Anonymity in applied communication research: Tensions between IRBs, researchers, and human subjects

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 242-257

  Scott, Craig R ^a,b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Anonymity; Human subjects research; Institutional research board

Indexed keywords

EID: 27944433771     PISSN: 00909882     EISSN: 14795752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00909880500149445     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Anonymous. (1998). To reveal or not to reveal: A theoretical model of anonymous communication. Communication Theory, 8, 381-407.
2. Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
3. Berman, J. J. (2002). Confidentiality issues for medical data miners. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 26, 25-36.
4. Bond, K. (1978). Confidentiality and the protection of human subjects in social science research: A report on recent developments. American Sociologist, 13, 144-152.
5. Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
6. Chiger, S. J. (2002). Cybersmear: Telecommunication's 200-year-old riddle. Communications and the Law, 24(2), 49-67.
7. Corey, S. M. (1937). Signed versus unsigned attitude questionnaires. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 144-148.
8. Erickson, K. V., & Fleuriet, C. A. (1991). Presidential anonymity: Rhetorical identity management and the mystification of political reality. Communication Quarterly, 39, 272-289.
9. Fairhurst, G. T., Cooren, F., & Cahill, D. J. (2002). Discursiveness, contradiction, and unintended consequences in successive downsizings. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 501-540.
10. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects [Electronic version], 45 C.F.R. § 46 (2001, November 13). Retrieved August 15, 2004, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/ guidance/45cfr46.htm
11. Flanagin, A. J., Tiyaamornwong, V., O'Conner, J., & Seibold, D. R. (2002). Computer-mediated group work: The interaction of sex and anonymity. Communication Research, 29, 66-94.
12. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
13. Hayne, S. C., & Rice, R. E. (1997). Attribution accuracy when using anonymity in group support systems. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 47, 429-452.
14. Marshall, M. F., Menikoff, J., & Paltrow, L. M. (2003). Perinatal substance abuse and human subjects research: Are privacy protections adequate? Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 9, 54-59.
15. Marx, G. T. (1999). What's in a name? Some reflections on the sociology of anonymity. Information Society, 15, 99-112.
16. Marx, G. T. (2001). Identity and anonymity: Some conceptual distinctions and issues for research. In J. Caplan, & J. Torpey (Eds.), Documenting individual identity: The development of state practices in the modern world (pp. 311-327). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
17. Nease, D. E., Jr., & Doukas, D. J. (1999). Research privacy or freedom of information? Hastings Center Report, 29, 47.
18. Nespor, J. (2000). Anonymity and place in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 546-569.
19. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 161-176.
20. Olson, W. C. (1936). The waiver of signature in personal reports. Journal of Applied Psychology, 20, 442-450.
21. Parry, O., & Mauthner, N. (2004). Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal, and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data. Sociology, 38, 139-152.
22. Penslar, R. L. (2001, June 21). Institutional review board guidebook. Retrieved August 14, 2004, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm
23. Putnam, L. L. (1986). Contradiction and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization-communication: Emerging perspectives (pp. 151-167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
24. Rodriguez, A., & Clair, R. P. (1999). Graffiti as communication: Exploring the discursive tensions of anonymous texts. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 1-15.
25. Rosen, N. A. (1960). Anonymity and attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 675-679.
26. Scott, C. R. (1999). The impact of physical and discursive anonymity on group members' multiple identifications during computer-supported decision making. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 456-487.
27. Scott, C. R., & Rains, S. A. (in press). Anonymous communication in Organizations: Assessing use and appropriateness. Management Communication Quarterly.
28. St. John, K. (2004, January 10). Survey used as evidence to move trial questioned. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A17.
29. Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 349-407.