Contents
Any university that accepts federal funding for research is required to have an institutional review board (IRB) to protect human subjects. The local IRB sets up processes for approving research protocols and tracking ongoing research. Although the specific processes on your campus may differ slightly from the descriptions below, the principles captured here apply across institutions.
Here at CSU, the office that oversees research on campus is titled the Research Integrity and Compliance Review Office (RICRO). This office coordinates the work of several committees that ensure safe and ethical research practices, including the Institutional Review Board. At Colorado State University, graduate students, faculty members, or other members of the University who conduct research with human subjects are required to have prior approval from this committee, our IRB. Depending on the research methods and goals, the research protocol may need to be reviewed by the full committee, a process taking about three weeks, given an expedited review, or exempted from review. The forms of review are covered in the second section below.
Although subjects rarely encounter any risks from the kinds of research graduate students and faculty in English studies do, the IRB must assess such risks and assure that participants in any study give informed consent. We take up these issues in the third and fourth sections. The final sections provide other useful links and samples of IRB materials and methodology chapters.
If you’re systematically collecting information from human beings, then you’re conducting research with human subjects. The data collection might take the form of surveys, interviews, observations, email exchanges, or other interpersonal communications or interactions. It’s actually easiest to assume that your interactions fall under the federal guidelines for research with human subjects and then to ask RICRO whether you need to complete the review process. Kathy Partin, Director of RICRO, and her staff have been most gracious about helping students and faculty understand which projects require review.
Typically, most researchers begin the process by crafting a research question and then designing a research plan to answer that question. They may work through a specific research design protocol (as Yin suggests for Case Study Research), or they may start by drafting interview or survey questions, descriptions of study populations, or multiple-method plans. At some point, graduate students start drafting a methodology chapter or pages for their theses or projects. The greatest advantage of working on an IRB review is that the thought processes required by the research protocol (here captured electronically through e-protocol) give researchers a new way to approach the research question so integral to the process overall. In effect, thinking about the research process by means of a research question and design, a methodology chapter, and an IRB review can improve the design, the chapter, and the review. The complementarity of these elements will result in a stronger, more productive research process.
You can begin the IRB review process either by drafting the methodology section of your thesis or project or by completing an eProtocol application. Your advisor will need to be the Principal Investigator on your project, and you will be listed as the Co-Principal Investigator. You or your advisor can go to eProtocol and begin working through the questions. These detailed questions will help you organize the details of your data collection, so plan to work back and forth between the eProtocol and your methodology draft. When completed, your advisor must be the one to submit the eProtocol.
In addition to the eProtocol application, you’ll need to prepare for the IRB all the materials you’ll use for data collection – recruitment texts; interview, survey, or questionnaire questions; consent forms. Again, work back and forth between data collection materials and your methods chapter as well as the other parts required on the eProtocol application. The IRB looks for consistency among all documents, so attention to detail will pay off as you draft, revise, and proofread. Please see the sample packets in the last section of this resource.
One important reminder: only a faculty member can be the principal investigator (PI) on a project with human subjects, and only those faculty members who have completed human subjects protection training can be approved as PIs. The PI need not be your advisor but must be a member of your graduate committee. Graduate students complete the eProtocol application as a Co-PI with an approved faculty member. Student researchers also need to complete the human subjects protection training.
Check with your institution’s review board to determine what level of review is needed for your human subjects research. Often, a local review board will identify categories of research (based on federal guidelines) for expedited review or for exemption from review. Expedited and exempt projects still require that research protocols be completed; the type of review applies to how the local review board handles your protocol. Expedited review and exemption require less time than a full review, which can take up to three weeks initially (and the IRB may ask for multiple rounds of revision in your protocol before final approval). Exempt projects and expedited review can require considerably less time, sometimes as little as a week. You should plan to check on the specific processes on your campus to see which of these categories your research falls into.
“Full review” refers to a meeting of all committee members after reading the completed protocol, consent forms, recruitment materials, and data collection tools. Generally, all these materials will be submitted 1-2 weeks before the committee meets. The committee discusses each protocol in detail, raising any questions or concerns about any of the documents. The committee may require revisions (large and small) before final approval. In rare instances, the researcher may be invited to meet with the committee.
At CSU, the IRB meets only once a month. The typical deadline for submitting copies of all materials is 5 p.m. on the second Thursday of the month. RICRO sends materials to committee members who meet the following week to approve protocols or request revisions before approval. Reports are emailed to PIs within 10 working days following the meeting. Meeting dates are posted on the IRB Webpage: http://web.research.colostate.edu/ricro/hrc/dates.aspx.
For those projects that involve no more than minimal risk to subjects and that involve the specific procedures noted below, expedited review by two IRB members is an option. The researcher submitting the protocol requests an expedited review, and an IRB administrator determines whether expedited review is appropriate. Thus, researchers should submit thorough applications for this initial judgment.
Protocols requesting expedited review can be submitted at any time. Responses from RICRO are sent to PIs within 15 working days. If the IRB administrator asks for full review, the researcher will be informed of the new review date.
Alternatively, meeting with an IRB administrator to talk about the protocol will usually result in a determination about whether expedited review is probable. Especially for graduate students on a tight deadline, this conversation can help students to understand what materials to submit and when, saving time in the long-run even if a full review is required.
Only limited data collection methods qualify for expedited review, and many of these relate to clinical studies and physiological samples not summarized here. Those methods pertinent to studies in rhetoric and composition (or English studies more broadly) include
Remember, for expedited review, the design overall must present no more than minimal risk to participants.
Please remember that even if your research meets criteria for exemption, you must submit an Exempt Form and supporting materials to qualify for exempt status.
Exempt projects at CSU fall into specific categories with conditions that the research must meet in full:
Not all research in these categories will meet the specific conditions required for exempt review. Exempt research on educational practices, for instance, can include ONLY research on regular and special education instructional strategies OR research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.
What is informed consent? Before someone can agree to participate in a research project, that person needs to understand just what will be required in the research. We can understand why someone who agrees to have blood drawn or to have an invasive medical procedure needs to understand the risks and benefits involved, but even in research that doesn’t appear to pose any risk, subjects have a right to understand what they are being asked to do.
Informed consent has become a bedrock principle for research using human subjects based on research in past projects that denied key information to the subjects. As a result, subjects in the Tuskeegee syphilis study, for instance, received no treatment for the disease, put partners at risk, and ultimately died under horrific circumstances. Participants in the Milgram experiments suffered psychological trauma after they administered what they believed were fatal levels of electrical shock to other “participants” in the experiment. In these and other cases, subjects were victimized by the research. Bernie Rollins, ethics professor at CSU, contextualizes ethical issues in human subject research at http://web.research.colostate.edu/rcr/Default2.aspx.
The IRB provides information about and a template for consent forms at http://web.research.colostate.edu/ricro/hrc/forms.aspx. It’s worth taking the time to consider what constitutes informed consent and why getting consent fulfills ethical considerations for human subjects, so let’s look at key points on the template.
Title: The title of your project as it appears on the consent form will be the same as the project title approved on the e-protocol. The title should indicate the focus of your project, though you may well discover after completing your data analysis that you want to change the title of your thesis or project report. That’s no problem so long as all the work relating to data collection uses the title of the approved research protocol.
Purpose: Students sometimes worry that if they disclose too clearly the purpose of the research they will initiate the Hawthorne effect so that subjects report data to confirm researchers’ goals. Remember, however, that little research is conducted to substantiate a foregone conclusion. Rather, most research investigates, so researchers can certainly explain in brief what the focus of the research is and why it matters.
Jared Tomlin in 2004 noted this purpose for his research: “Information collected in this study may help teachers to develop more effective writing heuristics, provide necessary resources to facilitate student writing, and improve our understanding of the complexity of the writing process.” The general description of the purpose would not help even the most suggestible subjects know just what responses “would make the researcher happy.”
What will I be asked to do?: In this section, lay out clearly but briefly what you expect participants to do. Again, Jared Tomlin’s project gives a good example of a crisp description of procedures: “Study participants will complete surveys about their writing processes at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester, each taking approximately 10 minutes to complete. The students selected for case studies will participate in three one-hour writing sessions, some involving protocol analysis, where they will be videotaped and asked to speak aloud while writing, as well as three one-hour, audiotaped interviews throughout the semester.”
Minimal risk means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life. Most of our research projects involve no risk, but in some studies, breach of confidentiality can pose minimal risk to participants. Be sure to evaluate risk factors carefully and to be clear about what you will do to protect subjects from even minimal risk. If your project involves more than minimal risk, then you need to be explicit about how you will safeguard participants and how the benefits to them balance such risks.
Benefits might not accrue to the participants of the project itself; rather, benefits from the study might apply to a larger group of people at a later time. In many projects in English studies, the benefits show up for students in other classes as teaching methods get refined over time. In other projects, data collected in one site is transferred to help writers in another site. Be realistic about immediate benefits to your subjects (“you might learn more about your own writing process”) as well as larger benefits to other groups.
Confidentiality: Because we characterize writers and their writing in much of our research, maintaining confidentiality is among the most important safeguards for human subjects. Although few researchers will indulge in pointedly hurtful characterizations, writers might well be uncomfortable with almost any label applied to their writing. Consider, for instance, how we might refer to freshman composition students: “introductory” is less loaded than “beginning” which in turn is more positive than “naïve.” None of these terms is negative when applied to writing, yet subjects in research might feel stigmatized if their participation in research characterized this way were to be revealed. Safeguarding confidentiality, particularly if you collect private information that can identify a particular subject, is a key element in obtaining consent, so any possible breaches of confidentiality must be disclosed on a consent form.
In their “tips,” the IRB notes these guidelines for an easy-to-read Informed consent document:
As more and more researchers in English studies take Internet texts as the focus of their work, new issues about working with texts vs. working with their authors have come to the fore. Please distinguish, though, research USING the Internet from research ABOUT the Internet. Asking people to complete your web-based survey on-line, for instance, constitutes using the Internet. Extracting data from conversations in a chat room, however, falls into the category of research about the Internet, and these studies still pose substantial issues, primarily because of subject identifiability and informed consent.
On the one hand, most Internet postings on discussion forums and stable sites are contributed by writers with a particular identity (even though it may be a pseudonymous identity). Within the Internet community, singling out that writer could cause embarrassment or other harm. So the protection provided to other known subjects, critics argue, should be provided to pseudonymous posters on the Internet. As the IRB explains:
“A human subject is a living individual, ABOUT WHOM the researcher obtains information, either through interaction/intervention or identifiable private information. In this case, [the graduate student] isn't interacting/intervening (she's passively collecting), but it is unclear with Internet stuff what is considered identifiable, as well as what people consider "private." If one is looking at people's postings to the message board that they consider constrained to their own membership (whether or not that is logical)...they might consider it private, even though it is in fact open to the entire Internet world. And then how identifiable would it be...if the community is small, how many "Jane Doe’s" could there be...or even without names, jdoe@anyserver.net or an IP address is pretty identifiable ... and just removing names doesn't necessarily anonymize it...how many Black women full professors are there at CSU?”
On the other hand, some researchers argue that writers posting on the Internet realize that their forums are not private, and they freely contribute their writing to these community forums. How are these postings any more protected than notes tacked to a public bulletin board, which can be observed and analyzed by researchers without informed consent? In other words, as Sarah Sloane explains, researchers don’t see themselves either “interacting with or intervening with Web-based writers of what are in essence fully public and publicly accessible materials. In addition, it is clear that these writers fully expected their ‘conversations’ to be public and not private, in part because the loosely defined membership of these [electronic discussion forums] actively solicits participation from others outside their immediate community.”
The debate can become much more detailed but at its core it involves whether writers posting on the Internet should be considered subjects (with identities to protect) or authors who eschew such protections. A particularly useful resource on this issue is the Association of Internet Researchers, a multi-disciplinary group that has promulgated ethical guidelines specifically for researching Internet sites and discourse at http://aoir.org. Just click on "ethics guide" under “documents” on their home page, and you'll get a PDF file of the 30+ page document accepted by the group in 2002.
An earlier paper (1999) from the American Association for the Advancement of Science also takes up questions of human subject protection in Internet research: http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/humansubjects/pub
At the moment, CSU’s IRB is taking the position that such research “may be public observation of behavior (in an electronic setting), but that, too, is human research,” and an eProtocol application may be needed. Stay tuned as this discussion evolves.
CCCC Guidelines:
The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), a major professional organization for English teaching, has promulgated guidelines for conducting research with human subjects and using students' work in research or pedagogical papers.
A related bibliography contains useful sources for more reading on human subjects' research.
AOIR Guidelines:
The Association of Internet Researchers adopted extensive guidelines for Internet-based research.
"Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee"
Authors: Charles Ess and the AoIR ethics working committee
Approved by AoIR, November 27, 2002
Other Resources
Elizabeth Boyle's work with adjunct faculty draws on feminist criticism to frame current questions about local working conditions. Note especially how Elizabeth deals with subject selection as well as the careful framing of her interview questions. We include consent forms for both the adjunct faculty members and administrators to illustrate the changes a researcher needs to make for different audiences.
Elizabeth Boyle
Data Collection Procedure: Temporary faculty members are a reality in English departments: Nearly one-third of English faculty at four-year colleges and universities are on temporary appointments (CCCC). But the fact that women fill those temporary appointments 67 percent of the time while men fill them 33 percent of the time is worth questioning (qtd in Schell 5). The goal of this study is to determine the working conditions of female instructors of composition. This topic is of particular relevance to women because they compose a disproportionate number of instructors of composition in English departments both locally and nationally. I will examine the dynamics of composition instructor work conditions for women in the local context (the Colorado State University English department) in relation to composition instructor work conditions as they are discussed theoretically and in national contexts.
The official Colorado State University (CSU) manual recognizes two types of faculty: tenure track and temporary. The temporary faculty consists of two groups: instructors, whom the university contracts to work one semester at a time, and special instructors, whom the university contracts to work for a year or more at a time. For the purposes of this study, I will not differentiate between instructors or special instructors; I will consider both groups to be adjunct faculty, working on a temporary, non-tenure track basis for the university and will refer to these faculty members as instructors.
In an effort to understand the subjective experiences of those who have worked as or interacted with composition instructors, I will conduct interviews lasting approximately 45 minutes each with female composition instructors and writing program administrators (WPAs) at CSU. I have chosen to conduct interviews because this type of data collection method gives voice to subjects and lets them share their subjective experiences and perceptions of situations. As Adri Smaling puts it, the qualitative interview “allows for the participation of the interviewee in the interview process. The interviewee can influence the order, the (re)formulation and the interpretation of the interview questions as well as choose his or her own individual answers and clarify their contextual meaning” (25). The interviews for this project will consist of close- and open-ended questions that ask interviewees to reflect on the working conditions and relationships experienced by instructors in their English departments. The questions will also ask informants to share their opinions about the influences of gender on career choices and working conditions and relationships.
The interview questions will be posed in an unbiased and non-inflammatory manner in an effort to be sympathetic to what potentially may be a highly sensitive subject with faculty and administrators alike, but as Wendy Bishop points out, qualitative researchers always undertake social negotiations when they are working with human subjects (71). To maintain anonymity, each participant will choose a pseudonym before his or her interview begins. Any information obtained during the interviews will be kept confidential: Tapes and transcripts will be coded using the corresponding interviewee’s pseudonym. I will permit informants to see final drafts of any transcripts or analysis to assure them anonymity and accurate representation.
The interviews will be structured and largely scripted to avoid digressions and variations in data. However, I will include probing questions and comments when necessary for clarification. Interviews will be conducted in the offices of the subjects.
Setting: Colorado State University (CSU) CSU is a land grant institution located in Fort Collins, Colorado. The university has 24,700 students, eight colleges and over 150 programs of study. CSU employs 1,520 faculty members, 960 of which are on tenure-track appointments.
CSU English Department and Composition Program I selected The English department at CSU due to the availability of informants and because as a student and teaching assistant in composition, I was aware of the vital role of instructors in our department. CSU’s English department has 41 tenure-track faculty members and 37 instructors. Twenty-two of the tenure-track faculty are men and 19 are women; eleven of the instructors are men and 26 are women. Graduate programs in the department include master’s programs in Communication Development, Creative Writing, Literature, Rhetoric and Composition, Teaching, and TESL/TEFL. The Composition program employs approximately 30 graduate teaching assistants who teach freshman composition.
Selection of Informants: Female Composition Instructors I will invite all of my informants to take part in an interview by sending them an email message that requests their involvement and assures confidentiality. I will choose five female composition instructors in the English department at CSU to invite for participation in an interview. Because the situation in the local context reflects the national trend of a disproportionate population of women serving as instructors of composition, I feel that a focus on exclusively women will render more results.
Potential informants will be chosen based on whether they would be a representative in a cross-section of the instructors of composition in the English department based on the amount of experience she has working as an instructor of composition at CSU. In addition to finding a sampling of interviewees that would be representative of the instructor population so that I represent the context fairly, I have chosen to seek out interviewees based on this criteria modeled after interviews Eileen Schell conducted for her landmark book Gypsy Academics and Mother Teachers in which she interviewed women who represented a range in their level of teaching experience. I will interview instructors of composition who have worked at CSU for 1-2, 3-5, 5-7, 7-10, and 10-15 years. The administrative interviewees will have no less than 10 years experience working at CSU as WPAs.
I will work with this set of informants because they have dealt with on personal, daily levels the conditions that instructors meet. Their knowledge and opinions of the social and political situations in the department will allow me a glimpse of the instructors’ perceptions.
Writing Program Administrators I will invite the two WPAs from the English department to participate in an individual interview. As WPAs, these professors are involved in the hiring and managing of instructors. The close professional relationships they have established with these faculty members will have provided distinct perspectives. The WPAs maintain the composition program, so they work closely with instructors, but as administrators, they are representatives of the department, its goals and ideals. The WPAs, as full-time tenure (track) faculty, might also share insight as to how such faculty members view instructors and their work. Because the administrators will not be asked to reflect on their own experiences as instructors if they have such experience—they will be asked to reflect on the conditions of instructors in the department and nationally—I will invite both males and females to participate.
Text I took out but might want to put back in or rework for non-H100 purposesThe interviews will be structured and largely scripted to avoid digressions and variations in data. However, I will include probing questions and comments when necessary, and follow-up interviews are possible if time restraints affect initial interviews or if further clarification or explanation is necessary with any informant. Nonverbal observation will accompany audio recordings and written notes during the interviews. The nonverbal element of data collection will be minimal; however, as the position of the instructor in the university is a political and sensitive one, such clues might be informative. Interviews will be conducted in the offices of the subjects.
-Explain racial, ethnic, age diversity in actual methods section once you have this information.
The goal of this study is to determine the challenges women face as instructors of composition. This topic is of particular relevance to women because they compose a disproportionate number of instructors of composition in English departments both locally and nationally. We will examine the dynamics of composition instructor work conditions for women in the local context (the Colorado State University English department) in relation to composition instructor work conditions as they are discussed theoretically and in national contexts.
In an effort to understand the subjective experiences of those who have worked as or interacted with composition instructors, we will conduct interviews lasting approximately 45 minutes each with female composition instructors and writing program administrators (WPAs) at CSU. The interviews for this project will consist of close- and open-ended questions that ask interviewees to reflect on the working conditions and relationships experienced by instructors in their English departments. The questions will also ask informants to share their opinions about the influences of gender on career choices and working conditions and relationships.
The interview questions will be posed in an unbiased and non-inflammatory manner in an effort to be sympathetic to what potentially may be a highly sensitive subject with faculty and administrators alike, but as Wendy Bishop points out, qualitative researchers always undertake social negotiations when they are working with human subjects (71). To maintain anonymity, each participant will choose a pseudonym before his or her interview begins. Any information obtained during the interviews will by kept confidential: Tapes and transcripts will be coded using the corresponding interviewee’s pseudonym. I will permit informants to see final drafts of any transcripts or analysis to assure them anonymity and accurate representation.
The interviews will be structured and largely scripted to avoid digressions and variations in data. However, I will include probing questions and comments when necessary for clarification. Interviews will be conducted in the offices of the subjects.
We will be examining the comments of the interviewees to learn about their experiences working with or working as female instructors of composition. We will study their opinions about the challenges met by female instructors of composition at CSU and in universities nationally.
A tape recorder will be the only equipment used with subjects. The tape recorder will record all of the conversation during each interview unless an interviewee asks to speak off the record, in which case the recorder will be turned off.
To maintain anonymity, all interviewees will choose a pseudonym before the official interview begins; the interviewees will be referred to by the pseudonym throughout all areas of the research study, including in transcripts, on tapes, and in analysis and publication. To maintain confidentiality, all data, including transcripts and tapes, will be coded with the pseudonym and kept in a locked box in Dr. Lisa Langstraat’s office. Dr. Langstraat is the advisor of the co-investigator and an associate professor in the CSU English department.
After each participant agrees via email with Ms. Boyle to participate in an interview, but before the interview takes place, Dr. Kathleen Kiefer, the principal investigator, will present each subject with a copy of the consent form to read and sign. There will be a separate consent form for instructors and administrators. Dr. Kiefer will give a copy of the consent form to each participant to keep, and she will maintain the signed consent form so that in the event that a subject feels his or her rights are violated during the interview, he or she may discuss with Dr. Kiefer appropriate action.
The records, including all tapes and transcripts, will be kept in a locked drawer in Dr. Langstraat’s office during and after the study. Dr. Langstraat will destroy the data from the interviews three years from the date that the last interview occurred.
Ms. Boyle will meet on a bi-weekly basis with Dr. Kiefer and Dr. Langstraat to discuss the progression of the study. Dr. Kiefer will randomly listen to and read the tapes and transcripts of the interviews to ensure that Ms. Boyle is conducting the interviews according to the protocol.
No, the Data Safety Monitoring Board is not required to conduct such monitoring.
We will choose potential subjects and ask them to participate (rather than select subjects randomly) so that we may get a cross-section of the CSU English department instructor population based on the amount of experience each subject has working as an instructor of composition at CSU. Ms. Boyle will send an email message to potential subjects soliciting their participation. She will interview instructors of composition who have worked at CSU for 1-2, 3-5, 5-7, 7-10, and 10-15 years. The administrative interviewees will have no less than 10 years of experience working at CSU as WPAs.
No secondary data analysis will be conducted.
The instructors will be all female, ranging in ages 25-55. The instructors will vary in experience teaching as instructors from one to 15 years. The administrators will be both male and female, ranging in ages 35-55. They will have significant experience working with instructors of composition at CSU. The instructors and the administrators will have memberships with various professional English and composition groups, including the National Council of Teachers of English.
We plan to study seven subjects: five female instructors of composition from the CSU English department and two administrators from the CSU English department.
No vulnerable populations will be included in this study. Criteria for inclusion: Instructors will be invited to participate in the study if they would be a representative in a cross-section of the instructors of composition in the English department based on the amount of experience they have working as an instructor of composition at CSU. Criteria for exclusion: If instructors are not considered a representative of the cross-section of the instructors in the department in terms of experience as an adjunct in composition, they will not be invited to participate. Because the situation in the local context reflects the national trend of a disproportionate population of women serving as instructors of composition, we feel that a focus on exclusively women will render more results; consequently, men will be excluded from instructor interviews. However, we will invite male administrators to participate in the study because these participants will not be asked to reflect on their own experiences as instructors if they have such experience—they will be asked to reflect on the conditions of instructors in the department and nationally.
Subjects will not be compensated for participation. We feel that the 45-minute length of each interview does not warrant compensation and that monetary or material gifts could be misconstrued as bribery or coercion considering the short time period the interview will take.
Participants will not be excluded involuntarily.
No organizations will be involved in recruiting subjects for the project.
The loss of anonymity and/or confidentiality is the only risk known to subjects. Breaches in anonymity or confidentiality are serious and could negatively affect professional relationships interviewees share with instructors and professors in the English department and in other areas of the university. Loss of anonymity or confidentiality is possible, but the likelihood is low: The primary investigator, co-investigator, and advisor of the co-investigator will keep information private at all costs. We have outlined specific procedures (described below) that will ensure we maintain all information from subjects private.
Please see section D below for comments about minimizing the risk involved in this study.
There were no other methods considered.
To maintain anonymity, all interviewees will choose a pseudonym before the official interview begins; the interviewees will be referred to by the pseudonym throughout the research study, including in transcripts, on tapes, and in analysis and publication. To maintain confidentiality, all data, including transcripts and tapes, will be coded with the corresponding pseudonym and kept in a locked box in Dr. Lisa Langstraat’s office.
Explain your reporting mechanism for reporting adverse and serious adverse events to the HRC.
In this type of qualitative research study, we anticipate no adverse or serious events related to the study. If in the unlikely event that a serious event occurs, Ms. Boyle will call Celia Walker, Director of Regulatory Compliance, at 970-491-1553. If Ms. Boyle is incapacitated or otherwise unable to contact the HRC, Dr. Kiefer will call Ms. Walker to report the event. If Dr. Kiefer is unavailable, Dr. Langstraat will call Ms. Walker.
Describe the anticipated benefits of the research to the individual subjects, to the particular group or class from which the subject population is drawn. The benefits must be realistic and not overly stated of what each person is likely to gain from the research. If there is no direct benefit to the subject, state so. For example: “There is no known benefit in participating in this study, but we hope you will gain more knowledge on…” Compensation, payment for participation, gifts, etc., are NOT benefits.
There is no direct benefit that we can positively say will affect all subjects. However, we anticipate that subjects will benefit from taking part in the interviews in several ways: 1.) The interviews will give subjects the opportunity to verbally consider their experiences working as or working with instructors of composition; taking the time to reflect on life and career decisions is often a useful exercise. 2.) Each subject will be making a significant contribution to his or her immediate community by providing thoughtful information that, when combined with the information shared by others in the department involved in the study, will shed light on the position of the composition instructor in CSU’s English department. 3.) Each subject will be making a significant contribution to the overall body of knowledge on this topic that affects English departments nationally.
There are no other matters pertinent to the human participant.
Dear [NAME],
For my master’s thesis project entitled “Female Adjunct Teachers of Composition: A Feminist Examination of Working Conditions in Local and National Contexts,” I am interviewing adjuncts to find out about their experiences as a composition instructor in the CSU English department. I would like to learn about your opinions regarding the working conditions of female adjunct teachers of composition. Your participation would be of great help to the development of knowledge on this topic, as English departments strive to create equitable working conditions for contingent workers.
I know this is a busy time of the semester, but would you be willing to meet with me for about 45 minutes to participate in an interview? If you agree to participate, I ensure you complete anonymity. I will fairly and accurately represent you in transcripts and in analysis. In fact, I will give you a draft of my work that you may read and critique.
If you are interested in participating, please reply with any questions and possible times that you are available to meet.
If you have questions or concerns about my request, please do not hesitate to reply to this email or call me at 970-231-8073. You may contact Lisa Langstraat, my advisor, with any questions you may have (email: llangstraat@aol.com; office: 970-491-6838). You may also contact Kate Kiefer, the principal investigator in this study (email: kate.kiefer@colostate.edu; office 970-491-6845).
Regards,
Elizabeth
TITLE OF STUDY: Female Adjunct Faculty: A Feminist Examination of Working Conditions for Instructors of Composition in Local and National Contexts
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Kathleen Kiefer, Professor and Assistant Chair, English Department
CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Elizabeth Boyle, Master’s Candidate, Communication Development
WHY AM I BEING INVITED TO TAKE PART IN THIS RESEARCH? You are being asked to take part in this interview because we believe that your administrative experience working with instructors of composition will help answer questions about the dynamics of composition instructor work conditions for women in the local context in relation to composition instructor work conditions as they are discussed theoretically and in national contexts.
WHO IS DOING THE STUDY? Under the direction of Dr. Kathleen Kiefer, the principal investigator, Ms. Boyle, the co-principal investigator, will conduct the interview and synthesize the information obtained from the interview.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY? The goal of this study is to determine the challenges women face as instructors of composition. This topic is of particular relevance to women because they compose a disproportionate number of instructors of composition in English departments both locally and nationally. We will examine the dynamics of composition instructor work conditions for women in the local context (the Colorado State University English department) in relation to composition instructor work conditions as they are discussed theoretically and in national contexts.
WHERE IS THE STUDY GOING TO TAKE PLACE AND HOW LONG WILL IT LAST? The study will take place on the CSU campus in the office of the interviewee. The interview will last approximately 45 minutes.
WHAT WILL I BE ASKED TO DO? You will be asked to participate in a tape-recorded interview in which you will answer a set of questions asked by Ms. Boyle, the co-principal investigator. The questions will ask you to discuss your experiences working in an administrative position in which you hired and worked with instructors of composition. The questions will also ask you to discuss your opinions about the working conditions of instructors of composition. The interview will be tape-recorded, but if at any point in the interview you should wish to speak off record, you have the right to do so.
ARE THERE REASONS WHY I SHOULD NOT TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY?There are no reasons that you should not participate in this interview. The co-principal investigator assures confidentiality regarding all information obtained during the interview.
Page 1 of 3 Participant’s initials _______ Date _______
WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS?
WILL I BENEFIT FROM TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY? There are no known benefits for participating; however, you may benefit from taking part in the following ways: 1.) We hope this interview will give you the opportunity to verbally consider your experiences working with composition instructors; taking the time to reflect on life and career decisions is often a useful exercise. 2.) We anticipate that you will be making a significant contribution to your immediate community by providing thoughtful information that, when combined with the information shared by others in the department involved in the study, we hope will shed light on the position of the composition instructor in CSU’s English department. 3.) We hope you will be making a significant contribution to the overall body of knowledge on this topic that affects English departments nationally.
DO I HAVE TO TAKE PART IN THE STUDY? Your participation in this interview is voluntary. If you decide to participate in the study, you may withdraw your consent and stop participating at any time without penalty.
WHAT WILL IT COST ME TO PARTICIPATE? There are no costs to participate.
WHO WILL SEE THE INFORMATION THAT I GIVE? We will keep private all research records that identify you, to the extent allowed by law.
Your information will be combined with information from other people taking part in the study. When we write about the study to share it with other researchers, we will write about the combined information we have gathered. You will not be identified in these written materials. We may publish the results of this study; however, we will keep your name and other identifying information private.
CAN MY TAKING PART IN THE STUDY END EARLY? Your participation in this interview is voluntary. You may withdraw your consent and stop participating at any time during the interview without penalty.
Page 2 of 3 Participant’s initials _______ Date _______
WILL I RECEIVE ANY COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY? Although you will receive no monetary or material compensation for your participation, we hope you will be making a significant contribution to the overall body of knowledge on this topic.
WHAT HAPPENS IF I AM INJURED BECAUSE OF THE RESEARCH? The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act determines and may limit Colorado State University's legal responsibility if an injury happens because of this study. Claims against the University must be filed within 180 days of the injury.
WHAT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS? Before you decide whether to accept this invitation to take part in the study, please ask any questions that might come to mind now. Later, if you have questions about the study, you can contact:
Principal investigator, Kate Kiefer at 970-491-6845 or kate.kiefer@colostate.edu
Advisor of co-investigator, Lisa Langstraat at 970-491-6838 or llangstraat@aol.com
Co-investigator, Elizabeth Boyle at 970-231-8073 or elizabeth_boylecsu@yahoo.com
If you have any questions about your rights as a volunteer in this research, contact Celia Walker, Director of Regulatory Compliance, at 970-491-1553. We will give you a copy of this consent form to take with you.
Your signature acknowledges that you have read the information stated and willingly sign this consent form. Your signature also acknowledges that you have received, on the date signed, a copy of this document containing 3 pages.
| _________________________________________ | _____________________ |
| Signature of person agreeing to take part in the study | Date |
| _________________________________________ | |
| Printed name of person agreeing to take part in the study |
| _________________________________________ | _____________________ |
| Name of person providing information to participant | Date |
| _________________________________________ | |
| Signature of Research Staff |
Page 3 of 3 Participant’s initials _______ Date _______
TITLE OF STUDY: Female Adjunct Faculty: A Feminist Examination of Working Conditions for Instructors of Composition in Local and National Contexts
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Kathleen Kiefer, Professor and Assistant Chair, English Department
CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Elizabeth Boyle, Master’s Candidate, Communication Development
WHY AM I BEING INVITED TO TAKE PART IN THIS RESEARCH? You are being asked to take part in this interview because we believe that your experience working as an instructor of composition will help answer questions about the dynamics of composition instructor work conditions for women in the local context in relation to composition instructor work conditions as they are discussed theoretically and in national contexts.
WHO IS DOING THE STUDY? Under the direction of Dr. Kathleen Kiefer, the principal investigator, Ms. Boyle, the co-principal investigator, will conduct the interview and synthesize the information obtained from the interview.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY? The goal of this study is to determine the challenges women face as instructors of composition. This topic is of particular relevance to women because they compose a disproportionate number of instructors of composition in English departments both locally and nationally. We will examine the dynamics of composition instructor work conditions for women in the local context (the Colorado State University English department) in relation to composition instructor work conditions as they are discussed theoretically and in national contexts.
WHERE IS THE STUDY GOING TO TAKE PLACE AND HOW LONG WILL IT LAST? The study will take place on the CSU campus in the office of the interviewee. The interview will last approximately 45 minutes.
WHAT WILL I BE ASKED TO DO? You will be asked to participate in a tape-recorded interview in which you will answer a set of questions asked by Ms. Boyle, the co-principal investigator. The questions will ask you to discuss your experiences working in an administrative position in which you hired and worked with instructors of composition. The questions will also ask you to discuss your opinions about the working conditions of instructors of composition. The interview will be tape-recorded, but if at any point in the interview you should wish to speak off record, you have the right to do so.
ARE THERE REASONS WHY I SHOULD NOT TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY?There are no reasons that you should not participate in this interview. The co-principal investigator assures confidentiality regarding all information obtained during the interview.
Page 1 of 3 Participant’s initials _______ Date _______
WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS?
WILL I BENEFIT FROM TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY? There are no known benefits for participating; however, you may benefit from taking part in the following ways: 1.) We hope this interview will give you the opportunity to verbally consider your experiences working with composition instructors; taking the time to reflect on life and career decisions is often a useful exercise. 2.) We anticipate that you will be making a significant contribution to your immediate community by providing thoughtful information that, when combined with the information shared by others in the department involved in the study, we hope will shed light on the position of the composition instructor in CSU’s English department. 3.) We hope you will be making a significant contribution to the overall body of knowledge on this topic that affects English departments nationally.
DO I HAVE TO TAKE PART IN THE STUDY? Your participation in this interview is voluntary. If you decide to participate in the study, you may withdraw your consent and stop participating at any time without penalty.
WHAT WILL IT COST ME TO PARTICIPATE? There are no costs to participate.
WHO WILL SEE THE INFORMATION THAT I GIVE? We will keep private all research records that identify you, to the extent allowed by law.
Your information will be combined with information from other people taking part in the study. When we write about the study to share it with other researchers, we will write about the combined information we have gathered. You will not be identified in these written materials. We may publish the results of this study; however, we will keep your name and other identifying information private.
CAN MY TAKING PART IN THE STUDY END EARLY? Your participation in this interview is voluntary. You may withdraw your consent and stop participating at any time during the interview without penalty.
Page 2 of 3 Participant’s initials _______ Date _______
WILL I RECEIVE ANY COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY? Although you will receive no monetary or material compensation for your participation, we hope you will be making a significant contribution to the overall body of knowledge on this topic.
WHAT HAPPENS IF I AM INJURED BECAUSE OF THE RESEARCH? The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act determines and may limit Colorado State University's legal responsibility if an injury happens because of this study. Claims against the University must be filed within 180 days of the injury.
WHAT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS? Before you decide whether to accept this invitation to take part in the study, please ask any questions that might come to mind now. Later, if you have questions about the study, you can contact:
Principal investigator, Kate Kiefer at 970-491-6845 or kate.kiefer@colostate.edu
Advisor of co-investigator, Lisa Langstraat at 970-491-6838 or llangstraat@aol.com
Co-investigator, Elizabeth Boyle at 970-231-8073 or elizabeth_boylecsu@yahoo.com
If you have any questions about your rights as a volunteer in this research, contact Celia Walker, Director of Regulatory Compliance, at 970-491-1553. We will give you a copy of this consent form to take with you.
Your signature acknowledges that you have read the information stated and willingly sign this consent form. Your signature also acknowledges that you have received, on the date signed, a copy of this document containing 3 pages.
| _________________________________________ | _____________________ |
| Signature of person agreeing to take part in the study | Date |
| _________________________________________ | |
| Printed name of person agreeing to take part in the study |
| _________________________________________ | _____________________ |
| Name of person providing information to participant | Date |
| _________________________________________ | |
| Signature of Research Staff |
Page 3 of 3 Participant’s initials _______ Date _______
Personal research/education/teaching history and information: In what specialization area did you do your doctorate work? What are your major areas of interest and publication? What is your history as a Writing Program Administrator (WPA)? How many WPA positions have you held? Where? How long did you have those positions? What are your current administrative roles with the English department? What do those roles entail?
[Reason women begin teaching as adjunct] Howard Tuckman, one of the first researchers to address the connection between contingent status and gender in the teaching of composition, said that there were two main people who teach part-time: flexibility seekers, who don’t count on part-time teaching as their main income, and work seekers, those why rely on part-time teaching for their main income or work experience. Within the flexibility seekers are semi-retired faculty, students, and those who care for children or relatives. Within the work seekers, there are those who work full-time outside the academy but teach because they want to, and those who teach for supplemental income. In your experience, what seems to draw many women to teaching composition as adjuncts?
[Gender and role as adjunct] Eileen Schell reports that there are social and institutional factors that inhibit women from moving into permanent, full-time positions in the academy. She says that the gendered division of labor, the wage gap, the “glass ceiling” phenomenon, timing and geographic mobility, and even conversational cues and lack of support networks affect women’s further involvement in the academy. Do you see these factors at work for female composition instructors here in the English department? If so, can you share an experience or give an example of these factors and how they might have affected instructor(s)?
[Local context; compensation] Eileen Schell reports that nationally, instructor salaries range from $800 per course on the low end and $3500 per course on the high end. Additionally, Schell quotes one of her interviewees from her study, “It frustrates me to know that there are people at the university who teach one or two classes per semester, who refuse to meet with students about their papers and then rake in high salaries—it feels like I get paid nothing to work very hard so that they can pay somebody whose name means something an obscene salary.” How does CSU compare to the national context as far as compensation for composition instructors? What is fair compensation? Do you feel that the instructors here feel they are compensated fairly? Can you give an example or share a story of an experience or situation that shapes your opinion of how well or poorly the instructors are compensated for their work?
[Local context; professional development] In the mid eighties, the NCTE published its “Statement of Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing” as a result of the Wyoming Resolution in which the attendees of the Conference on College Communication and Composition rallied for the fair treatment of composition teachers. The standards include that “all writing instructors should have access to scholarly literature and be given opportunities for continuing professional development,” and “they should receive adequate introduction to their teaching assignments.” How do the instructors’ professional development opportunities here compare to those outlined by the NCTE? Do they receive adequate information about how to perform their jobs (work orientation and training period)? Do they have the teaching resources that you require for effective performance at your job? Can you give an example of how instructors have been adequately or inadequately supported in this context in terms of professional development?
[Local context; psychic toll] In response to the CCCC meeting in which the Wyoming resolution, three attendees wrote in College English that some of the conference attendees had “many inquiries and have found that indeed composition teachers at their colleges or universities are exploited, denied privileges,” and some expressed fear that “if the conditions for teachers of writing were improved, tenured faculty members would have to carry a heavier burden in teaching composition.” This quote touches on the power relations between instructors and tenure-track faculty. What, if anything, would you change about the power relations between instructors of composition and other faculty members in the English department? Do you feel that the instructors’ work as professionals is valued? Can you share a situation or story that illustrates how you feel about the power relations between instructors and tenure-track faculty members?
[Local context; economical reasons for instructors] A quote from Cary Nelson, an outspoken advocate of non tenure-track faculty: “English departments have made the college teacher what standard economic theory calls an elastic commodity, one for which there are any number of substitutes.” This is a strong claim, and certainly a threatening one towards English departments, but it implies the economic realities that universities encounter. Can you explain any economical reasons for which the department hires composition instructors?
[Local context; future] Schell says that in order to improve conditions for adjuncts in composition, “It is not enough for tenure-line faculty in composition studies to point out the “feminization” of writing instruction and to distance ourselves from its “feminized” status by founding more graduate programs and publishing more scholarship; rather, we must find ways to incorporate, value, reward, and develop the knowledge and contributions of part-time and non tenure-track faculty, namely to integrate scholarship and teaching in rewarding, productive, and meaningful ways for all who make writing instruction their livelihood.” Can you explain the specific changes that you would advocate for composition instructors going forward?
Personal work/education/teaching history and information: What is your educational background? Where did you receive your degrees? What did you specialize in? Do you have plans to take further graduate courses? When did you begin teaching (in general, not as an adjunct)? What is your history as an adjunct teacher of composition? How many adjunct positions have you held? Have those positions been contracted or were they term-to-term commitments?
What is your current role as an adjunct teacher of composition? How long have you been your current position? How many courses do you teach? How many students do you have in each class? What are the terms or your work contract?
[Personal; reason began teaching as adjunct] Howard Tuckman, one of the first researchers to address the connection between contingent status and gender in the teaching of composition, said that there were two main people who teach part-time: flexibility seekers, who don’t count on part-time teaching as their main income, and work seekers, those why rely on part-time teaching for their main income or work experience. Within the flexibility seekers are semi-retired faculty, students, and those who care for children or relatives. Within the work seekers, there are those who work full-time outside the academy but teach because they want to, and those who teach for supplemental income. Can you explain specific factors that influenced you to begin teaching composition as an instructor?
[Personal; gender and role as adjunct] Eileen Schell reports that there are social and institutional factors that inhibit women from moving into permanent, full-time positions in the academy. She says that the gendered division of labor, the wage gap, the “glass ceiling” phenomenon, timing and geographic mobility, and even conversational cues and lack of support networks affect women’s further involvement in the academy. Have you experienced any of these factors that Schell describes? If so, can you share an experience or give an example of these factors and how they have affected your career?
[Local context; compensation] Eileen Schell reports that nationally, instructor salaries range from $800 per course on the low end and $3500 per course on the high end. Additionally, Schell quotes one of her interviewees from her study, “It frustrates me to know that there are people at the university who teach one or two classes per semester, who refuse to meet with students about their papers and then rake in high salaries—it feels like I get paid nothing to work very hard so that they can pay somebody whose name means something an obscene salary.” How does CSU compare to the national context as far as compensation for composition instructors? What is fair compensation? Can you give an example or share a story of an experience or situation that shapes your opinion of how well or poorly you are compensated for your work?
[Local context; professional development] In the mid eighties, the NCTE published its “Statement of Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing” as a result of the Wyoming Resolution in which the attendees of the Conference on College Communication and Composition rallied for the fair treatment of composition teachers. The standards include that “all writing instructors should have access to scholarly literature and be given opportunities for continuing professional development,” and “they should receive adequate introduction to their teaching assignments.” How do your professional development opportunities here compare to those outlined by the NCTE? Have you received adequate information about how to perform your job (work orientation and training period)? Do you have the teaching resources that you require for effective performance at your job? Can you give an example of how you have been adequately or inadequately supported in this context in terms of professional development?
[Local context; psychic toll] In response to the CCCC meeting in which the Wyoming resolution, three attendees wrote in College English that some of the conference attendees had “many inquiries and have found that indeed composition teachers at their colleges or universities are exploited, denied privileges,” and some expressed fear that “if the conditions for teachers of writing were improved, tenured faculty members would have to carry a heavier burden in teaching composition.” This quote touches on the power relations between instructors and tenure-track faculty. What, if anything, would you change about the power relations between instructors of composition and other faculty members in the English department? Do you feel that your work as a professional is valued? Can you share a situation or story that illustrates how you feel about the power relations between instructors and tenure-track faculty members?
[Local context; future] Schell says that in order to improve conditions for adjuncts in composition, “It is not enough for tenure-line faculty in composition studies to point out the “feminization” of writing instruction and to distance ourselves from its “feminized” status by founding more graduate programs and publishing more scholarship; rather, we must find ways to incorporate, value, reward, and develop the knowledge and contributions of part-time and non tenure-track faculty, namely to integrate scholarship and teaching in rewarding, productive, and meaningful ways for all who make writing instruction their livelihood.” Can you explain the specific changes that you would advocate for composition instructors going forward?
Jen Stewart's work on the discourse of emergent churches generated a great deal of interest in the role of discussion forums as representative of authors rather than subjects. Her methods chapter and the follow-up are especially useful in distilling much of the AOIR guidelines as she works to justify waiving consent.
Jennifer Stewart
Overview
To conduct my study of the language of online emergent Christian religious communities, I investigated a number of online community websites that identify themselves as “emergent” or “postmodern.” My research questions were investigated through analysis of texts produced by writers who participate (electronically) in conversations surrounding the issues of postmodernism and the future of the Christian faith. Because both group and individual articulations of religious identity exist, I looked at both individual and corporate statements. Thus, the texts I considered reflect the writing of individual authors, as well as the statements of several prominent organizations within the emergent movement. The intersection of these distinct points of articulation helped me to get an overall sense of how this movement conceives of itself, both on the individual and community level. To that end, my project consisted of the following:
First, I looked at individual organizations’ mission or purpose statements, which are contained in the “about us” and “who we are” sections of their websites. I wanted to consider how these groups and organizations articulate their positions and identities within broader Christian religious traditions. There are four specific sites whose mission statements I investigated as part of this project. Second, I analyzed postings to the online message boards of one of these sites. Within that site, I selected and read distinct threads of conversation and then analyzed the discussions of topics/issues that were of interest – both to myself and to the community members.
Sites of Data Collection
As explained above, two types of textual data were collected for this project. The first type consisted of mission statements from four websites loosely associated with the emergent church movement:
Each of these sites has a statement of “who we are,” or “about us” that describes its beliefs and goals. These materials are publicly accessible from each main homepage and can be considered public domain documents. Rationale for selection of these sites follows below.
The second type of text collected consisted of threads and individual postings to the message boards at The Ooze. These were saved electronically as Word documents. To protect the anonymity of the posters in my discussion of the findings (further discussion follows), I replaced each screen name with a pseudonym. To collect the type of posts I was interested in, I monitored postings to the online boards periodically, copying and dating messages of interest (as determined by my selection criteria).
Ethical Considerations in Internet-based Research
Although postings to Internet message boards can be generally thought of as public domain texts, there is an ethical concern that individual authors of such texts have their anonymity protected. Several useful guidelines for protecting the anonymity of subjects in Internet-based research have been developed by the Association of Internet Researchers (AOIR). The AOIR suggests asking a number of important questions when considering the use of Internet-based texts in research.
First of all, one should consider the existing expectations of anonymity by those participating in the site under examination. To determine this expectation of privacy, several questions can be asked: First, “[i]s there is a posted site policy that establishes specific expectations – e.g., a statement notifying users that the site is public, the possible technical limits to privacy in specific areas or domains, etc?” and secondly, “[a]re there mechanisms that users may choose to employ to indicate that their exchanges should be regarded as private […] to indicate their desire to have their exchanges kept private?” (Ess 5).
The sites I have chosen, with the exception of The Next Wave, all have stated privacy policy statements accessible from their main homepages. Each site has a varying level of detail regarding its privacy policies, but The Ooze, from whose message boards I collect textual data, contains the most complete of the four I am utilizing. Policies for the distribution of personal information, acceptable uses of personal information, use of cookies and IP addresses, and parameters for use of the site content are clearly spelled out and consistently updated. Within its “Terms of Service” disclaimer regarding “Communication Facilities” (a designation that includes the electronic bulletin/message boards, and chat rooms), The Ooze explains that users, “expressly acknowledge and agree that the Communication Facilities provide a means of public and not private communications.” Furthermore, the Terms of Service guidelines inform users that “[b]y submitting Content, you also agree to permit any user to access, view, store and reproduce the Content for personal use.” Through these guidelines, any user of The Ooze is made aware of the public nature of texts that are posted to the online Communication Facilities.
Registration is required in order to access and post to the message boards, but minimal personal and demographic data is collected in the registration process, and I did not collect or reproduce any personal demographic information as part of this study. The site’s privacy policy explains that “each user will be given the opportunity to create a User Profile; all of this information is optional, and it is only for other users to be able to connect with you based on the information you choose to provide.” Users have the option to hide data such as age, location and email address from other community members. In short, users are not required to reveal any personal information to other users, beyond a selected screen name. In conclusion, when comparing the policies of The Ooze to the ethical guidelines suggested by AOIR, it can be argued that use of textual data from The Ooze does not constitute a breach of privacy because the users of the site are aware of the privacy limitations of the context.
The second consideration when utilizing the texts of participants in online community sites is the user’s status as subject. AOIR suggests asking, “[a]re participants in this environment best understood as ‘subjects’ (in the senses common in human subjects research in medicine and the social sciences) – or as authors whose texts/artifacts are intended as public?” AOIR makes the distinction between subjects, who are interacting in “reasonably secure domains for private exchanges,” and authors, who “may be understood as authors intending for their work to be public.”
The domain of the message board is a publicly accessible format, distinct from personal email or private chat rooms; therefore, as AOIR proposes, “fewer obligations to protect autonomy, privacy, confidentiality[…] follow” (Ess 7). Additionally, upon agreeing to the stated “Terms of Service” when registering, users of the site agree to give up all legal rights to their posted texts, relinquishing copyright to The Ooze. By agreeing to relinquish the copyright to their published work, the users are “signing” a type of agreement typically made between authors and publishers. Using these guidelines, message boards at The Ooze represent a public domain and users of the site may be understood to be authors. This study is analogous to reading a co-authored book. Furthermore, because The Ooze site itself refers to users of the communication facilities as “authors” (in its “Terms of Service” disclaimer), there is no necessity to inform them of the use of their texts, anymore than one would inform the author of a book that he or she will be quoted in a research paper.
Part A: Website Selection Criteria
The first samples of data I collected were mission statements from typical organizations within the “emergent” framework. Currently on the web, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of websites associated with the concept of the emerging church, or the Christian church in postmodern context. Needing to narrow down the scope of my project, I used the following questions to isolate representative sites for investigation:
1. Who is involved in the making of and use of the site? Who seems to be the intended users or audience? Who are the individuals or groups running the site? Do these groups and individuals represent significant voices within the emerging church community?
2. How representative of the emerging church movement does the site seem to be? What kinds of articles are published on the site? What do the creators explicitly articulate about their position within the emerging church movement or within Christianity as a whole?
3. Is the site linked to by other sites? Is the site part of a network or web of interlinked sites that constitute the online framework for conversations on this issue?
4. Most importantly, do users of the site have the possibility of interacting with one another in conversation – either by message and bulletin boards, discussion forums, chat rooms, or the ability to post comments in response to articles published on the site?
Investigating Mission Statements
After considering the above criteria, I was able to select four sites, The Ooze, Emergent Village, Ginkworld, and The Next Wave, whose mission statements I obtained and looked at as part of my project. Each of these sites has a posted statement of “who we are” accessible from the main homepage. Though each uses different terminology to refer to this type of statement (on Ginkworld, it is entitled “our dna.” On Emergent Village, “What is emergent?” The Next Wave uses “about.”, and The Ooze has an extensive “about us” link), each of these articulations serves the purpose of orienting the site user in relation to the site creators’ theological and organizational beliefs. The content of these statements is discussed in the following section of this project.
Patterns and Commonalities
Once these mission statements were selected and read, I looked for recurrent categories of discussion and points where the language and metaphors used by one site intersected with that used by the others. These similarities, as well as how they are distinct from one another, played a part in answering my question of how these emergent religious communities speak about themselves. There were both common categories and unclassifiable elements within the text that needed elaboration. After these comparisons were made, recent literature on the subject of the emerging church was used to help understand these statements in relation to earlier developments in Christian thought on the subject faith and identity.
Part B: Selecting Message Board Posts
The process of selection of a site for message board data collection follows similar criteria as the selection of sites for their mission statements. The questions of who seem to be its users and publishers, how representative is it, how often is it linked to, and whether there is ample opportunity for conversation, were all taken into consideration when selecting The Ooze as the location for data collection of message board texts. Present on the masthead and beneath the title, The Ooze, is the tagline “conversation for the journey,” which can be read as evidence of the organization’s desire to provide a forum for discussion about faith issues. The stated desire of The Ooze’s creators is:
[T]o create environments where church leaders (traditional teachers/theologians as well as emerging storytellers/artists) can converse about and collaborate on resources and experiences for the broader faith community. This is done by providing places for people to gather and communicate both online and offline about how to be the story of Christ to our emerging culture. (TheOoze.com, “About Us: Desire.”)
With its 14,000 member registry, made up of individuals from dozens of countries, and nearly 200,000 individual postings to its message boards, The Ooze provides access to a broad range of perspectives and voices within the emergent community. Because I did not collect or even access information about the age, geographical location, or denominational affiliation of the authors whose texts I selected, it would be impossible to generalize about the make-up of The Ooze community. From my own interaction on the message boards, I can confirm that many of the general characteristics that Webber and Tomlinson describe in younger and post-evangelicals hold true for most of those members. They come from all denominational backgrounds and branches of the church. A wide range of ages, genders, sexual orientation and geographical locations are represented as well.
|
THEOOZE COMMUNITY |
|
GENERAL MESSAGE BOARD |
|
COMMUNITY DISCUSSION |
|
CULTURE DISCUSSION |
|
FAITH DISCUSSION |
|
MINISTRY DISCUSSION |
|
POSTMODERNISM & THE CHURCH |
|
POLITICAL DISCUSSION |
Choosing a Conversation
Once The Ooze was selected, particular threads of conversation on its message boards were then isolated. The Ooze divides its boards up into several broad categories under which individuals can create new messages. The main menu board, however, cannot be added to by ordinary users, but only by moderators chosen by the site staff. The message board main menu lists the following categories for discussion: General Message Board, Community Discussion, Culture Discussion, Faith Discussion, Ministry Discussion, Postmodernism and the Church, and Political Discussion. Any one of these categories may give a glimpse into the emerging rhetoric of this community, but because my research question centers particularly on changing language and metaphors within this group, my investigation focused on threads that consciously discussed language, metaphor or definitions. To find these threads from among the thousands archived on the site, I used the site’s search function and several keywords to isolate threads that related to my area of inquiry. The search function allows an individual to search both the title and content of individual posts for the selected keywords. I was interested in the conscious redefinition and articulation of meanings, so the following keywords were used to find threads that focused explicitly on language: “define/definition/ new definition/ redefine,” “metaphor(s),” “metaphoric,” and/or “name.”
Once a thread was isolated, there was still a further selection process that needed to take place. A content search using the chosen keywords revealed hundreds of threads, many of which did or did not deal explicitly with discussions of language and metaphor. Threads that related to defining or redefining commonly-used terms (such as the “A New Name for Evangelism” thread below), discussed changing metaphors, or those which tried to articulate new possibilities for Christian identity were most fully investigated.
Selecting and Categorizing Individual Posts
|
TOPIC INFO |
|
A New Kind of Church |
|
A New Name for Evangelism |
|
What is the Institutional Church? |
|
Shepherd or Lead Sheep?: A Pastor’s dilemma |
|
A Theology of Cyberspace |
|
THE OOZE as Fight Club |
|
Why is it called, “The Ooze?” |
Once a particular thread was chosen, posts within that thread were selected based upon similar criteria. In general, the following questions guided the selection process: Does the author directly discuss metaphor or conceptual systems that guide thinking? Does the writer show an explicit awareness of language and how it is used? Does the author attempt to redefine the meaning of existing terms, or present new terms for discussion? Does the poster suggest or create new metaphors for discussion? These questions focused the selection of individual posts on language and the way members of the online community use it, and thus they were geared toward answering my research question about how emergent communities define, critique and analyze their beliefs and purposes rhetorically and metaphorically.
After conducting a search of the message board archives, selecting and reading several different threads of discussion, distinct types of posts began to emerge. Most of the posts in these threads fell into one or more of the following three categories:
1. Defining, in which the author asks for definition or redefinition of terms, requests others to define currently used terms, or offers new definitions, metaphors, or word choices.
2. Critiquing, in which the author expresses dissatisfaction with current terminology or metaphors.
3. Analyzing, where the writer shows explicit awareness of language and how it functions, or deconstructs current metaphors or conceptions, or “fleshes out” and expands on those metaphors.
These categories describe much of what is taking place in the threads of discussion chosen for analysis.
After selecting and thoroughly reading six individual threads (A New Kind of Church; What is the Institutional Church?; A New Name for Evangelism; Shepherd or Lead Sheep, A Pastor's dilemma; Why is it called The Ooze?; and A Theology of Cyberspace), the posts revealed a number of questions being asked by this community. Perhaps of greatest concern for those in conversation about the emerging church is the question, what does it really mean to be the Church? (And that is Church with a capital “C,” referring to the larger Christian body, and not just an individual congregation or denomination). Beneath that question, sub-questions also arose: what are the Church’s parameters? How should its activities be carried out? How are things changing, or what things need to be changed? How does an online community challenge or contribute to an understanding of what constitutes Church? And, most importantly, what terms and metaphors used in the Church need to be/ are being reconceived, re-imagined, or jettisoned? The conversations surrounding these questions will be discussed in the following chapter.
Part C: Points of Intersection
The final step in my project was to look for points of intersection between the two sets of data collected. One of the goals of my project is to examine how both individuals and broader organizations articulate their religious identities. Comparison of the language and metaphors used by each group enabled me to get an overall sense of how this movement conceives of itself, both on the individual and community level. By examining these two sets of data and finding common points of reference, recurrent metaphors and oft-used terms, I hoped to discover what concerns are driving this emergent community.
This information will assist you in applying for approval to use human participants for research under Colorado State University’s auspices. All of the information is available on the Regulatory Compliance Web page, http://www.research.colostate.edu/rcoweb.
1. Instructions
Under the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, Federal Register, V. 56, No. 117, June 18, 1991, and later amendments, Colorado State University’s Human Research Committee (HRC) is required to review and approve all proposed research involving humans that is conducted under the University’s auspices. Approval is required regardless of funding status or sponsorship. Our campus policies are affirmed to the federal government in a document titled “Federalwide Assurance of Compliance with DHHS Regulations for Protection of Human Research Subjects” (1996, copy available on the Web page or by request).
The main considerations and responsibilities of the HRC are to determine that
a. the potential risks to research subjects are adequately addressed and their confidentiality is assured.
b. adequate explanation of the potential risks and safeguards, as well as benefits, are given to the subjects and their consent to participate is validated.
c. the proposals are clearly planned and the risk/benefit ratio to the subjects is clearly articulated and acceptable.
Philosophically, the HRC believes that investigators who use humans in their studies have a fundamental ethical responsibility to inform the participants of the nature of the investigation and obtain informed consent for participation in the studies. The procedure for obtaining informed consent may differ from one study to another, but using a carefully considered procedure has the advantage that it will reduce problems for the investigator in the future. Participants who have a clear understanding of the extent and purpose of their role in a study are less likely to have complaints about the investigator and the study. The fundamental right of individuals to be informed of their role in research should not be violated by investigators, and should be of particular concern to all involved in conducting research involving human participation. Failure of even one researcher to abide by ethical guidelines could jeopardize the future right of everyone at the University to conduct research.
The Administrator for the HRC is a staff person (see below) with the Regulatory Compliance Office, located at 410 University Services Center. All inquiries, correspondence, and submissions should be directed there.
A current copy of the curriculum vitae of the Principal Investigator must be on file in the Administrator’s office. If you have submitted a vitae since July 1 of this year, you do not need to include it with this application.
If this project is being conducted for a graduate degree, the student’s faculty advisory committee should approve it before it is submitted to the HRC. The faculty Principal Investigator will receive the original review and approval documentation; the student will receive copies through his/her campus department address. Renewal documents will be sent to the Principal Investigator only, since the student typically has graduated. It is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator to retain records and report the status of the project for renewal or close-out.
Data from human subjects are not to be collected until approval is received from the Human Research Committee.
Training of the PI:
A protocol may be reviewed, but not approved, until the Principal Investigator has successfully completed one of CSU’s human research protection training options and met any continuing education requirements. This became a requirement with CSU’s 2001 Federalwide Assurance. Details about training are linked from the human research web site at www.research.colostate.edu/rcoweb.
How to proceed:
1. Become familiar with this packet. Consult other links on the Human Research web page (FAQ and tips especially).
2. Complete Parts A, B, C & D. This must be done for all types of review. Include all necessary attachments.
3. Preliminarily determine the type of review for which your project would qualify (the final determination rests with the HRC and any project may be referred to the HRC for full review at a regularly convened meeting). If you have questions about the type of review for which your project will qualify, call the HRC Administrator in the Regulatory Compliance Office (see below).
• Exempt Review: See Exemption Criteria. Submit anytime. Submit the original application. Keep a copy for yourself. Reviewed by one reviewer. Response in approximately 10 days.
• Expedite Review: See Expedite Criteria. Submit anytime. Submit the original application and one entire copy (but only one copy of the proposal/prospectus and résumé). Keep a copy for yourself. Reviewed by two reviewers. Response in approximately 14 days.
• Full Review: Every other type of activity. Submit by noon on second Thursday of every month. Submit the original application and 13 entire copies (but only one copy of the proposal/prospectus and résumé). Keep a copy for yourself. Reviewed by full HRC at regular monthly meeting on the third Thursday of every month. Response is within 10 business days after committee meeting.
Remember: Each application set represents your project to the HRC reviewer. It must be complete.
Submit application and copies to:
HRC Administrator
Regulatory Compliance
410 University Services Center
Campus 2011
After review, you will receive an e-mail or printed determination notice (copy to the student co-PI via campus mail to the department) outlining the reviewers' concerns. Once the concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, a written approval notice will be sent to both the researcher and the student Co-PI. Federal certification forms will be provided if the project is being submitted for funding to a federal agency requiring such forms (USDA, NIH).
Recognizing every situation has unique characteristics, please do not hesitate to call the Administrator if you have questions or concerns: Janell Meldrem, HRC Administrator. Telephone: 970-491-1655 FAX: 970-491-2293 E-mail: janell.meldrem@colostate.edu.
2. Forms to be completed: Application to Use Human Subjects H-100
Part A: Cover page.
Part B: Research Project Review Summary.
Part C: Protocol information, to be typed on your word processor in Word. Every question must be answered, even if "not applicable."
Part D: Special requirements/attachments checklist. Don’t forget a copy of the entire proposal or prospectus.
3. Helpful information All of these are available separately on the HRC Forms web site.
a. Exempt criteria
b. Expedite criteria
c. Risks of common procedures (focus groups, blood draws, etc.)
d. Definitions
e. Elements of a consent form
f. Model consent form. If your project will require a consent form, remove the italics, bracketed
text from this model and add project-specific information to produce a consent form that is typically suitable for a routine project.
For best results, save this as a file to your computer. If bullets or different formatting are needed, unprotect the file.
|
Office Use Only: HRC Tracking number: _____________ Type of Review: ? Exempt ? Expedite ? Full Category #_______ PI Trained Y ? N? |
|
APPLICATION FOR Human subjects research review COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (Please type or electronically fill) Complete the cover page, review summary, and sections A, B, C & D. For full review protocols, submit the ORIGINAL (with original signatures and copy of proposal/dissertation/thesis) and 13 copies (each with attachments except proposal/dissertation/thesis) to Regulatory Compliance Office (RCO), 410 University Services Center, Campus Delivery 2011. Assistance is available on the RCO web site at http://www.research.colostate.edu/rcoweb |
|
H-100 COVER SHEET Part A |
|
Project Title (identical to proposal or thesis/dissertation): Faith, Identity and the Rhetoric of the Emergent Church Online OR Grant Title if different from Project Title: |
Contact Information
Principal Investigator (PI):
|
Name: Sarah Jane Sloane |
Department: English
|
|
Campus Mailing Address & Mail Code: 359 William O. Eddy Hall (1773)
|
Phone #: 970-491-2816 |
|
E-Mail Address: sarah.sloane@colostate.edu |
|
Co-Investigator (attach information if more than one Co-PI)>:
|
Name: Jennifer Stewart |
Department: English |
|
Campus Mailing Address & Mail Code: 266 Aylesworth Hall (1773)
|
Phone #: 970-491-4573 |
|
E-Mail Address: jennifer.stewart@colostate.edu |
|
|
Funding Source:
|
PASS #:
|
|
Proposed Start Date (may not precede approval date): OR X “Upon HRC approval” |
If Co-PI is a student, is this project for a: X thesis dissertation other
|
|
I think this qualifies for the following type of review: Exempt Category number (submit original) X Expedite Category number 7 (submit original & one copy) Full Review (submit original & 13 copies) |
New Protocol XYES NO Resubmission YES X NO Follow-up to 118 request YES X NO |
|
|
|
As the PI submitting this proposed research and signing below, I agree to conduct the research involving human subjects as presented in the protocol or modifications to it and as approved by the Department and the Human Research Committee; to obtain and document informed consent and provide a copy of the consent form to each subject unless this is waived by the HRC; to present any proposed modifications in the research to the HRC for review and approval prior to implementation; to retain records for the mandated lengths of time; and to report to the HRC any problems or injuries to subjects.
PI Signature: _____________________________________________ Date: __________________
My signature below confirms that I have read this protocol and approve of this research.
Department Chair/Head or Acting Signature
Signature:____________________________________________ Date: ___________________
(If PI is Department Head, please have alternate/designee sign)
PART B. RESEARCH PROJECT REVIEW SUMMARY Your completion of the following checklist will facilitate the review process.
1. SUBJECT POPULATION: (Check all appropriate boxes.)
Healthy adults X Children or minors (<18)
Institutional residents Cognitively or psychologically impaired
Elderly Pregnant women or fetuses
Prisoners or parolees Non-English speaking
2. If the research involves any of the following, check the appropriate boxeS:
Interview Survey/questionnaire
Clinical studies Behavioral observation
Investigational drugs Investigational devices
Deception X Waiver of consent
XStudy of existing data Controlled substances
Study of human biological specimens Microorganisms or recombinant DNA
Venipuncture Genetic research
PI or Co-PI is the treating physician
3. LOCATION(S) OF RESEARCH TO BE CONDUCTED AT:
XCSU campus X Other locations, specify: Online materials may be accessed from off-campus locations
4. INFORMED CONSENT OF SUBJECTS: Your study protocol must clearly address one of the following areas: (justification for #2 & #3 must be included in your application) Discuss details in purpose section, (question If).
INFORMED CONSENT: Signed informed consent is the default. A model consent is available on the HRC website and should be used as a basis for developing your informed consent document. If applicable, the proposed consent must be submitted with the study protocol. http://www.research.colostate.edu/rcoweb/hr/hr_forms.htm
COVER LETTER: You may request a waiver of documented informed consent under the following conditions: (1) That the only recording linking the subject and the research would be the consent document and the principle risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject’s wishes will govern; (45CFR46.117c1), OR (2)That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent if normally required outside of the research context. (45CFR46117c2).
It is the responsibility of the investigator to: a) provide clear justification for how a project meets the criteria for waiver of documented informed consent under one of the
two previous categories, and b) provide what will be used to inform the subjects about research activities. It may be a telephone or verbal script, a cover letter, or some other means.
The cover letter needs to be sent to the subjects and to the HRC on CSU departmental letterhead.
style="mso-bookmark:Check37">X NO INFORMED CONSENT: You may request a waiver of informed consent under the following conditions: (1) The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects; (2) the waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; (3) the research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration; and (4) when appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation (45CFR46.116d).
It is the responsibility of the investigator to: a) explain how a project meets all four of the criteria for waiver of informed consent and b) where applicable, provide an alternate form of sharing study information with prospective subjects (i.e., a public service announcement, or a modified version of a consent to be used in research that by design requires deception – this type of research requires an accompanying debriefing form that completes the informed consent process).
PART C. RESEARCH PROTOCOL:
I. PURPOSE, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES: Describe the following:
a. Purpose (will be used in assessing the risk/benefit ratio for subjects. The hypothesis to be tested may be listed.) The project is designed t style="mso-no-proof: yes">o answer our central research question about currently used rhetoric of specfic online communities, known as the "emergent" or "emerging" church, and their members. The research questions are as follows: How do emergent religious communities online use language and linguistic practices to construct their beliefs, purposes and identities rhetorically? And, what are the distinguishing characteristics of the rhetoric of this movement or group?
b. Research methods and procedures of the study. (It is OK to diagram complex designs. Please include information on the time commitment required for each activity.)To conduct our study of “emergent Christian religious communities,” we will investigate the language used and statements made within a number of online community websites that have identified themselves as “emergent” or “postmodern.” The project will focus on analysis of texts produced by writers who participate in conversations (electronically) surrounding the issues of postmodernism and the future of the Christian faith. Because both group and individual articulations of religious identity exist, we will read both individual texts and mission statements. Therefore, two types of textual data will be collected for this project. The first type consists of mission statements from four websites associated with the emergent church movement: www.emergentvillage.com, www.ginkworld.net, www.the-next-wave.org, and www.theooze.com. Each of these sites has a statement of “who we are,” or “about us” that describes the beliefs and goals of each site respectively. These materials are publicly accessible from each main homepage and can be considered public domain documents. The second type of online text that will be collected will consist of threads and individual postings to the message boards on www.theooze.com. Within this site, we will read and collect distinct threads of conversation and then analyze the discussions of topics/issues that are of interest. (For example: postmodernity, identity, “emergence,” certain oft-repeated metaphors, etc.) These exact categories will probably become more evident after further reading, and will be determined by our thread selection criteria. No direct interaction, intervention or communication with the authors of the texts will take place. Our study will focus solely on the textual data, not its authors. Thus, to protect the anonymity of the posters (further discussion follows), we will replace each screen name with a pseudonym. This will mean keeping a list of each unique screen name and providing a counterpart before any data are used or included in the write-up of the project. This list will be discarded one year after the project is complete, approximately May 2006. We will read postings to the online boards periodically (two to three times weekly for a period of six weeks), copying and dating messages of interest. These documents can be discarded at the end of the project as well, although most information gathered will continue to be available through the archives of the online sites being investigated. The collected texts, then, reflect the writing of individual authors, as well as the statements of several prominent organizations within the emergent movement. We will evaluate whether individual writers indeed mirror the concerns and rhetoric used by the broader organizations, or if there is a lack of connection between the language of the movement’s participants and those who act as its spokespersons. The intersection of these distinct points of articulation will reveal how this movement conceives of itself, both at the individual and community level.
c. Variables to be studied (what is being measured or examined).In this rhetorical analysis, the variables will be textual. As explained above, we will isolate distinct categories of discussion within these message boards and mission statements, including common metaphors, topics or other tropes or terms.
d. Describe equipment used with subjects, if any. No equipment will be used with subjects. Because the site of inquiry will be computer-based, though, it can be presumed that all subjects will have access and familiarity with computer systems, message boards and other types of online activities.
e. How will subject confidentiality or anonymity be maintained? If a linked list is used, list when it will be destroyed. Provide a sample of the code that will be used. To protect each author's anonymity, we will replace each posted screen name with a pseudonym. Using guidelines suggested by the Association of Internet Researchers in its paper on "Ethical decision-making and Internet Research"(2002), we will keep a list of each screen name and provide an alternate name before any data are used or included in the write-up of the project. This list will be discarded one year after the project is complete, approximately May 2006.
f. Describe the consent process and method of consent to be used. (signed consent, cover letter, other) No Informed Consent (justifications attached)
g. How will research records be maintained during and upon completion of the project? (This may include audio or videotapes). Indicate when the records and/or tapes will be destroyed. Federal Regulations require that study data and consent documents be kept for a minimum of 3 years after the completion of the study by the PI; for longitudinal projects, a longer period may be needed.
Records for this project will consist of 1) mission statements posted on the four selected websites, and 2) individual postings to message boards, which will be saved electronically as Word documents. To protect the anonymity of each text's author (as described above), we will replace each screen name with a pseudonym. This will mean keeping a list of each screen name and providing an alternate name before any data are used or included in the write-up of the project. This will provide another level of protection to the anonymity of the author, in addition to the anonymity afforded by the screen name. This list will be discarded one year after the project is complete, approximately May 2006. We will read postings to the online boards periodically (two to three times weekly for a period of six weeks), copying and dating messages of interest (as determined by my selection criteria). These documents can be discarded at the end of the project as well, although most information gathered will continue to be available through the archives of the online sites being investigated.
h. Address how you will monitor this study to ensure that the study is being conducted according to the protocol. Ms. Stewart will meet weekly with Dr. Sloane to insure protocols are continuing to be followed and to review any unforeseen ethical or practical problems. Discussion with Dr. Sloane, the Principal Investigator, will be ongoing throughout the research process in order to maintain consistent data collection.
i. Is a Data Safety Monitoring Board required to conduct such monitoring? YES NO
If yes, the HRC may request copies of the reports.
II. SUBJECT SELECTION: Indicate the following (this section must also be completed for secondary data analysis):
a. How will subjects be recruited and where will the recruitment take place? style="color:red"> (submit recruitment material) The topic of subject recruitment pertains to the second type of textual data we will collect - postings made to online message boards. Because these types of texts are produced by individual authors and then posted to message boards at a chosen website (www.theooze.com), no real selection of “subjects” will occur. Once these texts are submitted to the message boards at the chosen site, the text becomes the object of analysis, and texts will be selected on the basis of their content. All identifying information about the author will be removed from the text being analyzed. As stated elsewhere, no demographic information about the author will be collected, as the focus of our investigation is not upon the authors themselves but on the texts which they create.
b. If secondary data analysis is being conducted, please describe the original consent procedures. No secondary data analysis is being conducted.
c. What are the characteristics of the subject population? (age, gender, student, disease conditions, behavioral abnormalities; affiliations or memberships) In order to protect the authors' anonymity, we will not collect demographic information, neither from individuals nor from the website as a whole. The only known affiliation/membership that can be assumed is that, because they must register with the website theooze.com in order to post to its message boards, they have some affiliation with or interest in the topics discussed within www.theooze.com.
d. How many subjects do you plan to study? The total number of individual posters/contributors will range from 5 to around 50.
e. Address the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Federal regulations consider minors, pregnant women and prisoners vulnerable populations that require added protection. When vulnerable populations are involved, describe why they are necessary. Excluding any group, i.e., minors, elderly, gender, ethnic minorities, must be clearly justified and inconvenience can’t be the reason. For example, if minors are in a classroom where recruitment will take place, parental permission must be obtained or justification must be made to exclude the minors. Texts posted to the message boards under investigation will be included or excluded based on evolving textual selection criteria; therefore, individual authors/subjects are included or excluded on the basis of the content of the texts they have posted. Because demographic information will not be connected to the text collected, it will not be possible to determine if authors are or are not members of vunerable population groups.
f. Will subjects be compensated for participation? If so, please describe the proposed compensation. No
g. Criteria for excluding participants involuntarily (such as “failed to keep food diary as required”) Partcipant texts will be excluded if unrelated to the linguistic and rhetorical categories under investigation.
h. Letters of agreement/approval from the organizations that will be recruiting subjects for the project will be needed. Such letters need to be initiated by the organization, on organization letterhead, and signed by a person authorized to do so. The letters need to include statements a) that the organization is familiar with the scope of the project, b) that it is satisfied the individuals it is involving are adequately protected as human research subjects, c) that the subjects’ participation is completely voluntary, and d) identify what the organization’s involvement will entail.
III. RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS:
a. Describe any potential risks to subjects and assess the likelihood and seriousness of those risks. (If there are no known risks, state as such, but do NOT respond “NA”.) These could include: physical, psychological trauma or stress, legal, social, economic, loss of confidentiality. The only known risk to authors involved in this study is the loss of anonymity. Precautions previously discussed make this unlikely.
b. Please describe the proposed methods to minimize the risks and discomforts associated with the research. For example, document how potential psychological distress will be addressed, by whom, and with what credentials (provide letter of agreement from counselor explaining their role – this must be someone other than the researchers on the project) Specify what factors will lead to stopping procedures causing physical or emotional stress. The anonymity of each author will be maintained by using pseudonyms in place of the individual's screen name, providing another level of protection to the anonymity of the author, in addition to the anonymity afforded by the screen name.
c. If the methods of research create potential risks, describe other methods, if any, that were considered and why they will not be used. We believe the given protocols for this type of research are sufficient to minimze the risks involved.
d. Address procedures for maintaining confidentiality if a breach of confidentiality represents a risk. Again, the anonymity of each author will be maintained by using pseudomyms in place of the individual's screen name style="mso-no-proof:yes">. This will mean keeping a list of each unique screen name and providing a counterpart before any data are used or included in the write up of the project. This list will be discarded one year after the project is complete, approximately May 2006.
IV. ADVERSE EVENTS: Explain your reporting mechanism for reporting adverse and serious adverse events to the HRC. In this type of qualitative research study, we anticipate no adverse or serious events related to the study. If in the unlikely event that a serious event occurs, Dr. Sloane will immediately contact Celia Walker, Director of Regulatory Compliance.
V. BENEFITS: Describe the anticipated benefits of the research to the individual subjects, to the particular group or class from which the subject population is drawn. The benefits must be realistic and not overly stated of what each person is likely to gain from the research. If there is no direct benefit to the subject, state so. For example: “There is no known benefit in participating in this study, but we hope you will gain more knowledge on…” Compensation, payment for participation, gifts, etc., are NOT benefits. There are no direct benefits to the participants of the study, but the eventual findings may be of interest to the creators of the websites under study, as well as to the wider "emerging church" community, both on the web and the local church setting.
VI. Other matters pertinent to the human participant. There are no other matters pertinent to the human participant.
Part D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS/ATTACHMENTS CHECKLIST: For the items below, check where applicable and include with your protocol submission. Items marked “required” must accompany an HRC protocol application or the project can not be approved.
Research Proposal Materials
Grant proposal (if this is a funded project, this is required)
Thesis/dissertation methods (if the project is a thesis or dissertation, this is required)
CV (If this is a first time submission as PI, this is required. A current copy of the curriculum vitae of the PI must be on file in the Administrator’s office. If the PI has submitted a vitae since July 1 of the current year, the PI does not need to include it with this application).
Research Instruments/Tools
Informed Consent, or
X Cover letter (with justification for waiver), or
X Justification for waiving informed consent
Interviews (phone or in person) - attach script if applicable and questions to be asked.
Surveys/questionnaires - attach surveys and questionnaires if applicable. Provide permission use for instruments (whether copyrighted or public domain)
X Focus Groups: attach introductory script to the group and sample questions. (describe in consent form what a focus group is)
Recruitment materials: Advertisements, press releases, in-class announcements, posted flyers, e-mail announcements, phone script, or other forms of recruitment.
Debriefing Materials
Research Collaboration/Support Materials
IRB approval from other institutions involved in research (collaborating university, hospital, etc.)
Letters of cooperation from participating sites that do not have an IRB.
Letters of agreement (i.e., from a site that is allowing you access, but is not directly involved in research, or a colleague allowing you to recruit from a class, a clinic or business allowing recruitment, etc.)
X Letter of collaboration from a counselor if needed.
Secondary Data Analysis< (for research involving secondary data analysis, include original IRB approval and informed consent)
X IRB approval from collaborating organization
X Consent form from original data analysis
Jennifer Stewart
(1) The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects
Because our study seeks to gather information on “identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and social behavior,” we believe that our methods pose no more than minimal risk to the subjects. Our examination of existing texts and the rhetorical strategies employed by members of an online community is guided by ethical principles developed by the Association of Internet Researchers (AOIR). AOIR suggests several guidelines by which to assess whether informed consent and confidentiality are issues of concern. When considering whether to utilize the texts of participants in online community sites, AOIR suggests asking, “Are participants in this environment best understood as “subjects” (in the senses common in human subjects research in medicine and the social sciences) – or as authors whose texts/artifacts are intended as public?” AOIR makes the distinction between subjects, who are interacting in “reasonably secure domains for private exchanges,” and those who “may be understood as authors intending for their work to be public.” The domain of the message board is a publicly accessible format, distinct from personal email or private chat rooms; therefore, as AOIR proposes, “fewer obligations to protect autonomy, privacy, confidentiality… follow” (AOIR, “Ethical decision-making and Internet research,” p. 7). Using these guidelines, message boards at www.theooze.com represent a public domain and users of the site may be understood to be authors. We see this study as analogous to reading a co-authored book.
(2) The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects
AOIR also addresses the issue of the rights of participants in online communications. They suggest that the rights of participants in online activities vary according to those participants’ expectations of privacy and the nature of the format in which communication is taking place. Within its “Terms of Service” disclaimer regarding “Communication Facilities” (a designation that includes the electronic bulletin/message boards, and chat rooms), www.theooze.com explains that users, “expressly acknowledge and agree that the Communication Facilities provide a means of public and not private communications.” Registration is required in order to access and post to the message boards, but minimal personal and demographic data is collected in the registration process. The site’s privacy policy explains that “each user will be given the opportunity to create a User Profile; all of this information is optional, and it is only for other users to be able to connect with you based on the information you choose to provide.” Users, then, have the option to hide data such as age, location and email address from other community members; in short, users are not required to reveal any information to other users, beyond a selected screen name.
Comparing the policies of the site with the ethical guidelines suggested by AOIR, use of message board postings to www.theooze.com will not constitute a breach of privacy because the users of the site are aware of the privacy limitations in the internet context. Given that message boards constitute a public domain in which texts are intended for public view (and which differ from email or private chat rooms in that they are intentionally made available for public reading), we contend that use of texts from these sites will not adversely affect the rights of the participants involved.
(3) The research could not be practicably carried out without the waiver or alteration
The waiver of informed consent is necessary to the project because it would pose a significant difficulty to attempt to inform every author that his or her written text may be collected for use in our study. The sites of investigation are within the public domain and are easily accessible; any attempt to inform all users of the project being undertaken could never be certain to reach every potential participant. Once a user has registered with the site, he or she is not required to read any or every post present. Reaching all users by email would also be impractical as there are over 14,000 registered users at www.theooze.com, and, as explained in the site’s privacy policy, each user may restrict outside access to his or her email address. Furthermore, because we are treating these individuals as authors (indeed, the site refers to users of its communication facilities as “authors” in its “Terms of Service” disclaimer), we do not intend to inform them of the use of their texts, anymore than we would inform the author of a book that he or she will be quoted in a research paper.
As explained above, message boards constitute texts within the public domain, and, in such a context, as AOIR proposes, “fewer obligations to protect autonomy, privacy, confidentiality… follow.” Informed consent, then, is not necessary for use of this textual content. Finally, there is a precedent for waiving informed consent in the use of these kinds of online texts. Spencer Burke, the creator of www.theooze.com, has himself utilized online texts from the website as part of a book he has written, entitled Making Sense of Church: Eavesdropping on Emerging Conversations about God, Community and Culture. In his book, Burke quotes and uses passages of text from writers who post at www.theooze.com; Burke treats those writers as one would treat a published author.
(4) When appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation
In this situation, we do not feel it will be necessary or appropriate to inform subjects or provide additional information after participation in the study.
In 2004-05, Renee Rallo completed an H-100 for a thesis looking at philosophical and practical underpinnings of community-based writing journals. Please note how the draft version of the methodology section of her thesis conveys the same information (shaped appropriately for the audience) as the H-100. We also include here the multiple versions of questionnaires that Renee drafted for each of the journals she studied.
*(From Renee Rallo's Community Based Writing Journals: Principles and Practices)
Lana Rakow urges cultural studies scholars to “develop potential [cultural and political] models that . . . identify the principles that will enable all people to interact, enjoy full rights of participation, and use communication technologies for the purpose of creating their own collective destiny”(151). This thesis aims to develop such a model for my own future work with a community writing journal project. In order to understand the “principles that enable” interaction and participation using the communication technology of the writing journal, I will critically examine the guiding principles and practices of three sample community-based writing journals.
My research is designed to employ critical textual analysis of a selection of the sample journals and any publicly available supporting materials that explain or convey guiding principles and/or practices (i.e., web sites, mailings). I will also engage in questionnaire-form correspondence with editors of sample CBWJs to gain insider insight into their guiding philosophies and practices. My analysis will engage the work of critical theorists who concern themselves with literacy education practices and marginalization. As I examine the sample journals, I will also engage the critical dialogue emerging within Cultural Studies. Though the subjects of discussion in critical and cultural studies vary from liberatory educational practices, to race and gender in culture, aesthetic discourse, and feminist pedagogy and practice, these critical and cultural studies writers each address the causes and effects of inclusion and exclusion for those in the center and those on the margins. In my view, community-based writing journals tackle many of the concerns about marginalization that are raised by critical and cultural studies and will incorporate those concerns in my analysis of how principles and practices of community-based writing journals address those issues.
Sample Journal Selection:
To select the journals I will investigate in this thesis, I employed a set of selection criteria which requires that:
These criteria are based on the initial vision I have for my own future journal project, which I hope will be funded by both grants and donations, will be available to the public at minimal cost and will be affiliated with some form of a writing group.
I have briefly investigated the guiding principles and practices of a wide variety of community-based writing journals, but each journal project included in this research is guided by a similar underlying principle. Each journal I examine in this thesis shares the notion that that the benefits of writing and publishing (i.e., voice empowerment, self-awareness, public recognition, validation, exposure, empowerment by authority) should be made more accessible to more groups of people, particularly groups of people whose written contributions have been traditionally undervalued in American society. I have chosen three sample journals that state explicitly their goal to amplify and distribute the words and experiences of marginalized community members. A quick look at their mission statements demonstrates that each shares this similar objective:
Every Person Is a Philosopher. [The Journal of Ordinary Thought] JOT is founded on this basic idea and is dedicated to bringing out the unheard voices and stories of Chicago. Many of the writers in JOT groups are marginalized from traditional, mainstream literary circles, because of class, race, physical isolation, or other issues. We only publish writing produced in our workshops. We have published everything from personal essay and polemics to poetry and short fiction. Absolutely everyone in our groups gets the opportunity to be published in our magazine, whether they are accomplished writers or newly literate. Our insightful magazine, the Journal of Ordinary Thought, reflects this diversity. (www.jot.org/jot.html)
Open City: A Journal of Community Arts and Culture is a publication of New City Press, which is committed to linking the personal stories and neighborhood histories of Philadelphia residents to meaningful movements for economic, educational, and social change. . . The Press has a special relationship with the neighborhoods around Temple University in North Philadelphia, but is also committed to empowering diverse voices in self-identified communities throughout the city. Our goal is to provide community writers with access to a larger audience, as well as to assist activists in bettering living conditions in urban neighborhoods. (www.temple.edu/isllc/ncp/mission.html)
Established in 1991, The Asian American Writers' Workshop, Inc., is a nonprofit literary arts organization dedicated to the creation, development, publication and dissemination of Asian American literature. The Workshop publishes The Asian Pacific American Journal, the literary magazine Ten and various anthologies on underrepresented Asian American experiences…The only organization of its kind, the Workshop has become one of the most active community-based arts organizations in the United States. Based in New York City, we have a fast-growing membership, a list of award-winning books and have become an educational resource for Asian American literature and awareness across the nation. (http://www.aaww.org/aboutus/)
The selection of editors to contact for this research, therefore, is predicated on the selection of sample writing journals whose guiding principles and practices are of interest to me as a researcher. I have chosen to contact the main editor of each of the sample journals I have selected; these editors will be asked to correspond with me by responding to a questionnaire and, if necessary, follow-up questions to clarify questionnaire responses.
Data Collection
Journal Text and Publicly Available Materials – The first step of my analysis has been to collect a range of back issues from each sample journal and to gather all other publicly available supporting materials that explain or convey guiding principles and/or practices (i.e., web sites, mailings). Each of the journals I examine in this thesis has a supporting website which outlines its mission, philosophy, submissions policy, community relationship, writing groups and workshops, subscription rates, and sources of funding. I use these textual artifacts to examine the ways in which the guiding principles are evident in the operating practices of the journal. For example, the Journal of Ordinary Thought’s managing website promises that “Absolutely everyone in our groups gets the opportunity to be published in our magazine, whether they are accomplished writers or newly literate.” This range of skills among contributors is reflected in the content of the journal itself, where one can read the poem of a newly literate writer next to the poem of a more accomplished and/or skilled writer. So that I can be confident in my understanding and interpretation of the guiding principles, as they are laid forth in the journal editions themselves or in publicly available supporting materials, and their relationship to the practices that emerge, I will supplement my textual analysis by engaging in questionnaire correspondence with the journals’ editors.
Questionnaire Correspondence with Journal Editors—
Even though I am not approaching my analysis through a strictly feminist lens, the work of self-identified feminist writers, like Lana Rakow and Gesa Kirsch, has helped me carefully weigh the ethical consequences of a data collection technique limited to textual analysis, prompting my desire to engage in correspondence with journal editors to enhance my analysis. In Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research, Kirsch maintains that:
Feminist researchers are evolving textual forms that they believe more justly represent the voices of those who contribute to and participate in their research projects. No longer, in many cases, do researchers dominate their reports with a singular, authoritative academic voice. No longer do researchers obscure responsibility for claims by casting them in subject-less, passive constructions. Instead, researchers are beginning to locate themselves in their publications, to acknowledge that their identities, value and theories do indeed shape their observations and analyses. At the same time, they are compelled to include participant’s voices not just as reported speech, but as a co-equal authoring force. [my emphasis] (65)
So that I can to justly represent the underlying principles of the journals I examine, and so that I can insure that I am not imposing my own values and theories upon my textual analysis, I sought a way to include participant’s voices in my analysis. After carefully considering the logistical and practical constraints of this research, I settled on gathering insight from journal editors by corresponding through a short-answer questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask editors to comment on the initial guiding philosophies and practices of the journal as well as any changes that occurred as the journal developed. (See questionnaires reattached with this methods submission for the convenience of the IRB.)
The questionnaire as a data collection technique has a number of significant benefits. The questionnaire grants respondents time to consider each question and time to formulate the response they wish to provide. Each question is open-ended to allow the respondent to provide any relevant information that she or he feels will address the question prompt.
In my undergraduate studies, I frequently referred to H. Russell Bernard’s 2nd Edition of Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to develop a number of surveys, interview questions and questionnaires for social research projects. Bernard compares self-administered questionnaires (i.e., those mailed to respondents and returned) with face-to-face interviews and notes that questionnaires allow researchers to minimize interviewer bias (since all respondents get the same questions), to ask complex questions that require a lead-in of background information (such questions are sometimes hard to understand orally), and that respondents report behaviors and traits more readily and accurately in questionnaires than in face-to-face interviews (since respondents are less likely to want to impress a questionnaire than an interviewer) (260-262).
The questionnaires I developed all have the same number of questions that ask for the same types of information. Each questionnaire has been tailored to the particular journal the editor works for, but the alterations consist of reshaping questions for the particular recipient. For example, question #1 inquires about the journal’s guiding philosophy and its development. On each questionnaire, the question has been tailored for the particular recipient:
1. According to www.jot.org, the Journal of Ordinary Thought developed from the notion that every person is a philosopher. How was this approach to publishing developed? Who was responsible for its development?
1. According to www.aaww.org, the Asian Pacific American Journal developed out of a dedication to provide a forum for “underrepresented Asian American experiences.” How was this approach to publishing developed? Who was responsible for its development?
1. According to the website, Open City: a Journal of Arts and Culture developed to meet the goals of providing “community writers with access to a larger audience” and connecting the “personal stories and neighborhood histories of Philadelphia residents to meaningful movements for economic, educational, and social change.” How was this approach to publishing developed? Who was responsible for its development?
As I developed the questions that appear on the questionnaires for journal editors, I intended to utilize the advantages of this type of data collection technique while minimizing the disadvantages. Bernard warns that open-ended, self-administered questionnaires do not allow the researcher to control the respondent’s interpretation of the question. To overcome this potential for misinterpretations, I will clarify responses to the questionnaire by composing follow-up questions that ask for elaboration of information provided in the questionnaire responses. Bernard also warns about drawing conclusions about populations from a small sample size. My research involves editorial staff representatives from three writing journals, which is certainly a small sample size from which to draw conclusions. However, my research is not aimed at drawing conclusions about the philosophies and practices of all community-based writing journals based on my study of three samples. Instead, this research aims to gain a better understanding of the philosophies and practices of these samples as a reflective practice that will inform my choices in the future as I develop a writing journal project of my own.
Data Analysis
As I conduct my textual analysis by examining the sample writing journals and their related publicly available materials, I am attempting to identify its purpose, mission, audience, means of circulation, funding, submissions and copyright policy, distribution and promotion. In addition, I am exploring these texts to understand each journal’s particular community link, its methods of working with writers, its staffing practices and management conventions. This information is publicly available in each journal edition and/or on each journal’s website. Though this information about the current state of each journal is publicly available, this thesis aims to enhance this information by asking editors to discuss (via questionnaire correspondence) the ways in which these principles and practices emerged and evolved as the journal has matured.
Once I have collected the questionnaires from journal editors, I will code their responses into the four main categories of inquiry – Guiding Philosophy and Leadership, Development of the Journal’s Operational Practices, Funding, Submissions and Distribution. I will code each response (according to which of the four main categories the response falls under) and compare each of the questionnaire responses to the others. Additionally, I will compare the questionnaire responses to the publicly available materials which disclose the journal’s principles and practices. Comparing the questionnaire responses to each other and to the publicly available documents which communicate principles and practices will help me formulate follow-up questions, as the comparison will help me distinguish which areas of inquiry require elaboration. (Elaboration may be required if any discrepancies arise between the materials I compare, as well as if I need clarification or specific examples to help me better understand the journal’s principles and practices.) These follow-up responses also will be coded according to which main category they relate.
Once I have carefully examined the publicly available materials which convey principles and practices, have compared those materials with the editor’s insight, and have asked follow-up questions, I will then compare the principles and practices (as they are reflected in publicly available material and in editor’s responses) with the content of the journals themselves to assess whether the principles and practices, as they are conveyed and understood by journal management, are enacted and reflected in the published journals. My analysis will be geared at examining how the guiding principles are enacted in journal practices; this understanding of the ways in which the sample journals emerged and the factors that have influenced their development will make me better able to anticipate and navigate through the evolution of the journal project I plan to develop.
This information will assist you in applying for approval to use human participants for research under Colorado State University’s auspices. All of the information is available on the Regulatory Compliance Web page, http://www.research.colostate.edu/rcoweb.
1. Instructions
Under the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, Federal Register, V. 56, No. 117, June 18, 1991, and later amendments, Colorado State University’s Human Research Committee (HRC) is required to review and approve all proposed research involving humans that is conducted under the University’s auspices. Approval is required regardless of funding status or sponsorship. Our campus policies are affirmed to the federal government in a document titled “Federalwide Assurance of Compliance with DHHS Regulations for Protection of Human Research Subjects” (1996, copy available on the Web page or by request).
The main considerations and responsibilities of the HRC are to determine that
a. the potential risks to research subjects are adequately addressed and their confidentiality is assured.
b. adequate explanation of the potential risks and safeguards, as well as benefits, are given to the subjects and their consent to participate is validated.
c. the proposals are clearly planned and the risk/benefit ratio to the subjects is clearly articulated and acceptable.
Philosophically, the HRC believes that investigators who use humans in their studies have a fundamental ethical responsibility to inform the participants of the nature of the investigation and obtain informed consent for participation in the studies. The procedure for obtaining informed consent may differ from one study to another, but using a carefully considered procedure has the advantage that it will reduce problems for the investigator in the future. Participants who have a clear understanding of the extent and purpose of their role in a study are less likely to have complaints about the investigator and the study. The fundamental right of individuals to be informed of their role in research should not be violated by investigators, and should be of particular concern to all involved in conducting research involving human participation. Failure of even one researcher to abide by ethical guidelines could jeopardize the future right of everyone at the University to conduct research.
The Administrator for the HRC is a staff person (see below) with the Regulatory Compliance Office, located at 410 University Services Center. All inquiries, correspondence, and submissions should be directed there.
A current copy of the curriculum vitae of the Principal Investigator must be on file in the Administrator’s office. If you have submitted a vitae since July 1 of this year, you do not need to include it with this application.
If this project is being conducted for a graduate degree, the student’s faculty advisory committee should approve it before it is submitted to the HRC. The faculty Principal Investigator will receive the original review and approval documentation; the student will receive copies through his/her campus department address. Renewal documents will be sent to the Principal Investigator only, since the student typically has graduated. It is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator to retain records and report the status of the project for renewal or close-out.
Data from human subjects are not to be collected until approval is received from the Human Research Committee.
Training of the PI:
A protocol may be reviewed, but not approved, until the Principal Investigator has successfully completed one of CSU’s human research protection training options and met any continuing education requirements. This became a requirement with CSU’s 2001 Federalwide Assurance. Details about training are linked from the human research web site at www.research.colostate.edu/rcoweb.
How to proceed:
1. Become familiar with this packet. Consult other links on the Human Research web page (FAQ and tips especially).
2. Complete Parts A, B, C & D. This must be done for all types of review. Include all necessary attachments.
3. Preliminarily determine the type of review for which your project would qualify (the final determination rests with the HRC and any project may be referred to the HRC for full review at a regularly convened meeting). If you have questions about the type of review for which your project will qualify, call the HRC Administrator in the Regulatory Compliance Office (see below).
• Exempt Review: See Exemption Criteria. Submit anytime. Submit the original application. Keep a copy for yourself. Reviewed by one reviewer. Response in approximately 10 days.
• Expedite Review: See Expedite Criteria. Submit anytime. Submit the original application and one entire copy (but only one copy of the proposal/prospectus and résumé). Keep a copy for yourself. Reviewed by two reviewers. Response in approximately 14 days.
• Full Review: Every other type of activity. Submit by noon on second Thursday of every month. Submit the original application and 13 entire copies (but only one copy of the proposal/prospectus and résumé). Keep a copy for yourself. Reviewed by full HRC at regular monthly meeting on the third Thursday of every month. Response is within 10 business days after committee meeting.
Remember: Each application set represents your project to the HRC reviewer. It must be complete.
Submit application and copies to:
HRC Administrator style="mso-spacerun:yes">
Regulatory Compliance
410 University Services Center
Campus 2011
After review, you will receive an e-mail or printed determination notice (copy to the student co-PI via campus mail to the department) outlining the reviewers' concerns. Once the concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, a written approval notice will be sent to both the researcher and the student Co-PI. Federal certification forms will be provided if the project is being submitted for funding to a federal agency requiring such forms (USDA, NIH).
Recognizing every situation has unique characteristics, please do not hesitate to call the Administrator if you have questions or concerns: Janell Meldrem, HRC Administrator. Telephone: 970-491-1655 style="mso-spacerun:yes"> FAX: 970-491-2293 E-mail: janell.meldrem@colostate.edu.
2. Forms to be completed: Application to Use Human Subjects H-100
Part A: Cover page.
Part B: Research Project Review Summary.
Part C: Protocol information, to be typed on your word processor in Word. Every question must be answered, even if "not applicable."
Part D: Special requirements/attachments checklist. Don’t forget a copy of the entire proposal or prospectus.
3. Helpful information All of these are available separately on the HRC Forms web site.
a. Exempt criteria
b. Expedite criteria
c. Risks of common procedures (focus groups, blood draws, etc.)
d. Definitions
e. Elements of a consent form
f. Model consent form. If your project will require a consent form, remove the italics, bracketed
style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;" style="mso-tab-count:1"> text from this model and add project-specific information to produce a consent form that is typically suitable for a routine project.
For best results, save this as a file to your computer. If bullets or different formatting are needed, unprotect the file.
|
Office Use Only: HRC Tracking number: _____________ Type of Review: ? Exempt ? Expedite ? Full Category #_______ PI Trained Y ? N? |
|
APPLICATION FOR Human subjects research review COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (Please type or electronically fill)
Complete the cover page, review summary, and sections A, B, C & D. For full review protocols, submit the ORIGINAL (with original signatures and copy of proposal/dissertation/thesis) and 13 copies (each with attachments except proposal/dissertation/thesis) to Regulatory Compliance Office (RCO), 410 University Services Center, Campus Delivery 2011. Assistance is available on the RCO web site at http://www.research.colostate.edu/rcoweb |
|
H-100 COVER SHEET Part A |
|
Project Title (identical to proposal or thesis/dissertation): Community Based Writing Journals: Principles and Practices OR Grant Title if different from Project Title: style="mso-no-proof:yes"> |
Contact Information
Principal Investigator (PI):
|
Name: Dr. Tobi Jacobi |
Department: English
|
|
Campus Mailing Address & Mail Code: 359 Eddy Hall
|
Phone #: (970) 491-3344 |
|
E-Mail Address: tobi.jacobi@colostate.edu |
|
Co-Investigator (attach information if more than one Co-PI)>:
|
Name: Renee Rallo |
Department: English |
|
Campus Mailing Address & Mail Code: 359 Eddy Hall
|
Phone #: (970) 221-1521 |
|
E-Mail Address: rrallo@lamar.colostate.edu |
|
|
Funding Source: n/a
|
PASS #: n/a |
|
Proposed Start Date style="color:red"> (may not precede approval date): OR X “Upon HRC approval” |
If Co-PI is a student, is this project for a: X thesis dissertation other
|
|
I think this qualifies for the following type of review: Exempt Category number (submit original) X Expedite Category number (submit original & one copy) Full Review (submit original & 13 copies) |
New Protocol YES X NO Resubmission YES NO Follow-up to 118 request YES NO |
|
|
|
As the PI submitting this proposed research and signing below, I agree to conduct the research involving human subjects as presented in the protocol or modifications to it and as approved by the Department and the Human Research Committee; to obtain and document informed consent and provide a copy of the consent form to each subject unless this is waived by the HRC; to present any proposed modifications in the research to the HRC for review and approval prior to implementation; to retain records for the mandated lengths of time; and to report to the HRC any problems or injuries to subjects.
PI Signature: _____________________________________________ Date: __________________
My signature below confirms that I have read this protocol and approve of this research.
Department Chair/Head or Acting Signature
Signature:____________________________________________ Date: ___________________
(If PI is Department Head, please have alternate/designee sign)
PART B. RESEARCH PROJECT REVIEW SUMMARY Your completion of the following checklist will facilitate the review process.
1. SUBJECT POPULATION: (Check all appropriate boxes.)
Healthy adults X Children or minors (<18)
Institutional residents Cognitively or psychologically impaired
Elderly Pregnant women or fetuses
Prisoners or parolees Non-English speaking
2. If the research involves any of the following, check the appropriate boxeS:
Interview X Survey/questionnaire
Clinical studies Behavioral observation
Investigational drugs Investigational devices
Deception Waiver of consent
Study of existing data Controlled substances
Study of human biological specimens Microorganisms or recombinant DNA
Venipuncture Genetic research
PI or Co-PI is the treating physician
3. LOCATION(S) OF RESEARCH TO BE CONDUCTED AT:
CSU campus style="mso-tab-count:2"> Other locations, specify: Questionnaires will be mailed and will be completed by respondents and mailed back.
4. INFORMED CONSENT OF SUBJECTS: Your study protocol must clearly address one of the following areas: (justification for #2 & #3 must be included in your application) Discuss details in purpose section, (question If).
X INFORMED CONSENT: Signed informed consent is the default. A model consent is available on the HRC website and should be used as a basis for developing your informed consent document. If applicable, the proposed consent must be submitted with the study protocol. http://www.research.colostate.edu/rcoweb/hr/hr_forms.htm
COVER LETTER: You may request a waiver of documented informed consent under the following conditions: (1) That the only recording linking the subject and the research would be the consent document and the principle risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject’s wishes will govern; (45CFR46.117c1), OR (2)That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent if normally required outside of the research context. (45CFR46117c2).
It is the responsibility of the investigator to: a) provide clear justification for how a project meets the criteria for waiver of documented informed consent under one of the
two previous categories, and b) provide what will be used to inform the subjects about research activities. It may be a telephone or verbal script, a cover letter, or some other means.
The cover letter needs to be sent to the subjects and to the HRC on CSU departmental letterhead.
NO INFORMED CONSENT: You may request a waiver of informed consent under the following conditions: (1) The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects; (2) the waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; (3) the research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration; and (4) when appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation (45CFR46.116d).
It is the responsibility of the investigator to: a) explain how a project meets all four of the criteria for waiver of informed consent and b) where applicable, provide an alternate form of sharing study information with prospective subjects (i.e., a public service announcement, or a modified version of a consent to be used in research that by design requires deception – this type of research requires an accompanying debriefing form that completes the informed consent process).
PART C. RESEARCH PROTOCOL:
I. PURPOSE, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES: Describe the following:
a. Purpose (will be used in assessing the risk/benefit ratio for subjects. The hypothesis to be tested may be listed.)
b. Research methods and procedures of the study. (It is OK to diagram complex designs. Please include information on the time commitment required for each activity.)
c. Variables to be studied (what is being measured or examined).
d. Describe equipment used with subjects, if any.
e. How will subject confidentiality or anonymity be maintained? If a linked list is used, list when it will be destroyed. Provide a sample of the code that will be used.
f. Describe the consent process and method of consent to be used. (signed consent, cover letter, other)
g. How will research records be maintained during and upon completion of the project? (This may include audio or videotapes). Indicate when the records and/or tapes will be destroyed. Federal Regulations require that study data and consent documents be kept for a minimum of 3 years after the completion of the study by the PI; for longitudinal projects, a longer period may be needed.
h. Address how you will monitor this study to ensure that the study is being conducted according to the protocol.
i. Is a Data Safety Monitoring Board required to conduct such monitoring? YES NO
If yes, the HRC may request copies of the reports.
II. SUBJECT SELECTION: Indicate the following (this section must also be completed for secondary data analysis):
a. How will subjects be recruited and where will the recruitment take place? (submit recruitment material)
b. If secondary data analysis is being conducted, please describe the original consent procedures.
c. What are the characteristics of the subject population? (age, gender, student, disease conditions, behavioral abnormalities; affiliations or memberships)
d. How many subjects do you plan to study?
e. Address the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Federal regulations consider minors, pregnant women and prisoners vulnerable populations that require added protection. When vulnerable populations are involved, describe why they are necessary. Excluding any group, i.e., minors, elderly, gender, ethnic minorities, must be clearly justified and inconvenience can’t be the reason. For example, if minors are in a classroom where recruitment will take place, parental permission must be obtained or justification must be made to exclude the minors.
f. Will subjects be compensated for participation? If so, please describe the proposed compensation.
g. Criteria for excluding participants involuntarily (such as “failed to keep food diary as required”)
h. Letters of agreement/approval from the organizations that will be recruiting subjects for the project will be needed. Such letters need to be initiated by the organization, on organization letterhead, and signed by a person authorized to do so. The letters need to include statements a) that the organization is familiar with the scope of the project, b) that it is satisfied the individuals it is involving are adequately protected as human research subjects, c) that the subjects’ participation is completely voluntary, and d) identify what the organization’s involvement will entail.
III. RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS:
a. Describe any potential risks to subjects and assess the likelihood and seriousness of those risks. (If there are no known risks, state as such, but do NOT respond “NA”.) These could include: physical, psychological trauma or stress, legal, social, economic, loss of confidentiality.
b. Please describe the proposed methods to minimize the risks and discomforts associated with the research. For example, document how potential psychological distress will be addressed, by whom, and with what credentials (provide letter of agreement from counselor explaining their role – this must be someone other than the researchers on the project) Specify what factors will lead to stopping procedures causing physical or emotional stress.
c. If the methods of research create potential risks, describe other methods, if any, that were considered and why they will not be used.
d. Address procedures for maintaining confidentiality if a breach of confidentiality represents a risk.
IV. ADVERSE EVENTS: Explain your reporting mechanism for reporting adverse and serious adverse events to the HRC.
V. BENEFITS: Describe the anticipated benefits of the research to the individual subjects, to the particular group or class from which the subject population is drawn. The benefits must be realistic and not overly stated of what each person is likely to gain from the research. If there is no direct benefit to the subject, state so. For example: “There is no known benefit in participating in this study, but we hope you will gain more knowledge on…” Compensation, payment for participation, gifts, etc., are NOT benefits.
VI. Other matters pertinent to the human participant.
Part D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS/ATTACHMENTS CHECKLIST: For the items below, check where applicable and include with your protocol submission. Items marked “required” must accompany an HRC protocol application or the project can not be approved.
Research Proposal Materials
Grant proposal (if this is a funded project, this is required)
X Thesis/dissertation methods (if the project is a thesis or dissertation, this is required)
CV< (If this is a first time submission as PI, this is required. A current copy of the curriculum vitae of the PI must be on file in the Administrator’s office. If the PI has submitted a vitae since July 1 of the current year, the PI does not need to include it with this application).
Research Instruments/Tools
X Informed Consent, or
X Cover letter (with justification for waiver), or
Justification for waiving informed consent
Interviews (phone or in person) - attach script if applicable and questions to be asked.
X Surveys/questionnaires - attach surveys and questionnaires if applicable. Provide permission use for instruments (whether copyrighted or public domain)
Focus Groups: attach introductory script to the group and sample questions. (describe in consent form what a focus group is)
X Recruitment materials: Advertisements, press releases, in-class announcements, posted flyers, e-mail announcements, phone script, or other forms of recruitment.
X Debriefing Materials
Research Collaboration/Support Materials
IRB approval from other institutions involved in research (collaborating university, hospital, etc.)
Letters of cooperation from participating sites that do not have an IRB.
Letters of agreement (i.e., from a site that is allowing you access, but is not directly involved in research, or a colleague allowing you to recruit from a class, a clinic or business allowing recruitment, etc.)
Letter of collaboration from a counselor if needed.
Secondary Data Analysis< (for research involving secondary data analysis, include original IRB approval and informed consent)
IRB approval from collaborating organization
Consent form from original data analysis
Nicole Meyenberg
Open City: A Journal of Arts and Culture
1114 W. Berks Street
10th Floor Anderson Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19122
December, 9, 2004
Dear Nicole,
I have enjoyed reading the first edition of The Forgotten Bottom Remembered and the back issues of Open City that I recently ordered from New City Press. My interest in examining writing journals I admire, such as Open City, stems from my own desire to become involved in community writing projects and publications. I am seeking you out as a valuable source of knowledge about the initial choices and developing practices that guide the project, and the ways that those principles and practices have developed and changed over time. As such, I’d like to invite you to participate in research that I am conducting for my Master’s thesis about community based writing journals with strong community connections by responding to a questionnaire that inquires about the guiding practices and principles of New City Press. I hope that my analyses of the guiding philosophies and practices of journals of which I think highly will also aid others interested in becoming involved or expanding involvement in community writing and publishing.
My research consists of two parts: my close reading of the content, format, layout and distribution practices of the texts produced by New City Press and a comparison of that textual analysis with the information and knowledge held by members of the editorial staff. To accomplish the second goal, I am asking you to respond to a 2 ½ -page questionnaire that covers questions about the journal’s guiding philosophy and its development, funding, submissions and distribution. I anticipate that the first questionnaire will take about an hour or two to complete. Once I review your responses to the initial questionnaire, I may contact you for a second time to clarify or request more information on particular areas of interest. I anticipate that responding to the follow-up questions, if they are necessary, will take about ½ hour of your time. You will have the option of receiving and responding to the questionnaires by postal mail or e-mail and can indicate your preference on the enclosed consent form.
Responding to this cover letter does not imply your consent to participate in this research. If you wish to become involved, you will need to review and sign the enclosed letter of consent to receive the questionnaire. This consent form provides full details about the nature of my research project and the level of participation I am requesting from you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have about my project, my intentions or my approach. Your participation would greatly enhance the depth of my study, and I hope that you can find time to contribute your valuable and singular knowledge.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Renee Rallo
Carrie Spitler
The Journal of Ordinary Thought
c/o The Neighborhood Writing Alliance
1313 E. 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
Date
Dear Carrie,
I have enjoyed reading the back issues of The Journal of Ordinary Thought that I recently ordered. My interest in examining writing journals I admire, such as The Journal of Ordinary Thought, stems from my own desire to become involved in community writing projects and publications. I am seeking you out as a valuable source of knowledge about the initial choices and developing practices that guide the project, and the ways that those principles and practices have developed and changed over time. As such, I’d like to invite you to participate in research that I am conducting for my Master’s thesis about community based writing journals with strong community connections by responding to a questionnaire that inquires about the guiding practices and principles of The Journal of Ordinary Thought. I hope that my analyses of the guiding philosophies and practices of journals of which I think highly will also aid others interested in becoming involved or expanding involvement in community writing and publishing.
My research consists of two parts: my close reading of the content, format, layout and distribution practices of the texts produced in the name of the Journal of Ordinary Thought and a comparison of that textual analysis with the information and knowledge held by members of the editorial staff. To accomplish the second goal, I am asking you to respond to a 2 ½ -page questionnaire that covers questions about the journal’s guiding philosophy and its development, funding, submissions and distribution. I anticipate that the first questionnaire will take about an hour or two to complete. Once I review your responses to the initial questionnaire, I may contact you for a second time to clarify or request more information on particular areas of interest. I anticipate that responding to the follow-up questions, if they are necessary, will take about ½ hour of your time. You will have the option of receiving and responding to the questionnaires by postal mail or e-mail and can indicate your preference on the enclosed consent form.
Responding to this cover letter does not imply your consent to participate in this research. If you wish to become involved, you will need to review and sign the enclosed letter of consent to receive the questionnaire. This consent form provides full details about the nature of my research project and the level of participation I am requesting from you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have about my project, my intentions or my approach. Your participation would greatly enhance the depth of my study, and I hope that you can find time to contribute your valuable and singular knowledge.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Renee Rallo
Asian Pacific American Journal 16 W32nd St, Suite 10A New York, NY 10001
Date
Dear Editor,
I have enjoyed reading the back issues of the Asian Pacific American Journal that I recently ordered. My interest in examining writing journals I admire, such as the Asian Pacific American Journal, stems from my own desire to become involved in community writing projects and publications. I am seeking you out as a valuable source of knowledge about the initial choices and developing practices that guide the project, and the ways that those principles and practices have developed and changed over time. As such, I’d like to invite you to participate in research that I am conducting for my Master’s thesis about community based writing journals with strong community connections by responding to a questionnaire that inquires about the guiding practices and principles of the Asian Pacific American Journal. I hope that my analyses of the guiding philosophies and practices of journals of which I think highly will also aid others interested in becoming involved or expanding involvement in community writing and publishing.
My research consists of two parts: my close reading of the content, format, layout and distribution practices of the texts produced in the name of the Asian Pacific American Journal and a comparison of that textual analysis with the information and knowledge held by members of the editorial staff. To accomplish the second goal, I am asking you to respond to a 2 ½ -page questionnaire that covers questions about the journal’s guiding philosophy and its development, funding, submissions and distribution. I anticipate that the first questionnaire will take about an hour or two to complete. Once I review your responses to the initial questionnaire, I may contact you for a second time to clarify or request more information on particular areas of interest. I anticipate that responding to the follow-up questions, if they are necessary, will take about ½ hour of your time. You will have the option of receiving and responding to the questionnaires by postal mail or e-mail and can indicate your preference on the enclosed consent form.
Responding to this cover letter does not imply your consent to participate in this research. If you wish to become involved, you will need to review and sign the enclosed letter of consent to receive the questionnaire. This consent form provides full details about the nature of my research project and the level of participation I am requesting from you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have about my project, my intentions or my approach. Your participation would greatly enhance the depth of my study, and I hope that you can find time to contribute your valuable and singular knowledge.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Renee Rallo
Subject line: Follow-up from Renee Rallo
Dear Editor,
Last week, I sent a letter inviting you to contribute your knowledge in the fields of journal publication and community involvement to my thesis research for the Master’ Degree I am pursuing at Colorado State University. In brief, I am exploring the world of community based writing and publications because of my personal desire to become involved in community writing projects and publications after graduation. I aim to investigate and analyze the practices and principles of writing journals I admire so that I can make more informed decisions about my own future community writing and publishing projects.
I am attaching copy of the letter I sent to you last week, for quick and easy reference. Please consider helping my research by responding to a two-page questionnaire. Your knowledge and expertise will add immeasurably to the investigation I am conducting into the guiding philosophies and practices of independent, community-based writing and publications. I know that your time is valuable and limited; if you are unable to correspond, I’d be delighted if you could suggest another staff member with the knowledge and availability to participate in the research correspondence. Please feel free to contact me via mail, email or telephone if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you very much for your time,
Renee Rallo
359 Eddy Hall
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
rrallo@lamar.colostate.edu
(970) 221-1521
| Participant Consent Form | November 2004 Colorado State University |
Community Based Writing Journals: Guiding Principles and Practices
This form is an agreement to participate in a research study. I am interesting in gaining insight into the guiding practices and principles of community based writing journals so that I can develop a plan to work with members of my community in writing journal projects for my thesis work. As the editor of The Journal of Ordinary Thought, you can be of great help providing information about the ways in which the journal has developed. I would like to correspond with you so that I can better understand principles that guide The Journal of Ordinary Thought’s approach to community writing and publishing.
Please be aware that, as a participant in this research, your identity will not be kept confidential. Since the names of the editors are listed on the editorial staff page of each edition of The Journal of Ordinary Thought, I do not plan to omit or change your name as I review your responses and write my thesis. Keep in mind, however, that responding to each question on the questionnaire is optional, so you should not feel obliged to reveal any information that you may want to keep confidential.
There are no direct risks or benefits to participating in this study. It is not possible to identify all potential risks in research procedures, but the researcher(s) have taken reasonable safeguards to minimize any known and potential, but unknown, risks. While there are no direct benefits to you, I hope that engaging in correspondence about The Journal of Ordinary Thought will be beneficial to both of us as it may result in widening the network of writers and editors interested in understanding and promoting community based writing journal projects
Your participation in this research is voluntary. If you decide to participate in the study, you may withdraw your consent and stop participating at any time. Keep in mind, also, that in all correspondence for this research study, you may choose whether or not to respond to each question individually and you may opt to skip any question that asks you to reveal information you do not wish to reveal. The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act determines and may limit Colorado State University's legal responsibility if an injury happens because of this study. Claims against the University must be filed within 180 days of the injury.
Page 1 of 2 Participant’s initials _________ Date ________________
Before you decide whether or not to engage in correspondence about the guiding practices and principles of The Journal of Ordinary Thought, please contact me with any questions at 970-221-1521 or rrallo@lamar.colostate.edu. If you have additional questions, please contact Tobi Jacobi, who is my faculty advisor and the principal investigator for this research. If you have any questions about your rights as a volunteer in this research, contact Celia Walker, Director of Regulatory Compliance, at 970-491-1553.
I look forward to learning more from you.
Renee Rallo, Colorado State University
Your signature acknowledges that you have read the information stated and willingly sign this consent form. Your signature also acknowledges that you have received, on the date signed, a copy of this document containing two pages. Please initial and date the bottom of each page.
Please check one:
___ I would like to participate and would like to receive and respond to the questionnaire by postal mail.
___ I would like to participate and would like to receive and respond to the questionnaire electronically through email.
| _____________________________ | |
| Participant name (printed) | |
| _____________________________ | _____________ |
| Participant signature | Date |
| _____________________________ | _____________ |
| Researcher Signature | Date |
If you do not wish to participate, please check the following box:
___I do not wish to participate in correspondence for this research.
Page 2 of 2 Participant’s initials _________ Date ________________
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your responses are instrumental in helping me understand the guiding practices and principles of your journal so that I can understand how community based writing journals can develop. If necessary, please use the back or attach additional sheets for your responses. Also, feel free to attach any additional documents that will help me understand the journal more completely. You may skip any question that asks you to reveal information you do not wish to reveal
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your responses are instrumental in helping me understand the guiding practices and principles of your journal so that I can understand how community based writing journals can develop. If necessary, please use the back or attach additional sheets for your responses. Also, feel free to attach any additional documents that will help me understand the journal more completely. You may skip any question that asks you to reveal information you do not wish to reveal
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your responses are instrumental in helping me understand the guiding practices and principles of your journal so that I can understand how community based writing journals can develop. If necessary, please use the back or attach additional sheets for your responses. Also, feel free to attach any additional documents that will help me understand the journal more completely. You may skip any question that asks you to reveal information you do not wish to reveal
Renee Rallo
359 Eddy Building
English Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
rrallo@lamar.colostate.edu
(970) 221-1521
Asian Pacific American Journal
16 W32nd St, Suite 10A
New York, NY 10001
Date
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for corresponding with me about the guiding principles and practices of the Asian Pacific American Journal. Your valuable input helped me understand your choices so that I can make more informed choices as I develop my own community based writing journal project. Hopefully, my summer travels will allow me time to visit New York. I look forward to visiting the places that I have read about in the Asian Pacific American Journal.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your experiences as a journal editor with me.
Sincerely,
Renee Rallo
Kate Kiefer. (1994-[m]DateFormat(Now(), 'yyyy')[/m]). Working With Human Subjects. The WAC Clearinghouse. Colorado State University. Available at https://wac.colostate.edu/repository/writing/guides-old/.
Copyright © 1994-[m]DateFormat(Now(), 'yyyy')[/m] Colorado State University and/or this site's authors, developers, and contributors. Some material displayed on this site is used with permission.