“Go Away”: Participant Objections to Being Studied and the Ethics of Chatroom Research

Abstract

In this article we present an empirical study aimed at better understanding the potential for harm when conducting research in chatrooms. For this study, we entered IRC chatrooms on the ICQ network and posted one of three messages to tell participants that we were recording them: a recording message, an opt-in message, or an opt-out message. In the fourth condition, we entered the chatroom but did not post a message. We recorded and analyzed how subjects responded to being studied. Results of a regression analysis indicate significantly more hostility in the three conditions where we said something than in the control condition. We were kicked out of 63.3% of the chatrooms we entered in the three message conditions compared with 29% of the chatrooms in the control condition. There were no significant differences between any of these three conditions. Notably, when given a chance to opt in, only 4 of 766 potential subjects chose to do so. Results also indicate significant effects for both size and the number of moderators. For every 13 additional people in a chatroom, the likelihood getting kicked out was cut in half. While legal and ethical concerns are distinct, we conclude by arguing that studying chatrooms constitutes human subjects research under U.S. law, but that a waiver of consent is appropriate in most cases as obtaining consent is impracticable.

Keywords:

• chatrooms
• ethics
• informed consent
• IRB
• online research
• waiver of consent

Notes

1. http://www.icq.com

2. http://www.icq.com/ircqnet

3 Note that all times are Eastern Standard Time.

4 Due to technical problems with the software and the network respectively, no data were collected for Tuesday 4 March or Friday 14 March.

5 This represents the number of unique usernames involved in our study. There is not necessarily a one-to-one mapping between individuals and user names.

6 Since our personal research experience has occurred in the United States, we focus on U.S. laws. The first author (Hudson) is a member of Georgia Tech's Institutional Review Board (IRB). The second author (Bruckman) has served on a number of panels on the ethics of Internet research, including the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the Association for Internet Research (AoIR). In focusing on U.S. law, we acknowledge that legal considerations are often not the same as ethical considerations. We also note that U.S. law differs substantially from other legal systems and that international requirements may protect vary.

7 This issue comes up in nonelectronic research contexts. It's debatable how subjects would respond if we did this same study at the local coffee shop. The issues are complex and must be understood on a case-by-case basis.