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

Recall: CFP Special Issue of The Information Society on Geographies of the Information Society Revisited
by richard.ling＠telenor.com 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Ling Richard Seyler (R&I) would like to recall the message, "CFP Special Issue of The Information Society on Geographies of the Information Society Revisited".

1 0

CFP Special Issue of The Information Society on Geographies of the Information Society Revisited
by richard.ling＠telenor.com 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Hello all, Harmeet Sawhney has asked me to post the attached call for papers for a special issue of The Information Society on "Geographies of the Information Society." If you are interested in submitting an abstract you should send it to Hamid R. Ekbia (guest editor along Nadine Schuurman) by September 1, 2007, at hekbia(a)indiana.edu. Rich L. CALL FOR PAPERS Special Issue of The Information Society on Geographies of the Information Society Revisited Guest Editors: Hamid R. Ekbia and Nadine Schuurman The information society can be usefully characterized as a universe at the intersection of three distinct but interdependent spaces: the geographical space, the social space, and the informational space. Although there are obvious differences among these spaces, there are also interesting similarities. In each of them, we discover asymmetries, inequalities, and hierarchies. We also identify similar features and activities -- most notably, links, bridges, and associations being continuously assembled, disassembled, and reassembled; borders drawn, erased, and redrawn incessantly; and boundary objects shuttled along the links and across borders tirelessly. People, organizations, and communities find it increasingly difficult to negotiate their way through this convoluted universe. Individuals find it hard to balance between often contradicting demands of local and global norms, expectations, and institutions; governmental, non-governmental, and supra-governmental organizations have to manage an immense flow of people, information, and material and cultural goods; and communities need to flexibly accommodate an equally enormous flux of ideas, individuals, and objects. Making sense of this complex state of affairs is beyond the scope of any single discipline, the capacity of any one method, or the resources of any individual philosophy. Rather, it can emerge from the exchanges and interactions among multiple ideas, methods, models, and disciplines. This is a call for such a multidisciplinary endeavor. In 1997 the National Science Foundation launched Project Varenius with the aim of advancing geographic information science (Goodchild et al. 1999). Varenius incorporated three components: computational, cognitive, and societal. In a review paper titled "Geographies of Information Society," Sheppard et al. (1999) explored the third (societal) component with the aim of introducing the key research initiatives and also to set "a benchmark by which to assess, a few years from now, the specific contributions of the Varenius project to that increasingly vital research area" (p. 798). Judging by the diversity of topics and the scope of literature of the last few years, one could safely argue that research on the societal aspects of geographic information science and technology has maintained, and indeed increased, its vitality. Researchers from geography and neighboring disciplines have since tackled many key and critical issues, specifically around the three initiatives of the societal component of Varenius Porject-- namely, (i) Place and identity in an age of technologically regulated movement, (ii) Measuring and representing accessibility in the information age, and (iii) Empowerment, marginalization, and public participation GIS. The growth in recent years of interest in critical GIS also contributes to this line of work, posing new questions and offering fresh insights. This has resulted in a healthy exchange of ideas between those who are concerned with the social, cultural, and political implications of modern technologies and practices and those who take more interest in the development and application of those technologies (see, for example, Schuurman and Kwan 2004, Harris and Harrower 2006). These exchanges can be further extended by involving information scientists who also think about similar questions in regards to modern information and communication technologies (ICT) and the information society. There are many interesting parallels between the types of questions and issues that face these scholars, making a mutual conversation intellectually productive. The purpose of this special issue is to contribute to that conversation. The range of possible topics is rather large. We take our lead from Sheppard et al.'s original review, revisiting its key themes and questions. As these authors had suggested, the title "geographies of the information society" is interpretively flexible, meaning different things to different people: the actual geographies that evolve on the surface of the earth in the information age, the virtual geographies that are the direct products of modern ICT, or the conceptual geographies gradually developed in individual and social consciousness through the representations of earth by these technologies. Each of these meanings introduces its own set of themes, questions, and challenges. The themes include, but are not limited to: the socio-political relations inscribed in maps and in GIS use; limits of representation in GIS; a critical history of GIS; ethics, privacy, and GIS; alternative GIS; the use of GIS in debates about global change; and gender and GIS. The questions are similarly vast in number: - How has the development of modern ICT and especially geographic technologies altered the regulation of flows of people, goods, and information? - To what extent has the regulation of borders at various scales -- from neighborhood to nation state and beyond -- moved away from geographical borders, and been replaced by ubiquitous forms of control? - How are these various regulatory regimes related to personal and group identity? - How have alternative non-place-based identities been promoted and maintained? How have they been controlled, and how successful have these controls been? - What lessons relevant to the world of the Internet can be learned from these experiences? And vice versa? - What future is there for borders and boundaries in a world where 'there is no there'? - What space-time topologies need to be developed to accommodate both the physical and virtual worlds? - How do emerging conceptions of virtual space map onto traditional conceptions of geographic space and how do we handle their interface analytically? Many of these questions were previously formulated in projects such as Initiative 19 (cf. Sheppard et al. 1999), and have been explored by geographers and non-geographers, but an adequate understanding is still far from available. Other questions have emerged as a result of intellectual developments in the last few years -- e.g., in social theory (Latour 2005, Pickles 1999). Of particular interest to information science is the question of flow, change, and movement. Traditionally, the focus in geography has been on places, shapes, and boundaries. In a similar fashion, geospatial technologies (including GIS) rely on practices that tend to fix boundaries. An alternative conception would arise if we put flow, circulation, and displacement first, and shapes and places second. What conceptualizations of geography would allow this shift of perspective? How can we develop a geography of networks rather than places? Are there ways that boundaries asserted through geospatial practices could be made less absolute and less stable? The guest editors invite abstracts by September 1, 2007, which should be sent to hekbia(a)indiana.edu. Authors with the most to offer to the dialogue will be invited to contribute full papers, which will go through the normal review process of the journal. For more information on TIS guidelines, please refer to: http://www.indiana.edu/~tisj/contributors/guest%20editors.html References Goodchild, M., Egenhofer, M., Kemp, K., and Mark, D., and Sheppard, E. (1999). International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13 (8): 731-745. Harris, L. and Harrower M. (2006). Critical Interventions and Lingering Concerns: Critical Cartography/GISci, Social Theory, and Alternative Possible Futures. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 4 (1), 1-10 Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press. Pickles, J. (1999). Social and Cultural Cartographies and the Spatial Turn in Social Theory. Journal of Historical Geography, 25: 93-98. Sheppard E., Couclelis H., Graham S., Harrington J. W., and Onsrud H. (1999). Geographies of Information Society. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 13(8): 797-823(27) Schuurman, N. and Kwan, M. (2004). Guest editorial: Taking a walk on the social side of GIS. Cartographica 39(1): 1-3 Rich L.

1 0

Remove my e-mail from e-mail distribution list
by V.Petkovic＠lse.ac.uk 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Please remove my e-mail from your list-server. I am no longer a contributing member as I have graduated from the LSE. Please do this at your earliest convenience. Thank You VP Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm

1 0

Re: [Air-L] public/private
by Ed Lamoureux 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

"And those are my last words on the subject, I for one am signing out of this "discussion" due to what I see as intransigence by the protagonist who clearly has an agenda." Lois, I think that maybe you misunderstand my intention and motivation. Perhaps not. But I'll try to explain. I don't really have some sort of hidden agenda here. My concern is that there are faculty, researchers, and students who may well be exposing human subjects to undue risks, without the IRB at their place reviewing their plans. If folks take the position that virtually everything available on the inter-web thingie is a public document, open to research without any application to an IRB, then no one is looking out for human subjects. My good friend Jeremy has even taken the position that the people that produce these texts aren't even subjects. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. Granted, people who post (many of whom are minors) do subject themselves to the dangers of making their private information widely available to others. But to just say that it's all out there so there aren't any rules, is, in my view, drastically wrong. I believe that some of the rules DO apply. And even if they don't I think that we should follow ethical guidelines that are MORE concerned about protecting human subjects than we are about furthering our own research agenda. Two other points. This list serves a lot of people like you . . . graduate students looking for direction. In fact, this thread was started by a grad student asking for advice/direction. What's a faculty member to do? Ignore possible issues and just say "OK KID, GO FOR IT!" even when and if they think there are issues to be discussed? We were asked our opinion about these considerations. Both sides of the issue have been represented and discussed. I think that's healthy. That's why stuff like this is often called a "contested issue." Just because one side says that it's a done deal, doesn't always make it so (not even my side). That's why I shared the U of Ill. procedure document. That wasn't my argument (though I used it) . . . those are procedures used by a fairly enlightened IRB. I think those procedures would apply to a lot of the web-netted research that's been discussed here. Other folks don't think so. Ok. Second, some of us are the same faculty who will go into our classes and preach hour after hour to our students about the public loss of privacy in America . . all the time cautioning our students (let alone our children) about the dangers of over-exposing private information. Or at least, I should say, I do. Then are we the very same faculty that turn around and grab whatever we can find from that netted-web without regard for protecting the very humans who produced the texts we want to study? That doesn't strike me as right, somehow. I'm sorry if I sound intransigent. I'm really not. I've often made applications to IRBs with all sorts of efforts to finesse various strictures, for various reasons. But I know, for example, that when Linden Lab took down their TOS restrictions to and procedures for research in Second Life, they explicitly offered the idea that they expected that the oversight provided to researchers by their local IRB would suffice. But for that to happen, applications to do the work, to get the exemption, must be filed. If the faculty member says, instead, "Oh, I know this is ok," then no oversight occurs. I honestly DO NOT have an axe to grind over this. I DO happen to think that open discussion of issues such as these are important. I also think that the internet is a fuzzy enough business that the answers are not fixed or obvious or universal. I am sorry if I seemed stubborn. I too, will quit now as I've made the key points I want to make and repeating them just wastes valuable bits and bandwidth. peace Edward Lee Lamoureux,

3 2

Re: [Air-L] research regs.
by Marj Kibby 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

Ed, You're now misinterpreting your own posts. That's an OR in there not an AND. 4. Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records . . . if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a maner that subjects cannot be identified 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 >>> Ed Lamoureux <ell(a)bumail.bradley.edu> 08/12/07 10:06 PM >>> On Aug 11, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Marj Kibby wrote: > Doesn't this say clearly that if the blog (publicly available) already > exists before your study begins, and was not set up for the purpose of > your study then it is exempt? > Marj Yes as along as the data set is "finished" before IRB review . . . HOWEVER, that's under the condition that the data cannot be tracked back to the individual.

1 0

youth and ict, world bank report
by Jeremy Hunsinger 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

http://iris37.worldbank.org/domdoc/PRD/Other/PRDDContainer.nsf/All +Documents/85256D2400766CC785257298005AA016/$File/ Youth_ICTs_Development.pdf by David J. McKenzie 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

Dissertation
by brook bolander 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

Dear AOIR, I am writing my PhD on the subject of "power in blogs", and thereby exploring how power is negotiated in the interaction between bloggers and their readers, and between the readers themselves in the comments sections of blog posts in which conflicts are salient. I have received an initial e-mail confirmation from the bloggers that they consent to my research and have given them the option of requiring me to use psuedonyms. I now intend to write to the bloggers, asking for their addresses, so I can outline the project in more detail and obtain written consent. I am aware, however, that research on the internet can be very complicated in terms of ethical issues. What I am less sure about are the legal issues. Am I correct in assuming that if I do not include quotations, use pseudonyms for the readers (whose permission I have not gained), use pseudonyms for those bloggers who ask me to (one blogger has explicitly asked me not to), gain written consent from the bloggers themselves and inform them in the letter what the study entails, that I will run into no ethical or legal problems? All my bloggers state they are adults. Or do I need to write to the hosts as well, like blogger, for example, to ask for their permission as well? One of the bloggers asked me whether she would have any problems vis à vis her readers if she consented to my study, for example, and I found I didn't really know, with any certainty, what to reply. I hope that my PhD will be published in a couple of years, and am not sure whether that plays a role in terms of its label as something for 'commerical purposes'. I am writing my PhD in Switzerland. I really want to go about this the right way and am having problems gaining the information I need. Thanks a lot in advance for your help, Best wishes Brook Bolander

19 45

New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension conference publication from unesco
by Jeremy Hunsinger 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001520/152017e.pdf 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

Re: [Air-L] research regs.
by Marj Kibby 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

Ed, Doesn't this say clearly that if the blog (publicly available) already exists before your study begins, and was not set up for the purpose of your study then it is exempt? 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 >>> Ed Lamoureux <ell(a)bumail.bradley.edu> 08/12/07 12:35 PM >>> 4. Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records . . . if these sources are publicly available OR if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a maner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects. Note: in order to be eligible for this exemption, all data, documents, records, or specimens must exist prior to IRB review and must have been collected for purposes other than the proposed research. (To qualify for an exemption in this category, the proposed research must be strictly retrospective).

4 3

Re: [Air-L] research regs.
by Marj Kibby 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

I thought we were discussing textual analysis (of online texts) not ethnography. If I am analysing a public forum/blog/wiki,facebook site in which I do not intervene then no ethics clearance is necessary. It is a published document. If I question or comment in the forum only then does it become human subject research - I am intervening in their lives - but it would still qualify for expedited clearance as low-risk, being public. 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 >>> Ed Lamoureux <ell(a)bumail.bradley.edu> 08/12/07 12:35 PM >>> I think this is an IRB that pretty clearly understands, via experience, ethnographic methods.

2 1