This document discusses challenges with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) evaluating web-based research studies. It notes that IRBs lack experience with this type of research compared to traditional biomedical or survey studies. Two examples are provided where researchers did not seek IRB approval for Twitter studies, with one study unexpectedly involving data from individuals who were later arrested. The document calls for more education of IRBs on risks and guidelines for online research. Harvard agreed their IRB would benefit from greater guidance, as current regulations predate the internet age.

1. Engl 621 Starters
• Celebration Recap
• Contract & Problem Recap
• (If you haven’t yet done so yet, you need to find an advisor...)
• Schedule stuff
• HSR certification
• Faculty interviews
• Write-up and brief presentations next week!

2. Blakeslee & Fleischer Chapter 3
• “Too small” is almost never the problem...
• “It’s just three credits.” versus...
• “You can contribute to the scholarly
conversation with your research.”
• The importance of time...

3. Blakeslee & Fleischer Chapter 3
• Research Proposals contain:
• Statement of the question
• Literature review
• Your interests in the project (personal and otherwise)
• Goals/objectives/audience/anticipated outcome for the research
• Methodology/plans for carrying out the research
• Timeline

4. Blakeslee & Fleischer Chapter 3
• Literature Review
• (The part that is kind of like a “research paper”)
• Library and Internet stuff....
• Lit reviews limit and situate your research
• Lit reviews are not just a list
• The more complete the lit review, the better off you will be

5. HSR/IRB
• A visit to some of the studies as to why
this matters....
• “Investigators, Students, Faculty Mentors,
Basic Course:” Reactions
• You’re seeking “Exempt” or “Expedited”
Review

6. HSR/IRB
• All these rules can/probably will change
(current CCCC Task Force)
• Example of EMU’s HSR Paperwork
• Example of an Informed Consent Form

7. "The steps that they (T3 study) tried to take to engage in
innovative research, to me fell short," says [Michael] Zimmer,
an assistant professor at Milwaukee's School of Information
Studies and co-director of its Center for Information Policy
Research. "It just shows that we have a lot of work to do to
make sure that we're doing this kind of research correctly
and in ways that don't jeopardize the subjects that we're
studying."

8. And the committees set up to protect research subjects
—institutional review boards, or IRB's—lack experience
with Web-based research, Mr. Zimmer says. Most tend
to focus on evaluating biomedical studies or traditional,
survey-based social science. He has pointed to the
Harvard case in urging the federal government to do
more to educate IRB's about Web research.

9. For example, Quinnipiac's Mr. Halavais did a Twitter study focused on protests
surrounding the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh. But something unanticipated
happened: Some people were arrested for using Twitter to help demonstrators evade
police. After that, one of the key people in the study deleted his Twitter account.
What the subject didn't know was that researchers had collected his tweets in an
archive and planned to publish papers about the data.
Mr. Halavais didn't seek approval from his review board—as he sees it, studying
Twitter is like studying newspapers. "We did not predict that the very act of tweeting
something might be considered a criminal offense," he says. "I don't think an IRB
would have been able to predict that any better than we would."
A rule of thumb holds that if an online community requires a password to enter, then
researchers must seek IRB approval to study its members. But some scholars go
further, Mr. Halavais says, arguing that researchers should seek approval to study
open publishing platforms like blogs and Twitter.

10. As for the criticism of Harvard's institutional review board, the university
seems to agree on the need for greater guidance. A spokesman, Jeff A. Neal,
notes that "current federal human-subjects regulations were written well
before the Internet age, and there is still little published guidance for IRB's on
the implications of new and emerging technologies and potential risks." He
adds, "Federal regulators, professional associations, and IRB's are all working to
understand these risks and to develop guidelines."