Frankly, I'm rather concerned about some of the Masters dissertation projects into "uses of the Internet" which are announced on this forum and others from time to time. The level of triviality sometimes borders on the memorable "study" quoted by Tom Reeves: "the quality of 'discourse' that takes place in cafes located within bookstores" (Questioning the Questions of Instructional Technology Research, ITForum #5, February, 1995). It seems to me that in some of these projects the principal motivation for studying transactions is convenience--you don't need to get off your bum (butt) and actually meet people, or do any hard work, it just comes to you with your morning e-mail--and coffee.
It's an interesting communications and research issue and it's got something to do with the memorable New Yorker (I think) cartoon which shows two dogs at a computer terminal. One says: "On the, nobody knows you're a dog." I don't know whether it is related to Lynne Schrum's paper or not.
But Lynne raises some important issues in this burgeoning field of research. Not the least, the question of ownership of the material.
In the qualitative research debate, one of the greatest of all qualitative researchers, Sigmund Freud, is often neglected. I suppose many of his theories are out of vogue these days, but his methods--particularly where ethics are concerned--are difficult to fault. I would recommend looking back at his Collected Correspondence to see the respect which he accorded his patients over publication of their case histories. (If old Sigmond is too daunting, there's a fairly accurate and most readable, fictionalised account in T.H. Allen's The White Hotel.)
Before publication, Freud invariably sent a copy of the article to the patient concerned and invited her to comment on its accuracy and his conclusions. Sometimes the patient's comments were included as a Post Script, sometimes they occasioned a partial rewrite. "Ownership" of the case history was certainly an issue he took seriously. And, Freud was scrupulous about both accuracy and preserving anonymity. I would recommend anyone considering embarking on a qualitative research project to re-read a Freud case history. Apart from the issue of accuracy and ethics, he's a great writer and stylist.
Researchers who do not have respect for their subjects only deserve publication in the National Enquirer. Unfortunately, there are some who regard anything that appears on the Internet as being in the public domain. I have twice had to write to people suggesting that it would have been polite to let me check for accuracy before quoting me (in one case mis-quoting me).
I fully support Lynne's tenets about ownership and the responsibility of the researcher both to gain the author's permission and to allow her the opportunity to check what is about to be published for accuracy, spelling, etc. I'm sure Sigmund would agree with me.