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

Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by Jonathan Marshall 17 May '04

17 May '04

Ed Lamoureux writes > On May 14, 2004, at 8:54 AM, Kendall, Lori wrote: > > The objection raised by my students is usually that if people know I'm > observing them, they will behave differently, and therefore I won't > really find out "the truth." > > Ed notes: > > Lori's student to the side, "Labov's Paradox" has been around in the > qual. literature for quite some time. There are LOTS of professional > field researchers who would say, roughly, the same thing as do Lori's > students. And they would back their claim with writing by Labov and > others. I would say a lot depends on how long people know you are observing them, because one thing that happens in social life is that we are always being observed by others. After a while your 'special' observation often becomes little more intrusive than these other kinds of observation. Of course it cannot be left out of the analysis, but then the observer and their social position never can. People will misrepresent on occasions when questioned, which is why no one should ever just use questionaires, but this again is part of social life. It is interesting to compare the different representations in different circumstances and with what people seem to do. > Kendall, Lori wrote: > a better way to find out what things mean to > people is to ask them. This can provide for much richer, more > nuanced, and yes even *better* data. > > Think I'd have to disagree with Lori on this claim that "a better way > to find out what things mean is to people is to ask them." It *is* more data, and data you can't always get unobtrusively. It does not mean it is 'truth', but in this case it is a commentary on what perhaps 'should' be happening. Better data is not the same as truth. It may not fit in with your views of what is going on after all :) Competing and different meanings are also a 'social fact'. I'd suggest we not be too much in a rush to assume we always know better about everything than the people we are studying. jon -- UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

1 0

Re: [Air-l] BMJ Article on health related virtual communities / cmc-focus issue
by Sarah Stewart 17 May '04

17 May '04

Hello Carol I have just enrolled into a phd, and plan to look at how the Internet can facilitate mentorship for new graduate midwives. I would be very keen to talk to you about it. regards Sarah Sarah Stewart Midwifery Lecturer School of Midwifery Otago Polytechnic Dunedin New Zealand Tel: 03 4793642 sarahs(a)tekotago.ac.nz

1 0

Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by Jonathan Marshall 17 May '04

17 May '04

Ok this is just random. Ethical debates always seem somewhat unsatisfactory - perhaps because if any positions are incommeasureable those are ethical positions. Everything always comes back to a value statement which is contestable, and not in anyway testable or refutable. There seems no way out of an ethical debate into something which can be agreed upon. As hume argues somewhere, there is no necessary transition from an is statement to an ought statement. That value statements cannot always be clearly separated from fact statements makes things more, not less, complex or undecideable. Even if we succeed in showing an ethical possition is incoherent then it does not prove it wrong. Incoherence might be an ethical virtue after all (I've heard it argued by some religious people). Perhaps we should try and live with the incoherence etc. My suspicion is that given the world is vague and slipping, then any attempt to be be strict about morals leads people to contradict those morals. Ie when George Bush declares life in the womb is sacred and has unborn children bombed to bits... Even if the ethical position comes from God then the problem is not resolved. Should we actually follow something simply because it is commanded, or because not doing so will ultimately result in discomfort? Even if we decide on human 'goods' then there is nothing absolutely compelling about arguments which appeal to them. Thus for instance we could appeal to Eero to announce his doing research to his subjects in many ways, but he could not be forced by the arguments into accepting them. I give arguments i find persuasive below, while admitting they are not really persuasive to everyone. thus I could appeal to 'fact': For many people the internet *is* ambiguous as to whether it is private or public, (so is much non-internet space for that matter). Saying that one part is really public and another is really private may be possible on occasions but most things are not clearly marked, and cannot be marked. There are many different kinds of public, which for many will not include the public of research. Privacy and public are social constructs and vague and often contradictory. This is simply a 'fact' as far as i'm concerned, and i'm a bit surprised that some people don't percieve it - which opens up other questions i guess. I could appeal to 'self interest': you are much less likely to get sued, your work is likely to be more acceptable to colleagues, or your work will be allowed by your university ethics committee. I could appeal to a 'love of truth': When research is announced, you are then able to immerse yourself in the world, feel everything, *and* ask the kinds of questions you would not be able to ask other than as a researcher. Likewise the more people are inclined to trust you (and have tested that trust over a long period), the better will be the information they give you, the more they are able to criticise your work the better it will be, the deeper your understanding will be. I could appeal to 'empathy': You are less likely to hurt people. I could appeal to 'benefit to society': But what is considered to be of benefit to society is an ethical position in itself, and hardly persuasive *by* itself. Even if the ideas espoused do not produce the results claimed for them (as with 'free enterprise'), then that is not a proof that those are ideas are not ethical. Perhaps struggling hard against fate is an ethical position. To repeat: there is no particular reason why these rhetorical arguments should be persuasive to anyone - i'm not sure why they are persuasive to me. Are all ethical arguments rhetorical? (nothing bad is implied about rhetoric here) Others could, and have, said that sometimes we have to do research into what we consider objectionable behaviour, and that by announcing our position we will cause the people we want to observe to be quiet. Thus our ethics is not 'practical' and must be bent. The same happens when studying an elite. As suggested above any sufficiently coherent ethics will be faced with contradiction. Mind you, I have known people to do ethnography with very violent subgroups and be quite overt about their dislike.... However, if an ethics is bendable when faced with what it declares to be bad, is it an ethics? I guess that too is an ethical question with no resolution that i can see. Merely saying one position is ethical and another is not, avoids any kind of encounter with otherness. And otherness is more overt in ethics than almost anywhere else. But saying its worthwhile encountering or engaging with othernesses might also be an ethical position. To say that this position (or something else called ethical relativsim) is uncomfortable and does not make it easy to decide what is good or bad, is not a refutation of it, however much such an argument might help retain people's comfort levels. Think of extreme cold, that is not refuted by its discomfort. If one thinks that not being able to make blanket moral statments is to be unethical, then we are back to where we started, with an unresolvable moral question, and the hint of later inconsistencies. however Eero's argument that good people will be good and thus we don't need directives would lead to the same conclusion about laws, and laws are often useful as I think people would agree. So are customs - without them you cannot build much of a person :) However that does not mean we can choose customs souly by ethics as the customs make the kind of ethics that will appeal to us. Similarly if people find violation of privacy objectionable in one situation, that is not necessarilly an argument that that privacy should be violated in another situation. Ultimately the ethics that allow you to do research are similar to those ethics that allow you to survive in any sub-group. There may be no abstract non ethical 'rationality' behind it - other than force :) Researchers have the problem that they may have to deal with several incompatible ethical or legal systems, which makes life harder. That AOIR approves something will not necessarily make it ethical to the group you are studying. But again, the fact that something is uncomfortable is not a refutation of its existence or validity. This is a 'social fact', but yes you can try and change what is acceptable ethics - no you won't always succeed.... That people always argue over ethics is also a social fact as well. I don't see easy answers here. jon -- UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

3 2

CFP OurMedia Conference [new deadline]
by Adilson Cabral 16 May '04

16 May '04

Hope to see you there. Adilson Cabral OURMedia / NUESTROSMedios / Nossos Meios IV: Building Communication Societies An International Conference July 22-25, 2004 Porto Alegre, Brazil ::::CALL FOR PROPOSALS:::: DEADLINE: May 21, 2004 OURMedia/NuestrosMedios is an international network of more than 270 academics and activists -- researchers, practitioners and advocates working in more than forty countries to strengthen media and information/communication technologies (ICTs) that support social justice, human rights, community autonomy and grassroots empowerment. Our work spans many fields: community media, independent media, radical media, citizens media ... grassroots networking, telecommunications policy, indymedia activism, cultural arts, communications theory, social-movement research, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, development communication and communication for social change. Our annual meeting is a time to learn from each other and to strengthen our analyses, strategies, collaborations and campaigns. We invite you to join us. Presentations and participatory sessions at OM IV will be translated on site into English/Spanish/Portuguese and also fully documented. Papers, reports and other written or multimedia materials provided by presenters will be posted to the OURMedia website, which is becoming one of the most comprehensive online repositories of research and commentary on grassroots media and ICTs. Several publication projects such as books and special-edition journals are currently being planned and others may develop to feature the presentations, discussions and projects produced at and for OM IV. This announcement includes: ** Types of Sessions ** Topic Areas ** Selection Criteria ** How to Apply ** More about the Conference (including costs & fees) ** Preliminary Conference Schedule =============== TYPES OF SESSIONS The Conference Planning Committee is seeking proposals for two types of sessions: 1) PRESENTATIONS: moderated panels, paper presentations, multimedia presentations, small roundtable debates/discussions, performances 2) PARTICIPATORY SESSIONS: facilitated discussion groups, workshops, strategic working groups, action planning meetings In addition, the first and last days of the OURMedia/NuestrosMedios IV Conference will feature FIELD TRIPS to local Brazilian grassroots media and ICT projects, advocacy campaigns and popular education centers as well as an active POLYMEDIA LAB which will be open for the full four days of the conference. Based on previous "polymedia labs" at the European Social Forum (Florence 2002), the We Seize! WSIS Counter-Summit (Geneva 2003) and the Foro de Acá (Montevideo 2003) the OURMedia Polymedia Lab will be a multimedia space for experimentation, creation, collaboration and skill-sharing. Workshops, projects and exhibits will explore autonomous and community uses of video, audio, Internet and other traditional and new media technologies. The Polymedia Lab is collectively organized by participants and open to all. Anyone interested in participating in the Polymedia Lab planning should visit: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/OurPolymediaLab ====================== TOPIC AREAS For Presentations and Participatory Sessions, the Conference Planning Committee is seeking proposals that address one or more of the following topics: 1) Connecting Research and Advocacy for Citizens' Media --data and research findings, advocacy strategies and research/evaluation methods that can help demonstrate to policymakers, funders and civil society leaders the vital importance of grassroots, community-based, autonomous, participatory media and ICT policies, systems and projects -- the research needs of advocates, practitioners and policymakers -- overcoming barriers to advocacy-oriented or participatory research in academia -- opportunities and methods for research that can support advocacy as well as practitioner self-evaluation -- the nexus between academic research and community aspirations -- pragmatic projects for equity, social inclusion and policy realignment -- ICT and media policy and advocacy campaigns as empowering tools for future initiatives -- tactical, practice-based, or other 'non-traditional' research methods and models -- interactive media and how it links to collaborative and participatory research and practice 2) "Best Practices" and "Notable Failures" -- stories and lessons from survivors, successes and disasters; transformed, extinct or emerging citizens' media and grassroots networking projects, media/ICT advocacy and policy campaigns, researcher-practitioner collaborations. What specifically we can learn from them to incorporate into our practice as researchers, advocates and media practitioners? -- praxis models for engaging ICTs and media and grassroots activities, community participation or mobilization -- lessons from other social movements, past campaigns or local examples that relate to current advocacy efforts for "communication rights," "media democracy," "free speech," "media diversity" and other goals. 3) Current Policy Issues and Implications: -- discussions on current media/ICT policy issues and institutions such as WSIS, WTO, FTAA, WIPO, Convention on Cultural Diversity and local/regional policy and regulatory issues -- specific current or emerging political/military/commercial threats to free, diverse, autonomous and participatory media -- specific current or emerging opportunities to advance communication rights, information rights, freedom of speech -- considerations of current media/ICT policy campaigns in local, regional or global contexts -- evaluations of existing policy models at local, regional or world levels -- the politics of media production and distribution processes 4) The Evolution of OURMedia and Project Working Sessions -- opportunities for OM to advance academic/advocacy/practitioner collaborations -- specific ways that network members can help each other -- research, workshops, strategies and campaigns to further develop OM as a network and political force -- workshops or discussions to address future goals, organizational structures, processes and activities for the network, next steps and short & long term future of OURMedia We are very interested in session proposals that have a specific intended action outcome, such as working sessions designed to initiate collaborative projects with the goal of producing actual tools such as: - a guide to self evaluation for citizens media/advocacy groups - guidelines for practitioner/advocate academic collaborations - bibliographies of key research for media/ICT advocacy - media education/media literacy curricula including a citizens' media perspective - collectively generated maps of the relationships among media and ICTpolicy issues - booklets or pamphlets on current policy issues and how they relate to community media and ICTs - public education materials (flyers, articles, posters, multimedia) about citizens media/ICT and policy issues - action plans, working groups and groundwork for participation in a regional/global policy forum such as WSIS II or WTO, Social Forums and other movement processes or activist campaigns. **Note: we are also specifically seeking research proposals that seek to focus on the OURMedia network as a subject. The team from CIMA together with Dr. Janice Windborne are planning to conduct a research survey of the OURMedia membership and are actively looking for additional academic partners interested in contributing to this work. This is an excellent opportunity for academics interested in studying networks. If you are interested, please contact [ liza @ mediaactioncenter.org] *** ====================== SELECTION CRITERIA The Program Working Group will be most interested in proposals that: * address the overall conference objectives and suggested topic areas * incorporate group discussion and/or workshop-style interactivity * reflect on the challenges and opportunities for research to support advocacy and/or practitioners * model participatory research and/or presentation techniques and methods * engage specific current issues of concern, policy/advocacy campaigns, or debates in the field * feature people speaking from their own experiences, self-representing and/or sharing local knowledge; presenter teams that include both academics and a representative of their "subject" group will be considered favorably * are designed to appeal to a cross-disciplinary and international audience * include a strategy for how documentation/dissemination or other follow up from the discussion or presentation can help advance OM goals and conference objectives * consider the strategic development of OM as a network, and/or potential OM projects as part of the focus/conclusion of the presentation or discussion We will select a mix of proposals with consideration for: * geographic, ethnic, professional, gender and age diversity * a balance of practitioner perspectives and academic perspectives * a balance of presentation sessions and group discussion/workshop sessions, with a preference for participatory sessions over panels and speeches * perspectives and voices from traditionally or frequently marginalized groups and communities * relevance to current policy debates, advocacy campaigns and specific political/economic conditions * fun, uplifting and inspirational approaches (eg: games, experiential exercises, multimedia, etc) ====================== HOW TO APPLY Please prepare a short proposal to be submitted by email. Your proposal must include: * Name(s) of presenters, panelists or session leaders * Contact information (organization, address, phone/fax, email) * Short bio (90 words or less) for each participant named, including country where they are based, institutional affiliation, nature of their work and/or field of expertise or study * Description/abstract of your session (no more than 500 words) that includes: title, topic to be covered and detailed description of format or outline of the session plan. Please be sure to reference the relevant topic areas as listed in this announcement and to indicate why you think this session meets our selection criteria. Please indicate if you are already an OURMedia member and if you have attended past OM conferences. ***DEADLINE*** Proposals must be submitted by FRIDAY, MAY 21, 2004 22:00 GMT (10pm GMT) *If you submitted an earlier paper, abstract or proposal, we invite you to re-submit as described above or simply to send us supplementary information indicating how your proposed session fits the Conference topics and criteria. Send complete proposal as email text, Microsoft Word, PDF or RTF document to Aliza Dichter, Program Working Group Chair at om2004 @ ourmedianet.org. =================================== MORE INFORMATION, COSTS AND FEES OURMedia IV: "Building Communication Societies" will take place in Porto Alegre, Brazil, July 22-25, 2004 as a pre-conference to the IAMCR, the International Association of Media and Communications Research. We are currently fundraising to cover essential conference costs. We are hoping to raise additional funds to enable us to subsidize the travel and lodging costs of some participants. However, it is unlikely we will be able to provide full travel subsidies for anyone. Participants are encouraged to acquire their own funding for transportation/food/lodging if possible. Scholarship information will be available after April 20 on the OURMedia website. The Conference full registration fee is $150 USD for the two days of conference sessions and $150 USD for the two days of field trips, for a total of $300 USD. If you are not receiving funding from an academic organization, large NGO, grantmaking foundation or other institution, and not otherwise able to raise the funds to do so, then we will waive the registration fee. However, please note that registration fees will contribute towards essential conference costs such as space, translators, technology and documentation as well as supplement our budget for the field trips. We have a very tight budget for a very ambitious agenda and we need your support. If you are also planning on attending IAMCR, some grants are available for participants from low-income countries. Please visit: http://www.pucrs.br/famecos/iamcr/textos/grants.htm and be sure to apply before April 30. For more information about OM IV please first visit our web page at: http://www.ourmedianet.org/om2004 If you still have additional questions after visiting the webpage, please contact us by email: [ omiv @ ourmedianet.org ] ================================== PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE SCHEDULE: (subject to change) Day 1, July 22- Thursday -- Registration -- Opening meeting -- Field trips (To Be Announced) -- Polymedia Lab Day 2, July 23- Friday -- Registration -- Welcome Plenary: A Tribute to the Legacy of Paulo Freire -- Morning Sessions: Presentations and Strategic Discussions -- Afternoon Sessions: Presentations and Strategic Discussions -- All Day: Polymedia Lab -- Evening: informal dinners and self-organized meetings Day 3, July 24- Saturday -- Morning Sessions: Presentations and Strategic Discussions -- Afternoon Sessions: Presentations and Strategic Discussions -- All Day: Polymedia Lab -- Evening: closing plenary for conference meeting sessions Day 4, July 25- Sunday -- Field Trips (TBA) -- Polymedia Lab -- Space for self-organized meetings available

1 0

RE: Re: [Air-l] online bibliography application to share scientific literature and citations thru web browser?
by Julio Meneses Naranjo 16 May '04

16 May '04

Hi elijah, *check out bibster - an application of semantic web tech to *p2p *bibliographic management. * *http://bibster.semanticweb.org/index.htm * *looks pretty neat to me, though i confess that i haven't *used it (yet). Nice try! I've been having a look and it seems to be a good app to share bibliography without a server in the middle. I will keep on eye on it, although it's not solving the scenario i'm in. Thank you very much anyway :-) _________________________________________________________ Julio Meneses Naranjo Investigador del IN3 Doctorando del Programa de Sociedad de la Información del IN3 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Estudis de Psicologia i Ciències de l'Educació Avinguda Tibidabo 39-43 08035 Barcelona (Spain) jmenesesn(a)uoc.edu

1 0

online bibliography application to share scientific literature and citations thru web browser?
by Julio Meneses Naranjo 16 May '04

16 May '04

Hi there, Just a quick question looking for some information about some online references database software. We are all 'Internet Researchers' (just remembering the recent discussion about that) and probably some of you are working on my scenario). I'm trying to organize a shared bibliography for my research team and my first thought was to develop something on PHP / MySQL. I need something to read/edit/add bibliography thru the web (some kind of users management, blah, blah, blah), but I'm pretty sure there should be something available (maybe GNU, maybe not). I have been browsing some PHP scripts repositories and no success at all, so I went to sourceforce.net and found some interesting things. However, most of them are not what I'm looking. The one I found that maybe could be used with some modifications was netref (have a look here if you are interested: http://refbase.sourceforge.net/) Well, now the question is: do you know/use any server application (Unix, PHP & MySQL) to manage scientific literature and citations? Clients like Reference Manager and so on are clients and don't let me to share the database. Well, Reference Manager has something to do that at its latest version but it's not what I'm looking for (it's windows, not UNIX, and then I should let my computer always on and it shouldn't be available outside our own network (I need to give support to people at the research group that are not based at our University). Any help / hints / suggestions are really welcome. I really don't want to miss something interesting before choosing one. Thank you very much in advance :-) _________________________________________________________ Julio Meneses Naranjo Investigador del IN3 Doctorando del Programa de Sociedad de la Información del IN3 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Estudis de Psicologia i Ciències de l'Educació Avinguda Tibidabo 39-43 08035 Barcelona (Spain) jmenesesn(a)uoc.edu

4 3

Emotional Content in Weblogs and News Sites Online
by Gerd Stodiek 16 May '04

16 May '04

I am in the process of writing my Master thesis on a comparative study of weblogs and online news sites. One of my measures is emotional content. I want to find out whether weblogs offer more emotional content than online news sites based in print, broadcasting, and the web. I looked at an email and information richness study by Panteli (2000) and there I discovered that emoticons, capital letters or abbreviations were replacements for shortcomings with respect to face-2-face emotions. I am not sure if these measures suffice to make inferences from text in weblogs or online news sites? Does anyone know of measuring tools in online text communication that would make sense in light of this study? Kind Regards Gerd Stodiek ISNM International School of New Media University of Lübeck Gerd Stodiek M.Sc. Digital Media Program http://www.isnm.de Willy-Brandt-Allee 31a 23554 Lübeck, Germany

4 3

Fwd: Inscriptions open for CIRN Colloquium and Community Technology' Prato, Italy, 29 Sept-1 Oct 2004 and Community Technology' Prato, Italy, 29 Sept-1 Oct 2004
by Michel J. Menou 15 May '04

15 May '04

This is a forwarded message From: larry Stillman <larrys(a)vicnet.net.au> To: <communityinformatics(a)vancouvercommunity.net> Date: Friday, May 14, 2004, 3:00:22 PM Subject: [ciresearchers] Registrations now open for 'Sustainability and Community Technology' Prato, Italy, 29 Sept-1 Oct 2004 ===8<==============Original message text=============== Dear Colleague, The Community Informatics Research Network, Inc. invites your participation as a delegate at the 2004 Conference and Colloquium, 'Sustainability and Community Technology'. Information is available at http://www.ciresearch.net/conferences/index.php?cf=4/. 'Sustainability' has been identified as a key and controversial issue in community networking, and the purpose of the conference is to explore all its dimensions, resulting in a communiqué developed through plenary sessions, as well as further activities of the CIRN network. The event will be of interest to researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. There will be keynotes, panel sessions (with about 40 presentations from around the world), plenaries, and workshops on Community Informatics Education and Multisite-Multistate Research. There will also be a doctoral colloquium. Of course, there will also be opportunities for networking and a full social program at the Monash University Centre Prato, located in a magnificent Palazzo in the heart of beautiful small Tuscan city, close to Florence and transport connections. Please register soon to ensure a place for yourselves and colleagues. The number of participants will be limited to ensure effective interaction and for practical reasons. Registrations can be made electronically, with separate accommodation and transport information on the registration website. Early hotel reservations are suggested. If you wish to join CIRN and obtain a members discount, please do so by June 1 in order to be a voting member at the AGM. More information about CIRN can be found at www.ciresearch.net. The conference is being held with the generous advice and support of the following institutions and businesses: * Monash University, Australia * Claremont Graduate University, USA * National Research Council Canada - Institute for Information Technology * Queensland University of Technology, Australia * Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand * Intel * Public Knowledge Project, University of British Columbia Please forward this email to interested colleagues. -------------------------------- Larry Stillman for the Organising Committee CCNR, Monash University 61 3 9903 1801 www.ccnr.net www.webstylus.net ===8<===========End of original message text===========

1 0

Spring 2004 executive committee report
by Nancy Baym 15 May '04

15 May '04

May, 2004 Report of the a.o.i.r. executive committee Prepared by Nancy Baym AoIR Executive Committee President: Nancy Baym Vice-President: Matthew Allen Secretary: Ulla Bunz Treasurer: Benjamin Bates Open Seats: Radhika Gajjala and Annette Markham Appointed Seats: Monica Murero and Randolph Kluver Student Seat: Leslie Tkach-Kawasaki Publications Officers: Jeremy Hunsinger and Charlie Breindahl Past President (ex-officio): Steve Jones 2004 Conference Chair: Kate O'Riordan Ethics Working Group Chair: Charles Ess 1. Introduction & General (Baym) This is the place to find out what's going on in the association. It's long, it's not always thrilling, but it's always the best way for you to keep up so please read it! Our 24/7 discussions of the month on the executive committee mailing list are summarized in Ulla Bunz's section of the report. Read on... 2. Executive Officers' Reports 2.1 President (Baym) 2.1.1 Planning on Sussex continues to go well and we are beginning to plan the 2005 conferences and beyond. We are moving to a new conference management system after 2004 as discussed below. A new working group to examine whether or not AoIR should start a journal and related issues is being formed. Our publications officers are working to overhaul the members web site. Our first AoIR Internet Research Annual has been published by Peter Lang. In her report below, Leslie mentions the need for non-English AoIR materials; if you are interested in translating any of our resources for non-English speaking audiences, please contact her. As always, if you know people who you think should be part of AoIR, please let them know we are here. And if you are an air-l subscriber but not a member, please consider joining -- it's not expensive and there are many benefits. And finally, if you have any skills you'd like to offer the association, we are an all-volunteer organization and are only able to accomplish as much as our volunteers are willing to commit. 2.2 Vice President (Allen) 2.2.1 I have been working with Mia to finalise vol2 of the IR annual. 2.3 Secretary (Bunz) 2.3.1 Counted votes, made picky edits, retrieved archive info for discussions, and kept relatively quiet otherwise for the past couple of months. February 11 - May 11, 2004 This month (or better, these months) on the Executive Listserve: - The exec discussed submission statistics and how the location of the conference influences the cultural backgrounds of attendees. Such issues are important for deciding on future conference locations. (Location for 2005 will be announced in Sussex.) The exec discussed a possible conference location for 2006. The first tentative contact with the potential host site will be made within the next month. In the meantime, host proposals for 2006 are welcome any time to Nancy Baym. - The exec is in the process of changing the way conference management is being handled. Two proposals from two conference management teams were reviewed and discussed at length. The decision (10 in favor, 1 abstain) was that in 2005, Virginia Tech will provide basic conference management services/planning for the AoIR conference (Please note, the conference is *not* at Virginia Tech. Instead, the university provides a conference management service for hire. Please note also that one of the appeals of VT is that they are willing and able to manage conferences outside of the United Statest). If both AoIR and VT feel that they work well together, these services may be retained for future conferences. This means that things like hotel negotiations, printing of programs, registration, etc. will be taken care of by the VT management team, leading to standardization of certain procedures that have evolved within AoIR. This more or less eliminates the "local host" role that has existed for all conferences including the upcoming 2004 conference. While we still encourage a local liaison (like we will have in 2005), this local person would not have to deal with many of the issues that recur every year, but would be more of a "local liaison." Some early planning for 2005 is already going on (i.e., hotel reservation, book exhibitors). This reflects a sense that we can stop re-inventing the wheel, not a sense that our local hosts have been anything less than spectacular in the accomplishment of their task! - The exec is currently in the process of deciding on a potential program chair for 2005. - The current conference management group, composed of three exec members, the local host, and the program chair, has been working on details for the Sussex conference such as budgets, local coordinating, reviewing, etc. This work is ongoing and leads to a smooth conference experience. So far this work was performed by the local host who sent feedback to the exec, but in an attempt to work towards the 2005 conference management approach, the temporary work group was formed. The conference planning guide is being changed accordingly. - A lack of conference proposal reviewers resulted in drafting a call for reviewers which was sent to the AoIR members-only Listserve. The response was overwhelming (in the most positive way) and many additional reviewers were recruited. Reviewing, under the direction of program chair Sheizaf Rafaeli, has concluded and notifications have since been sent. For the future, we would like to encourage both AoIR members and non-members to continue volunteering if they are willing to review proposals. The next call for reviewers will be in early 2005. - A charge for a new working group to discuss issues relating to AoIR and the development of (or liaisoning with) one or more journals was created and posted to the AoIR members-only Listserve. Volunteers still interested in participating in this working group should contact Radhika Gajjala. A report of this workgroup will be presented in Sussex. If you are interested in this topic, but not currently a member, consider joining aoir! - The exec is continuing its efforts to find funds to support travel to AoIR conferences for graduate students and/or members from disadvantaged nations. There may be some support for 2004, but we hope to begin modestly subsidizing selected people by 2005. 2.4 Treasurer (Bates) 2.4.1. Ben has been managing memberships. 2.5 Open Seats (Gajjala, Markham) 2.5.1 Gajjala: Nothing reported though she's been very active in discussion and agreed to serve as liaison for the journal working group. 2.5.2 Markham: Nothing reported though she too has been very active in discusison. 2.6 Appointed Seats (Murero, Kluver) 2.6.1 Murero: I have actively participated in all the discussions within air-exec (see general report). I have done some revision work (interesting and unexpected) and I am doing quite a lot of work for the organizational part of our conference in Sussex, particularly on the budget analysis (costs, incomes) and calculations, formulas, and more. If my boss reads this, please be aware that I am doing all of this during my free time :-)) ! 2.6.2 Kluver: I have just been participating in online discussions, and trying to raise the visibility of AoIR in Asia. 2.7 Student Seat (Tkach-Kawaski) 2.7.1 * Did reviewing for Aoir 5.0 (Sussex). * Continued to assemble potential content for graduate student section of the web-site. * Discussed possible ways to increase Aoir's presence among graduate students in Japan (specifically) and SE Asia (in general) among seminar group members. Key points identified so far in regard to the third point are: --> Availability of information in languages other than English. --> Availability of programs, scholarships, linkages (for example, exchange programs) with other universities, especially those universities with which Japanese universities currently have exchange programs. 2.8 Publications Officers (Hunsinger, Breindahl) 2.8.1 Hunsinger: worked on the conference worked on the server broke and fixed things irritated charlie and others [Nancy's note: Jeremy is understating the amount of work he does for us!] 2.8.2 Breindahl: I have been and still am involved in the discussions about the organization's web presence and I'm still busy discarding thousands of spam mails. 2.9 Past-President (Jones): I've spent most of my AoIR time making arrangements for the 2005 conference and working with the conference management agency. There have also been some loose threads to tie up from the 2003 conference. I also did our taxes. 2.10 2004 Conference Chair (Kate O'Riordan) 2.10.1 Kate's too busy making sure all goes well in Sussex to pen an update right now. Planning is going wonderfully and we anticipate a great event. Acceptances and rejections have been sent out, and we hope to see many of you in Sussex this fall! 2.11 AoIR Ethics Working Group (Charles Ess, Chair) 2.11.1 While there has been no response to our call for interesting and instructive accounts of constructive engagements with IRBs and equivalent oversight authorities - there certainly has been a constructive and engaging discussion of online research ethics on the aoir list. As always, suggestions and comments for improving the ethics document and its resources are welcome and encouraged.

1 0

BMJ Article on health related virtual communities / cmc-focus issue
by Azy Barak 14 May '04

14 May '04

My experience of several years with a variety of support groups has been quite different from what was reported in this "mega analysis." Moreover, most of the literature I know (see http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~azy/refsupp.htm) show the opposite. Azy > > I wonder if you have taken a look at the new BMJ, which has a theme of cmc > in healthcare. > > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7449/1143 > > and particularly, the following: > > Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic > review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. Gunther > Eysenbach, John Powell, Marina Englesakis, Carlos Rizo, and Anita Stern. > BMJ 2004 328: 1166-0. > > I don't know if any members of this list are working in the area of > healthcare-related cmc, particularly peer-to-peer, but I'd certainly be > interested in knowing if that's the case. My work to date has been with a > large forum (200,000 members) whose intent is smoking cessation. I'd be > very interested to see reactions to this article, which is available > full-text through the BMJ website. > > Carol Perryman

1 0