmailinglistsandUsenetgroups)canbeusedinresearchifauthorshipiscitedbyreferencetonote,number,ornameandper-missionfromtheforumownerisgranted.
Incontrast,otherresearchershavearguedthat"theissueofin-formedconsentofauthors,moderatorsand/orarchiv-inginstitutionsdoesnotapply[when]publiclyavailabletextisanalyzed"(Rafaeli,Sudweeks,Konstan,&Mabry,1994,EthicsPolicy,1).
BassettandO'Riordan(2002)agreedandaddedthatseekingconsentwouldbecounterproductiveandimpossibleexceptunderthemostwell-fundedconditions.
TheseopposingpositionsillustratehowtheNetcomplicatesourunderstandingofpublicspaces.
Thequestioncanbereducedtothis:WhenisNet-basedcommunicationpublic,andwhenisitprivateAccord-ingtoWaskulandDouglass(1996),itisneitherpublicnorprivate.
Rather,itisbothandcanbeconsideredtobeprivatelypublicorpubliclyprivate.
Technically,se-curingaccesstoInternetcommunicationcannotbeguaranteedinanyabsoluteway.
Assuch,privateInternetcomminationsthatoccurbehindpasswordsorfirewallscanbeconsideredatbesttobeonlysemiprivate,orprivatelypublic.
Alternatively,manymailinglists,chatrooms,blogs,andnewsgroupsareopenforthepublictojoin,postmessages,andreadpostedmessages.
However,insomeinstances(e.
g.
,mailinglists)individualsmustsignontothegroupandcanberemovedbythelistowner.
Assuch,somepublicforumsarealsosemipublic,orpubliclyprivate.
InatechnicalsensetherearenoprivatespacesontheInternetinthesamewaythatanindividual'sbedroomisaprivatespace.
BecausetheNetispubliclyaccessi-ble(evenwhenencryption,authentication,andothersecurityservicesareused),ithasbeenarguedthatallNet-basedactivitiesareequallypublic,apositionthatFrankelandSiang(1999)havereferredtoasthetech-nologicalpointofview.
However,althoughthisargumentdoesprovideclaritytothepublic-privateissue,itbreaksdownwhenuniformlyandliterallyapplied,especiallyforeduca-tionresearchers.
Consider,forexample,whenusingNet-basedforumswithcoursemanagementsoftwarethatrequiresapasswordtocommunicate.
Thereisanimpliedunderstandingthroughtheuseofapasswordthatthisisaprivatespace,eventhoughtechnicallyitisnot.
Hence,becauseprivateandpublicspacesontheNetcantechnicallyonlybeunderstoodintermsofmet-aphors,ourunderstandingofprivatespacecanbeusedonlyifweallagreethatthismetaphorcanbeappliedtodichotomizedprivateandpublicdomainsintermsofnotonlyaccessbutalsoexperienceandperception(Waskul&Douglass,1996).
TheethicalquestionforushasbecomeHowshouldwedefineasenseofpri-vacywhenprivacyisamatterofindividualperceptionandexperienceFewofusinvolvedine-learningresearchwouldar-gueoverthedichotomiesthatoccurintermsofaccess(eitheronlineforumsaretechnicallysecuredornot);however,agreementcontinuestobreakdownwithre-specttoapplyingexperienceandperceptionofthepar-ticipants.
Forexample,unlikewithotherpublicformsofcommunication,wecancommunicateinapublicNet-basedforumfromtheprivacyofourhomeorworkspace.
Specifically,asKing(1996)observed,wehavetheabilitytointeractpubliclywithothersfromtheprivacyofourhomesorworkspaces,makingitpos-sibletoredefineNet-basedcommunicationasprivateandengageinprivateformsofcommunication.
Inthesecases,accordingtoKing,itismisleadingtoas-sumethatNet-basedcommunicationinpublicforumscanbeconsideredpublicandnotinneedofobtainingconsent.
Othershaveagreed(e.
g.
,Waskul&Douglass,1996),arguingthattheperceptionthatallformsofcommunicationontheNetarepublicisintellectuallybarbaricandclearlyunethical.
Withregardtousingthispubliclyaccessibleinformationasdataforre-search,Reiman(2004)argued,Privacyisasocialritualbywhichweshowoneanotherthatweregardeachpersonastheownerofherself,herbody,andherthoughts.
Itisforthisreasonthatprivacyisgenerallyabsentfromorganizationsuchasmonasteries,armies,com-munistcells,andmadhouses,whereindividualsarethoughttobelongtosomelargerwholeorgreaterpurpose.
Thisisalsowhyinvasionsofprivacyarewrongevenwhentheydon'tposeanyrisktoreputationorfreedom,evenwhentheinvaderwillnotusewhatheobservesinanyharmfulway,evenwhentheindividualisun-awarethatherprivacyisbeinginvaded.
Asidefromanyharmsthatinvasionsofprivacythreaten,suchinvasionsareinsults.
Theyslightanindividual'sownershipofherselfandthusin-sultherbydenyingherspecialdignity.
.
.
Pri-vacyconveystotheindividualhisself-ownershippreciselybylettinghimknowofhisabilityandhisauthoritytowithdrawhimselffromthescrutinyofothers.
Thosewholosethisabilityandauthorityaretherebytoldthattheydon'tbelongtothemselves;theyarespecimensbelongingtothosewhowouldinvestigatethem.
Theyaresomeoneelse'sdata.
(p.
205,emphasisinoriginal)InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCH11WaskulandDouglass(1996)notedfurtherthatthepubliccontextofinteractiondoesnotprecludetheemergenceofprivateinteractions;awarenessofthisdistinctioniscriticaltothemaintenanceofethicalNet-basedresearchandpublicforumsrequirein-formedandvoluntaryconsent.
Theresolutionofinconsistentperspectivesontheseissueshassignificantimplicationsforethicalguide-linesfore-learningresearch.
WeareinagreementwithHawk(2001),whostated,"Thetraditionalnotionofprivacylimitedanindividual'sfreedomfromintrusiontothesanctityoftheindividual'spersonorhome.
Cyberspacepresentsanewdilemmaforthislegalpara-digm"(p81).
DiscussionOurviewofwhatisethicalandwhatisnotisusuallyacquiredatanearlyageandshapedthroughoursocialandculturalpracticesandvalues.
Specifically,cus-toms,traditions,andculturedefineourwaysofknow-ing,which,inturn,definesourwaysofexpandingwhatweknowandisreflectedthroughourresearchpractices.
Assuch,ethicsaresociallyconstructed.
Therearestrengthsthatarisefromethicalpracticesthataresociallyconstructed,as"virtuesarefostered—in-deedrelatedto—particularsocialcontextsandwithoutthatsocialsupportpersonalvirtuessooftenweaken.
.
.
ifwearewantingvirtuousresearchers,thenwemusthave'virtuousresearchcommunities'"(Pring,2002,p.
125).
Itisthedevelopmentofsociallyconstructedresearchcommunitiesthatinfluenceswhatweperceivetobeofvalueandhowwedevelopper-sonalandprofessionalintegrity.
However,therearealsolimitationswhendrawingfromethicsthatareso-ciallyconstructed.
Inparticular,withtheemergenceofpostmodernwaysofknowingandtheincreasingplu-ralityofculturesinmodernsociety,wehavefoundthatitisbecomingprogressivelymoredifficulttoknowhowethicalbehaviorisbeingsociallyconstructedand,therefore,influencingtheabilitytodevelopethicalre-searchcommunities.
Thisisparticularlytruewithcer-tainqualitativeresearchparadigms,suchaspractitionerandactionresearch(Pritchard,2002;Simons&Usher,2000),whichcurrentlycharacterizemuchofthee-learningresearch.
Moreover,asethicsareoftenunspokenand,inthecaseofmuche-learningresearchpractice,undocumented,wehavediscoveredthroughourexperiencesconductinge-learningre-searchthatwemightnotevenbeawarethatothersdonotsharesimilarethicalprinciples.
Complicatingthissituation(alackofawarenessofothers'views)isthegrowingnumberofgraduatestudents—ourfuturere-searchers—whoareenrolledinoff-campuscoursesand/orprograms.
Ithasbeenourexperiencethatmuchofwhatourgraduatestudentslearnaboutconductingethicalresearchwehavepassedontotheminformally(e.
g.
,duringcoffeebreaks,meetingswithgraduatesu-pervisors,orinthecampushallways,adhocclassroomdiscussions).
Recognizingtheincreasingcomplexitiesthatnoviceresearchersface,incombinationwithin-creasingoff-campusgraduatecourseofferings,McGinnandBosacki(2004)(seealsoBrinthaupt,2002)suggestedthattheteachingofethicsneedstore-ceivepriorityinresearchmethodscourses.
Ultimately,however,theresolutionofmuchofthecurrentethicaldiscordwillhappenonlyafterthereisopenandhonestexpressionofviewsbetweenthemembersofNet-basedcommunities,theresearchpar-ticipants,andtheresearchcommunity.
Astimeandex-perienceevolve,so,too,willdifferentdegreesofacceptablee-learningresearchpractice,dependingpartiallyonthenatureoftheresearch,thetypesofpar-ticipants,andthedegreeofpersonallyidentifiablema-terialbeinganalyzed.
ItisclearthatsustainingethicalresearchontheNetmustrestnotonlyonguidingprin-ciplesoutlinedbyexternalcommitteesandauthoritiesbutalsoonthepersonalintegrityoftheresearcherandthekindofgoodwilldescribedbyKant(1956).
Inthecaseofe-learning,however,externalgovern-ingbodiesandgoodwillisnotenough.
e-learningre-searchersalsorequiretechnicalknowledgeofhowtheInternetworksinadditiontoawillingnesstoself-re-flectwithanopennessandhonestyaboutallaspectsofourwork.
Bakhtin(1993),awell-knowncontributortoethicsintheearly20thcentury,arguedthatbothteleo-logical(relativism)anddeontological(absolutism)denytheparticularitiesofeverydaysituationsthatarecrucialtoethicalwork.
Rather,wemuststrivetobere-ceptiveandperceptive,andstruggletoactethicallyineachsituation.
ForBakhtin,ethicalactiondependedonethicalwisdomacquiredthroughcreativeengagementinpastandsimilarsituations(Vice,1997).
Wecannotdecideaprioriwhatwillbeharmfulandwhatwillnot.
AsHwangandRoth(2004)haveremindedus,"thedi-alecticsofpraxisandpraxeologyconstitutetheheartofareflexivedevelopmentofethics"(49).
ReferencesAllen,C.
(1996).
What'swrongwiththe"goldenrule":Conun-drumsofconductingethicalresearchincyberspace.
InformationSociety,12(2).
RetrievedApril10,2006,fromhttp://ve-nus.
soci.
niu.
edu/~jthomas/ethics/tis/go.
christinAmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
(2003).
Ethicalprinciplesofpsychologistsandcodeofconduct.
RetrievedJune29,2007,fromhttp://www.
apa.
org/ethics/code2002.
htmlAnderson,T.
,&Kanuka,H.
(2003).
E-research:Methods,strate-gies,andissues.
Boston:AllynandBacon.
InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/12Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCHAthabascaUniversity.
(2007).
Aboutonlinestudy.
RetrievedJune18,2007,fromhttp://cde.
athabascau.
ca/students/online.
htm.
Bakardjieva,M.
,&Feenberg,A.
(2000).
Involvingthevirtualsub-ject.
EthicsandInformationTechnology,2,233-240.
Bakhtin,M.
M.
(1993).
Towardaphilosophyoftheact.
Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
Bassett,E.
H.
,&O'Riordan,K.
(2002).
EthicsofInternetresearch:Contestingthehumansubjectsresearchmodel.
EthicsandInfor-mationTechnology,4(3),233-249.
Bernard,P.
(1999).
Thenatureoftheethicalendeavorinscience.
NCEHRCommunique,9(1),11-14.
Brinthaupt,T.
M.
(2002).
Teachingresearchethics:Illustratingthenatureoftheresearcher-IRBrelationship.
TeachingofPhiloso-phy,29,243-245.
Bruckman,A.
(2002).
Ethicalguidelinesforresearchonline.
Re-trievedJanuary15,2007,fromhttp://www.
cc.
gatech.
edu/~asb/ethics/Bulmer,M.
(1982).
Themeritsanddemeritsofcovertparticipantobservation.
InM.
Bulmer(Ed.
),Socialresearchethics(pp.
217-251).
London:Macmillan.
Bynum,T.
W.
(2001).
Computerethics:Basicconceptsandhistor-icaloverview.
RetrievedJanuary12,2007,fromhttp://plato.
stan-ford.
edu/entries/ethics-computerCavazos,E.
A.
,&Morin,G.
(1994).
Cyberspaceandthelaw:Yourrightsanddutiesintheonlineworld.
Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Christians,C.
(2000).
Ethicsandpoliticsinqualitativeresearch.
InN.
K.
Denzin&Y.
S.
Lincoln(Eds.
),Handbookofqualitativere-search(pp.
133-155).
London:Sage.
deLane,M.
(2000).
Fieldwork,participationandpractice:Ethicsanddilemmasinqualitativeresearch.
ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Dreyfus,H.
(2001).
OntheInternet.
NewYork:Routledge.
Ess,C.
,&AssociationofInternetResearchers(AoIR)EthicsWorkingCommittee.
(2002).
Ethicaldecision-makingandInternetresearch:RecommendationsfromtheAoIRethicswork-ingcommittee.
RetrievedJanuary12,2007,fromhttp://www.
aoir.
org/reports/ethics.
pdfElmer-Dewitt,P.
(1995).
Onascreennearyou:Cyberporn.
TimeMagazine,146(1).
ReprintedwithpermissionandretrievedJune18,2007,fromhttp://www.
eff.
org/Censorship/Rimm_CMU_Time/time_cyberporn.
articlesFahy,P.
,&Spencer,B.
(2004).
Researchexperienceandagree-mentwithselectedethicsprinciplesfromCanada'sTri-CouncilPolicyStatement:Ethicalconductforresearchinvolvinghu-mans.
JournalofDistanceEducation,19(2),28-58.
Frankel,M.
S.
,&Siang,S.
(1999).
Ethicalandlegalaspectsofhu-mansubjectsresearchontheInternet.
RetrievedJanuary15,2007,fromhttp://www.
aaas.
org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.
htmGall,M.
D.
,Gall,J.
P.
,&Borg,W.
R.
(2007).
Educationalre-search:Anintroduction.
NewYork:Pearson.
Garrison,D.
R.
,&Anderson,T.
(2003).
E-learninginthe21stcen-tury:Aframeworkforresearchandpractice.
NewYork:RoutledgeFalmer.
Hawk,C.
S.
(2001).
ComputerandInternetuseoncampus:Legalguidetoissuesonintellectualproperty,freespeech,andprivacy.
SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Hemmings,A.
(2006).
Greatethicaldivides:Bridgingthegapbe-tweeninstitutionalreviewboardsandresearchers.
EducationalResearcher,35(4),12-18.
Hudson,J.
M.
,&Bruckman,A.
(2002).
IRCFrancais:ThecreationofanInternet-basedSLAcommunity.
ComputerAssistedLan-guageLearning,15(2),109-134.
Hwang,S.
,&Roth,W.
-M.
(2004).
Ethicsonresearchonlearning:DialecticsofpraxisandPraxeology.
Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,6(1).
RetrievedMay12,2006,fromhttp://www.
quali-tative-research.
net/fqs/Kant,I.
(1956).
Groundworkofthemetaphysicofmorals(H.
J.
Paton,Trans;3rded.
).
NewYork:HarperTorchbooks.
Kanuka,H.
(2002).
AprincipledapproachtofacilitatingdiversestrategiesforWeb-baseddistanceeducation.
JournalofDistanceEducation,17(2),71-87.
Kanuka,H.
,&Picard,J.
(2005,May).
EthicalconflictsinInternet-basedresearch.
PaperpresentedattheCanadianSocietyfortheStudyofHigherEducation(CSSHE),London,Ontario.
King,S.
(1996).
ResearchingInternetcommunities:Proposedethi-calguidelinesforthereportingoftheresults.
InformationSoci-ety,12(2),119-127.
RetrievedMay12,2006,fromhttp://ve-nus.
soci.
niu.
edu/~jthomas/ethics/tis/go.
stormKitchin,H.
A.
(2003).
TheTri-Councilpolicystatementandre-searchincyberspace:Researchethics,theInternet,andrevisingalivingdocument.
JournalofAcademicEthics,1(4),397-418.
Kitchin,R.
(1998).
Cyberspace:Theworldinthewires.
NewYork:JohnWiley.
Lincoln,Y.
S.
(1998).
Theethicsofteachinginqualitativere-search.
QualitativeInquiry,4,315-328.
Mann,C.
,&Stewart,F.
(2000).
Internetcommunicationandquali-tativeresearch:Ahandbookforresearchingonline.
London:Sage.
McGinn,M.
K.
,&Bosacki,S.
L.
(2004).
Researchethicsandprac-titioners:Concernsandstrategiesfornoviceresearchersengagedingraduateeducation.
Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,5(2).
RetrievedMay11,2006,fromhttp://www.
qualitative-re-search.
net/fqs/McLuhan,M.
(1964).
Understandingmedia.
NewYork:McGrawHill.
McNamee,M.
(2002).
Introduction:Whoseethics,whichre-searchInM.
McNamee&D.
Bridges(Eds.
),Theethicsofedu-cationalresearch(pp.
1-21).
Oxford,UK:Blackwell.
McNamee,M.
,&Bridges,D.
(Eds.
).
(2002).
Theethicsofeduca-tionalresearch.
Oxford,UK:Blackwell.
Morson,G.
S.
,&Enerson,C.
(1990).
MikhailBakhtin:Creationofaprosaics.
Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Pring,R.
(2002).
Thevirtuesandvicesofaneducationalre-searcher.
InM.
McNamee&D.
Bridges(Eds.
),Theethicsofedu-cationalresearch(pp.
111-127).
Oxford,UK:Blackwell.
Pritchard,I.
A.
(2002).
Travelersandtrolls:Practitionerresearchandinstitutionalreviewboards.
EducationalResearcher,31(3),3-13.
Rafaeli,S.
,Sudweeks,F.
,Konstan,J.
,&Mabry,E.
(1994).
ProjectHoverview:Aquantitativestudyofcomputer-mediatedcommunication[Technicalreport].
RetrievedApril10,2006,fromhttp://www.
it.
murdoch.
edu.
au/~sudweeks/projecth/about.
htmlReid,E.
(1996).
Informedconsentinthestudyofon-linecommuni-ties:Areflectionoftheeffectsofcomputer-mediatedsocialre-search.
InformationSociety,12(2),169-174.
RetrievedApril10,2006,fromhttp://www.
it.
murdoch.
edu.
au/~sudweeks/pa-pers/techrep.
htmlReiman,J.
(2004).
Drivingtothepanopticon:Aphilosophicalex-plorationoftheriskstoprivacyposedbytheinformationtechnol-ogyofthefuture.
InB.
Rssler(Ed.
),Privacies:Philosophicalevaluations(pp.
194-214).
Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
RimmM.
(1995).
Marketingpornographyontheinformationsu-perhighway.
GeorgetownLawJournal,83(5),1849-1915.
Rimm,M.
(1996).
Marketingpornographyontheinformationsu-perhighway.
RetrievedApril10,2006,fromhttp://xenia.
me-dia.
mit.
edu/~rhodes/Cyberporn/mrstudy.
htmlRoberts,P.
(2000).
Ethicaldilemmasinresearchingonlinecom-munities:"Bottom-up"ethicalwisdomforcomputer-mediatedsocialresearch.
RetrievedMay10,2006,fromhttp://www.
com.
unisa.
edu.
au/cccc/papers/refereed/paper40/Paper40-1.
htmInternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCH13Roth,W.
-M.
(2004).
Qualitativeresearchandethics.
Forum:Qual-itativeSocialResearch,5(2).
RetrievedMay11,2006,fromhttp://www.
qualitative-research.
net/fqs/Schrum,L.
(1995).
Framingthedebate:Ethicalresearchinthein-formationage.
QuarterlyInquiry,1(3),311-326.
Schrum,L.
(1997).
Ethicalresearchintheinformationage:Begin-ningthedialog.
ComputerinHumanBehavior,13(2),117-125.
Simons,H.
,&Usher,R.
(Eds.
).
(2000).
Situatedethicsineduca-tionalresearch.
NewYork:RoutledgeFalmer.
Small,R.
(2002).
Codesarenotenough:Whatphilosophycancon-tributetotheethicsofeducationalresearch.
InM.
McNamee&D.
Bridges(Eds.
),Theethicsofeducationalresearch(pp.
89-110).
Oxford,UK:Blackwell.
Spinello,R.
(2002).
CyberEthics:Moralityandlawincyberspace(2nded.
).
Sudbury,MA:JonesandBartlett.
Straus,S.
G.
(1997).
Technology,groupprocess,andgroupout-comes:Testingtheconnectionsincomputer-mediatedandface-to-facegroups.
Human-ComputerInteraction,12(3),227-266.
Teich,A.
,Frankel,M.
S.
,Kling,R.
,&Lee,Y.
-C.
(1999).
Anony-mouscommunicationpoliciesfortheInternet:Resultsandrec-ommendationsoftheAAASconference.
InformationSociety,15(2),71-77.
Thomas,J.
(1996a).
Introduction:Adebateabouttheethicsoffairpracticesforcollectingsocialsciencedataincyberspace.
Infor-mationSociety,12(2),107-117.
RetrievedApril10,2006,fromhttp://venus.
soci.
niu.
edu/~jthomas/ethics/tis/go.
jtThomas,J.
(1996b).
Whencyberresearchgoesawry:TheethicsoftheRimm"cyberporn"study.
InformationSociety,12(2),189-198.
RetrievedApril10,2006,fromhttp://venus.
soci.
niu.
edu/~jthomas/ethics/tis/go.
jt2Tickle,L.
(2002).
Openingwindows,closingdoors:Ethicaldilem-masineducationalactionresearch.
InM.
McNamee&D.
Bridges(Eds.
),Theethicsofeducationalresearch(pp.
41-57).
Oxford,UK:Blackwell.
Turkle,S.
(1997).
Lifeonthescreen:IdentityintheageoftheInternet.
NewYork:Touchstone.
Usher,P.
(2000).
Feministapproachestoasituatedethics.
InH.
Simons&R.
Usher(Eds.
),Situatedethicsineducationalre-search(pp.
22-38).
NewYork:RoutledgeFalmer.
Walther,J.
(2002).
ResearchethicsinInternet-enablesresearch:Humansubjectsissuesandmethodologicalmyopia.
EthcsandInformationTechnology,4(3).
RetrievedJanuary15,2007,fromhttp://www.
nyu.
edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_wal_full.
htmlWaruszynski,B.
T.
(2002).
Paceoftechnologicalchange:Battlingethicalissuesinqualitativeresearch.
InW.
C.
vandenHoonaard(Ed.
),Walkingthetightrope:Ethicalissuesforqualitativere-searchers(pp.
153-159).
Toronto,Canada:UniversityofTorontoPress.
Waskul,D.
,&Douglass,M.
(1996).
Consideringtheelectronicparticipant:Somepolemicalobservationsontheethicsofon-lineresearch.
InformationSociety,12(2),129-139.
RetrievedApril10,2006,fromhttp://venus.
soci.
niu.
edu/~jthomas/ethics/tis/go.
dennisVice,S.
(1997).
IntroducingBakhtin.
Manchester,UK:Manches-terUniversityPress.
Whittaker,S.
(2003).
Thingstotalkaboutwhentalkingaboutthings.
HumanComputerInteraction,18(2),149-170.
Wilkins,H.
(1991).
Computertalk.
WrittenCommunication,8(1),56-78.
Zaiane,O.
(2001).
Practicalapplicationsofdatamining.
RetrievedApril10,2006,fromhttp://vu.
cs.
sfu.
ca/GEN/welcome/wel-come.
htmlInternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods6(2)June2007http://www.
ualberta.
ca/~ijqm/14Kanuka,AndersonETHICSINE-LEARNINGRESEARCH