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

call for reviewers: resource center for cyberculture studies
by David M Silver 21 May '07

21 May '07

folks, * please feel free to forward, distribute, and cross-post * nearly each month, the resource center for cyberculture studies, or RCCS ( http://rccs.usfca.edu/ ), publishes book reviews related to the field of contemporary media and culture. these book reviews are free, open to the public, and available here: ( http://rccs.usfca.edu/booklist.asp ). if YOU are interested in writing a 1000-1500 word review and can write the review by the end of august 2007, please contact me. please include: a) the name of the book you wish to review, b) your professional affiliation, and c) a sentence or two about why you want to review this book. if selected, i will send you a free review copy of the book and ask you to send me your review by the end of august. if you already have many commitments for summer and do not think you can read and review the book by the end of august, please pass until next time. if YOU are an author/editor of a book related to cyberculture and contemporary media and you do not see your book on the list below, please send a review copy (or copies) to: David Silver/RCCS University of San Francisco Department of Media Studies 2130 Fulton Street San Francisco, CA 94117-1080 i am especially interested in reviewing books published outside the US and UK and books written in languages other than english. the following books are available for review. if interested, please contact me (dmsilver [ at ] usfca.edu) prior to JUNE 1, 2007. (because mailing lists/listservs often truncate/shorten long messages, the full version of this call for reviewers can be found here: http://silverinsf.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-books-ready-for-review.html ) Charles R. Acland, Residual Media (University of Minnesota Press, 2007) Mark Amerika, META/DATA: A Digital Poetics (MIT Press, 2007) Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas, Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics (Chelsea Green, 2006) Chris Atton, An Alternative Internet (Columbia University Press, 2005) Michael D. Ayers (Editor), Cybersounds: Essays On Virtual Music Culture (Peter Lang Publishing, 2006) Axel Bruns, Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production (Peter Lang Publishing, 2005) Axel Bruns and Joanne Jacobs (Editors), Uses of Blogs (Peter Lang Publishing, 2006) Manuel Castells, Mireia Fernandez-Ardevol, Jack Linchuan Qiu, and Araba Sey, Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective (MIT Press, 2006) Annmarie Chandler and Norie Neumark, At a Distance: Precursors to Art and Activism on the Internet (MIT Press, 2006) Roy Christopher (Editor), Follow for Now: Interviews with Friends and Heroes (Well-Red Bear, 2007) Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Control and Freedom: Power and Paranoia in the Age of Fiber Optics (MIT Press, 2006) Andy Clarke and Grethe Mitchell (Editors), Videogames and Art (Intellect, 2007) Mia Consalvo, Nancy Baym, Jeremy Hunsinger, Klaus Bruhn Jensen, John Logie, Monica Murero, and Leslie Regan Shade (Editors), Internet Research Annual: Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conferences 2000-2002 (Peter Lang Publishing, 2004) Steve Dixon, Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation (MIT Press, 2007) Timothy Druckrey (Editor), Ars Electronica: Facing the Future: A Survey of Two Decades (MIT Press, 1999) Kathleen Fitzpatrick, The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television (Vanderbilt University Press, 2006) Patrice Flichy, The Internet Imaginaire (MIT Press, 2007) Kirsten Foot and Steven M. Schneider, Web Campaigning (MIT Press, 2006) Anne Friedberg, The Virtual Window: From Alberti to Microsoft (MIT Press, 2006) Ted Friedman, Electric Dreams: Computers in American Culture (New York University Press, 2005) Alexander R. Galloway, Gaming: Essays On Algorithmic Culture (University of Minnesota Press, 2006) Alexander R. Galloway, Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization (MIT Press, 2006) Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, CODE: Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Economy (MIT Press, 2005) Tarleton Gillespie, Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture (MIT Press, 2007) Lisa Gitelman, Always Already New: Media, History, and the Data of Culture (MIT Press, 2006) Ken Goldberg (Editor), The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics and Telepistemology in the Age of the Internet (MIT Press, 2001) N. Katherine Hayles, Nick Montfort, Scott Rettberg, and Stephanie Strickland (Editors), Electronic Literature Collection, Volume 1 (Electronic Literature Organization, 2006) Ken Hillis, Michael Petit, and Nathan Scott Epley (Editors), Everyday eBay: Culture, Collecting, And Desire (Routledge, 2006) Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York University Press, 2006) Caroline A. Jones, Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and Contemporary Art (MIT Press, 2006) David Joselit, Feedback: Television against Democracy (MIT Press, 2007) Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture's New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (MIT Press, 2004) James E. Katz and Ronald E. Rice, Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction (MIT Press, 2002) Lori Kendall, Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online (University of California Press, 2002) Martin Kevorkian, Color Monitors: The Black Face of Technology in America (Cornell University Press, 2006) Randy Kluver, Nicholas Jankowski, Kirsten Foot, and Steven Schneider (Editors), The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning (Routledge, 2007) Petra Kuppers, Disability and Contemporary Performance: Bodies on Edge (Routledge, 2003) Geert Lovink, Dark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture (MIT Press, 2003) Peter Lunenfeld (Author) and Mieke Gerritzen (Designer), User: InfoTechnoDemo (MIT Press, 2005) Milton L. Mueller, Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace (MIT Press, 2004) Ned Rossiter, Organized Networks: Media Theory, Creative Labour, New Institutions (NAi Publishers, 2007) Nicholas Ruiz III, The Metaphysics of Capital (Intertheory, 2006) Fred Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism (University of Chicago Press, 2006) McKenzie Wark, Gamer Theory (Harvard University Press, 2007) David Weinberger, Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder (Times Books, 2007) Darren Wershler-Henry, The Iron Whim: A Fragmented History of Typewriting (Cornell University Press, 2007) Michele White, The Body and the Screen: Theories of Internet Spectatorship (MIT Press, 2006) Monica T. Whitty, Andrea J. Baker and James A. Inman (Editors), Online Matchmaking (Palgrave, 2007) Monica T. Whitty and Adrian N. Carr, Cyberspace Romance: The Psychology of Online Relationships (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) Michele A. Willson, Technically Together: Rethinking Community Within Techno-society (Peter Lang Publishing, 2006) *** david silver http://silverinsf.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: [Air-l] laptops and Internet access in class
by Matthew Bernius 21 May '07

21 May '07

I come at this issue from both side: as a PhD student (at Cornell) and as professor teaching undergraduate classes (at RIT, btw, so I'm pretty familiar with the scenario Alex laid out). Next year I will be banning cell phone, ipods, etc. in my undergraduate classes. Laptops will be allowed for specific assignments, but otherwise not to be used as well (especially in Freshman classes). This ban extends to myself as well (unless unavoidable, I'm going to rely on lecturing and white boards -- no more ppt). As Alex suggested, my biggest issue with laptops is the distraction that they cause to other students. Geyond that (and outside of lab activities), I am increasingly coming to the belief that they present a barrier to students developing certain skills that will, down the road, better allow those students to use those same devices. And, at least for a school like RIT, that prides itself on preparing it's students for the workplace, basic technology etiquette needs to be stressed. The sad fact is that a lot of the technology behavior I've seen isn't appropriate for the workplace. As far as upper level undergrads, depending on the class makeup, I may allow it. But right now I'm more concerned about raising physical engagement rather than passively encouraging virtual engagement. Now for the possible hypocrisy -- I fully intend to use a laptop to take notes when I attend class. That said, if a prof doesn't allow it, I won't mind. And I'm confident that I'm at a point where I can use the laptop responsibly. - Matt -- ----------------------------- Matthew Bernius New Media and Customer Intelligence Strategist for Hire mBernius(a)gMail.com http://www.waking-dream.com

5 4

Re: [Air-l] Trolls. Lurking. And the "we" that should move on
by William Bain 21 May '07

21 May '07

Steve Eskow wrote: "the matter may not warrant an extended discussion, but your message below deals with "malicious trolling," and "flaming," and I would certainly agree that those behaviors would warrant warnings and possible exclusion. Your proposal that we move on, however, was that "we" move on and leave behind a discussion of these matters: that is, if we had agreed your post below and this response would be out of order, since we are continuing the discussion." I agree with your points. The main ideas being talked about and whazt they represent will I suppose crop up from time to timeas a matter of course. i just read the recent exchanges as pretty much taking care or what i perceived As difficulties for the list. Best regards, Will William Bain PhD Student Comparative Literature Department of Spanish Philology Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

1 0

Re: [Air-l] students on lists
by Suzana Sukovic 21 May '07

21 May '07

This is a research list, so people are identified as "a professor" or "a PhD student". Knowing a field of their expertise is useful. On the other end of the spectrum, anonymous participants don't identify their research credentials. I don't mind it, but I don't think it's appropriate on a list like this one. Authority is also established in writing by demonstrating one's knowledge or by sprinkling the writing with statements about one's authority. The last one is often felt as intimidating. Most people on the list have tools of discourse analysis, I assume, so this isn't really new. Cheers, Suzana At 12:20 PM 18/05/2007, you wrote: >Me too. AoIR has a lot or friendly, helpful and humble people on the list. > >I feel the need to say though, at the risk of getting into trouble, that >sometimes I read an email and feel that I shouldn't get involved in the >discussion. And it aint that anyone's claiming to be a top expert on the >topic, or that only academics in the specific field are allowed an opinion, >but just by the fact that an email is signed off with a Dr or Prof in front >of the name of the author, or that the email ends with a list of the >author's credentials. > >I'm not "put off" by the discussion or have negative feelings about the >email's author, and the author hasn't set him or herself up in a way that is >not welcoming of a response, but there's a little voice in my head that says >"Dr or Prof said such-and-such, so don't say anything". > >And I know that this issue is mine and only mine, and that only I have put >that little voice in my head, but I think many students like me also have >that little voice. I also fail to see the benefit of placing that Dr or Prof >in their email signature, and wonder why people do it (are they encouraged >by their university or bound by a protocol to do so?). > >paul teusner > > >-----Original Message----- >From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org >[mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Suzana Sukovic >Sent: Friday, 18 May 2007 12:03 >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org >Subject: Re: [Air-l] students on lists > >Intimidation factor is most often in a too visible authority and >patronising attitude. Sometimes it's worth remembering that PhD students, >especially in the humanities and social sciences, are often middle-aged >people with lots of professional experience. > >I agree that AoIR is a welcoming association on-line and off-line. >Cheers, >Suzana > >At 11:32 AM 18/05/2007, you wrote: > >I'm sure you're right, and it is regrettable. It does tend to suggest, > >however, that poor treatment of students probably isn't correlated with > >whether or not a list permits pseudonymity, and that the intimidation > >factor may well be negatively correlated. > >Best - Julie > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > >[mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mary-Helen Ward > >Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:06 PM > >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > >Subject: [Air-l] students on lists > > > >I know from my PhD project that many students feel quite inadequate > >in the presence of Real Academics. Whether they should or not is > >another matter, but many have been treated quite badly in academic > >forums (or seen other people so treated). It can be really difficult > >for them to trust these forums, and it sometimes doesn't take much to > >send them scuttling for cover. > > > >This list always, in my experience, works hard to provide a safe and > >welcoming space. > > > >M-H > >_______________________________________________ >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/ Suzana

2 2

Re: [Air-l] [Air-L] Research question: interviewing online subjects
by Erika Pearson 20 May '07

20 May '07

interesting points I used the word immoral as it has come up from time to time in the literature (and is what got me started thinking about this in the first place - what is 'immoral' in a religious discussion group may be grist for the mill on a slash fanfic mailing list!). In a similar vein, what is illegal in one country is not in another - I am reading this because I am thinking about constructing a project that involves looking at online material which is skirting in contested territory regarding copyright - how can I satisfactorily define what is 'illegal' and reportable behaviour for myself and for those my research brings me into contact with? What constitutes reportable behaviour, in which jurisdiction, and where, when and to whom should I report? Almost certainly the people I will be talking to will be under other systems of national law to me - do I have to familiarize myself with every legal system? (does grant money cover a legal team? *g*) Like you said, making these things clear and explicit is important for building trust and rapport, as well as (I would argue) part of good practice of being a researcher, so thanks for your reply, Paul, it's certainly added grist to the mill (or fuel to the fire!) erika ~~ Erika Pearson Dept. of Media, Film and Communication. University of Otago P.O. Box 56 Dunedin 9054 Aotearoa/New Zealand Ph: (+0064 3) 479-8680 E-mail: erika.pearson(a)otago.ac.nz

1 0

country telecenter profiles wiki
by Jeremy Hunsinger 20 May '07

20 May '07

http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/wiki/country_profiles has the history of telecenters by country... it is a little sparse in places, but it's a wiki so you can add what you know that is missing:) Jeremy Hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. --Byron

1 0

global information society watch report 2007
by Jeremy Hunsinger 20 May '07

20 May '07

http://www.globaliswatch.org/download some of you may find that useful, it has some nice general information and some country reports. jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) 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

follow up to Toronto Facebook discussion
by Katy E. Pearce 20 May '07

20 May '07

Facebook posted a blog entry about Toronto and FB's popularity in Canada on Thursday. http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2398302130

1 0

Even more.... Fwd: ICT-for-D books... sharable and otherwise
by Frederick Noronha 20 May '07

20 May '07

Share and share alike... when I passed around a list of books on ICT-for-Development (a couple even downloadable for free), Michel Bauwens < michelsub2004(a)gmail.com<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/bytesforall_readers/post?postID=oEg3G2ot…>> of that amazing resource called the http://p2pfoundation.net in Bangkok [he also has an amazing set of bookmarks at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens ] sent me pointers to his list. Check below: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michel Bauwens < michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Date: 19-May-2007 13:21 Subject: Re: ICT-for-D books... sharable and otherwise To: Frederick FN Noronha < fredericknoronha(a)gmail.com > Thanks for this useful list, Remember that my books are listed here at: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Books A few items that might be of interest: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Wireless_Networking_in_the_Developing_World http://www.p2pfoundation.net/African_Digital_Commons http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Building_Sustainable_Communities http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Gaian_Democracies http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Human_Scale http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Video_for_Change http://www.p2pfoundation.net/You_Can_Hear_Me_Now This one is important for inspiring policy reforms: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Democratizing_Innovation Thanks so much, Michel. Was useful! --FN -- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST) Skype: fredericknoronha Yahoochat: fredericknoronha http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com Email fred at bytesforall.org Res: 784 Saligao 403511 Goa India

1 0

Research question: interviewing online subjects?
by Monica Barratt 20 May '07

20 May '07

This is a question I have also been considering over the last few weeks, prior to beginning my online interviews which should happen over the next month. Paul has stated this very well. For me, in researching activities relating to illicit drugs, I must make sure that participants under that: - what they tell me is confidential - the exception to this is if they disclose a serious and imminent threat to harm themselves or others - they are free to choose not to answer any particular questions. So the participant, if they were (for example) running a drug trafficking operation, can choose not to inform me of this, and surely wouldn't suddenly tell me such details! When we do ask questions about crime, we always have a preamble which stresses that we are not in any way interested in details, just general frequency levels of types of crime. This way we do not end up with the sort of information that would require us to breach confidentiality. Research materials in Australia are subject to legal subpoena; we can't apply for protection from this as I believe can be done in the USA. The issue I am faced with is that my consent form for online interviewing of drug users does not contain an exception clause at this point (and was passed by my ethics committee). My supervisor and I have been discussing including this exception clause. However we did both ask ourselves, what would we do if such information came out in an online interview, where we don't have concrete details of the person's identity? If they told me they were going to commit suicide and I wanted to inform someone to help them, how would I do this? I could certainly direct them to resources (online and face-to-face) but none of this breaks confidentiality. However we did conceive of situations where the confidentiality exception clause is necessary in the case where the participant disclosed details of their identity and a serious/imminent threat to themselves or others. We would then have enough information to get help for them. And they would be aware from the start that this would be the outcome should they disclose this sort of information. I agree that this should only be in regards to illegal (rather than 'immoral') acts. I also think it would be a bit strange to have this clause in all types of research - however, although it may seem unlikely, you just never know when you might find yourself in this ethically tricky situation. Best that participants know exactly where they stand from the outset. Let us know what you decide to do Erika! regards monica Monica Barratt PhD Student National Drug Research Institute http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/staff.asp?persid=650 http://www.linkedin.com/in/mbarratt On 19/05/07, Sam Ladner < samladner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > These are all important points -- I concur that the ethics board should be > respected insofar as they protect subjects. > > That said, however, I believe their approach does very little to actually > protect subjects. The informed consent letter I have for participants is 2 > pages long. It is very verbose and largely unintellible to the uninitiated > (this at the board's explicit direction). The net result is that the lived > experience of my participants varies greatly from the "official" experience > the board is attempting to engineer. > > Ethical obligations do not reside within rules or structures. Ethical > obligations must transcend such structures. There is no "letter of the law" > that ruled a very real ethical problem I encountered yesterday -- a person > who knew one of my participants mentioned that I had interviewed him. I > could not discuss this interview, or even the existence of such an > interview, in accordance with what i perceive to be my ethical obligation of > confidentiality. > > My ethics board says nothing about this specific case. I must infer the > spirit of the rules, which I prefer to do instead of following letter of the > law at the expense of its spirit. > > > > On 5/18/07, Justin Reedy <jsreedy(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/18/07, Sam Ladner <samladner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > They also insisted I insert a paragraph that my university would not > > hold > > > anything against them based on their participation. I can only infer > > there > > > was a rash of disappointed undergraduate applicants that had > > participated > > > in > > > university-based research....none of my participants understood the > > reason > > > behind that phrase either. > > > > > > I have heard a lot of folks in the social sciences express frustration at > > IRBs and ethics boards, but I think it's very important to remember the > > basics of why they exist: to protect research subjects and represent their > > interests. > > > > Most researchers in all of the sciences (life sciences, social sciences, > > etc.) are very conscientious in their work, and would not willingly harm > > their subjects or expose them to suffering (in the case of animals used in > > life sciences research, for example). However, there have been far too > > many > > cases where scientists acted in ways that harmed (or could have harmed) > > subjects for the sake of their research. The IRB is an entity that is > > supposed to represent the interests of subjects, just as researchers > > represent their own interests. > > > > Some of the protections or informed-consent clauses may seem strange and > > inappropriate for your particular line of research, but IMO, when > > protecting > > a group that has in the not-so-distant past been left unrepresented in the > > process or study design and implementation (I'm speaking of research > > subjects here), it is far better to be safe than sorry. Also, some of > > those > > clauses can seem weird for your work, but upon further reflection, it's > > not > > too much of a stretch to see how someone could feel coerced into > > participating or doing something else they'd rather not do. A large state > > university, for instance, can be a powerful entity in a research subject's > > community and may seem intimidating to people. > > > > Just to reiterate my overarching point: I try to view an IRB as an entity > > representing the interests of subjects, who get no say in the design and > > implementation of a study otherwise. > > > > My two cents as a (lowly) graduate student, > > Justin Reedy > > University of Washington > > Department of Communication > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ >

1 0