All Intercom ethics cases are fictitious and are intended to provide opportunities to highlight and discuss ethical issues in technical communication. Any resemblance to real people or organizations is coincidental. Please send your responses to intercom@stc.org. Responses will be printed in an upcoming issue of Intercom as space permits.
Note from the Editor: This is John Bryan's last ethics column for Intercom. He began as column editor in 1992 and says he has thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to work and correspond with so many STC members over the years. The column will continue with a new editor, yet to be announced. STC thanks John for his contributions to Intercom.
Edited by John G. Bryan | Senior Member
By Carie S. Lambert
Kathryn was a 38-year-old wife, mother, sister, and daughter. In 2008, Kathryn's experience caring for her mother, who was battling breast cancer, changed her professional interests. Passionate to improve communication for and with oncology patients, Kathryn joined a company that specializes in designing medical websites. In her job, she designed online medical communities and sites. Then, in 2010, Kathryn had her own scare: a diagnosis of four breast masses. After many tests, Kathryn learned that her own masses were benign, but the experience heightened her sympathy for those who suffer from gynecologic cancers.
A year into her new job, Kathryn was assigned to design a website for a nonprofit organization that serves ovarian cancer patients and survivors. Kathryn began by investigating five established websites for oncology-related communities, hoping to gain insight into user needs and design strategies. She would then ask one site's participants how they used the site and how the site met their needs. That research would lead to a recommendation report and proposed design.
For her analysis, Kathryn chose artifacts to analyze from each website. The threads she chose to analyze contained conversations that were diverse in language, posting dates, content, and unique participants. She accessed her artifacts—each thread contained over 400 posts—so she could analyze the participants' purposes for posting: That is, why did they post on this board—to ask a question, share resources, provide advice, post experiences, or socialize and network? What did they expect from the board? How did they communicate on the board? And what improvements did they suggest? She then analyzed the data, charted the data she collected, and recorded her findings.
Among the sites was one that presented information about breast cancer, treatments, lifestyle changes, and healthy living as well as providing interactive forums: discussion boards, chat rooms, and online communication with physicians. The site was a public domain, created by a nonprofit organization, and open for anyone to read; visitors did not need to register with the site to read any of its content. However, the site did require registration by visitors who wanted to post or participate in chat rooms. To register, a visitor needed to provide her name and email address, create a password, and agree to the website's Community Rules.
Not wanting to influence the site's natural environment by introducing herself to the community, Kathryn did not initially register. She especially wanted to avoid “contaminating her data” by joining in the discussion board conversations. Instead, she simply gathered “artifacts” from the site.
After Kathryn completed her artifact collection from all five sites, she registered for the breast cancer site so she could interact with the participants. Doing so would yield information on how the users thought the site could be improved, what they thought was important about the site, what they wanted to learn, whether they would participate in research, and what kind of research would help them.
In her initial posting, Kathryn introduced herself, tried to align herself with the community by identifying herself as the daughter of a recent breast cancer survivor, and briefly explained that she would like to know more about other members' participation in the discussion board. She did not reveal that she had already obtained past posts as an artifact for research.
Her posting elicited some swift, intense responses:
- “You do not belong here. If your mother wants to be part of this community, we invite her to join us, but if you have not experienced breast cancer, you cannot relate.”
- “I do not want to be your guinea pig, and you had better not use anything I say.”
- “This is a private conversation, and you are interrupting us.”
- “I would be glad to communicate with you privately. Please message me.”
- “You are violating this community's rules. I have reported you.”
Kathryn knew that she had not violated the Community Rules, but—horrified by the responses—she deleted her post. Had she done something wrong? She decided to ask her company's ethics officer for advice.
The ethics officer consulted with his counterparts at other companies before responding. Their advice to Kathryn was to “do damage control.” They said that Kathryn had done nothing wrong, but they recommended that she post a brief comment on the discussion board: to apologize for offending some participants, to reiterate that her personal history meant that she could relate to the community, and to emphasize how much she values the women on the discussion board. Kathryn posted the message and added that, out of respect for the women who had responded, she would post no more in that thread. Her second post received four responses:
- “I don't believe anything you say. If you were interested in research, you would be in medical school and you would know about these topics that we are discussing. I don't believe your mother had cancer.”
- “I would be happy to PM [privately message] with you to discuss your questions and interests.”
- “I agree with [the first respondent]. I will PM you; just contact me.”
- “Thank you for your concern. Contact me if you have any questions. I would be willing to chat with you, and I hope your mother is doing well.”
Although she received some positive responses, Kathryn's concern about the ethics of her research methods gnawed at her. What do you think?
Questions
- Did Kathryn act unethically when she gathered her artifact from a public discussion board?
- Did Kathryn act unethically when she posted on the discussion board as a researcher instead of as a member of the intended breast cancer community?
- Can Kathryn ethically publish her research, including quotes and paraphrases, especially in light of the discussion board participants' negative responses? Should she paraphrase the comments, or can she directly quote and cite examples from the site?
- Should she report the negative response to her supervisor, to the client, and to other professionals?
CARIE LAMBERT (carie.lambert@utdallas.edu) received her BA in English from Baylor University and began working as a medical writer and editor. After 12 years, she returned to school to earn her MA in technical writing from the University of North Texas, and she is currently completing her PhD in technical communication and rhetoric at Texas Tech University. She teaches at The University of Texas at Dallas and consults as a technical editor. Her research focuses on ethics, communication and breast cancer, and medical rhetoric.
