Statement of Ethics

IDS Senior Seminar
September 29, 2008

Statement on Research Ethics Concerning the Study of the Relationship Between the Internet and Activism

In 1979 the Belmont Report was issued by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and officially titled "Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research." The initial intent of this significant document was to begin enforcing regulations regarding medical ethics pertaining to the application of research on the human subject. The report is based on three essential ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence and justice.

As I am beginning research for my senior thesis for Interdisciplinary Studies I must be able to address any concerns pertaining to the ethical consequences of my project on any human subjects. My topic will involve the relationship between internet technologies and activism with particular interest appointed to the Appalachian State University chapter of the United Students Against Sweatshops movement. My research will necessitate work with human subjects as I intend to communicate regularly and primarily with members of the national USAS organization and the chapter at ASU. Though the ethical principles introduced in the Belmont Report were originally proposed for medical research, their applications can be utilized in a broader context to ensure the safety of individuals within the realm of any human subject research.

The first principle declared in the Belmont Report is simply put as respect for persons. This entails "protecting the autonomy of all people and treating them with courtesy and respect and allowing for informed consent." The application of this principle involves adequate information, comprehension and voluntariness. The objectives of my research are concise, clear and made readily available for all potential human subjects. A series of questions that I aim to answer through my studies present my topic well and ensure the respect for any persons involved: How is internet technology complementing and obstructing activists' efforts? How is internet technology redefining what counts as activism? How is small-scale, student-led activism on campuses throughout the United States specifically being affected? How is the ASU chapter of the USAS movement being affected? What does the future look like for activism as internet technology advances? The human subjects I mean to examine consider themselves activists and are interested in learning ways to improve their movement's campaign, and therefore comprehend the information about this topic of research and are certainly willing to participate voluntarily.

The next principle put forth stated the importance of beneficence, or "maximizing benefits for the research project while minimizing risks to the research subjects." What possible long-term effects may result from this improvement of knowledge? On the positive side of my research, benefits seem to abound for activists as a more lucid insight concerning how the internet could be used more effectively to assist campaigns would be made available. Conversely, it is difficult to determine what impending risks it may mean for society if these apparent "social improvements" are obtained. For example, with the race to end hunger many efforts have been directed by social organizations towards increasing food supplies to send to less fortunate peoples, yet many studies have proven that these increases ultimately cause population growth and hence more starvation.

What might it mean if the USAS operations and other anti-sweatshop movements were eventually entirely successful and ended all sweatshop labor? Would the economy suffer drastically under the regime of global capitalism, whose success exists due to extreme exploitation of workers? Would population increases follow with safe and fair working conditions as those once abused may be able to focus more on sexual gratification instead of their survival? These risks are certainly logical, but the elimination of the dangerous exploitation of workers, often women and children, still would be a remarkable benefit and, in my opinion, a pivotal step in creating a safer, more democratic world.

Another concern with the potential risks of a better understanding of how the internet could enhance social movements might involve its usage by socially detrimental organizations or individuals. For instance, the KKK and other neo-Nazi chapters have a multitude of websites in order to promote their social causes. If they attain knowledge of how to improve their supremacist endeavors this might result in the loss of freedoms or safety for targeted individuals. Then again, ideas of equality and peace have spread enormously in the past few decades, especially in industrialized societies with abundant internet technologies, and efforts to squander hate-filled sentiments have expanded substantially as the power of these types of groups has continuously waned.

Finally, the report endorsed the notion of justice, which ensures that "reasonable, non-exploitative, and well-considered procedures are administered fairly." Researchers must justify who ought to receive the benefits of their work and who ought to bear its burdens. Though all of the various tactics and causes activists endorse cannot be addressed here, it can be stated that activism recognizes both aspects of society which seemingly need improvement and institutions which must be challenged and dismantled in order to produce the desired changes. If I am to administer justice with my research I must demand that every social movement closely examine their policies and attempt to justify what these may eventually mean for those challenged.

If attending to the group I will be working with on my campus in this study, the ASU chapter of USAS, I must look at the distribution of benefits and burdens for all those involved. Many benefits would follow if university officials adopted the demands to ensure that our university products did not come from sweatshops. Appalachian students would be assured that they were not supporting sweatshop labor practices when they purchased university products and would likely feel far more pride in owning clothes, mugs, etc. with our logo on it. More serious benefits would affect the workers who make these products via the guarantee of safe working conditions and a fair wage.

On the other hand, burdens would fall on the corporations with whom we have contracts to provide university apparel and accessories. As of now, the university has stated that it will not sign onto an agreement to adopt measures of transparency in factories and other corporate practice because these actions may infringe anti-trust laws. Basically, until USAS can get legal consent from the United States Department of Justice, the question of justice in this case remains in examining whether (1) the adoption of these measures could possibly breach anti-trust laws and hurt ridiculously wealthy corporations or (2) whether sweatshop conditions should be allowed to easily continue dangerously exploiting underprivileged workers since there are few methods of transparency for corporate activities. I believe underprivileged workers have felt the burden for too long.

After scrutinizing the ethical principles established in the Belmont Report and their application to my specific research, I have concluded that though certain aspects to the completion of this study may slightly bend the stipulations set forth concerning beneficence, the potential benefits of this research to positive social improvements far outweighs any latent risks. In examining the relationship between internet technology and its particular usage by activists, this improvement of knowledge holds the promise of optimistic progress in the domain of social justice.