Should the data collected from online environments be considered as falling under the guidelines for the use of human subjects? First, give the points made in the text, and then argue your opinion. When should such data collection be considered exempt from IRB oversight, and when should it not?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Ans: One of the issues being discussed is whether using information from Facebook, or data mining, qualifies as research with human subjects. Going back to Chapter 4, the definition of human subjects involves a living individual with whom the researcher gathers information through interaction or intervention or about whom the researcher has access to identifiable private information. Solberg uses this definition to argue that information from online environments does not qualify as human subjects research. In her view, acquiring data this way would qualify as using human subjects only if we were talking about their private information. The argument is that when an individual opens a social media account, he or she agrees to certain uses of information, in particular, people allow Facebook to use the information for research, among other purposes. In my opinion, the above arguments are coming from people for whom research and access to information is the first priority. Taking it from the other side, from the everyday person on the street, the opposite might be true. That is, the vast majority of people do not read the Facebook, Instagram, other social media sites rules thoroughly when setting up an account. In everyday use, people treat Facebook, especially private messages, as very private means of communication. Further, if people were to find out that their personal information was used for research, they would be very angry and perhaps sue the professor or university responsible. Therefore, it is my opinion that while information on Facebook could be considered exempt or similar to naturalistic observation, it should not be. For most people, strangers accessing their Facebook accounts would be like strangers opening their snail mail . . . you could do it, but it would be an invasion of privacy. It is not the same as naturalistic observation where people are acting out in public and know that people can see them. Most people do not see themselves as public figures, such as celebrities, whose online presence would be observed by strangers—unless it is for nefarious purposes. In conclusion, people’s right to privacy overrides researchers’ need to know.