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!
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...
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
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
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
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
"The steps that they (T3 study) tried to take to engage ininnovative research, to me fell short," says [Michael] Zimmer,an assistant professor at Milwaukees School of InformationStudies and co-director of its Center for Information PolicyResearch. "It just shows that we have a lot of work to do tomake sure that were doing this kind of research correctlyand in ways that dont jeopardize the subjects that werestudying."
And the committees set up to protect research subjects—institutional review boards, or IRBs—lack experiencewith Web-based research, Mr. Zimmer says. Most tendto focus on evaluating biomedical studies or traditional,survey-based social science. He has pointed to theHarvard case in urging the federal government to domore to educate IRBs about Web research.
For example, Quinnipiacs Mr. Halavais did a Twitter study focused on protestssurrounding the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh. But something unanticipatedhappened: Some people were arrested for using Twitter to help demonstrators evadepolice. After that, one of the key people in the study deleted his Twitter account.What the subject didnt know was that researchers had collected his tweets in anarchive and planned to publish papers about the data.Mr. Halavais didnt seek approval from his review board—as he sees it, studyingTwitter is like studying newspapers. "We did not predict that the very act of tweetingsomething might be considered a criminal offense," he says. "I dont think an IRBwould 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, thenresearchers must seek IRB approval to study its members. But some scholars gofurther, Mr. Halavais says, arguing that researchers should seek approval to studyopen publishing platforms like blogs and Twitter.
As for the criticism of Harvards institutional review board, the universityseems to agree on the need for greater guidance. A spokesman, Jeff A. Neal,notes that "current federal human-subjects regulations were written wellbefore the Internet age, and there is still little published guidance for IRBs onthe implications of new and emerging technologies and potential risks." Headds, "Federal regulators, professional associations, and IRBs are all working tounderstand these risks and to develop guidelines."