Dr. Krish Muralidhar received a response from Christopher Rice regarding yesterday's letter but did not feel comfortable publishing it without permission. However, he did want to share his response back to Rice.
What's your take on this situation? Do you think UK should give users of the Big Blue Network a chance to opt out of the research-related data gathering?
- - - - - -
First of all, I am all for improving student retention and appreciate your efforts in this regard. My only issue is that your current procedure does not provide the students with all the facts regarding the specific objectives of the Big Blue Network. The Big Blue Network is described as follows http://www.uky.edu/UGS/network.html
“The goal of the network is to build real connections between students, and between students and the University in a safe and private space to interact. Students will learn from each other and assigned peer mentors how best to make the most of their University of Kentucky experience. UK faculty and staff from the departments and colleges will also participate in communicating about and finetuning expectations about students' majors.
The online community members can share content between Big Blue Network and your existing Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Second Life, Twitter, etc. accounts. Members can update their personal status, send instant messages, post pictures and videos on both their existing social networking sites AND Big Blue Network.
Nowhere does this description include any information that the comments posted on this web site will be analyzed. The description leads one to believe that when you join the Big Blue Network, you are joining a social network of peers, faculty and staff at UK (which is monitored and administered by UK). The participating students have no idea that the comments they post will be gathered, catalogued, and analyzed. In my opinion, with the exception of those students who you chose to inform, the other students who participate in the Big Blue Network have not consented to their comments being analyzed since they do not have all the relevant facts.
In your response, you have addressed several points, but the key point that directly addresses my concern is the following statement: “It is my understanding that students "opt in" to the collection of data for retention and success efforts when they confirm their admission to the university.” This may be true. It is also true that many commercial organizations use the same (fine print) approach. However, privacy advocates have consistently argued against this implicit “opt in” approach and have insisted that every individual must be provided the opportunity to explicitly “opt in” or “opt out” even in situations where the participant is simply sent informational emails. In the case of the Big Blue Network, you intend to analyze the comments that are posted on the network which is far more intrusive. Currently, the students have no facility to “opt out” since most of them are not even aware that their comments will be analyzed.
As an institution of higher learning and a Tier I research university, UK must hold itself to a higher standard when it comes to privacy issues. What is an acceptable standard for a commercial organization is not necessarily an acceptable standard for an educational institution. It is for this reason that we have entities such as the Institutional Review Board that oversee research involving human subjects.
It is not very difficult to achieve this higher standard. All that is required is the following. In addition to the description currently being provided, provide every student joining the network with a statement informing them that the comments that they post online will be gathered, catalogued, and analyzed. You can also provide additional information regarding the purpose of such analysis and the procedures that would be adopted to prevent their identity from being disclosed. This information should also be included in the description on the UK UGS web site. You should also inform students who have already enrolled. After receiving this information, if a student chooses to participate in the Big Blue Network they have given you informed consent to analyze their comments.
Providing this statement will result in one of the following outcomes:
(1) It has no impact on student participation. This implies that the students have made an informed decision to participate because they feel that analyzing their comments does not adversely affect their privacy.
(2) It has a positive impact on student participation. This implies that some students have made an informed decision to participate specifically because they would like their comments to be analyzed.
(3) It has a detrimental impact on student participation. This implies that some students have made an informed decision not to participate specifically because they do not wish their comments to be analyzed.
The key here is that in all cases, the students are making an “informed” decision. The only outcome that would adversely affect your data gathering effort is the last outcome. However, if you believe that this outcome is more likely, then it is all the more reason to provide an explicit statement of your intention to analyze the comments. Failure to do so, in my opinion, is to mislead some students to participate in a process that they would not have participated if they had all the relevant facts.
In conclusion, I believe that every student should be provided an explicit statement detailing the specific objectives of the Big Blue Network including the fact that the comments posted online will be analyzed. This is probably one of the first interactions that the student will have with UK as an institution and represents an opportunity to earn their trust. We do not earn their trust by relying on some fine print statement included in the admission letter to gather and analyze their online comments without informed consent. We earn their trust by being honest and upfront with the students and allowing them to make an informed decision.
Dr. Krish Muralidhar
Gatton Research Professor
School of Management
University of Kentucky
Posts
3 comments:
(1) if what BBN is doing is so innocuous, then what is the harm in making a statement (such as the one Professor Muralidhar suggests) available to current and prospective users?
(2) elsewhere Professor Rice has described the monitoring as quality assurance rather than spying. That may imply that the quality of the network is being monitored, i.e., pure functionality. Which is it, quality assurance, content analysis, surveillance, or are we now treading in the waters of assuring student participants that their UK experience is satisfactory in some murky blend of functionality monitoring, spying, and retention-related data analysis
(2) those responsible for BBN should make a statement publically (or have I missed it) or is this very valid concern expected to go away as are so many other things on campus?
If those behind the Big Blue Network put a statement on the site allowing informed consent, they should also specify who will see the content and other usage data. Will student research assistants be able to access this data on their peers?
I presume that the UK administration is merely following standard procedures. When caught, stonewall and hope the uproar dies out. Or just lie and purposely mislead and hope to get away with it. It is time for us to hold the UK administration accountable for their sleazy, underhanded behavior. Otherwise, it will continue as business as usual.
Post a Comment