Timeline for Can I conduct psychology research involving my restaurant customers without their explicit consent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2015 at 9:46 | comment | added | David Richerby | @jakebeal I agree that "check with the review committee" is absolutely the right thing to do. But, still, it would be useful to know if "public behaviour" refers to the behaviour of people in public places or to the behaviour of members of the public. | |
| Oct 3, 2015 at 8:46 | comment | added | jakebeal | @DavidRicherby Cars driving down a public street would clearly be public behavior. People's activities inside their own houses is clearly not. In between... that's why we've got review committees, to try to make sure that an individual's judgement on how to draw such lines is at least vaguely in line with the judgement of others. | |
| Oct 3, 2015 at 8:04 | comment | added | David Richerby | How is "public behaviour" defined? In law, a restaurant is not a public place: it's private property to which the owner allows the public access. (That is, if "public behaviour" means "behaviour of people in public", this isn't it; if it means "the behaviour of members of the public", then it is.) | |
| Oct 3, 2015 at 6:45 | comment | added | jakebeal | @BenVoigt Not quite sure what you mean. The point of review, however, is to confirm that a researcher's assessment of possible harms and likelihoods is reasonable. | |
| Oct 2, 2015 at 15:04 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | A particular release of information that's already public might be implicated in the harm, but calling it causative is a stretch. | |
| Oct 2, 2015 at 9:26 | history | answered | jakebeal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |