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

Re: [Air-l] Naturally occurring conflicts?
by Sandra Harrison 22 Mar '07

22 Mar '07

Hi Jonna, I have done some work on naturally occurring online conflict in email discussions, including: Harrison S (2004) 'Subverting conversational repair in computer-mediated communication: pseudo repair and refusal to repair in a hostile email discussion' in Mike Baynham, Alice Deignan and Goodith White (eds.) Applied Linguistics at the Interface, British Studies in Applied Linguistics Volume 19. London: BAAL Equinox, pp63-77 Harrison, S (2007) 'Transgressions, miscommunication and flames: problematic incidents in email discussions' in Mia Consalvo & Caroline Haythornthwaite, (Eds.) AoIR Internet Annual Volume 4, New York: Peter Lang, pp 105-117 Harrison S and Allton D (forthcoming) 'Apologies in email discussions'. I can email copies to you if you wish. I would be very interested in seeing the work of others who respond on this topic. Sandra Dr Sandra Harrison Coventry University -------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE This message and any files transmitted with it is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. Unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use this message, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee. Any views or opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Coventry University.

2 1

Grants for Collaborative Research in Media & Communications available: Letters of Inquiry due April 22
by Rik Panganiban 22 Mar '07

22 Mar '07

Dear AIR-L colleagues, We encourage internet researchers working on communications policy to consider applying for either our small or large grants projects. Rik Rik Panganiban Program Coordinator Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere Social Science Research Council PH: 212.377.2700 x 644 FX: 212.377.2727 email: panganiban(a)ssrc.org 810 Seventh Avenue, 31st Floor New York NY 10019 Web: www.ssrc.org/programs/media ==================================================================== COLLABORATIVE GRANTS IN MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS 2007-2008 Large Grants Competition Letters of Inquiry Due April 22, 2007 The SSRC is pleased to offer two types of 'Collaborative Grants' in 2007 for academic-advocacy partnerships in media and communications. Small Grants provide up to $7500 for short-term academic research in support of advocacy and activism in media and communications. The next application deadline is April 4, 2007 with subsequent competitions held at roughly 4-month intervals. For application procedures, criteria, past recipients, and other details, see http://www.ssrc.org/programs/media/ . Large Grants provide up to $30,000 in support for academic-advocacy research collaborations designed to change media / telecommunications infrastructure, practices, or policies. General areas of interest for the program include: * Measuring the success or failure of mainstream media in advancing different public interest goals or values. * Measuring the impact of existing alternative or community media systems on communities, public discourse, or democratic processes. * Developing better, actionable accounts of the role of 'new media' in people's lives. * Analyzing policymaking and/or regulatory systems. * Analyzing emerging systems, frameworks, or models of media and communications that transcend the current regulatory framework. * Analyzing economic models, industry structure, markets, or audiences for different kinds of media * Creating analytical tools or research resources for use by advocates, communities, or the public. * Documenting or evaluating advocacy or organizing strategies around communications and media issues. Both large and small grants are awarded through competitive application processes, with recipients selected by an independent committee of researchers and advocates. Grants are expected to fund up to 1 year of work. Grant recipients will be part of a cohort that meets and communicates over the course of the program. THE LARGE GRANTS COMPETITION: PROCESS Application for the Large Grants Competition consists of two stages: * A 'Letter of Inquiry' of less than 1,000 words outlining the proposed project, partners, and goals. Entries will be vetted by program staff in order to help applicants navigate the challenges of building effective collaborations in this area. More substantial proposals will then be requested from those LOIs that meet the program criteria. The LOI must be submitted by April 22, 2007. * A more detailed proposal describing the research, the partners, budget, timeline, and proposed outcomes. The LOI must be submitted via email to mediahub(a)ssrc.org with subject line "Collaborative Grant Letter of Inquiry." APPLICANT CRITERIA Projects must involve substantive collaboration between: * A researcher based at a university, college, or other academically-oriented research institution. Advanced graduate students are eligible. * A US-based non-profit advocacy, organizing or community group working on media and/or telecommunications issues. Letters of interest and proposals must be submitted by the person primarily responsible for conducting the proposed research. Other Conditions: * Public-interest groups with unusual financial status (e.g., non-profit fiscal sponsorship or non-commercial for-profit status) should contact SSRC program staff. * The academic research partner cannot be a paid staff member of the partnering nonprofit organization. * International proposals will be solicited from SSRC partner organizations. * There are no citizenship requirements for participation in the program. * Applicants may apply for both small grants and large grants. Applicants with current SSRC collaborative grant funding should explain how the new proposal builds on completed work from that grant. PROJECT CRITERIA All projects must: * Be strategically useful in their proposed advocacy and/or organizing context. * Produce scholarship that meets academic standards. * Have a realistic workflow, budget, and timeframe. Collaborations will be evaluated in part on whether they meet some or all of the following criteria: * Have a clear plan for the application of research findings in policy-making processes or advocacy campaigns. Research that facilitates field-building (i.e. curriculum development, tool-building, analysis of best practice) is also eligible. * Are useful for organizations, communities, and advocacy efforts beyond the partner organization. * Build new capacity-skills, tools, experience, access to data sets-within the "user" organization and/or community. * Involve collaboration between two or more advocacy/community groups in the project design and the plan of use for the research. * Use participatory methods to engage community and/or advocacy group members in framing the questions, data collection, and/or analysis. * Use methods or models of research that have proved effective in analogous contexts. * Address issues of disparate impact on communities on the basis of race, class, gender, ethnicity, age or other identity/status category. * Reflect diversity in the staff or group involved with the project. Letters of inquiry not exceeding 1,000 words should include the following: * Name or topic of the proposed research project; * A brief statement (two or three sentences) of the purpose and nature of the proposed study; * The significance of the issue addressed by the project; * How the research will address the issue; * How the issue relates to the applying organization, and why the organization is qualified to undertake the project; * Novelty and utility of the project vis à vis existing research; * Geographic area or country where the work will take place; * Time period for which funding is requested; * Information about those who will be helped by and interested in the work and how you will communicate with them; * Amount and breakdown of the funding requested (estimates are acceptable). SSRC staff will respond to letters of inquiry within three weeks. Contact Information In order to expedite a letter of inquiry, the applicant must provide the following contact information in a separate memorandum: * Name, address (and postal address if different), phone number, and fax number of principal researcher; * Name of the partnering organization; * Organization's address (and postal address if different), phone number, fax number, e-mail address and web address, if any; * Name of the partnering organization's chief executive officer or equivalent; * Name and title of the main project contact person at the organization, if different from the above; * Address (and postal address if different), phone number, fax number and e-mail address of main contact. PROGRAM BACKGROUND The Collaborative Grants project is part of the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere (NKDPS) Program of the Social Science Research Council, working in partnership with the Center for International Media Action and the McGannon Center for Communications Research at Fordham University. The program is funded by the Knowledge, Creativity, and Freedom program of the Ford Foundation. For more information on the program, see http://www.ssrc.org/programs/media. For all program-related inquiries, please write to mediahub(a)ssrc.org . Subscribe to MediaResearchHub-News for program updates, research funding opportunities, and conference information at http://listserve.ssrc.org/mailman/listinfo/mediaresearchhub-news .

1 0

wanna be presidents - a new feevy blog aggregator
by David M Silver 22 Mar '07

22 Mar '07

hello internet researchers! wanna be presidents ( http://www.wannabepresidents.com/ ) is an aggregator of blogs for US 2008 presidential hopefuls. built with feevy ( http://www.feevy.com/ ), wanna be presidents aggregates all presidential bloggers (currently 16 by our count) into three categories: republicans, democrats, and independents. wanna be presidents is an easy and effective way to view different campaigns on the same page. because feevy is built upon RSS, wanna be presidents relies on candidates' RSS feeds. in building the site, david de ugarte and i were quite surprised to discover that many republican presidential candidates, including john mccain, duncan hunter, and tom tancredo, have not integrated RSS into their web presences. no RSS?!? - who is advising these guys? we welcome your feedback on wanna be presidents and look forward to adding more candidates as they join the race. david silver http://silverinsf.blogspot.com/

1 0

private/public
by Barry Wellman 22 Mar '07

22 Mar '07

I've read with interest your comments on whether it is ok for a class to blog publicly. I was surprised at such unanimity in favor of public blogging. Maybe it is because I am Canadian (of New York extraction, albeit) who only watched Jennicam once and will never, ever Twitter. I've been thinking about what folks have been saying, and I still think that course blogs should be private. I distill the arguments for public blogs to saying that students should be getting used to writing in public. Agreed. Indeed, I am now writing a book on how social scientists should write. But a classroom (and e-extensions of it) are different. Indeed, I start off each year by saying that this classroom is safe space and within broad limits (abuse, libel, etc.), people should be free to express any ideas -- as long as they keep it within the class. (I don't allow recording either, except for those with disabilities.) With a password protected blog, students talk to each other, to the TA, and to me. That's enough. I don't want anyone worried about being humiliated, or in any other feeling constrained in their discussion. Nor do I want those not in the class barging into the discussion -- for one thing, they have not been privy to all the discussions that went on beforehand nor do they know the personalities involved. But perhaps I am an old fuddy-duddy. Let me give you another private/public example that aroused debate among my students yesterday. I was interviewed by the Toronto Star earlier this week on a story that dealt with whether people would rather say unpleasant things online rather than F2F. (I have no data on this, btw.) Also interviewed was a young woman who said (and I paraphrase), "Well I ditched him by email, but no matter, as we had only slept together once." There was the obvious debate about what is the etiquette was for ditching someone who had been slept with "only once": 5 said a F2F goodbye was called for; 1 said email was ok these days because it was such a common experience. But what shocked everyone one of us is that the woman interviewed used her own name. We wonder if anyone has contacted her; two radio stations have already contacted me about the story -- and my part of the interview was much less sensationalistic than her's. (I introduced the reporter to the concept of "flaming"). 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 _____________________________________________________________________

4 3

bibliwiki: a desktop wiki for books and articles
by Jeremy Hunsinger 20 Mar '07

20 Mar '07

BibblyWiki was designed for three specific but overlapping needs that students have: 1. To create bibliographies. 2. To organize their personal libraries of books and articles. 3. To take notes on books and articles. http://www.giffmex.org/bibblywiki.html 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] Attribute based web scales
by Paul DiPerna 20 Mar '07

20 Mar '07

Brian, In terms of usability, Jakob Nielsen and his group's useit.com site might give you ideas for evaluation parameters. http://www.useit.com/ You may also want to check the papers written for Community Lab. Here is the URL for their index: http://www.communitylab.org/?q=bibliography/project_cites I should give a caveat.. I'm not a web developer or HCI researcher. These days I research ICT-minded organizations and individuals for interviewing purposes. I apologize in advance if these links are not helpful. Good luck, Paul ------------------------- Paul DiPerna Blau Exchange http://www.blauexchange.org listserv: http://groups.google.com/group/blauexchange online ID: http://claimid.com/pdiperna > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Air-l] Attribute based web scales > From: "Cugelman, Brian" <B.Cugelman(a)wlv.ac.uk> > Date: Mon, March 19, 2007 2:48 pm > To: <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > > Dear All, > > I'm investigating how website attributes impact users' behaviour in the context of social campaign. A pilot study I conducted found a number of results: that usability, design, credibility and the quality of interactive applications were associated with more active users. Moving to the next stage, I wanted to develop attribute based evaluation scales I could use to assess website's credibility, usability, degree of interactivity and content quality. Ideally, I'd like to avoid systems that require human judgement and develop scales that ask: does it have X, does it have Y, is it missing Z. And from these come to a basic ranking of sites' usability, credibility, etc... > > I'm now pooling sources and was wondering if anyone knows about any 'tried and tested' scales which measure the above web attributes and have proven successful in the past; have suggestions on good frameworks from which to base such scales; or general thoughts on using attribute based scales to evaluate websites? > > Any advice is appreciated, > > Brian > > -------------------- > Brian Cugelman > Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group > University of Wolverhampton > b.cugelman(a)wlv.ac.uk > http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk <http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/

3 3

Re: [Air-l] FW: reasonable security with email interviewing research participants
by Sarah Stewart 19 Mar '07

19 Mar '07

Hi Catherine I am a PhD candidate at the Centre for Online Health at the University of Queensland, but live in New Zealand. I am conducting a study looking at e-mentoring. A colleague Liam Caffery has designed a secure web based email system that I am using for my research which I am finding very useful. He has said he is very happy to talk to you about it. lcaffery(a)coh.uq.edu.au Incidently, we are writing a paper about email security and have analysed email content according to a risk scale. We have come to the conclusion that from a legal point of view, we do not need to have our mentoring system encrypted and could use systems such as hotmail. However, from an ethical point of view we still feel it is important to use an encrypted system. Thank you, Sarah Sarah Stewart PhD Candidate Senior Lecturer School of Midwifery Otago Polytechnic Forth St Private Bag 1910 Dunedin New Zealand Tel: 0800 762786 sarahs(a)tekotago.ac.nz

1 0

Attribute based web scales
by Cugelman, Brian 19 Mar '07

19 Mar '07

Dear All, I'm investigating how website attributes impact users' behaviour in the context of social campaign. A pilot study I conducted found a number of results: that usability, design, credibility and the quality of interactive applications were associated with more active users. Moving to the next stage, I wanted to develop attribute based evaluation scales I could use to assess website's credibility, usability, degree of interactivity and content quality. Ideally, I'd like to avoid systems that require human judgement and develop scales that ask: does it have X, does it have Y, is it missing Z. And from these come to a basic ranking of sites' usability, credibility, etc... I'm now pooling sources and was wondering if anyone knows about any 'tried and tested' scales which measure the above web attributes and have proven successful in the past; have suggestions on good frameworks from which to base such scales; or general thoughts on using attribute based scales to evaluate websites? Any advice is appreciated, Brian -------------------- Brian Cugelman Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group University of Wolverhampton b.cugelman(a)wlv.ac.uk http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk <http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/>

2 1

Nethique en francais
by Jeremy Hunsinger 19 Mar '07

19 Mar '07

http://wiki.nethique.info/wiki/Accueil some materials on sl too http://wiki.nethique.info/wiki/ Netiquette_Charter_for_the_island_of_Île_Verte_in_Second_Life An interesting recent and ongoing set of events in paris about netiquette and net ethics 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

Re: [Air-l] Call for Papers -- Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
by James Downing 19 Mar '07

19 Mar '07

This could interest Digital clues to Sorrell libel case In the old days, the killer clues could have been a fingerprint or a speck of hair.Nowadays, the vital evidence is likely to be the address book in Outlook Express, or a missing memory stick labelled the "silver bullet". The libel trial initiated by advertising tycoon Sir Martin Sorrell has revealed how quickly legal actions have been propelled to the forefront of the digital age. Firstly, the trial is thought to be the first ever involving claims of a libellous blog. ...." Further ".......To back up his claims, Sir Martin employed private investigators to search for electronic footprints of the culprits. They retrieved records from various laptops which, together with data from internet service providers, helped track e-mail traffic and the creation of the blogs. They found that the computer image had been generated on an email account using a false name - JP Stevens - at Yahoo France. The libellous blog was sent around the world using what was called "anonymising software", covering up the origins of the message. This software rapidly changed the message's IP address point so it showed up variously as Nuremberg, San Francisco, Milan and New York. The judge also heard that examinations of laptops revealed every aspect of their usage: when a USB memory stick was inserted when a particular file was saved the number of times someone trawled the internet when a particular site was added to the favourite list. Intriguingly, a vital memory stick belonging to Mr Tinelli, which has been referred to as the "silver bullet", has gone missing. As a result of the forensic evidence, both Mr Tinelli and Mr Bennati have conceded that the infamous blog could have been created by someone within their organisation, Fullsix. But they emphatically deny they were responsible and have pledged to discipline the authors if they are uncovered......" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6458997.stm all the best >>> Jacquelyn Burkell <jburkell(a)uwo.ca> 20/03/07 9:18 AM >>> Please accept my apologies for the un-readable (at least in my browser) message that headed the call for papers for the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. The special issues addresses the relationship between privacy and technology in its broadest terms, and abstracts are invited for review by March 30th. Jacquelyn Burkell, Faculty of Information and Media Studies The University of Western Ontario _______________________________________________ The Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society invites submissions for a special issue dealing with the relationship between privacy and technology. Possible themes include (but are not limited to): The changing face of privacy: Privacy-enhancing or privacy-compromising aspects of technology; technology and surveillance; the meaning of privacy in the technological context. Perceptions and expectations of privacy in the technologically-mediated world: Influence of technology on our understanding of privacy; changing privacy attitudes as a result of technological innovation; privacy concerns arising as a result of technological innovation; expectations and assumptions regarding surveillance. Public understanding of privacy-enhancing and privacy-compromising technologies: Conceptions of new technologies and their influence on privacy; representations of privacy and privacy-related technologies in the media; public concerns about privacy and technology. Regulatory and legal implications of privacy-enhancing or privacy-reducing technologies: Consent and information disclosure; data aggregation and anonymization; regulatory frameworks for new technologies; data mining and transaction logging. Big-picture issues: Interactions between privacy-related technologies and others; positive and negative synergies; overall influences on human life and society. Please note that a future issue is planned on technology and surveillance. We recognize that the boundary is fuzzy between technology and privacy on the one hand, and technology and surveillance on the other hand; and potential authors should keep this in mind. Prospective authors are asked to submit an abstract of no more than 300 words to the guest editor, Dr. Jacquelyn Burkell, by March 30, 2007. Authors will be notified within 2 weeks whether their proposals are suitable for the special issue. Full papers must be submitted electronically to Dr. Burkell no later than July 15, 2007. Papers should be limited to 25 pages (double spaced) including references, though longer papers may be considered if the topic is particularly important and appropriate treatment requires additional length. The special issue is to appear early in 2008. Dr. Jacquelyn Burkell, Associate Professor Faculty of Information and Media Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario Phone: 519-661-2111 ext 88506 Fax: 519-661-3506 _______________________________________________ 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/

1 0