![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 34. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
Posted by oracle on November 14, 2002, at 18:46:19
In reply to Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
It is unethical to be both researcher and moderator for the same site.
Posted by Ted on November 14, 2002, at 18:48:48
In reply to Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
Seems to me Gohol is making a big deal about nothing.
So what if Dr. Bob quotes me without attributing the quote to me. The whole point here is anonymity; in that case, just how would he attribute a quote?
No, I don't mind being part of an experiment, nor do I fault Dr. Bob in any way for any "research" he performs with the posts made here. I come here because I like the people.
Ted
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 14, 2002, at 19:07:42
In reply to Re: Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Ted on November 14, 2002, at 18:48:48
I second what Ted said.
Simply because something has been determined to be "unethical" by a group of individuals does not, to me, make it anymore a truth than something being labeled unnaceptable behaviour because it is currently not in fashion, or because it is written up as a disorder in the D.S.M whatever.
Our own critical thinking skills are just as valid.
Obviously including those who may have found this 'unethical' behaviour harmful.In this case, I felt well informed,regarding the nature of the site and have recieved much benefit, and hey, I just like it.
Because a self-ordained higher power has deemed it unethical does not eradicate positive resultsIf no one ever dared, intentionally or not, to flout established ideas, homosexuality would still be considered a mental illness.
We'd still think Galileo was a heretic..and on and on and on..
Posted by IsoM on November 14, 2002, at 20:20:25
In reply to Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
Yes, it's certainly interesting & thought provoking. There's quite a lot to chew on here.
Posted by Dinah on November 14, 2002, at 22:12:59
In reply to Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
Was I the only one to notice the factual errors? Especially in the comments about the nature of Dr. Bob's involvement on the board. In the time I've been here, he's never suggested that this is a place to "get help, advice, and support, not only from other consumers, but from none other than "Dr. Bob" himself." Nor do I see that "it remains a role he takes on and plays in this environment". In fact, during my time on the board, he has strictly enforced the position that he is here only in an administrative function. And even the answers to administrative questions are maddeningly (to me) brief and elusive. I believe I found this entry in the weblog during the time I have been posting, so while it might be an error of timing (since I believe at one time Dr. Bob was more active), the author might have checked it out.
Also, Dr. Bob has always been clear that our contributions to the board can be used by him, at least since I have been posting here.
I also noted a factual error in his negative comments about another person (nothing to do with Dr. Bob.)
But is this actually an article? I assumed that the lack of research was due to the fact that this was a journal entry, interspersed with tales of a young man's personal life, the tribulations of his dot com company, and brief soliloquies on various things that captured his attention.
Is Dr. Bob using us and abusing us? I don't think so; we are free to post or not post as we wish. We all consented, and I give us the credit of assuming we can read and understand. This may be a mental health website, but that doesn't mean we're not intelligent human beings fully capable of giving informed consent. Moreover, I fail to see how anyone could be upset at the violation of their privacy when their original posts are on the internet, and being indexed and accessed by google, for heavens sake. It would behoove all of us to be discreet.
Are his research protocols sufficiently orthodox that his research is a valid contribution to psychological literature? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a d*&n. That's Dr. Bob's problem.
Posted by Jumpy on November 14, 2002, at 23:20:15
In reply to Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
I don't know how many times Dr Bob has informed us this was is a study and that our posts maybe placed in a journal article .... actually I was kinda upset that I did not get quoted in his last journal article ... I wanted my 15 minutes of fame! LOL!
Paul
Posted by oracle on November 15, 2002, at 2:22:49
In reply to I am mad that I didn't get quoted!, posted by Jumpy on November 14, 2002, at 23:20:15
It should be noted that article was written some time ago. The Dr who wrote it is well known.
In the early days Dr Bob did answer questions,
when the board was just starting. It is in the archives. There was no informed concent nor proof folks read the disclaimers. That all has changed, after this first became an issue. A new sign up
system, a test to prove basic understanding of issues on this site.
Without question a researcher cannot exchange personal e-mail and meet with the subjects on lecture trips out of town. Not and produce data
that will be called into question. This is not
a criticisim but a fact. Dr Bob is well meaning
and is trying to be a one man band to keep the ship afloat. I would suspect he will come up
with a solution to this issue.This whole issue, Grohol's posting, etc
has been hashed out before. It is in the archives, too.To me there are really 2 issues that Dr Grohol mentioned that have not been resolved, the research and the copyright issues. There has not
been any research since the first piece, and it was informational in nature. No real biggie here yet, to me, but serious research needs to be done by someone else. To me personally, I could care less about the copyright as this is a web page.
I suspect that some may see this differently. The whole "you get the copyright, I get full use"
seems to blow a hole right through the intent
of copyright. A grey area, perhaps. To own and control ones papers and writings seems a basic right and some may feel differently than I or others on giving this up. This is a can of worms, no ?
Posted by IsoM on November 15, 2002, at 2:41:51
In reply to Context, posted by oracle on November 15, 2002, at 2:22:49
I've read further Dr, Grohol's pages & essays & I see it as you do, oracle. No big can of worms, but issues that can get out of control often do start small. When small, few take notice or think of consequences if it grows.
At all times in that article, Dr. Grohol emphasized that Dr. Bob is a psychiatrist & isn't answerable to the codes that psychologists need to follow. But he did point out the differences in standards that each had. I read it as a reminder to people how delicate the balance can be depending on what designation a practitioner is & how each is answerable in different ways.
I don't know what the personal relationship is between Dr. Bob & Dr. Grohol, but it didn't seem to me that Dr. Gohol was trying to malign Dr. Bob.
On the matter of research, I know reseach that is carried out by one single person is extremely rare nowadays (not like a century or more ago), & safeguards should be in place due to possible unethical behaviour on the part of researchers to skew their results or falsify data. It's not at all far-fetched either & has happened a fair number of times. Results mean money & grants, & some will distort the truth to get the money & prestige.
I'm not suggesting in the slightest that this is something Dr. Bob would do. I'm just pointing out that no one can stand separate from others & say the same regulations & standards don't need to apply to them in their research. There should be no bias just because it may not have a significant impact.
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 15, 2002, at 3:43:47
In reply to Re: Context » oracle, posted by IsoM on November 15, 2002, at 2:41:51
It says page not found when i try *sobs*
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 15, 2002, at 3:56:43
In reply to Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
Hmmm...
Well, I've been here at least 3 1/2 years.. maybe 4 years.. and I remember knowing, all that time, that this was a site for Dr Bobs research. It has always says on the top of the page that your posts might be used.
And I barely remember Dr Bob taking a more active (ie, not just administrative) role here.. so its probably about 3 years since he did that.. quite harsh to accuse him of "He setup and portrays his forums as a place to get help, advice, and support, not only from other consumers, but from none other than "Dr. Bob" himself." How does he do this?? I have never seen anything where he suggests that he will answer medical queries.Also, he states that with 10 years of net experience he has never come across a "I own your posts" kind of clause. Well, he can't have that much experience cos I have come across it before.. most of the "private" (ie, not corporation) sites I use also contain a similar clause.
I do believe Dr Bob should check with individuals befor eusing their posts though.
Oh, and this wonderful Dr Grohal didn't even mention the benefits that many of us get here. maybe he should try seeing from a users point of view, who have no where else to go during the bad times.
This article isn't even dated, so I'm not even gonna think about it anymore.. its a pointless peice of stirring if you ask me!!
Nikki
Posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 6:57:02
In reply to Connected this time!!! , posted by NikkiT2 on November 15, 2002, at 3:56:43
I saw a review of the article, but no link to the article itself. I'd like to see it.
As far as publishing poetry without attributing goes, all my own work is published, and it's my own intellectual property first, whether I use it here or not.
My chat comments are up for grabs, but poetry is not. Neither is the poetry of any other person on this board, no matter what the disclaimers and rules say.
If you doubt that, think of this: The number of times we've quoted others--their movies, their speeches, their plays and poems--no one has ever been entitled to take those words for his own.
It's the same thing with our poetry.
Everything I write is mailed back to myself postmark and remains unopened.
beardy
Posted by Phil on November 15, 2002, at 7:01:02
In reply to Re: Context » oracle, posted by IsoM on November 15, 2002, at 2:41:51
Dr. Bob received his AB in Applied Mathematics, magna cum laude, from Harvard University, his MD from Northwestern University, and his training in psychiatry from Yale University. He was named the Region VI Teacher of the Year by the Association for Academic Psychiatry in 1995 and a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association in 2000.
_____
I was trying to find another blurb on Dr B where it seemed the author just 'made up' what PB was. The guy had obviously never visited the site.
Anyway, I found that Dr. Bob skipped the community college route.
I was going to take the same educational route as Bob but never conquered 'long division' in the 5th grade.
I decided on a 3 semester program of my own choosing. Combination street drug theory and personal drug intake management. On field trips, we visited farms in South Texas to collect magic mushroom samples to take back to the lab-or, dorm room as we referred to it. One course was "Look at Phil's pupils." Another was driving while tripping. We played pinball to practice for that one. The final was 'Mirrors, to look or not to look.' I should not have looked. My stepbrother was in a field office doing experiments with peyote enemas.
All of us were published in several newspapers under "Arrests this week". Momma called me from prison-very, very proud.
Off to work..Skid-o-Kan has great benefits.
I could put in a good word for anyone if they're interested. My stepbrother's kicking butt at the chicken plucking plant and they're always hiring.
Funny, everyone that works there are vegetarians.Phil
Posted by Phil on November 15, 2002, at 7:04:30
In reply to I can't find the article. A link, please?, posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 6:57:02
Dr. Bob, Ethics, and Copyright
This is what I originally wrote a few months ago when this issue first appeared...Bob Hsiung is apparently having some "pushback" from forum participants he studied and wrote up in the most recent issue of CyberPsychology & Behavior. The article seems to be largely one of a descriptive nature, detailing his interactions with consumers on the message boards on his Web site. It included many excerpts from posts made to the board over a specific time period. However, apparently Dr. Bob forgot to submit the research to his IRB for review before he did it or had it published. Oops. Nor does it appear he told the consumers that frequent his board that he was conducting this research, or asked their permission, or even just asked what they would think of it.
In the emerging world of studying online behavior, questions of ethics and how to conduct studies of support groups is very much a gray area with no well-defined rules. Psychologists, unlike psychiatrists, are held to a strict set of ethical guidelines that define a researcher's behavior (online and off). It's possible that Hsiung believes he adheres to the American Psychological Association's code of ethics, because he is often seen quoting from it online during the past few years. But since he is not a member of the American Psychological Association, he cannot (nor should he be) held to their standards. In my original entry on this issue, I made it sound as if he should. But it does give readers an idea of how drastically different professionals from different professions can be held to very different ethical standards.
Hsiung's Reactions
There are a few issues that bring into question Dr. Hsiung's behavior surrounding this incident. He setup and portrays his forums as a place to get help, advice, and support, not only from other consumers, but from none other than "Dr. Bob" himself. He's changed his active participation in the forums. Originally, like any Web site starting up a new online community, he had little traffic and could be seen posting quite often to his forum answers to medication questions and side effects. Now he is seen posting a lot less often to his forums, but it remains the role he takes on and plays in this environment. He is also, naturally, the site's administrator and handles all the usual problems associated with online communities.Naturalistic research is defined by simply observing an environment and making notes about your observations. It also means you don't tell the participants they've been observed until after the fact, and for reasons of objectivity and researcher bias, the environment being observed should not be one's own. (Hsiung failed to proactively inform his users of the research until a community user informed the community first.) Nearly all research conducted under one's affiliation is supervised by the institution's Internal Review Board (IRB). An IRB is setup with the sole purpose of determining whether a study is doing enough to protect its human subjects, even when they themselves or the researchers don't see the danger of the research, or feel they need protecting. Since Hsiung failed to submit the research for review by his own IRB, his research was conducted under no supervision or review by any external party. Such an external review may have picked up on some of the potential ethical dilemmas outlined here and earlier.
APA Ethics
If Hsiung were a psychologist (remember, he's not!), he'd be limited in conducting research on the same group that he's participating in, administering, and owns. Yet he did conduct naturalistic research on his own support group, which brings up a number of ethical issues.Standard 1.17 of APA's ethics code helps psychologists to define multiple relationships. Multiple relationships can exist, for example, when a psychologist acts as both researcher and study participant. Section (b) of the standard states:
Likewise, whenever feasible, a psychologist refrains from taking on professional or scientific obligations when pre-existing relationships would create a risk of such harm.
The potential risk of harm relating to Hsiung's actions are when a group member's username was published (For instance, what if the username is the same username the individual uses on other boards on which they're well-known? The person's entire online reputation could've been ruined.), as well as a complete work of poetry. How can publishing someone's poetry be harmful? What if the author of the poem didn't want it to be published in print, or in a professional journal? Remember, Hsiung never asked anyone's permission for what he excerpted and included in his article. He just went and did it, under his "unrestricted use" clause.In addition, I mentioned some other ethical issues in the original blurb on this issue. Dispensing with informed consent (Standard 6.12) makes it clear that if you're going to do research without first getting the participants' consent, you consult with other colleagues and your IRB before moving forward. Standard 6.09 also talks about getting IRB approval, and 6.18 talks about debriefing participants. These are all actions Hsiung didn't do or didn't feel the need to do. They are also behaviors typically associated with inexperienced researchers working alone or under minimal supervision. (Remember, Hsiung is a medical doctor by training, not a researcher, so it is not surprising that there were some of these pitfalls experienced. That's when a senior research supervisor or an IRB can be helpful.)
But since Hsiung is not a member of the American Psychological Association, apparently none of this applies to him. He has the freedom and flexibility to conduct whatever kind of "research" he wants, answering only to himself.
Copyright and Intellectual Property
Notwithstanding these ethical concerns, I'm still left wondering why anyone would ask for "unrestricted use" of other people's words and ideas. Copyright gives the author sole ownership of their works, unless express permission is given otherwise. Every word you write online is automatically copyrighted by you, without ever having to file a piece of paper or register anything. (In order to pursue legal action against another, typically you do have to file such forms first.) Only when someone comes to you and says, "Hey, I'm writing this article and was wondering if you'd mind if I used this paragraph you wrote as a basis for it, giving you attribution." Most authors are okay with use of their words or ideas, as long as proper attribution is given.But "unrestricted use" means just that. Hsiung can use your words in any manner he wants, in any context he wants, forever. No attribution need be given, because his use of your words is "unrestricted." That means there are no restrictions on how he uses them, where he published them, or what he does with them.
It's not clear why he asks this of his forum participants. In a decade of observing and participating in hundreds of online forums and communities on the Internet and elsewhere, I've never seen anyone try and put such a blanket clause on other people's words. It's unheard of. Yet most of Hsiung's participants seem unconcerned about this clause. It is perhaps because they don't see much value in their words or ideas, especially as contributions to a support forum.
Recently, however, Hsiung has attempted to begin a professional forum, using the same clause. As a fellow professional, he understands that professionals often participate in an exchange of ideas and information. In Hsiung's world, he wants free, unfettered access to the very livelihood of some of its professional members. That may be fine for some, but it is not a forum I could ever participate in, even if I wanted to. Giving away all rights to my words, now and forever, seems a bit extreme for the "benefit" of participating in such a forum.
What about "fair use?" "Fair use," as a valid legal provision, already exists within case law and is well-defined (view the link for further information). Hsiung already has access to "fair use" of support group entries without the "unrestricted use" clause he is presently using. This suggests that since Hsiung doesn't recognize the limits imposed by "fair use" on an author's work, he would rather "unfair use." No thanks. There are plenty of free, open support forums (and professional forums, such as those found at ISMHO) where the owners respect the rights (all rights, including intellectual property rights) of those contributing to the site, forum, or discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lest anyone thinks this is a personal grudge or some such against Hsiung, it is not. I believe Hsiung to be a knowledgeable, distinguished faculty member of a reputable, respected university. I have even recommended him to take over a senior editor position a few years ago on a book, and within the past 2 years, wrote a letter of recommendation for him for promotion within his university. I've also co-chaired, for 3 years, a continuing education workshop at the APA on Internet topics.
I have tried, unsuccessfully, to discuss with him privately (in e-mail) the issues revolving around his "unrestricted use" clause, but he didn't reply. I value his opinion as a colleague, but I cannot stand idly by while a support group online is taken advantage of for what appears to be professional gain. I have written and argued against exactly this type of naturalistic research on support groups in the past with others, and will continue to do so again in the future, because I believe it takes advantage of individuals who are often not in a position to turn elsewhere for assistance (if even given the informed consent to make, which in this case, they never had). And as someone who values his intellectual property rights, I don't believe there is any legitimate purpose for someone asking for "unrestricted use" of another person's words and ideas.
Open Journal is open source software by J. Grohol.
Posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 7:35:43
In reply to Re: I can't find the article. A link, please? » BeardedLady, posted by Phil on November 15, 2002, at 7:04:30
Thanks, but I was able to see this link about Dr. Bob's article, but I can't find the thing being reviewed.
beardy
Posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 7:37:18
In reply to I saw THIS. Where's Dr. Bob's piece? » Phil, posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 7:35:43
quoted made me believe it was a response to a piece written by Bob, in which Bob used our words and poetry and etc. without giving us credit for any of it.
beardy
Posted by Phil on November 15, 2002, at 8:24:23
In reply to I saw THIS. Where's Dr. Bob's piece? » Phil, posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 7:35:43
Posted by Phil on November 15, 2002, at 8:32:53
In reply to I don't know. Sorry, Beardy, I was asleep. (nm), posted by Phil on November 15, 2002, at 8:24:23
Posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 8:53:35
In reply to Re: I'm at work. This it?, posted by Phil on November 15, 2002, at 8:32:53
Posted by Dinah on November 15, 2002, at 8:56:39
In reply to Re: I'm at work. This it?, posted by Phil on November 15, 2002, at 8:32:53
Posted by Miller on November 15, 2002, at 9:16:13
In reply to Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
I have a complaint that branches into each "support" site I have visited. I understand that people go to school and choose careers based on interest and income potential. However, I don't like the fact that when people are really desperate (talking suicide) there isn't a professional that steps in. It is scarey to me to think some poor soul is depending on MY advise to bridge the gap between despair and life.
As far as privelaged quotes and being too vulnorable to make a educated decision to accept Dr Bob's guidelines for using this site, there is no question. It struck me as funny that the good Doctor, who is claiming to have OUR best interests at heart has not given an alternative. There are some people who are willing to fight the good battle, no matter if it needs to be fought or not.
Posted by Dinah on November 15, 2002, at 9:34:01
In reply to My two cents , posted by Miller on November 15, 2002, at 9:16:13
I believe someone compiled a list of resources for use in times of crisis. And probably many of them would prove more helpful in times of suicidal crisis. And possibly Dr. Bob should have those links more prominently displayed.
This place does has its limits in crisis intervention. We're not trained, and sometimes no one is looking at the boards for a period of time, so a suicidal post might go unanswered. Surely that isn't good. It may have more value to those who have already built up strong relationships here, although when people have talked me through crisis times, it has *usually* been in the chatroom, or in personal correspondence. And even then, my therapist was my main source of crisis intervention, and both I and my friends knew it.
I think Dr. Bob does say something to that effect in the small print. But perhaps, given the gravity of the situation, it should be in big letters with emphasis and links.
Adding my own two cents.
Dinah
Posted by IsoM on November 15, 2002, at 13:35:40
In reply to Aha! (nm) » Phil, posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 8:53:35
Beardy, here's another piece that Dr. Bob composed using the posts from PB forums.
http://psychiatry.uchicago.edu/grounds/020204/Like I said, it's no big deal to me. Rather than use the streaming video, I used the Power Point slides instead but the info is the same. There is NO issue over this, as far as I'm concerned, but I honestly don't see why people are getting upset over this.
I don't see Dr. Grohol's article as an attack on Dr. Bob, just a reminder of an error made by Dr. Bob (& not a major one in this case), but that safeguards need to be in place for everyone.
Am I not seeing insults & slurs that others do? I can't see any in Dr. Grohol's article & see no need to be alarmed by it.
Posted by coral on November 15, 2002, at 13:53:32
In reply to Any comments on this article about Dr Bob? and us?, posted by Phil on November 14, 2002, at 18:30:29
If a person submits any writing in a public form without a proper copyright statement, that person is submitting their writing to the public domain and forfeit their copyright by doing so. Submitting writing to a forum where it is clearly stated that the owner has unrestricted use means that the person is agreeing to those terms. The second someone writes something, it is automatically copyrighted to the individual, except in a public forum. To register the copyright requires submitting the writing with the proper forms and fees to the US Copyright Office.
Posted by BeardedLady on November 15, 2002, at 14:00:51
In reply to Re: Copyright issues, posted by coral on November 15, 2002, at 13:53:32
Not exactly. And I know from at least twenty years of writing experience that a sealed, postmarked envelope with your work in it will hold up in court. In most cases, "the proper paperwork" is not necessary.
beardy
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.