45 CFR 46.102(f)(2):

(f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator
(whether professional or student) conducting research obtains
(1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or
(2) Identifiable private information.
[. . .] Private information includes information about behavior that occurs
in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no
observation or recording is taking place, and information which has been
provided for specific purposes by an individual and which the individual
can reasonably expect will not be made public (for example, a medical
record). [. . .]


Private information - this isn't stuff you go telling everyone.  It's fine
to review results of a FOIA request, or a set of publications, and try to
make something of the authors' culture or views.  The IRB has limited time.
While not getting a required approval is a bad career move, it's also
unethical to go to the IRB with things that aren't supposed to go there
because then you are bogging down the approval process or distracting the
IRB in the decisions it is supposed to make.

-Wilhelmina Randtke

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Joseph Montibello <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> ++
>
> Mark N's comments made me wonder, "what kinds of things *don't* require
> IRB approval?"  Here's a link to a page with the US's HHS department,
> Office for Human Research Protections.
>
> http://1.usa.gov/OHRPchart
>
> Nice little flowchart / decision tree. Looks like Paul's particular bit of
> research wouldn't require IRB approval. (import
> standardLegalDisclaimer.notALawyer)
>
> Joe Montibello, MLIS
> Library Systems Manager
> Dartmouth College Library
> 603.646.9394
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/5/12 12:19 PM, "Notess, Mark H" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >They are public: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1206&L=CODE4LIB
> >
> >Have at it.
> >
> >While I fully support ethical research and even IRBs, we do everyone a
> >disservice by appealing to IRBs to approve things that don't require their
> >approval, even if we're just doing so to be "careful." It reminds me of
> >the disservice we libraries sometimes do by asking for permission to use
> >things when we could instead make a fair use argument.
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >On 6/5/12 11:31 AM, "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >>I think our list archives ought to be public, and ought ideally to be
> >>available to anyone without even having to make an out of band request
> >>to ELM. Are they not, can't you just download them from the web without
> >>even having to ask?  Either way, yes, anyone should be able to get the
> >>archives to use them for whatever research they want.
> >>
> >>On 6/4/2012 4:54 PM, Edward M. Corrado wrote:
> >>> I personally don't have any objections to this, and in fact, would be
> >>> interested to find out what you discover. Make sure you check with your
> >>>IRB
> >>> to see if they require anything (sometimes even an anonymous survey can
> >>> require IRB approval) if you are considering publishing your results.
> >>>
> >>> Also, if you are concerned or interested about any potential ethical
> >>> issues, you may want to check out the Assocation of Internet
> >>>Researchers:
> >>> http://aoir.org/
> >>>
> >>> Edward
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Paul Orkiszewski
> >>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm interested in analyzing the list archives with a goal of studying
> >>>>how
> >>>> concepts move through the list over time, the relationship (or
> >>>> non-relationship) between discussions in the list and eventual
> >>>> implementations and practices in the broader library community, the
> >>>> zeitgeist over time of an active development community, etc.  I'm not
> >>>>sure
> >>>> about the tools and products at the moment, but the outcomes would be
> >>>> anonymous and there would be no e-mail harvest of any kind, especially
> >>>>and
> >>>> specifically any commercial harvesting.  An initial idea as an example
> >>>>of
> >>>> what I'm thinking about is to generate word clouds that could give a
> >>>> snapshot of what's going on over some defined period of time, or
> >>>>concepts
> >>>> most closely associated with a particular term, or an overlap analysis
> >>>> against one of the library science databases.  Stuff like that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Eric Lease Morgan, the list admin, can provide an archive of the list,
> >>>>but
> >>>> I wanted to check with all of you before I asked for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> >>>> ------------
> >>>> *Paul Orkiszewski*
> >>>> Coordinator of Library Technology Services / Associate Professor
> >>>> University Library
> >>>> Appalachian State University
> >>>> 218 College Street
> >>>> P.O. Box 32026
> >>>> Boone, NC 28608-2026
> >>>>
> >>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Phone: 828 262 6588
> >>>> Fax: 828 262 2797
> >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> >>>> ------------
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>