May 2004 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

10 May '04

greetings aoir'ers, I am trying to get my head around the issue of ethnography and ethics. As I understand it, a researcher should announce themselves to the group they are researching and set guidelines etc for their involvement in the study group. This is seen as ethical, correct?? But not everyone has the same ethical stance, the same morality, the same values. I, for example, place far more emphasis on results than process - others place a higher value on process. As someone obsessed with results, I would prefer to see a person immerse themself in a group unannounced and live and breathe and interact with the study group as one of the participants. To me, if one is studying humanity one should be part of it, exposed to the same experiences, feeling the full swing of their emotions through their research. The obvious criticism of such an approach would be that one is too involved and therefore potentially producing inaccurate research. But is such research any less accurate than the arms length - dont get involved - approach where the participants are wary of the watcher? Does this desire to be immersed completely, passionately and unannounced make one an unethical researcher? Is such a form of research bad, or is there a normal, healthy school of thought proud to promote itself as the school of unethical research? And, of course, who should judge the ethics of another anyhow? I suppose what I am trying to ask is, is wanting to immerse oneself in research as an active participant with the same "no rules" approach as the other participants unethical and is it unacceptable to the broad body of researchers? Am I going to be lonely in my School of Unethical Research - members, 1 :-) see ya Eero Tarik Adelaide

7 7

RE: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by ET 09 May '04

09 May '04

Hi Gloria, you wrote.... "This is of course a postmodern, feminist, qualitative approach to research that someone with a different ontological and epistemological outlook would reject, but that is an old and fruitless argument." I'm not sure its a matter of rejecting other philosophical viewpoints. We are all different, all with different viewpoints, different experiences. This is one of the reasons why I am not happy with "universal" ethical guidelines. An individual can only see the world through the eyes they have, no one can borrow my eyes, or yours to view the world. If having a "postmodern, feminist, qualitative approach to research" satisfies you then this is good. If, however, it doesnt satisfy someone else, that other person should be free to explore their own boundaries ( within the constraints of law and human rights) and arrive at an approach to research that satisfies them. Then we should all be happy, shouldnt we? regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

1 0

Re: [Air-l] researchers ???
by ET 09 May '04

09 May '04

hi, thanks to those who took the time to reply to my "researchers?" post, both via the list and off it. To those who replied off list, I did try to get back to you all personally, however one of the emails came back with an address or mailbox problem. If you didnt get a personal reply, you will know I at least tried :-) Once again, thanks regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

1 0

Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by ET 09 May '04

09 May '04

thank you to those who responded and thank you Charles for your long reply. I appreciate the fact that you must have taken a fair sized chunk out of your day to write your reply. To set the scene... 1. Yes, I have read the AOIR Ethics document. 2. When I make a comment like "results are more important to me than process", one should not feel at liberty to assume that I am making such a statement with an absence of any respect for human rights. I am well versed in what human rights are and have a very strong awareness of the issues. My respect for human rights doesnt exist because such rights are written in a document, my respect for them exists within me naturally. Any comment on any issue that I make is governed by my own ethics, by my own respect for human rights. And I note that whilst it is true that people obsessed with results have committed many hideous crimes upon humankind, so too have those obsessed with process and simply "doing what they are told". To reply... The problems with setting standards for ethics in online research are many. Firstly, ethical people probably dont need a great deal of guidance, they may naturally fall within your consensus boundaries most of the time, whilst someone hell bent on working outside of your ethical boundaries will do so anyway - and such a person may have no problem dishonestly manipulating their processes etc so that they appear to be ethical. Its like the tax department tightening a few rules to catch tax avoiders. All they usually achieve is making life more difficult for the honest whilst the dishonest just find a new way of cheating.(maybe US citizens pay their taxes honestly, here tax avoidance is a national pastime) I dont believe a set of guidelines will ever prevent unethical behaviour, all it does is make some people feel good :-) Secondly, looking at the AOIR document as an example, whilst it tries to be a guideline does it really change anything? Does it really address all areas adequately or even consistently? If I want to observe a usenet newsgroup are the AOIR guidelines adequate? And are the guidelines for usenet research tactics beyond controversy? Do the restrictions contained in the guidelines make sense to everyone for all circumstances and are they beyond argument? And as another list member pointed out - arguments or justifications about importance of a project are all matters of personal opinion. Thirdly, I also wonder why AOIR members place such a high standard against intrusion into peoples lives when our society has significantly lower standards. Everyday we see on our TV screens and in the paper, and in online news services, intrusive photos of people and intrusive or revealing information about them. Our society allows people to be identified when only alleged to have committed a crime with no regard for how destroyed their lives might be if found not guilty. Cameras are poked into faces at times of grief, hardship etc with no consideration at all for the individual. Walk down the street and you can photographed and your picture published in the paper without your consent. Why is it that when you deliberately post in an unsecure and non private forum on the internet you should enjoy perfect anonymity and privacy when we live in a society that does not have the same standard? What privacy did Mrs Beckham enjoy when allegations about her husbands behaviour started to surface? Was anyones identity protected? ................................................ I read a case study yesterday, by a commercial research company. They observed both a usenet group and a moderated Yahoo forum. They reasoned that since there was no moderator on the usenet forum they did not need to seek permission - and I imagine there would be many who would feel sympathetic to this view. They also argued that they did not believe copyright was an issue for information on the usenet forum - I imagine they would get a strong argument from many on this approach. They did reason that they needed to ask permission from the moderators of the Yahoo forum to enter the forum. Yet even this raises ethical issues in my mind. How can the moderators speak on behalf of all the members, and how can the moderators hand over the copyright ownership of individual posts? The other interesting issue in this instance was the fact that both forums had archived posts going back to the mid and early 90's. This was an attraction to the researchers. They happily went about using the archived posts in their research. But from an ethical viewpoint, isnt this also a problem? If its necessary to ask for permission of members of a forum today to be able to view their posts, shouldnt it also be ethical to ask permission from those who posted in the past? And this is probably impossible since many earlier members may have disappeared into thin air. There was one other very interesting ethical question raised by the study. The researchers observed that there were a few very regular posters. They asked a few of them if they could reproduce the posting exchanges in their study. The posters agreed, although one poster, who was famous for his contributions, requested that his identity NOT be concealed. It appears that the researchers agreed to this condition but later changed their minds.Isnt this unethical? Ethics appears to be a movable beast. The problem with ethical "rules" is that in an area such as research of a usenet forum, even though you might have general consensus on some issues, you are also likely to have quite significant disagreement over others. One might agree with everything in your AOIR guidelines but passionately disagree over how to access usenet forums. Should one then feel compelled to tow the "party line" over usenet forums, or is one at risk of being branded "unethical" merely because one disagrees in one area of endeavour. ....................................................................... Let me conclude by exploring the area of human rights - an area you brought up, Charles, in your reply. At the ultimate level in scoiety I am bound by everyone elses universal human rights and my need to respect the inalienable rights of others. At the secondary level I am bound by the laws and standards that the society I live in maintains. Do I really need another set of rules telling me what I can and cant do in matters of research when I am already bound by the rules above? Do I need "ethical" guidelines to tell me how to deal with the privacy of others when there are already laws in place to deal with this issue? And, in imposing guidelines upon the researcher, arent you reducing their enjoyment of their own human rights? As I said above, the society that we live in has lesser standards than your guidelines - and it is a basic human right for one to enjoy the same rights as others in society. Why should an internet researcher enjoy lesser rights than a journalist, for example? If the owner of a TV station is free to put a photo of me on the news and identify me, why shouldnt I be free to capture a public moment in time in a newsgroup and identify the words or actions of others? I am not expecting the right to invade their privacy by entering a private room, but I am expecting the right to discuss freely and openly that which people have put on the public record. To me, posting in a newsgroup is like walking down the street - you do so knowing everyone can see you. Well, thats just a few thoughts in reply Charles. regards, Eero Tarik Adelaide

3 2

Re: [Air-l] the first internet war
by HERNANDO ROJAS 09 May '04

09 May '04

It seems that the real in-bedded reporters are the troops and not the journalists taken along for the ride. New tech 1, PR 0 --------------------------------- Hernando Rojas Mass Communication Research Center University of Wisconsin - Madison ----- Original Message ----- From: david silver <dsilver(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, May 8, 2004 11:35 am Subject: [Air-l] the first internet war > it's hard to wage a war when so many of us, including soldiers and > contracted soldiers, are wired. > > US powerless to halt Iraq net images > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3695897.stm > > david silver > www.theseptemberproject.org > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l >

2 1

ethnography and ethics
by Susan Leong 08 May '04

08 May '04

Hi Eero I think the others are quite right in thinking 1) it is always best to be open when conducting academic research. 2) that while not everyone has the same ethical standards, it is important to have some guidelines, to set a standard. Naturally ethical standards vary and it is up to the individual researcher as to how much they choose to abide by any seet of guidelines. As you so rightly asked "who should judge the ethics of another anyhow?" You may have a point in thinking that research conducted at arm's length is not necessarily more accurate but it is hopefully, more ethical. These sound like two separate arguments about accuracy (authenticity?) and ethics to me. The hoped for result of any academic research undertaken is that findings are taken seriously and thought to have contributed to the chosen field of study. That means your academic peers must be able to accept the standards you adhered to when conducting your research. While one may choose instead to be a member of the "school of unethical research" you would need alot more members of this new school to make your research acceptable. What I am really saying is, if one wants to be a member of any community, whether research or otherwise, there are bound to be certain norms and guidelines that govern how that community operates that one generally abides by. That is not to say, of course, that one cannot challenge these guidelines or exercise one's own judgement but to do so you must be ready to risk being excluded. Of course, you could then start your own community. ;-)

1 0

the first internet war
by david silver 08 May '04

08 May '04

it's hard to wage a war when so many of us, including soldiers and contracted soldiers, are wired. US powerless to halt Iraq net images http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3695897.stm david silver www.theseptemberproject.org

1 0

congrats on the reader
by Jonathan Sterne 08 May '04

08 May '04

Congrats to the editors and contributors of the AoIR reader! The ToC looks great, and I've already recommended the book to someone. Best, --J

1 0

8 new papers + book on opensource.mit.edu
by Karim R. Lakhani 07 May '04

07 May '04

Hello All, We now have over 150 submissions on our website (exact count = 157). Congratulations to the whole community for contributing your early ideas and thoughts and making this endeavor worthwhile. Below you will find the details on the new papers. Thanks to all the authors for their submissions Also Michael Wechner has been very kind to have implemented search functionality on the website. He has set up a trial link here http://mit.oscom.org/ - Please go beat it up and if you like it we can integrate it into the main site. Many thanks to Michael! Ciao for now!!! Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu Paper 1 Author: Ciffolilli, Andrea Title: The Economics of Open Source Hijacking and Declining Quality of Digital Information Resources: A Case for Copyleft http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/ciffolili.pdf Abstract: The economics of information goods suggest the need of institutional intervention to address the problem of revenue extraction from investments in resources characterized by high fixed costs of production and low marginal costs of reproduction and distribution. Solutions to the appropriation issue, such as copyright, are supposed to guarantee an incentive for innovative activities at the price of few vices marring their rationale. In the case of digital information resources, apart from conventional inefficiencies, copyright shows an extra vice since it might be used perversely as a tool to hijack and privatise collectively provided open source and open content knowledge assemblages. Whilst the impact of hijacking on open source software development may be uncertain or uneven, some risks are clear in the case of open content works. The paper presents some evidence of malicious effects of hijacking in the Internet search market by discussing the case of The Open Directory Pro ject. Furthermore, it calls for a wider use of novel institutional remedies such as copyleft and Creative Commons licensing, built upon the paradigm of copyright customisation. Paper 2 Author: Dahlander, Linus Title: Appropriating the Commons: Firms in Open Source Software http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/dahlander2.pdf Abstract: Firms in open source software (OSS) are active in a field encompassing all the characteristics of a public good, given the non-excludability and non-rivalry nature of OSS. As the case of OSS demonstrates, the fact that many important inputs to the innovative process are public should not be taken to mean that innovators are prevented from capturing private returns. The objective of this paper is to explore how firms appropriate returns from innovations that are created outside the boundaries of firms and in the public domain using the case of OSS. To do so, the paper draws upon an explorative multiple case study of six small firms that attempt to appropriate returns from OSS, with rich empirical evidence from various data sources. The cases illustrate how firms try a variety of approaches to appropriate adequate returns and that selling services seem to be the dominant trend. Firm also balance the relative inefficiency of traditional means of intellectual property right such as patents by putting greater emphasis on first mover advantages and creating network externalities. Paper 3 Author Rossi, Maria Alessandra Title: Decoding the "Free/Open Source (F/OSS) Puzzle" - a Survey ofTheretical and Empirical Contributions http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rossi.pdf Abstract: F/OSS software has been described by many as a puzzle. In the past five years, it has stimulated the curiosity of scholars in a variety of fields, including economics, law, psychology, anthropology and computer science, so that the number of contributions on the subject has increased exponentially. The purpose of this paper is to provide a sufficiently comprehensive account of these contributions in order to draw some general conclusions on the state of our understanding of the phenomenon and identify directions for future research. The exercise suggests that what is puzzling about F/OSS is not so much the fact that people freely contribute to a good they make available to all, but rather the complexity of its institutional structure and its ability to organizationally evolve over time. Paper 4 Author: Stewart, Daniel Title: Status Inertia:The Speed Imperative in the Attainment of Community Status http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/stewart2.pdf Abstract: This paper examines the role of tenure in establishing social status within an online community of free software developers. As tenure increases, an actor's status becomes increasingly taken-for-granted, thus making it difficult for actors to generate mobility outside of their current social strata. The results of empirical analyses suggest that the broader community plays a major role in deciding one's social position-a judgment that can be made fairly quickly and decisively. Therefore, members of the community who desire high status should work quickly to establish a positive reputation or else run the risk of being cast into an inert low status social position. Paper 5 Author Stewart, Daniel Title: Social Forces and Constraint in the Attainment of Community Status http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/stewart1.pdf Abstract: A study of social forces at work within an online community of free software developers, this paper investigates the manner in which social forces exert pressure that initially shapes and defines an actor's status within the community, but eventually constrain that actor's movement within a status order. The results of empirical analyses at the dyad level show that, in the process of status attainment, community members tend to evaluate a focal actor's reputation according to publicly available social cues. Ironically, these same social cues eventually work to produce stability and constraint in an actor's status position by reducing heterogeneity in community status beliefs. Paper 6 Author: Blanas, George Title: SOS-ware [Strategic Open Software] Perspectives http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/blanas2.pdf Abstract: Certain types of software play a strategic role in the development of the various aspects of organizational life. One of these roles is knowledge development that can act as a facilitator of economic diamonds. We review the characteristics of strategic software and we try to answer the question whether there can exist open software development that would be able to incorporate these characteristics. Based on this review, and on certain case studies, we present a theory, on how open software might be able to close the gaps in knowledge creation and usage - or the reverse, ie. to become a vehicle for an acceleration of this hysteresis. Paper 7 Author: Blanas, George Title: SOS-ware DEVILS[Strategic Open Software DEVelopment ILlnesseS] http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/blanas1.pdf Abstract Certain categories of software play a strategic role in contemporary public and private organizations. While software use is accelerated and diffused to more and more people and organisations, software development follows a reverse trend where fewer players form oligopolies, with some of them having almost reached a state of monopoly in certain areas. The evil consequences of such an evolution can be numerous, some of them relate to economic and security dependence and some others to phenomena of knowledge dependence and hysteresis. Within the current paper, we formulate a general framework that categorises the types of illnesses in open strategic software development from a number of viewpoints and the types of damages that could be inflicted to organizations and states as a result of false expectations if these illnesses persist. Finally, we identify the areas where research is considered to be urgently needed. Paper 8 Authors: Lee, Jen-Fang & Tzu-Ying Chan Title: Theory Development for Organizational Platform of User Collaboration Innovation Community http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/leechan2.pdf Abstract: This study proposes the concept of the “User Collaboration Innovation Community”, tries to understand this new phenomenon by conducting projects where the opening of source software is the subject of this analysis, borrows the observation variables and propositions adopted by Mintzberg on structures of the innovative organization, and summarizes the opinions of scholars of organizational economics, the relationship between property rights and organization performance. This study further infers a series of conceptual framework and propositions on the relationships among “organization structure, property right, and organization innovation” for “the organizational platform of the user collaboration innovation community”. We expect that the construction of this concept framework will function as a concrete description and presentation of the innovation model of the User Collaboration Innovation Community and will serve as a clear path to be followed for continuous research in th e future. Book Gehring, Robert A & Bernd Lutterbeck Title: Open Source Jarbuch 2004 (in German) http://www.think-ahead.org/ Abstract: The "Open Source Jahrbuch 2004" (open source yearbook 2004) is the first publication in German to cover the topic with an interdisciplinary approach. In contains contributions from practitioners as well as from scientists and aims to supply the reader with a comprehensive picture of how rich the open source phenomenon is. Open source means much more than only software. The subtitle of the book, "Zwischen Softwareentwicklung und Gesellschaftsmodell", i.e. "Between Software Development and Social Model", circumscribes the reach of this new way of dealing with information artefacts. The book is directed towards decision-makers from both politics and business as well as to scientists doing reasearch in this field. It delivers first-hand insights as a basis for understanding the potentials and constraints of open source. -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu

1 0

RE: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #1051 - 8 msgs
by Chris Marsden 07 May '04

07 May '04

Well, given that Internet researcher covers a multitude of disciplines and activities, I fit broadly into the category. My basic research is into cyberlaw and international political economy. A question - new surveys by companies and trade groups make continuous claims of the reach of mobile texting and web dating and jobsearch sites. Is there any independent governmental or academic research into the extent of use of these sites? Christopher T. Marsden LL.B., LL.M. Internet Governance Project Manager Oxford Internet Institute, 1 St Giles, Oxford, UK. Mobile: +44 777 926 0376 Papers www.ssrn.com www.selfregulation.info www.ijclp.org -----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin(a)aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On Behalf Of air-l-request(a)aoir.org Sent: 06 May 2004 17:01 To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #1051 - 8 msgs Send Air-l mailing list submissions to air-l(a)aoir.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to air-l-request(a)aoir.org You can reach the person managing the list at air-l-admin(a)aoir.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Air-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: researchers ??? (Charles Hendricksen) 2. Re: researchers ??? (Irene Berkowitz) 3. Re: ethnography and ethics (RGH) 4. Re: ethnography and ethics (Thomas Koenig) 5. Call for Participation - CATaC'04 (Fay Sudweeks) 6. Re: researchers ??? (Hamish Cunningham) 7. Re: ethnography and ethics (Charles Ess) 8. Re: researchers ??? (ren(a)aldermangroup.com) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 09:45:06 -0700 From: Charles Hendricksen <veritas(a)u.washington.edu> To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] researchers ??? Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org Friends, I am currently employed half-time on a research project with large NSF grant. The team is studying Public Participation in Transportation Planning. My brief is to advise and assist the research team in the design, selection and use of asynchronous tools and methods. While I engage in collaboration with the team in substantive research, my principal task is enabling collaboration. ET wrote: > hi all, > > just a question for the groups members - hopefully some may wish to reply. > > The "modern" internet has now been going for about 10 years. > As a result we have many new professions... > we have web designers, programmers and a host of specialist IT positions. > > Does anyone in here work full time in a position that is called > "Internet Researcher" or that one could take to be, from the job > responsibilities, to be a full time internet researcher? > Does anyone know of another person who has the above role? > I am particularly interested to know if anyone works for a company in > such a role. > > thanks in advance for your time, > > regards > > Eero Tarik > Adelaide > > > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l -- Charlie Hendricksen, PhD Research Collaboration Architect "Information technology structures human relationships." Dissertation link: http://depts.washington.edu/bkn/public/pubs/diss.html DocReview link: http://purl.oclc.org/DocReview/get --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 13:12:12 -0400 From: Irene Berkowitz <irene.berkowitz(a)temple.edu> Subject: Re: [Air-l] researchers ??? To: air-l(a)aoir.org Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org I am not an internet researcher, but do work extensively with web applications to reengineer information. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:30:03 +0930 >From: ET <et(a)tarik.com.au> >Subject: [Air-l] researchers ??? >To: air-l(a)aoir.org > >hi all, > >just a question for the groups members - hopefully some may wish to reply. > >The "modern" internet has now been going for about 10 years. >As a result we have many new professions... >we have web designers, programmers and a host of specialist IT positions. > >Does anyone in here work full time in a position that is called >"Internet Researcher" or that one could take to be, from the job >responsibilities, to be a full time internet researcher? >Does anyone know of another person who has the above role? >I am particularly interested to know if anyone works for a company in >such a role. > >thanks in advance for your time, > >regards > >Eero Tarik >Adelaide > > > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l Irene Berkowitz Director of Curricular Publications Temple University Office of the Vice Provost 215-204-7596 Please note my new email address below and update your address records accordingly. irene.berkowitz(a)temple.edu --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:49:37 -0500 To: air-l(a)aoir.org From: RGH <rgh(a)rghoward.com> Subject: Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org Hello All: I would go a full step further than did Mark (I think) when talking about doing online "ethnography" or "interviews." I think this is something in which we must be very careful about keeping the highest standards. Lots of people do "online research," but here in AIR I think that we should be vocal about setting the bar for how to do right. There are almost no situations in social/behavioral research where "covert" methods are ethical. (Let's remember the faking-shocking-people-hay-day of what-not-to-do-in-experiments seminar!) The only situations where deception (as in hiding of any sort) should even be considered must meet two basic conditions. First, there must be a significant benefit to society and/or the participants. The second condition is that the actual research intentions and methods must be fully disclosed after the necessary data is discovered. This means that you cannot tell people you are selling them software and then later tell them you are actually testing their IQ. Instead, it means that you can tell them you are testing their IQ and then later tell them you are actually testing their ability to buy software. That is a big difference. But again--that sort of research really only should be done when it significantly benefits society. And those kind of benefits do not typically come under social science research projects about social norms and such. The best counter argument to this I have heard is, of course, social scientists don't risk much when they do research . . . . but I would argue that "secretly" observing people online makes all online research harder to do because when people feel spied on they tend to be less interested in working with researchers. Take the real world case of some native American groups who now tightly control (and for very good reason) researchers among them precisely because of the failures in ethics on the part of some academics. And, of course, there is the further point that concessions made to spying do damage to research in different but sometimes significant ways than would the concession of being honest. Take _When Prophecy Fails_ as a good example of that. But openness in online research is a particularly serious issue because its so easy to "lurk." I do agree with Mark (If I didn't read into his short reply too far . . .) "Lurking" is itself distinctly problematic because "secret" observation like that is not just basically rude, but it also fails to force the ethnographer to fully engage in the community. A lot of the real value in ethnography is, of course, gained from the experience of actually "being there." And lurking isn't really "being there" in a on-line community in particular because the silent member of a discourse-based world is really only "half" there already. To start, I would look at some basic ethics stuff in anthro. to get a good handle on it. Just off the top of my head, you could look at: Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn.. 1998. "Ethics." Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, H. Russell Bernard, Ed. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. 173 - 201. Anyway--I can't seem to access the air ethics statement right now, but, of course, these issues are hugely important for us to keep in mind particularly because a lot of not-so-great (in my mind anyway) research is done in online communities (esp. by my undergraduates!) and we of AIR should be in the forefront of insisting on the highest standards of ethics and rigor in online research. All that said, if somebody posts it in netnews or on the WWW, isn't that actually a public statement? So . . . citing a public statement is very different than citing a private conversation (as in email say) . . . but I guess the issue gets sticky when someone says something online under the assumption that its to a small audience and then a researcher cites it widely--for example citing a blog that only a few people seem to ever access. I agree with Eero on that point for sure--online stuff makes the distinction between public and private a little blurry sometimes . . . so I guess I try to error on the side of politeness. Rob -- Robert Glenn Howard Assistant Professor Department of Communication Arts & Communication Technologies Research Cluster University of Wisconsin - Madison rgh(a)rghoward.com http://rghoward.com --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 04:42:43 +0100 To: air-l(a)aoir.org From: Thomas Koenig <T.Koenig(a)lboro.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org At 01:49 06/05/2004, you wrote: >There are almost no situations in social/behavioral research where >"covert" methods are ethical. I know that there is a lot of talk about ethics and even more regulations these days, but bar a few cases where extraordinarily vulnarable people are involved (young children, persons with illnesses of various sorts, etc.), I cannot see, why "covert" research on the internet should be "off-limits"? Most activity on the internet is public, even if some people are not aware of that fact. >The only situations where deception (as in hiding of any sort) should even >be considered must meet two basic conditions. > >First, there must be a significant benefit to society and/or the participants. And who is going to say, what is beneficial to society? >The second condition is that the actual research intentions and methods >must be fully disclosed after the necessary data is discovered. This means >that you cannot tell people you are selling them software and then later >tell them you are actually testing their IQ. Instead, it means that you >can tell them you are testing their IQ and then later tell them you are >actually testing their ability to buy software. That is a big difference. I agree, if you are doing questionaires that's a different story, but for "ethnography" different rules should apply. >But again--that sort of research really only should be done when it >significantly benefits society. And those kind of benefits do not >typically come under social science research projects about social norms >and such. The best counter argument to this I have heard is, of course, >social scientists don't risk much when they do research . . . . but I >would argue that "secretly" observing people online makes all online >research harder to do because when people feel spied on they tend to be >less interested in working with researchers. Take the real world case of >some native American groups who now tightly control (and for very good >reason) researchers among them precisely because of the failures in ethics >on the part of some academics. I think this is a very tenuous analogy. If you research people in their private settings, of course, you will have to adhere to very scrupulous rules. But if you are observing persons in a public space, as is Usenet, un-moderated Listservers, much of IRC, web forums, etc., why should you be more liable than, say, journalists, whose work has usually much more severe consequences to those observed? I am currently doing research on Antisemitism on the Net. If I were to tell persons I observe in webfori that I am doing research on their *publicly available* communications, my data would be pretty useless. If people make publicly antisemitic statements in the public, should I "warn" them that I might quote them? Protection of one group can also result into a higher vulnerabilty of a different group. If, as a consequence, people would indeed shy away from public antisemitic statements in the future (which I doubt, after all, how many people read sociology journals?), that might be an obstacle for future research. But if I (or anybody else) were to delurk, my (or anybody else's) research results would have very little validity. Again, if very vulnerable persons are involved, things look different, but much of research in sociology (unlike psychology) is *not* concerned with vulnerable groups. One more point: In most countries, where social research on the net is conducted, penal codes against intrusion into privacy, defamation, etc. exist. Why should the not democratically legitimated research community be liable decide what is ethical and what is not? Thomas -- thomas koenig department of social sciences, loughborough university http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html --__--__-- Message: 5 From: "Fay Sudweeks" <Sudweeks(a)murdoch.edu.au> To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:51:53 +0800 Subject: [Air-l] Call for Participation - CATaC'04 Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org Dear Colleagues We are pleased to announce that Nina Wakeford (Director of the Incubator for Critical Inquiry into Technology and Ethnography (INCITE) research centre in the Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, UK) will present the keynote address opening this year's conference on Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Culture (CATaC'04). Professor Wakeford's address is entitled "Technology and Mobility at the Margins". The program for CATaC'04 further includes presenters from 28 countries focusing on six major themes: 1. Culture: theory and praxis 2. ICTs and intercultural communication 3. ICTs and cultural hybridity 4. Culture and economy 5. Governments and activists in culture, technology and communication 6. Culture, communication, and e-learning as well as several themed sessions. The program also includes two panels, each chaired and shaped by distinguished colleagues: 1. The Multilingual Internet - chairs, Susan Herring and Brenda Danet 2. Utopian Dreams vs. Real-World Conditions: Under what conditions can ICTs really help worse off communities? - chair, Michel Menou CATaC'04 will take place 27 June - 1 July 2004, in the "city of the sun" - Karlstad, Sweden - right after Midsummer celebrations on June 25-26. For additional information regarding the conference, including complete program, accommodation, registration, and travel information, please see the conference website, www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/. On behalf of our local co-chairs, Malin Sveningsson, Ylva Hard af Segerstad, and Robert Burnett, we hope you will be able to join us in Karlstad. Please feel free to address any additional questions to: Charles Ess Drury University Tel: 417-873-7230; Fax: 417-873-7435 catac(a)it.murdoch.edu.au Fay Sudweeks Murdoch University Tel: 61-8-9360-2364; Fax: 61-8-9360-2941 catac(a)it.murdoch.edu.au --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 11:21:49 +0100 From: Hamish Cunningham <H.Cunningham(a)dcs.shef.ac.uk> To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] researchers ??? Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org The problem with "internet" is that it is such a big term - from the IP protocol to community groups. So saying "internet researcher" is so broad as to be almost meaningless without further qualification? For example, I work with people at BT labs on a project called SEKT (http://sekt.semanticweb.org/) that develops semantic technology for knowledge management; I work with people at the BBC on a project called PrestoSpace (http://prestospace.ina.fr) about preserving and accessing audiovisual media in digital libraries. Just accross campus from me are historians busily transcribing 18th Century court reports for on-line access. Upstairs people are modelling complex mathematical entities called X-machines that may help verify the correctness of net servers. All are clearly "internet research", but are quite diverse - and that's just stuff that I personally have at the top of my head. I suppose that if you work on the statistics of net usage, or similar, then you might end up shortenning your description to net researcher, but it wouldn't be very meaningful? Best, Hamish -- Dr. Hamish Cunningham Senior Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Sheffield [I get too much email, and I use Regent Court junk filters. If I don't reply, 211 Portobello St. please resend, or phone!] Sheffield S1 4DP United Kingdom http://gate.ac.uk/hamish/ ren(a)aldermangroup.com wrote: > Iâ€™ve never been â€˜internet researcherâ€™ but I used to > be â€˜global head of commercial internet strategyâ€™ when I was > at (at the time) the worlds biggest â€˜ispâ€™. > > Previous to that I was at British Telecommunications who have > a large research facility at Martlesham Heath in the UK and > there Iâ€™m sure there were entire departments called internet > research and room-on-room of people called internet > researchers â€“ the kinds of stuff done in the labs ranged from > basic research into things like protocols (resulting in RFCs > etc) all the way up to commercial applications of technology, > and, pause â€“ futurology, shudder. > > BT labs home page is here: http://www.labs.bt.com, Iâ€™m sure > their PR people would be happy to help if you were interested > in job titles and stuff there. > > Ren > www.renreynolds.com > terranova.blogs.com > > > ---- Original message ---- > >>Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:30:03 +0930 >>From: ET <et(a)tarik.com.au> >>Subject: [Air-l] researchers ??? >>To: air-l(a)aoir.org >> >>hi all, >> >>just a question for the groups members - hopefully some may > > wish to reply. > >>The "modern" internet has now been going for about 10 years. >>As a result we have many new professions... >>we have web designers, programmers and a host of specialist > > IT positions. > >>Does anyone in here work full time in a position that is > > called > >>"Internet Researcher" or that one could take to be, from the > > job > >>responsibilities, to be a full time internet researcher? >>Does anyone know of another person who has the above role? >>I am particularly interested to know if anyone works for a > > company in > >>such a role. >> >>thanks in advance for your time, >> >>regards >> >>Eero Tarik >>Adelaide >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Air-l mailing list >>Air-l(a)aoir.org >>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > > ?????????????????????????????????????å™¨??x%??@????"??+?m???? ?j??????f??f??X??)ß£? > > -- Hamish [I get too much email, and I use junk filters. If I don't reply, please resend, or phone!] --__--__-- Message: 7 Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 07:43:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics From: Charles Ess <cmess(a)drury.edu> To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org Dear Eero Tarik: Yours are most important questions - they deserve extensive and careful response. 1. The primary reason for worrying about ethics in research (and anywhere else) is to avoid harming people and violating their rights - including rights to privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, and informed consent (insofar as one follows medical and social science models: humanities disciplines have different approaches - but the basic framework of attending to persons' rights and avoiding harm still applies). 2. The danger with "obsession with results" is that it runs the risk of turning the human beings one is studying into means to one's own ends - i.e., for the sake of results, researchers may be tempted to ignore the fact that these are people they are interacting with, and whose rights they risk trampling. Stated still another way, if our only ethical guideline is "the end (results) justifies the means" - we can justify everything from violating basic research ethics (more on this in a bit) to such things as medical experiments that intentionally cause harm to human beings (whether they are the African-American subjects of the Tuskeegee Institute study of the 1940s - or prisoners in Nazi and Japanese concentration camps). This direction of ethical reflection is called consequentialism (because the consequences of our acts are decisive). In its more benign form of utilitarianism (the good of the many outweigh the good of the few) - a researcher might justify using his/her research subjects as means for the sake of research results that promise to benefit the larger society. For example (real-life): Canadian and U.S. laws require researchers (and anybody else) to report child abuse when it is discovered - hopefully, in order to protect children from abuse. But a utilitarian might argue that if s/he could carry through a study on present forms of child abuse - i.e., _without_ reporting the abuse but following it through to its sometimes fatal ends - s/he just might discover enough about the mechanisms and circumstances of child abuse to allow us as a society to put an end to it forever. This would undoubtedly be a great good - especially for future potential victims of child abuse. But the knowledge and benefit would be bought at the cost of ignoring the rights (and perhaps the lives) of current victims. Another approach to ethical reflection is called deontology - it emphasizes precisely such ethical basics as rights (as well as intentions, expectations, etc.) as decisive. For a deontologist - such basic rights have a near-absolute value: they must _never_ be violated - because this is to deny the essential humanity of the rights-holder - no matter what benefits might accrue for the larger society. For the deontologically-minded researcher - such a child-abuse study is unacceptable. But even if you're more utilitarian (as - _very_ generally speaking - more people in the Anglo-American world are - in contrast with our more deontologically-minded friends and colleagues in Europe and Scandinavia) - as a researcher you'll want to be careful about lurking and other forms of participant-observation methodology. (Annette Markham, Elizabeth Buchanan, and many others on this list can make this point far more eloquently than I.) There are some famous cases of Internet research where such approaches have badly backfired - e.g., from the male psychologist posing as a disabled woman in the late '80s/early '90s to any number of chatrooms whose participants have reacted strongly and _negatively_ when they've discovered that a researcher has been observing them unawares. The _consequences_ of this are bad for researchers: many chatrooms are basically now posted as "off-limits" to researchers. And in a forthcoming study, the authors show a rather direct proportion between the size of a chatroom and its hospitality (better: lack thereof) to researchers as announced and unannounced. The news here is not good for researchers thinking about lurking in smaller chatrooms, where the behaviors under study might be more interesting than in larger chatrooms: not surprisingly, the smaller the chatroom, the more people (rightly or wrongly) expect privacy and respect for privacy - and the angrier they get when they discover a researcher has been lurking among them. The point is that even for a pure consequentialist, violating basic rights to and expectations of privacy may be profoundly damaging to the possibility of future research. 3. (Next to finally), you ask a famous question: > And, of course, who should judge the ethics of another anyhow? The short answer to this question, of course, is: we are. Like it or not, whether always right or wrong, human communities attempt to establish ethical standards and judge human behaviors by those standards. In particular, my understanding is that in Australia, researchers and researcher projects require approval in some way by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council [see <http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/issues/researchethics.htm>] - and our Vice-President Matthew Allen can say more about that (smile). For its part, AoIR has spent some time attempting to establish ethical frameworks for online research that reflect the diverse methodologies and national ethical traditions of its members - if you haven't seen it yet, take a peek at <www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf>. No one is saying these standards and the judgements they support are the final absolute truth. But at least I would say: these are pretty good standards for reference - first of all, because they were developed through a consensus process within the communities and stakeholders affected by them. As such, they are always open to criticism and revision - by the communities and stakeholders affected by them. Further - after its approval by AoIR in November, 2002, this document has found good use among researchers and students around the world, suggesting that it has at least partially succeeded in developing guidelines that are indeed useful and relevant to a range of research methodologies and national ethical traditions. _Not_ that it's perfect or final - au contraire. But it's a good start. The longer answer (aren't you glad you asked?): At least when my students ask "who's to judge?", they mean to say: no one can judge anyone else - there are no universal ethical standards - and so judgments of right and wrong are entirely relative to individuals and cultures. This position is called ethical relativism. There are a few times and places when, in my view, it's perfectly justified to be an ethical relativist. [For social scientists who have teethed on _cultural_ relativism as a methodological guideline - worry not! While they may sound similar, there are important differences between cultural relativism and ethical relativism - see the AoIR ethics document for discussion.] But for the most part, ethical relativism doesn't survive critical scrutiny. A. Taken to its extreme, ethical relativism would prevent us from condemning _any_ behavior - e.g., who's to say that child abuse, terrorist attacks on innocent civilians, rape rooms and genocide are wrong? B. The position is also self-refuting. The nice thing about ethical relativism is that it tries to endorse tolerance - i.e., some of my students want to tell those opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriages that they cannot condemn these behaviors because "who's to judge" what's right or wrong? But this leads to a contradiction. The relativist wants to say that there are no ethical universals - in order to then argue that we should universally practice tolerance, i.e., to claim that tolerance _is_ (or should be) a universal value. (This contradiction is parallel to the self-refutation of epistemological relativism: "There are no universal truths" - a claim that itself attempts to stand, however, as a universal truth.) (Fortunately, there are lots of ways other than relativism to ethically protect homosexuality and endorse same-sex marriages) In sum: to avoid the flaws and risks of ethical relativism - and to ensure that the communities of researchers and those we want to study are able to determine the ethical guidelines for our work (in contrast, say, with institutional and national authorities who may be woefully clueless about what we're up to) I think it's best for us to respond to the question "who's to judge?" with, _we_ are, rather than dismiss the work of ethics as unnecessary or impossible. 4. Finally: > is wanting to immerse oneself in > research as an active participant with the same "no rules" approach as > the other participants unethical and is it unacceptable to the broad > body of researchers? > Am I going to be lonely in my School of Unethical Research - members, > 1 :-) No offense intended - but for both strong deontological and consequentialist reasons - I would hope so. Not because I wish you harm - but because I think human beings must be treated with respect, and I don't want to see future research jeopardized by current researchers behaving in ways that would (rightly) lead to anger and outrage. I hope this helps - Charles Ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/ Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23 > From: ET <et(a)tarik.com.au> > Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 18:53:58 +0930 > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > Subject: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics > > greetings aoir'ers, > > I am trying to get my head around the issue of ethnography and ethics. > > As I understand it, a researcher should announce themselves to the group > they are researching and set guidelines etc for their involvement in the > study group. > This is seen as ethical, correct?? > > But not everyone has the same ethical stance, the same morality, the > same values. > > I, for example, place far more emphasis on results than process - others > place a higher value on process. > > As someone obsessed with results, I would prefer to see a person immerse > themself in a group unannounced and live and breathe and interact with > the study group as one of the participants. To me, if one is studying > humanity one should be part of it, exposed to the same experiences, > feeling the full swing of their emotions through their research. > The obvious criticism of such an approach would be that one is too > involved and therefore potentially producing inaccurate research. > But is such research any less accurate than the arms length - dont get > involved - approach where the participants are wary of the watcher? > > Does this desire to be immersed completely, passionately and unannounced > make one an unethical researcher? > Is such a form of research bad, or is there a normal, healthy school of > thought proud to promote itself as the school of unethical research? > And, of course, who should judge the ethics of another anyhow? > > > I suppose what I am trying to ask is, is wanting to immerse oneself in > research as an active participant with the same "no rules" approach as > the other participants unethical and is it unacceptable to the broad > body of researchers? > > Am I going to be lonely in my School of Unethical Research - members, > 1 :-) > > see ya > > Eero Tarik > Adelaide > > > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l --__--__-- Message: 8 From: <ren(a)aldermangroup.com> Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:37:10 +0100 Subject: Re: [Air-l] researchers ??? To: air-l(a)aoir.org Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org SGFtaXNoPiBTbyBzYXlpbmcgImludGVybmV0IHJlc2VhcmNoZXIiIGlzIHNvIGJyb2FkIGFz IHRvIGJlIA0KYWxtb3N0IG1lYW5pbmdsZXNzIHdpdGhvdXQgZnVydGhlciBxdWFsaWZpY2F0 aW9uPw0KDQpCdXQgbWF5YmUgdGhhdOKAmXMgdGhlIHBvaW50LiAyMCB5ZWFycyBhZ28g4oCY aW50ZXJuZXQgDQpyZXNlYXJjaGVy4oCZIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBtZWFuaW5nbGVzcyBh cyBubyBvbmUgaGFkIGhlYXJkIA0Kb2YgdGhlIGludGVybmV0LCBwb3NzaWJseSAxMCB5ZWFy cyBhZ28gaXQgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBhcHBsaWVkIA0KdG8gcGVvcGxlIHRoYXQgd29yayBzb21l d2hlcmUgaW4gdGhlIGxvd2VyIGxldmVscyBvZiB0aGUgDQpwcm90b2NvbCBzdGFjayDigJMg dG9kYXkgaXQgbWVhbnMgYW55dGhpbmcgeW91IGxpa2UuIA0KDQpUaG91Z2ggbmV4dCBsb25n IGpvYiB0aXRsZSBJIGhhdmUgSSB0aGluayBJ4oCZbSBnb2luZyB0byBpbnNpc3QgDQppdCBo YXMgdGhlIHBocmFzZSDigJhJbnRlcndlYiB0aGluZ3nigJkgaW4gaXQuDQoNClJlbg0Kd3d3 LnJlbnJleW5vbGRzLmNvbQ0KdGVycmFub3ZhLmJsb2dzLmNvbQ0KDQoNCi0tLS0gT3JpZ2lu YWwgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tDQo+RGF0ZTogV2VkLCAwNSBNYXkgMjAwNCAxMToyMTo0OSArMDEw MA0KPkZyb206IEhhbWlzaCBDdW5uaW5naGFtIDxILkN1bm5pbmdoYW1AZGNzLnNoZWYuYWMu dWs+ICANCj5TdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW0Fpci1sXSByZXNlYXJjaGVycyA/Pz8gIA0KPlRvOiBh aXItbEBhb2lyLm9yZw0KPg0KPlRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIHdpdGggImludGVybmV0IiBpcyB0aGF0 IGl0IGlzIHN1Y2ggYSBiaWcgdGVybSAtIA0KZnJvbQ0KPnRoZSBJUCBwcm90b2NvbCB0byBj b21tdW5pdHkgZ3JvdXBzLiBTbyBzYXlpbmcgImludGVybmV0IA0KcmVzZWFyY2hlciINCj5p cyBzbyBicm9hZCBhcyB0byBiZSBhbG1vc3QgbWVhbmluZ2xlc3Mgd2l0aG91dCBmdXJ0aGVy IA0KcXVhbGlmaWNhdGlvbj8NCj4NCj5Gb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgSSB3b3JrIHdpdGggcGVvcGxl IGF0IEJUIGxhYnMgb24gYSBwcm9qZWN0IA0KY2FsbGVkIFNFS1QNCj4oaHR0cDovL3Nla3Qu c2VtYW50aWN3ZWIub3JnLykgdGhhdCBkZXZlbG9wcyBzZW1hbnRpYyANCnRlY2hub2xvZ3kg Zm9yDQo+a25vd2xlZGdlIG1hbmFnZW1lbnQ7IEkgd29yayB3aXRoIHBlb3BsZSBhdCB0aGUg QkJDIG9uIGEgDQpwcm9qZWN0DQo+Y2FsbGVkIFByZXN0b1NwYWNlIChodHRwOi8vcHJlc3Rv c3BhY2UuaW5hLmZyKSBhYm91dCANCnByZXNlcnZpbmcgYW5kDQo+YWNjZXNzaW5nIGF1ZGlv dmlzdWFsIG1lZGlhIGluIGRpZ2l0YWwgbGlicmFyaWVzLiBKdXN0IA0KYWNjcm9zcyBjYW1w dXMNCj5mcm9tIG1lIGFyZSBoaXN0b3JpYW5zIGJ1c2lseSB0cmFuc2NyaWJpbmcgMTh0aCBD ZW50dXJ5IA0KY291cnQgcmVwb3J0cw0KPmZvciBvbi1saW5lIGFjY2Vzcy4gVXBzdGFpcnMg cGVvcGxlIGFyZSBtb2RlbGxpbmcgY29tcGxleCANCm1hdGhlbWF0aWNhbA0KPmVudGl0aWVz IGNhbGxlZCBYLW1hY2hpbmVzIHRoYXQgbWF5IGhlbHAgdmVyaWZ5IHRoZSANCmNvcnJlY3Ru ZXNzIG9mDQo+bmV0IHNlcnZlcnMuIEFsbCBhcmUgY2xlYXJseSAiaW50ZXJuZXQgcmVzZWFy Y2giLCBidXQgYXJlIA0KcXVpdGUNCj5kaXZlcnNlIC0gYW5kIHRoYXQncyBqdXN0IHN0dWZm IHRoYXQgSSBwZXJzb25hbGx5IGhhdmUgYXQgDQp0aGUgdG9wIG9mDQo+bXkgaGVhZC4NCj4N Cj5JIHN1cHBvc2UgdGhhdCBpZiB5b3Ugd29yayBvbiB0aGUgc3RhdGlzdGljcyBvZiBuZXQg dXNhZ2UsIA0Kb3Igc2ltaWxhciwNCj50aGVuIHlvdSBtaWdodCBlbmQgdXAgc2hvcnRlbm5p bmcgeW91ciBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiB0byBuZXQgDQpyZXNlYXJjaGVyLA0KPmJ1dCBpdCB3b3Vs ZG4ndCBiZSB2ZXJ5IG1lYW5pbmdmdWw/DQo+DQo+QmVzdCwNCj4NCj5IYW1pc2gNCj4NCj4N Cj4tLQ0KPkRyLiBIYW1pc2ggQ3VubmluZ2hhbQ0KPlNlbmlvciBSZXNlYXJjaCBTY2llbnRp c3QNCj5EZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIENvbXB1dGVyIFNjaWVuY2UNCj5Vbml2ZXJzaXR5IG9mIFNo ZWZmaWVsZCAgICAgICAgICAgICBbSSBnZXQgdG9vIG11Y2ggZW1haWwsIA0KYW5kIEkgdXNl DQo+UmVnZW50IENvdXJ0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGp1bmsgZmlsdGVycy4g SWYgSSANCmRvbid0IHJlcGx5LA0KPjIxMSBQb3J0b2JlbGxvIFN0LiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICBwbGVhc2UgcmVzZW5kLCBvciANCnBob25lIV0NCj5TaGVmZmllbGQgIFMxIDREUA0K PlVuaXRlZCBLaW5nZG9tDQo+aHR0cDovL2dhdGUuYWMudWsvaGFtaXNoLw0KPg0KPg0KPnJl bkBhbGRlcm1hbmdyb3VwLmNvbSB3cm90ZToNCj4+IEnigJl2ZSBuZXZlciBiZWVuIOKAmGlu dGVybmV0IHJlc2VhcmNoZXLigJkgYnV0IEkgdXNlZCB0byANCj4+IGJlIOKAmGdsb2JhbCBo ZWFkIG9mIGNvbW1lcmNpYWwgaW50ZXJuZXQgc3RyYXRlZ3nigJkgd2hlbiBJIA0Kd2FzIA0K Pj4gYXQgKGF0IHRoZSB0aW1lKSB0aGUgd29ybGRzIGJpZ2dlc3Qg4oCYaXNw4oCZLiANCj4+ IA0KPj4gUHJldmlvdXMgdG8gdGhhdCBJIHdhcyBhdCBCcml0aXNoIFRlbGVjb21tdW5pY2F0 aW9ucyB3aG8gDQpoYXZlIA0KPj4gYSBsYXJnZSByZXNlYXJjaCBmYWNpbGl0eSBhdCBNYXJ0 bGVzaGFtIEhlYXRoIGluIHRoZSBVSyANCmFuZCANCj4+IHRoZXJlIEnigJltIHN1cmUgdGhl cmUgd2VyZSBlbnRpcmUgZGVwYXJ0bWVudHMgY2FsbGVkIA0KaW50ZXJuZXQgDQo+PiByZXNl YXJjaCBhbmQgcm9vbS1vbi1yb29tIG9mIHBlb3BsZSBjYWxsZWQgaW50ZXJuZXQgDQo+PiBy ZXNlYXJjaGVycyDigJMgdGhlIGtpbmRzIG9mIHN0dWZmIGRvbmUgaW4gdGhlIGxhYnMgcmFu Z2VkIA0KZnJvbSANCj4+IGJhc2ljIHJlc2VhcmNoIGludG8gdGhpbmdzIGxpa2UgcHJvdG9j b2xzIChyZXN1bHRpbmcgaW4gDQpSRkNzIA0KPj4gZXRjKSBhbGwgdGhlIHdheSB1cCB0byBj b21tZXJjaWFsIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBvZiANCnRlY2hub2xvZ3ksIA0KPj4gYW5kLCBwYXVz ZSDigJMgZnV0dXJvbG9neSwgc2h1ZGRlci4NCj4+IA0KPj4gQlQgbGFicyBob21lIHBhZ2Ug aXMgaGVyZTogaHR0cDovL3d3dy5sYWJzLmJ0LmNvbSwgSeKAmW0gDQpzdXJlIA0KPj4gdGhl aXIgUFIgcGVvcGxlIHdvdWxkIGJlIGhhcHB5IHRvIGhlbHAgaWYgeW91IHdlcmUgDQppbnRl cmVzdGVkIA0KPj4gaW4gam9iIHRpdGxlcyBhbmQgc3R1ZmYgdGhlcmUuIA0KPj4gDQo+PiBS ZW4gIA0KPj4gd3d3LnJlbnJleW5vbGRzLmNvbQ0KPj4gdGVycmFub3ZhLmJsb2dzLmNvbQ0K Pj4gDQo+PiANCj4+IC0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tDQo+PiANCj4+PkRhdGU6 IFdlZCwgMDUgTWF5IDIwMDQgMTQ6MzA6MDMgKzA5MzANCj4+PkZyb206IEVUIDxldEB0YXJp ay5jb20uYXU+ICANCj4+PlN1YmplY3Q6IFtBaXItbF0gcmVzZWFyY2hlcnMgPz8/ICANCj4+ PlRvOiBhaXItbEBhb2lyLm9yZw0KPj4+DQo+Pj5oaSBhbGwsDQo+Pj4NCj4+Pmp1c3QgYSBx dWVzdGlvbiBmb3IgdGhlIGdyb3VwcyBtZW1iZXJzIC0gaG9wZWZ1bGx5IHNvbWUgDQptYXkg DQo+PiANCj4+IHdpc2ggdG8gcmVwbHkuDQo+PiANCj4+PlRoZSAibW9kZXJuIiBpbnRlcm5l dCBoYXMgbm93IGJlZW4gZ29pbmcgZm9yIGFib3V0IDEwIA0KeWVhcnMuDQo+Pj5BcyBhIHJl c3VsdCB3ZSBoYXZlIG1hbnkgbmV3IHByb2Zlc3Npb25zLi4uDQo+Pj53ZSBoYXZlIHdlYiBk ZXNpZ25lcnMsIHByb2dyYW1tZXJzIGFuZCBhIGhvc3Qgb2YgDQpzcGVjaWFsaXN0IA0KPj4g DQo+PiBJVCBwb3NpdGlvbnMuDQo+PiANCj4+PkRvZXMgYW55b25lIGluIGhlcmUgd29yayBm dWxsIHRpbWUgaW4gYSBwb3NpdGlvbiB0aGF0IGlzIA0KPj4gDQo+PiBjYWxsZWQgDQo+PiAN Cj4+PiJJbnRlcm5ldCBSZXNlYXJjaGVyIiBvciB0aGF0IG9uZSBjb3VsZCB0YWtlIHRvIGJl LCBmcm9tIA0KdGhlIA0KPj4gDQo+PiBqb2IgDQo+PiANCj4+PnJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXRpZXMs IHRvIGJlIGEgZnVsbCB0aW1lIGludGVybmV0IHJlc2VhcmNoZXI/DQo+Pj5Eb2VzIGFueW9u ZSBrbm93IG9mIGFub3RoZXIgcGVyc29uIHdobyBoYXMgdGhlIGFib3ZlIHJvbGU/DQo+Pj5J IGFtIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSBpbnRlcmVzdGVkIHRvIGtub3cgaWYgYW55b25lIHdvcmtzIGZv ciBhIA0KPj4gDQo+PiBjb21wYW55IGluIA0KPj4gDQo+Pj5zdWNoIGEgcm9sZS4NCj4+Pg0K Pj4+dGhhbmtzIGluIGFkdmFuY2UgZm9yIHlvdXIgdGltZSwNCj4+Pg0KPj4+cmVnYXJkcw0K Pj4+DQo+Pj5FZXJvIFRhcmlrDQo+Pj5BZGVsYWlkZQ0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+X19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+PkFpci1s IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPj4+QWlyLWxAYW9pci5vcmcNCj4+Pmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYW9pci5v cmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9haXItbA0KPj4gDQo+PiA/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/ Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/Pz8/5ZmoPz94JT8/QD8/Pz8iPz8rPw0KG20/Pz8/DD9qPz8/Pz8/ Zj8/Zj8/WD8/Kd+jPw0KPj4gDQo+PiANCj4NCj4tLSANCj5IYW1pc2gNCj4NCj5bSSBnZXQg dG9vIG11Y2ggZW1haWwsIGFuZCBJIHVzZQ0KPiAganVuayBmaWx0ZXJzLiBJZiBJIGRvbid0 IHJlcGx5LA0KPiAgcGxlYXNlIHJlc2VuZCwgb3IgcGhvbmUhXQ0KPg0KPl9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+QWlyLWwgbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0DQo+QWlyLWxAYW9pci5vcmcNCj5odHRwOi8vd3d3LmFvaXIub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vYWlyLWwNCg== --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l End of Air-l Digest

1 0