July 2002 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Reply to some asking questions about the SEARCH FOR PARTNERS
by Paolo Manzelli 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

Reply to some asking questions about the SEARCH FOR PARTNERS of Project : SKILL SHORTAGE @LIS for KM net-learning in a cultural diversity scenario: see: http://www.edscuola.com/archivio/lre/alis/index.htm > Question 1.) > * what research aspects you wish to tackle in the international > Demonstration project between EU and South American countries? Re : 1.) Paolo Manzelli <LRE(a)UNIFI.IT> the key action plan SKILL SHORTAGE @LIS improving the economic knowledge driven society it is the following : a) Knowledge Management innovation of SME's on innovation in science & technology b) Knowledge Management innovation of SME's on food quality & safety traceability c) Knowledge Management innovation of SME's on bridging gap of "digital divide" c) Knowledge Management innovation of SME's on "eco-economic" sustainability The main goal of the above action plan id devoted to a new understanding of Knowledge Management Organization of SME's diminishing the uncertainty and insecurity of the market globalization by means improving "knowledge sharing" among University and SME's networks and through growing up the internationalization of the market transparency by means an extension of ITC work-space. A second important objective is to given a strong effort to increase positively the relationship between intellectual employment and SME's internationalization growth though an net-learning strategy finalized for co-ordinating SME's competencies and University research advanced knowledge. Question 2.) > * How would you see an international incubator facility between > SMEs and Universities has a concrete added value in real life > transactions? Re : 2.) PM The Skill Shortage @LIS action plan would like to develop through a Co-operative Virtual e.Editor ( see for instance a model in : http://www.see.it/blues/) to contribute to an new emerging conception of "e.work organization" for developing a "Glocalized" economic development among European and Latin American Countries . As well as a forecast result, the pilot project SKILL SHORTAGE, ( before the end of the financial aid of EU) , will give a demonstration on the implication of societal change in "e.work international organization of KM " on education and training in lifelong and vocational learning for SME's special needs and associated business models. > Question 3.) > * What kind of IT solutions do you have in mind (web based > eLearning and KM platform to be build and tested in practice)? Re : 3.) PM The project @LIS asks to use fre-software and we search for partners very advanced in the utilization of such kind of software for net-learning platforms useful for improving an "e.learning on demand". Some partners that until now sent to the LRE/EGO-CreaNET the letter of intent get some good solutions about this problem bu we are open to the best solution in agreement with the all partnership consortium. Question 4.) > * How would this service after the end of EU financing become self > sustaining (business model)? Re : 4.) PM For reply to a business model for the sustainability nowadays it is to early because this will be a result of the partnership consortium agreement , in spite of this I think about a kind of KNOW-HOW that will be developed in "International Franchising" for assume an economical auto- sustainability . At moment this solution can be only an workable idea. > > > I am very grateful for your concrete and useful questions and I apologize for the limiting of my > reply because the proposal now it is in progress . You can follow the progress of the BID in : http://www.edscuola.com/archivio/lre/alis/index.htm I any case I remain at your disposal for further contacts. -- Director of LRE // EGO-CreaNET PAOLO MANZELLI <LRE(a)unifi.it> http://www.chim1.unifi.it/group/education/index.html Education Research Laboratory / EGO-CreaNET Via Maragliano 77 -50144 - Firenze - Italia Tel//Fax.:+39/055/332549 ; handy GSM ;+39//335/6760004

1 0

July 2002 executive committee report
by Steve Jones 16 Jul '02

16 Jul '02

July 16, 2002 Report of the a(o).i.r. executive committee Prepared by Steve Jones AoIR Executive Committee President: Steve Jones Vice-President: Nancy Baym Secretary: Ulla Bunz Treasurer: Benjamin Bates Open Seats: David Silver and Barry Wellman Appointed Seats: Matthew Allen and Leslie Shade Student Seat: Lisbeth Klastrup Publications Officers: Jeremy Hunsinger and Charlie Breindahl 2002 Conference Coordinator: Monica Murero 2002 Conference Program Chair: Klaus Bruhn Jensen Ethics Working Group Chair: Charles Ess 1. Introduction & General (Jones) Below is the monthly report from AoIR executive committee members. It's mid-July, and methinks some people are off doing the kinds of things people do when they're off. I'd be off, but I'm trying to be right on. (And if you didn't think the heat around here was getting to me, you now have plenty of confirmation.) 2. Executive Officers' Reports 2.1 President (Jones) 2.1.1 As you will see from the below reports several initiatives are now under way - more are to come, I am certain, in the next few months. Your voice and participation are as always welcomed. Feel free to contact me or any of the executive committee members or working group leaders with questions, input and interest. 2.2 Vice President (Baym) 2.2.1 AoIR activity this month included normal continual conference organizing and upkeep. 2.3 Secretary (Bunz) 2.3.1 This month on the executive list: Summary June 14-July 13, 2002: - brief discussion on student awards given out at the conference; no changes made - discussion on conference issues, including timing issues such as when to publicize the call for hosts for future conferences and when to set application deadlines; discussion on how many years to plan ahead - discussion of budget issues, including conference costs - discussion on feedback from membership to air-exec; a suggestions(a)aoir.org email address exists, but is not used much; suggestion to have a feedback session either online or at the next conference; in general the executive committee encourages feedback and suggestions from the association's membership 2.4 Treasurer (Bates) 2.4.1 (He's back! -Sj) 2.5 Open Seats (Silver, Wellman) 2.5.1 Silver: I worked with Matt, Ulla, and Jeremy to launch the List of Lists Web site (http://www.aoir.org/list.php) and have continued working on the project by fielding questions, comments, and additions. 2.5.2 Wellman: Spoke actively about AoIR at the World Congress of Sociology, Brisbane Australia. Met with government officials in Australia about Internet and Society. Presented three papers about Living Networked in a Wired World. 2.6 Appointed Seats (Allen, Shade) 2.6.1 Allen: No report. 2.6.2 Shade: Rien.....pour moi cette mois 2.7 Student Seat (Klastrup) 2.7.1 Nothing to report. Mostly been enjoying unusually warm Danish summer, while moving all my earthly belongings from one place to another.... 2.8 Publications Officers (Hunsinger, Breindahl) 2.8.1 Hunsinger: this month i primarily did server related things including some upgrades and some installations. other than that, brisbane in the winter is chilly at night, but nice during the day. 2.8.2 Breindahl: I am involved with the formation of an international association of computer game researchers as well as a similar Danish initiative. The latter has substantial funding already. In the last couple of months I have been thinking a lot about how these initiatives are related to AoIR. Otherwise, I have managed our mailing lists with Jeremy as usual. It is my ambition to become more knowledgeable about the back-office part of aoir.org, so that I may take a more active role in maintaining it. 2.9 2002 Conference (Monica Murero, Coordinator; Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Program Chair) 2.9.1 Murero: Nothing to report. 2.9.2 Jensen: I have been working with Monica Murero and Jeremy Hunsinger to prepare the preliminary program for AoIR 3.0, which is now online. Student presenters have also been contacted regarding the award procedure for student papers. Over the summer, in addition to updating the program, I will be soliciting air folk to serve on the student-paper evaluation committee and as panel moderators. 2.10 AoIR Ethics Working Group (Charles Ess, Chair) 2.10.1 Nothing to report. (Don't blame me for scheduling CATaC when a report was due! ;-) -Sj) 2.11 AoIR Elections Working Group (Nancy Baym, Liaison) 2.11.1 This month we launched the aoir working group on elections, who are charged with reviewing the last election and considering whether there are better alternatives to what we are doing now. Mia Consalvo, who holds the distinction of having manually counted votes in the first aoir election (I dare not tell you how few), is leading the group. The working group has decided to keep its list archives publically accessible, and is now forging ahead with the meat of its discussion. 2.12 AoIR Net Resources Working Group (Charlie Breindahl, Liaison) 2.12.1 The Net Resources WG is off to a slow start. Discussion has been minimal so far. I have offered to take a more active role in the group and have met no objections. I hope and believe that we can demonstrate real progress at or shortly after the conference in Maastricht. ------------------------------------end of executive committee report------------------------------ The Association of Internet Researchers is a scholarly association dedicated to the advancement of the cross-disciplinary field of Internet studies. It is a resource and support network promoting critical and scholarly Internet research independent from traditional disciplines and existing across academic borders. The association is international in scope. The association's web site is at http://www.aoir.org. Membership information is available at http://aoir.org/airjoin.html

1 0

Special issue on Cyberfeminisms - TOC
by radhika gajjala 15 Jul '02

15 Jul '02

The latest issue of Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge has been launched - see http://www.rhizomes.net Issue 4: CYBERFEMINISMS Table of Contents Introduction Radhika Gajjala Gendering Processes within Technological Environments: A Cyberfeminist Issue Radhika Gajjala and Annapurna Mamidipudi Thinking Through the Cybernetic Body: Popular Cybernetics and Feminism Susanna Paasonen Buffy Wars: The Next Generation Paula Graham A Modem of One's Own: The Subject of Cyberfeminism Jodey Castricano Congregating Women: Reading 3rd Wave Feminist Practices in Subcultural Production Doreen Piano Abstract: The Laugh of the Modem: Interactive Technologies and l'ecriture feminine Michelle Kendrick Cyborgian Voices: Vignettes of Virtual Identity Kristine Blair, Angela Haas, and Davin Heckman

1 0

Re: Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research?
by Bram Dov Abramson 14 Jul '02

14 Jul '02

>This is a very important point. The unfortunate reality is that academic >research is not done in isolation from private sector "consumer research" >when it comes to potential respondents. As far as I understand, private >corporations don't have human subjects guidelines to abide by like >academics do. Ah, but Google claims otherwise ... APRM-PMRS Rules of Conduct http://www.pmrs-aprm.com/What/RulesA01.html? MRA: Code of Data Collection Standards http://www.mra-net.org/docs/industry/code_dcs.cfm MRS: Professional Standards http://www.mrs.org.uk/code.htm MRSA: Code of Professional Behaviour http://www.mrsa.com.au/index.cfm?a=detail&id=115&eid=13 ... and so forth. I make it a point to read the magazine produced by a (perhaps the) professional marketing research association here in Canada (APRM-PMRS), and the telemarketing-tragedy-in-the-commons issue is very much a hot topic there, where a sense that bad data collection drives out good has very much been internalized. Generally, I think that the divide posited between academics and private corporations is less germane than the one between disciplines. Marketing researchers in academia and the private sector work fairly closely together, but they and their counterparts in sociology and demographics, statistics, psychology, and other similarly-interested disciplines don't appear -- that is, from my limited vantage point -- to chat as often as might be in their interests on such matters. I wonder whether an organisation like AOIR mightn't be well-placed to help open that conversation up, given the absence of any given discipline's monopoly (well, one hopes) over so-called "Internet studies". In which case, academic research's lack of isolation from private-sector work might helpfully be regarded less as unfortunate, than as a fortunate point from which to build a baseline set of guidelines ... atop which any disciplinary or organisational entities should, it goes without saying, feel quite justified in wishing to layer their own sets of rules. cheers Bram

2 1

RE: public forum discussion - public or private?
by eszterlists＠netscape.net 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

>It seems to me that the issue is whether such online forms of expression >are considered public or private. Ildiko brought this up and yes, it has been discussed on air-l before, but I think there's plenty of room for more discussion so I'll pick up on the thread. The following thoughts came up at the SSRC ITIC Summer Institute about a month ago. Yes, people in some of these online public discussion groups may realize that they are in a public forum where anyone can stop by and read their comments. Some people who do research on such publicly accessible material claim that it is no different than analyzing other publicly available material (e.g. comments someone might make in a speech on a street corner) so they claim that there is no need to ask for user consent or that there is little to be concerned about even when asking for consent. But there is a difference. The comments posted in an online forum usually have some identifying information attached to them (say, an email address or a name). And that email address or name also shows up in all sorts of other locations online (e.g. other discussion groups, Web sites, etc.). When you make a public comment in a physical public square not only is your name not necessarily scribbled on your forehead - although your face is there - but few of the people who are present on the square at that moment will come and follow you to see where you go after you made that comment, what other comment you may make somewhere else, where you may show up two days later, etc. Using social network analysis and some identifying information about a participant in an online forum, it is possible to track their comments through time and across online spaces potentially finding out much much more about a user than what they said in one particular online forum. It seems that via such aggregation, we know much more about the person than any observer on the public square in physical space would. And this is something that I think a lot of users are not at all aware of. And it seems this makes commenting in a public forum online different from making a comment in public offline which may then have implications for how researchers should approach human subjects in such a situation. Any thoughts? Eszter PS. SSRC ITIC = Social Science Research Council Program on Information Technology, International Cooperation and Global Security http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/ --- Eszter's List: http://www.eszter.com/elist My Weblog: http://www.esztersblog.com __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

1 0

RE: Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research?
by eszterlists＠netscape.net 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

> researchers who are guilty of negligence are acting in ways that will > harm others not just the individuals they are working with but also > because they close down opportunities for valuable Internet research to > be conducted in the future. This is a very important point. The unfortunate reality is that academic research is not done in isolation from private sector "consumer research" when it comes to potential respondents. As far as I understand, private corporations don't have human subjects guidelines to abide by like academics do. So how do we deal with the repercussions of that kind of research? The comparison case I am thinking about here is telemarketers and how disasterous the rise of that activity has been to social science projects that rely on surveys conducted over the phone. Response rates keep dropping, people are suspicious, it's increasingly difficult to recruit respondents. > We're all starting to be aware that increasingly chat rooms and > newsgroups are starting to resent the intrusion of researchers who they I don't know of the cases you refer to Chris because I am not that familiar with this area. I would be very interested in hearing some examples. We can all learn from hearing about cases (methods, research design) that shouldn't be replicated. Thanks, Eszter --- Eszter's List: http://www.eszter.com/elist My Weblog: http://www.esztersblog.com __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

1 0

Great Ethical Disasters in Internet Research?
by Christian Sandvig 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

Thank you all for the interesting responses so far! If I can think out loud a little bit in response to the 'methods' vs. 'ethics': What if we had not mentioned ethics, and had titled the post 'Great Disasters in Internet Research?' Could we think of a single great disaster that lacks an ethical component? I don't think so. (If we could, wouldn't this imply a natural disaster?) I favor the Rimm study as an example because I think of it as an unambiguous case of research that has been widely critiqued as unethical. Here is a great overview of the debate, with links to about twenty critiques: http://elab.vanderbilt.edu/research/topics/cyberporn/index.htm Thanks to Tom Novak for putting this excellent page together. To endorse Chris's points: I am just a simple practitioner, yet when I see the tendency to equate "research ethics" with a narrower "subject ethics," I don't understand why "ethics" should live within such a small box. It could be that people shy away from identifying something as unethical because calling a researcher unethical is so pejorative, but in the context of this thread I'm not sure why identifying them with a disaster is any better. Even though David and Quentin disagree about HomeNet, we could partially reconcile them by saying that if HomeNet was a disaster, the disaster might best be located in the media coverage of the research. (It would be harder to say the same thing about the Rimm study.) I'd bet if we identify other examples (e.g., David's dot.com valuations) this idea of "flawed" coverage will be a theme. It is still raining here, so are there any other nominations? Christian **** Christian Sandvig christian.sandvig(a)oii.ox.ac.uk http://www.niftyc.org/

2 1

software as text
by Pete Adey 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Hi I'm Pete Adey a postgrad at University of Wales, Aberystwyth Geography Department. I'm looking at some modelling software and intend to use my interaction and use of the software, or my reading of it, as part of my research methodology. I am relatively new to this subject and was wondering if much had been published on this sort of methodology, reading software as text etc, and if anyone could help by pointing me in the right direction. Many thanks Pete Peter Adey Research Postgraduate G1a Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences University of Wales, Aberystwyth Ceredigion SY23 3DB

2 1

FW: Graduate Conference: Critical Themes in Media Studies Fall2002
by Mike Ayers 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

this is at the New School for Social Research, NY, NY Call For Student ABSTRACTS! Graduate Conference: Critical Themes in Media Studies Fall 2002 All students are encouraged to participate by submitting 1 paragraph abstracts that address issues and topics related to Media Studies. Selected students will present their academic papers at the Fall 2002 conference, which will be held in GF building on September 28th. Paper topics can include interdisciplinary approaches to: semiotics, reality, simulation, philosophy of media, cyberspace, mediology, sociology of media, television, media creation of space and time, virtual reality, public sphere, culture industry, globalization, philosophy of film, photography, media psychology, film critique, visual culture, etc. All abstracts should include the following information: Name, telephone number and e-mail address Department and School Affiliation and address Title of paper and short abstract All abstracts should be sent to: mediaconference2000(a)yahoo.com. Deadline for submitting abstracts is July 21st.

1 0

Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research? (Dr Chris Mann)
by T.R.Jordan＠open.ac.uk 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Interesting question results from this, when is flawed methodology also flawed ethics? And vice versa. My two examples are Internet statistics and the Rimm study. 1. The stats one is in Michael Wolffs (1998) Burn Rate: how I survived the gold rush years on the Internet, New York: Touchstone, p.130 when he recalls simply making up statistics about the Internet under the pressure of internet-hype. 2. Rimm study. There's no doubt (to me at least) there is deeply flawed methodology in this report. Or that the research of it has some links to anti-porn campaigners who were then targetting censoring legislation against the Internet. There's a conspiracy theory (which may be true) about this report that it was created in order to touch of a moral panic in order to get censoring legislation pushed through in the USA. My memory is there's lots of circumstantial evidence that points this way but I'm not certain a 'smoking gun' or complete proof was found. See Mike Godwin's Cyberrights, Times Books 1998, for this story.

1 0