ISIS Brainstorming

One of the goals of the workshop was to start planning toward a larger conference next year, and identify the issues and topics that might make up such a conference. I didn’t take any pictures at the workshop–there were more cameras there than people, so I figured that I would hold off. However, I since I stopped taking notes about half-way through, I wanted to record some of the topics raised. The stunningly handsome faces you see on the left are Barry Wellman of U Toronto and Richard Smith of Simon Fraser.

(Click to enlarge.)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Posted 4/14/2004 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    Great to see you there Alex. DO you have more comments, reflections to share, either here or by email to me? We’d love to have them.


  2. stef
    Posted 4/14/2004 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    we did not have enough time to delve into specifics….

    lots of loose ends and ideas floated.

    some serious concerns about the future where raised by Stephanie Perrin.

    can you guys see the back board?

    I will try from memory to explain.

    from my perspective


  3. stef
    Posted 4/14/2004 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    is anyone out there?


  4. stef
    Posted 4/14/2004 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    we should work on a standardized Institutional Review Board to make sure ethical standards regarding human subject research be maintained.

    the following is from Simon Frazier University…

    some of the things we touched upon requires a second workshop, now that the topics have been introduced…I mean, steve really gets assaulted with some of his reflectionism.

    We should probably do some of this work in the context of theatre rather than real world work given some of the risks with college students, or visually impaired persons. In fact, as Professor Smith rightfully pointed out, it would be irresponsible to place an eyetap upon a visually impaired person in a drug infested neiborhood. some of the ideas may just come in over the press like alex suggested.

    Risk Analysis

    7.1 Researchers should assess all reasonably foreseeable risks involved in, and benefits expected to arise from research projects. Researchers involved in greater than minimal risk research projects should be prepared to document reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits.
    7.2 Researchers should employ methods that avoid or reduce possible risks, and maximize benefits in keeping with disciplinary and epistemological norms and standards.

    7.3 Researchers should consider possibilities that exist with respect to possible:

    physical harm,

    psychological harm,

    injury to reputation or privacy,

    breach of any relevant law.

    7.4 Researchers should consider not only the likelihood of a given risk, but also parameters such as its duration and the likely reversibility of its impact should it materialize.
    7.5 Benefits include specific advantages to subjects, to third parties, or to society or a segment thereof, and any general increase in human knowledge. Benefits may arise from advantages or increases in knowledge that are actively sought by the researcher or as by-products of the research (e.g., serendipitous events).

    7.6 In projects involving more than minimal risk it is the responsibility of both researchers and the Research Ethics Board to balance risks and benefits. Projected benefits should outweigh reasonably foreseeable risks. With regard to non-minimal risk, the more incalculable the risks or the less tangible the benefits, the more cautious must researchers and the Research Ethics Board be.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>