March 2007 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

E-Gov Track @ HICSS41: 1st CfP
by Jochen Scholl 09 Mar '07

09 Mar '07

Apologies for unintended double-postings-- CALL FOR PAPERS E-GOVERNMENT TRACK at the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 41) ( http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/ ) Over the past several years, the emergent study domain of electronic Government (e-Government, e-Gov) research (EGR), also referred to as digital government, has produced a rapidly increasing number of academic and practitioner contributions at HICSS and other leading conferences and journals around the world. At HICSS, this growing stream of research is represented through eight minitracks within the e-Government Track ( http://www.ctg.albany.edu/conference/hicss/ ) * E-Democracy * E-Government Emerging Topics * E-Government Information and Knowledge Management * E-Government Information Security * E-Government Infrastructure and Interoperability * E-Government Organization and Management * E-Government Services and Information * E-Policy, Law, and Governance HICSS40 also features a Symposium of the Global Electronic Government Research and Practice Community (January 3, 2007- first day of HICSS40) ( http://tinyurl.com/33ztx3 ) Please find the detail minitrack calls under the specified URLs: -- E-Government Emerging Topics, co-chairs: Theresa Pardo, Lawrence Brandt, and Maddalena Sorrentino --> http://tinyurl.com/25c33v -- E-Democracy, co-chairs: Eric Welch (lead), Suzanne Beaumaster, and David Wolber --> http://tinyurl.com/2ezo2s -- E-Government Architecture, Infrastructure, and Integration, co-chairs: Ralf Klischewski (lead), Haluk Demirkan and Marijn Janssen --> http://tinyurl.com/2xsfet -- E-Government Information Security, co-chairs: Gregory White (lead) and Wm. Arthur Conklin --> http://tinyurl.com/yoqcur -- E-Government Organization and Management, co-chairs: Helmut Krcmar (lead), Christine Leitner, and Anthony Cresswell --> http://tinyurl.com/245t88 -- E-Government Services and Information, co-chairs: Maria Wimmer (lead), Enrico Ferro, and Sara Eriksén --> http://tinyurl.com/29uhvv -- E-Policy, Law, and Governance, co-chairs: Keith Schildt (lead), Sharon Dawes, and Stuart Shulman --> http://tinyurl.com/ywlbg7 -- Mobile Services and Technology in Government, co-chairs: Pirkko Walden (lead), Christer Carlsson and Michael Goul --> http://tinyurl.com/yqf3bx -- Information Technology for Development; note: This Minitrack is hosted within the Organizational Systems and Technology Track --> http://tinyurl.com/2xw3qp IMPORTANT DEADLINES AND INFORMATION Abstracts Authors may contact Minitrack Chairs for guidance and indication of appropriate content at anytime. June 15, 2007 Authors submit full papers to the Peer Review System, following Author Instructions found on the HICSS web site (www.hicss.hawaii.edu) All papers will be submitted in double column publication format and limited to 10 pages including diagrams and references. Papers undergo a double-blind review (June 15- August 15). August 15, 2007 Acceptance/rejection notices are sent to Authors via the Peer Review System. At this time, at least one author of an accepted paper should begin fiscal and travel arrangements to attend the conference to present the paper. September 15, 2007 $545 Early Registration. Authors submit Final Version of papers following submission instructions posted on the HICSS web site. At least one author of each paper should register by this date with specific plans to attend the conference. October 2, 2007 $595 Regular Registration until Dec 15. Papers without at least one registered author will be pulled from the publication process; authors will be notified. October 15, 2007 Cancellation: $150 administrative fee is deducted after this date. All cancellation requests must be in writing. December 1, 2007 Hotel rates are not guaranteed after this date. December 15, 2007 $700 Late Registration There will be no refund for cancellation of registration after this date. THE PAPER SUBMISSION PROCESS Consult the conference website for the listing and description of Minitracks for HICSS-41. Please do not submit the manuscript to more than one Minitrack Chair. If you are not certain which Minitrack is appropriate, submit your abstract to the Track Chair(s) for guidance. An Individual may be listed as author or co-author on a maximum of 6 submitted papers. Authors may not be added after submission, unless approved by the appropriate Track Chair. HICSS will conduct double-blind reviews of each submitted paper. Therefore, author name(s) must not be included directly on the manuscript during the June 15 submission process. Submit according to detailed Author Instructions posted on the HICSS web site ( http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/hicss_41/apahome41.html ). Submit your full manuscript by June 15, and if accepted, submit the Final Version by Sept 15. Hans J (Jochen) Scholl Chair, HICSS40 Electronic Government Track The Information School University of Washington Mary Gates Hall, Suite 370C Box 352840 Seattle, WA 98195-2840, USA Tel: 1-206-616-2543 Fax: 1-206-616-3152 jscholl(a)u.washington.edu

1 0

Re: [Air-l] turnitin issue
by Marj Kibby 09 Mar '07

09 Mar '07

There is no assumption of guilt Students are required to submit to Turnitin to check that their referencing is accurate. In the same way that they are expected to use spelling and grammar checks. Turnitin reports are not accessed by staff unless there is reasonable cause to suspect that the work is plagiarised, and Turnitin reports cannot be used as the sole evidence of plagiarism Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby(a)newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604 >>> Rosanna Tarsiero <rosanna(a)gionnethics.com> 03/09/07 10:57 AM >>> As a student myself (and online instructor), I never plagiarized a paper, and I do know that there are persons that do. However, the assumption that students need to prove innocent (rather than innocence unless otherwise proven) bothers me a great deal. I would refuse both submitting a paper to turnitin AND doing supplemental work. In all honesty, I do hope that some student sooner or later ends up suing colleges. Assuming people to be guilty unless otherwise proven violates quite a number of human rights. Rosanna Tarsiero "Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal him." --James Allen -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mark Warschauer Sent: venerdì 9 marzo 2007 0.50 To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] turnitin issue I know of no precedent or case law, but this is an issue that is taken seriously here at UC Irvine. Students are usually given the permission to opt out of submitting their papers through Turnitin.com, but professors then require any students who opt out to complete one or more alternate assignments to demonstrate their papers were not plagiarized (and those alternatives can be quite onerous). See examples at http://eee.uci.edu/faculty/ccopenha/39b-student/turnitin.students.htm Mark Warschauer >Dear AOIRers, > >A colleague teaching another course has come across an issue with an >undergrad who refuses to hand in her term paper because the faculty >member's course requires that all papers also be submitted to >Turnitin.com. > >The student claims that this violates her own intellectual property >because Turnitin reportedly keeps copies for future plagiarism searches. > >As a supposed ICT & society "expert," my colleague came to me for advice. >My first thought was horsefeathers. > >However, I am wondering if there is any precedent or case law on this in >Canada or the US. (EU would be too different, I think.) > >I am not interested in the ethics or the morality of Turnitin, but in how >other situations have been resolved. > >Thanks, > Barry Wellman > _____________________________________________________________________ > > Barry Wellman S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology NetLab Director > Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto > 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 > wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman > for fun: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php > _____________________________________________________________________ > > >_______________________________________________ >The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org >Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: >http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >Join the Association of Internet Researchers: >http://www.aoir.org/ _______________________________________________ The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ _______________________________________________//aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

3 2

Re: [Air-l] turnitin issue
by Tama Leaver 09 Mar '07

09 Mar '07

Well if we leave the ethical questions aside (which is a hard thing to do!) the legal advice given by the university lawyer and my institution (in Australia) was that we should change the faculty regulations so that submission via Turnitin was a course requirement and thus consent is given to use Turnitin at the moment of enrolement. That said, the legal issues that may arise (but haven't yet in Australia) have stopped the majority of faculties here using Turnitin. -- Dr Tama Leaver Associate Lecturer (Higher Education Development) Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (M400) University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Australia Ph: (+61 8) 6488 1502 Fax: (+61 8) 6488 1156 www: http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au www: http://www.tamaleaver.net blog: http://ponderance.blogspot.com edublog: http://tama.edublogs.org On 3/9/07, Mark Warschauer <markw(a)uci.edu> wrote: > > I know of no precedent or case law, but this is an issue that is > taken seriously here at UC Irvine. Students are usually given the > permission to opt out of submitting their papers through > Turnitin.com, but professors then require any students who opt out to > complete one or more alternate assignments to demonstrate their > papers were not plagiarized (and those alternatives can be quite > onerous). See examples at > http://eee.uci.edu/faculty/ccopenha/39b-student/turnitin.students.htm > > Mark Warschauer > > >Dear AOIRers, > > > >A colleague teaching another course has come across an issue with an > >undergrad who refuses to hand in her term paper because the faculty > >member's course requires that all papers also be submitted to > >Turnitin.com. > > > >The student claims that this violates her own intellectual property > >because Turnitin reportedly keeps copies for future plagiarism searches. > > > >As a supposed ICT & society "expert," my colleague came to me for advice. > >My first thought was horsefeathers. > > > >However, I am wondering if there is any precedent or case law on this in > >Canada or the US. (EU would be too different, I think.) > > > >I am not interested in the ethics or the morality of Turnitin, but in how > >other situations have been resolved. > > > >Thanks, > > Barry Wellman > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > > Barry Wellman S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology NetLab Director > > Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto > > 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 > > wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman > > for fun: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > >Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > >http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > >Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > >http://www.aoir.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ >

2 1

Wikipedia weakness
by Homero Gil de Zuniga 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

Once again Wikipedia raises controversy by the weakness of its very structure. Although I guess that it is the same structure that makes it an attractive global encyclopedia. HGZ BBC: Fake professor in Wikipedia storm Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD. Complete article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm

4 3

why are women exiting technology
by Jeremy Hunsinger 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

Why Are Women Exiting Technology? By Carmen Nobel March 7, 2007 11:08AM http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=50555 This story provides some interesting statistics about women leaving I.T. positions. Jeremy Hunsinger () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

1 0

research on internet adoption
by Lee Rainie 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

I am looking for help locating research about why people were drawn to the internet in various periods, starting in the early 1990s. There seems to be a decent amount of work focused on why firms large and small embraced the internet, but not nearly as many studies about individual users and their motives for going online in the first place. I am particularly interested in the role that life circumstances played (e.g. Did users embrace the internet first at their workplaces or schools and then in their private lives? Were they coaxed online by friends who already had access?). And I'm interested in research about the online applications that were particularly appealing to newbies (e.g. email, news, health information, e-commerce, adult content, etc.). Finally, I'd appreciate knowing if new users' motives for adoption changed over time. Were those who first hopped online in 1997 drawn online by different factors from those that drew earlier adopters in, say, 1993-1994? Thanks very much, Lee Rainie ********** Director Pew Internet & American Life Project 1615 L Street NW - Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-419-4510 http://www.pewinternet.org

4 3

Wikipedia weakness
by Homero Gil de Zuniga 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

Once again Wikipedia raises controversy by the weakness of its very structure. Although I guess that it is the same structure that makes it an attractive global encyclopedia. HGZ BBC: Fake professor in Wikipedia storm Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD. Complete article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm

1 0

Canadian broadcasting report on the internet from '93
by Jeremy Hunsinger 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n4fDgmrF3o very handy for many classes jeremy hunsinger wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

1 0

new resource for information literacy
by Jeremy Hunsinger 08 Mar '07

08 Mar '07

http://www.informationliteracy.org.uk/ Jeremy Hunsinger () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ LI-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

1 0

Re: [Air-l] 988 exabytes of info created in 2010
by Bram Dov Abramson 07 Mar '07

07 Mar '07

>> Perhaps there are domains of activity where it is often true. >> But it's certainly not my experience as both a producer and >> user of non-academic indicators-based research, each in both >> commercial settings and in government. > Sounds like a researchable question, no? Where do 'actual decision > makers' get their information sources from? Why do they turn to it? > What's the role of 'names that you know' and expectations of how > their 'audiences/bosses' will respond to the source? Sure. But it's one thing for Source A to beat Source B. It's another to turn to Source A because there is no Source B. My experience is that most 'audiences/bosses' are pretty free and easy with the range of acceptable Source As, as long as it provides answers to the question that they think is important -- I have seen really any name brand do, which ranges from IDC to eMarketer to just about anything with the word "university" or "college" attached. Now, where data are available from both, say, Research Service Inc. and Local Research University, the issue you are talking about would probably come up. I would offer only two caveats. First, it comes up much more rarely than one would think. Even on questions where multiple attempts at the answer exist, people often stop at the first reasonable one they find, rather than evaluating the range of options -- in other words, "names that you know", but as a search strategy rather than a weighing of alternative findings. That's why things like citation in the media and search engine placement are so important to industry researchers: if you can be the first stop, you may well be the only stop. And, second, even where it does come up, other criteria are more important: depending on who the 'audience/bosses' are, a more recent/conservative/aggressive answer may be preferred. My experience has almost always been that criteria such as these -- i.e. if both Source A and Source B exist, which better fits the story I am trying to tell -- outweigh any reputational issues. But, for sure, researchable: till then, anecdotes are all we've got. ;-) > Certainly there are failings in the review system > for academic research, but that one can point to > them is evidence for the point I was, perhaps clumsily, > trying to make: at least there is some form of public > review of academic (and government) research, some ethic of > open review that one can rest some weight of quality upon. > > There doesn't seem to be any equivalent system for commercial > research, revealing methods seems optional, at best. I think I know what you mean. And, intuitively, it makes sense: academic research has a relatively uniform institutional structure, so there should be less variability in research quality than in research conducted in, for instance, commercial or government settings that are outside the academic world. And, variability-wise, maybe that's true. But my sense has also been that, on the one hand, academic review standards in some journals are very limited because of anything from disciplinary insularity to very lax oversight of journals' own review processes -- the opposite is true in other locations of course, but nonetheless -- and that, on the other hand, the reputational risks facing industry researchers who know that their primary audience may well be the exact industry participants best positioned to review their work, may spur them to be very rigorous indeed. Putting all that together, then, my sense is that the primary harms of lousy non-academic research (and especially industry research which is sold and whose producers are therefore incented to have the media talk about it) derive from their reporting in popular media. I believe that lousy industry research that pertains to the telecom and IT domains just doesn't cut it among its primary consumers, who will know if it is way wrong. On the other hand, the same research may be very widely reported in the news media, who not only have few ways of knowing whether the study is way wrong or not, but rarely consult -- nor really have the time to consult -- potential sober-second-thought providers who might provide a reality check. In fact, there is something similar which occurred with the telecom meltdown of the late 1990s. The 100-day traffic-doubling myth derived not from any industry research, but from a media pick-up and amplification and distortion of something a single spokesperson at an Internet backbone provider claimed. The absorption of that myth into an environment with a proclivity to believe it and without competing evidence to infirm it was one of the more significant bad-"research" consequences around. Except that there was no "research" at all. That's why I would agree: > Now if the commerical firms got together a review system, > that would be a very interesting 'industry self regulation' > development :) A review system which functioned in the form of a certification standard, and which was publicized and adopted widely enough that it caused reporters to regard certified studies differently than non-certified studies, would probably do more good than harm. And, you know, it is probably the sort of thing where an academic-led effort could successfully play the role of neutral arbiter. cheers Bram

1 0