Social network research and human subjects protection: Towards more effective infectious disease control

The issue of human subject protection in relation to social network research on the spread and control of human pathogens is considered. As this area derives most of its concepts and methods from social network analysis more generally, the present discussion has wider relevance. One problem is that...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social networks 2005-05, Vol.27 (2), p.119-137
Main Author: Klovdahl, Alden S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Control theory
Diseases
Environmental protection
Epidemiology
Ethics
Human environment
Human pathogens
Informed Consent
Network Analysis
Network structure
Organizational effectiveness
Pick gun principle
Research Ethics
Social networks
Sociological research
Third parties
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The issue of human subject protection in relation to social network research on the spread and control of human pathogens is considered. As this area derives most of its concepts and methods from social network analysis more generally, the present discussion has wider relevance. One problem is that some Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have assumed that if a participant (who gave informed consent) is to be asked to name network associates these too — automatically — would be human subjects from whom informed consent also must be obtained. Invariably, if this occurs proposed research — whatever its funding and potential contributions might be — is blocked. A conservative approach is taken here. The Common Rule is assumed to provide relevant guidance, the responsibility of IRBs is to make decisions based on the Common Rule, and in consequence the burden is on those proposing social network research to design — and defend — their planned work with this in mind. At the same time, it is argued that it is important not to stifle beneficial research by adding to one inherently conservative review process (of grant proposals) another (of IRBs) so that work is prevented simply because it is research at the frontiers rather than ‘safe’ research.
ISSN:0378-8733
1879-2111
DOI:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.01.006