Research Ethics Policy? (attn: Robin Linden)

My point is that some of these research papers should only be used to wipe crackpots like you that can't read, comprehend and follow a discussion.

My point IS that it's the responsibility of LL to inform their residents of any such study being conducted.

My point WAS to the other author who said that "It's no big deal."

My point IS that people will cheat, include conversations that were not highlighted as "part of a study" and/or use their vivid imagination to create something.

And BTW, if the professor needs to "check the chat" for correctness, that means that the individual could have been recording a chat conversation without permission of the chattee. If it's posted on a website, it's in violation of the TOS.

The point I'm trying to make, since you can't seem to comprehend is the simple fact that LL had better do some serious research, writing, gather some legal advice and communicate to their paying customers what their stance is on research being done within SL, with or without the permissions of their end-users.

Many, many, MANY players don't know about the Radiks. Many don't know about LL's research policy (as noted here in the forums).

Communication is the point.

Case in point, I can communicate, write and explain until I'm blue in the face; and it will all slip through the crack of comprehension.

Aaron,

We should have say in the matter, and we did. We had a HUGE discussion back last September, I believe, with the last group. Lindens did reply to our thread and to my knowledge took into consideration our feelings on the matter.

Whether or not these are allowed is moot. The important thing is that ethics are followed, of course.

As far as adding it to the TOS, I think this would actually be worse. Allow me to explain:
- Our concern is published research being done.
- Such research, by it's nature, is publicly announced / published, obviously.
- Since the research is public, Linden Lab can see when it is being done and make them go out of the way to sign the agreement.
- By making groups sign the extra agreement, it drives home the need to be ethical. The alternative is having it in the TOS, which is a huge legal mumbo jumbo document where you probably don't read it as well as you should.

You do have a freakin say in the matter. They ask you upfront if you want to be questioned, researched, or what ever. If you agree to it, then its done. If you have any doubts, or feel like what you say will be misinturpted somehow, then don't agree. Thats it. Theres nothing to discuss. Your not being forced into this.

Okay,

Quit with all the crazy complicated theories about how students / scientists doing "research" in SL may or may not affect you.

Let me point out one very VERY simple example that should be sufficient to explain WHY researchers should always go through LL and make themselves known:

Let's say a Sociology or Psych. Professor gets the bright idea to work with his students on differences in social bonding between reality and the online realm. I won't go justifying why he might - I could come up with a dozen or more reasons I'm sure.

But let's say that part of the experiment / "research" is to see how quickly people get pissed off and want to be left alone (perhaps "agitated mental state"; or "socially solitary" in scientific-speak) in the game vs. real life.

Who here relishes the thought of a few dozen "researchers" romping around SL, targetting individuals to see what effective ways there are to upset them or disrupt social gatherings or what-not?

Yes, we have griefers already - but there's a world of difference between single users and a whole organized cadre of them!

And yes, I know my example probably violates the TOS. But that won't necessarily stop researchers (it doesn't stop the griefers).

This is why they should go through LL first; and I applaud LL for trying to deal with this in a forthright manner.

Take care,

--Noel "HB" Wade
(Tread Whiplash)

i would agree that most of the time there is no risk. but some time there are. the various points i cited weren't about the studies themselves, but the fact that best wisdom at the times were not up to the task at hand, and these are studies that were vetted for being ethical. cyberspace is new, and the best wisdom may not be able to predict the harm, but it will be good to make the attempt to prevent it.

if you hold to the notion that there are no risks. then we will simply need to agree to disagree. have done research in undergradulate and graduate settings in multiple fields, i simply can't go with "there is no risk" as a blanket statement. there are enough unknowns to be cautious.

and that caution comes in the form of attention research ethics and research policies by ll for sl.

which may be true, or not. but in the cases where lindens set up last names, clearly ll is giving some kind of approval. the nature of that approval, the rigor of examination of the research, the safeguards for residents, and the recourse for residents should harm occur are not clear. which in good research, they should be.

also, it is worthwhile having a stated policy by ll saying researchers should check in with ll first.

to some extent it doesn't matter what a researcher does or has done past a certain point, but should i feel harmed, i have a right to seek redress, and knowledge of how to do that is something ll should provide (for business reasons).

harm isn't obvious, beyond physical, emotional, or mental harm, one of the criteria for harm in human subjects protocols are harm to finances, employment, or reputation. reputation is particularly thorny for any kind of research, which i why most protocols call for anonymity. however, as was in the pitts case, anonymity was violated. in cases where anonymity is violated, then consent is required or a human subjects committee needs to be assured that no harm (including financial, employment, or reputation) would occur, and in the pitts case, no such assurances were made.

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and ethical standards, protocols, and policies are that ounce of prevention. my argument isn't that any particular study to date has or will cause harm; my argument is that everything can be done to prevent harm should be done, and there are well established protocols for that. asking that they be followed is not too much to ask. those are the good ethics of academic methods and research.

the primary point of concern are the ethical concerns when doing anyting education related wrt humans. the validity of research is a secondary and some what recondite condition for non-consumers of research; but one that the researchers and other academics using sl for educational purpose should consider.

Jesus people. We are talking about when THEY DON'T ASK. Because not all the current group of students running around have been asking -- see the Rediks thread.

There should have been a public policy IN PLACE and VIEWABLE to the SL population BEFORE they arrived. There wasn't, but now there needs to be one even more because some of the Rediks HAVE NOT said "this is for research" and "is it okay if I use your responses".

So many thick skulls to get through. WE UNDERSTAND IF WE SAY NO THAT'S THE END OF IT. What if they don't ask!? That's where the policy can be ENFORCED FOR YOUR(!!) PROTECTION!

And when I'm approached by someone in the mall for a survey, they have a freaking name tag on and a clipboard -- it's obvious who's conducting polls and/or surveys. The Lindens need to disclose what last names are the researchers and their students. If they are required to ASK for our permission to use us, then knowing their last names ahead of time is a moot point.

<bangs head on wall>

read the history of research in sl to date:
/120/f7/25820/1.html

"Except for the fact that I wasn't being told that I am a subject of study. "

do both

Aaron, before your skull becomes soft from the banging it against the wall -

- I believe the way Lindens work it is that the professor is responsible for informing the class of the correct procedures, and obviously if the group got a surname made for them, some sort of contact between professor and LL was made.

So in the case of this one, it may be a case of a student not freaking listening?

and i think there is some dispute about what constitutes research.

as someone who has done psychological research, i look at what pitts and radiks are doing and consider it research. this is a technical and specialized use of the word "research".

many people not in social science research fields will look at what the pitts and radiks are doing and not consider it research.

and there is debate in the various human subjects committes across the country about this.

Well from what I read from that post, that wasn't research at all. Second, maybe its because I'm too tired, but I can't find the converation in question, so I can't really comment if the person should of said they didn't want to answer the questions like you would do with any other convertation involving information you didn't want other people to know. And I was debating about the redricks group, or what ever they were called, not this incident, that happened a few months back.

Doing what I think the researcher did in that link you posted, well then thats where agreements and law come in. I'm too tired to start bring up details, but you get the idea. Things like that are just as bad as people on the forums saying some person did such and such to them, and use misconception or lies to make the other person look bad. I had a point somewhere, but I kinda forgot what I was writting, as I am writting this. Sorry if this is illegiable.

Not to split hairs here, Stone, but I think anything students do for a class to obtain information is considered research, no?

fwiw, most social scientist i've spoke with at uc berkeley (i.e. anthro, linguistics, cogsci and psych professors) think it's research. and most non-social scientists i've spoke with are uncertain (i.e english and mass com).

it was removed. but the point remains that permission was not obtained.

not clear what you are saying.

but i consider it an ethical violation, and so did the person i called at the u pitt human subjects office, but what their relation to human subjects committee was unclear. and i was speaking in hypotheticals to her.

u pitt seems (i couldn't confirm) to have an even more strigent definition of research than i do, which is that any educationally directed activity in an academic setting should be considered research. but from the website it looks like the human subjects committee focuses primarily on medical research issues.

technically i think that is correct. i also think that's sooo stupid.
but i also think what the pitts and radiks did was research.

i saw robin posting. *bump*

So... are we gunna get a look at this thing, or what?

NO!

You are also a paranoid individual who is gonna be soooo fun to fuck with. *Runs off to invent some conspiracy theories.*

Geez! You WON'T participate in this research unless you reply to the fuckin questions in his post! No one can force you to do that. *Boggles at the thought processes behind Aaron's post.*

Uhm, this one DID.

*bump*

/bump

Hi, Robin? Can we please get an answer, even if it's "no"?

bump bump

Wow people ... everytime you use scanner devices at a grocery store your actions are used for research purposes. I study people I talk to in order to better interact with them or make decisions on if I want to pursue a friendship. Some of you act like we are being brought into a deep hole (since caves can't be easily made in SL) and poked with needles while we are unconcious. The last names were posted recently of the groups that would be doing research. The fact that one of them had the decency to ask in the public forum should show that they aren't trying to secretly go around behind your back.

Drama .. I swear. Don't go answer their questions if this is such a big problem. Just my opinion.

Maybe a little background will help.

In the past we have had a couple of instances where a researcher wanted to ask questions of SL residents for a specific study with the intention of publishing the results. In those cases (two, I believe) I posted a link to the questionnaire, and let people know they didn't need to respond unless they wanted to, and that everything would be kept confidential and reported only in the aggregate. I think those are the posts that Lynn is referring to.

Since we were in Alpha, we have had individuals in Second Life as part of classes. Initially there were students who were in SL to use the tools -- urban planning and game design for the most part. More recently though, as the community has grown and as interest in digital communication has also grown, classes have approached us with the goal of participating in the community to better understand what it means to be a human in a digital environment. Their participation has been short term and limited to experimenting with the tools, chatting with neighbors, and attending a few events. While there may be class discussion, nothing will be made public. Given the problem we had with the student blog last semester I have made it very clear to the professors involved that they must follow SL etiquette, and not post any chat logs or screenshots without permission.

Separately we have found that there are people in SL without our knowledge who are interested in studying aspects of the community. In some cases these studies *are* being done for publication and are the ones I am most concerned about. These researchers will be asked to sign an agreement that their research will follow standard enthnographic research procedures, that privacy will be respected, and that no one will be put in a position of participating without their knowledge and consent. The policy that was quoted earlier in this thread requires them to alert us to their intention, and to sign the agreement if they want to proceed.

We strongly support using SL as an experiential learning opportunity, but not at the expense of the community. If there are classes in SL each semester, it will be posted along with their area of study and their class name so they are easily identified. This semester's classes can be found here. Researchers will be asked to join a group so they have a title "Researcher" in front of their name so they are easily identified. I will also post an announcement about them and their work so you can choose whether or not you want to participate.

The Research Ethics Policy can be found here.