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

cfp + cfp + Journal of Electronic Commerce Research: Special Issue on Virtual Worlds + cf + cfp
by Marc Fetscherin 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE RESEARCH: SPECIAL ISSUE ON VIRTUAL WORLDS CALL FOR PAPERS Special Issue on Virtual Worlds Submissions due: November 1, 2007 Scheduled Publication date: August 2008 Overview: The emergence of virtual worlds and Web 3.D change the way of doing business. Web 3.D is the synonym for Internet-based virtual worlds, where people can create own 3-D *virtual* personalities. Virtual Worlds such as Second Life and others are undergoing an evolution similar to that of the Internet in the mid nineties and might impact profoundly the way people cooperate, communicate, collaborate, and conduct business. The recent entering of companies such as Toyota, American Apparel, Nissan, or Adidas indicate the upcoming role of this platform for the next generation of conducting electronic business. This call for papers is intended to cover a wide range of business and research topics that fall within the broad description of activities, challenges, opportunities, applications, innovations and implications associated with Virtual Worlds as the emerging new online business landscape. Purpose of the Special Issue: The purpose of this special issue is to encourage discussion and communication of important research issues that underpin Virtual Worlds as an important aspect of e-commerce and to showcase interesting and significant research work in this critical area. Specifically this issues is focusing on business and legal issues of doing business in Virtual Worlds. Of particular relevance to the described focus are papers about business models, marketing, promotion, pricing, customer integration, consumer behavior, legal, cultural and cross-cultural research. The issue, however, will not be restricted to these topics; rather, it welcomes reports of theoretical or empirical research that examines pertinent business issues related to Virtual Worlds e-commerce. This special issue will be of interest to researchers, governments, small and large businesses, marketing and PR companies among others. List of possible topics are: * Product Development and Testing in Virtual Worlds * Image, Branding, Advertising in Virtual Worlds * Marketing in Virtual World * Avatar-based Marketing * Promotion of Virtual Goods in Virtual Worlds * Pricing of Virtual Goods in Virtual Worlds * Selling, Cross-Selling Real and Virtual Worlds * Business Planning for Non-profits in Virtual Worlds * Fundraising and Virtual Worlds * Convergence of Real and Virtual Worlds * Customer Integration and Virtual Worlds * Technology, Business, Strategy in Virtual Worlds * Financial Systems, Investments, Currency Exchange Real and Virtual Worlds * Emerging Media Presence in Virtual Worlds * Consumer Behavior, Consumer Acceptance and Virtual Worlds * Trust, Cross-Cultural Studies and Virtual Worlds * Intellectual Property, Copyright, Trademarks and Virtual Worlds Submission of Manustcript: JECR publishes original empirical research, theoretical and methodological articles, evaluative and integrative reviews, field research, business surveys, and application papers of interest to a general readership. A submission based on a paper appearing elsewhere (such as conference proceedings or newsletters) must have major value-added extensions to the earlier version. For conference papers, it should have at least 30% new material. The submitted manuscripts should follow the format as suggested in the Submission Guideline found in the journal website: http://www.csulb.edu/journals/jecr/s_guide.htm. Of particular note is that the manuscript should be prepared in Microsoft Word format. The names, affiliations, and contact information (i.e., phone, fax, email addresses) of all authors should be provided only on the cover page. The submitted paper will undergo a double-blind review. Contributing authors may be asked to serve as reviewers for the special issue. Authors may submit completed manuscripts electronically at any time prior to November 1st 2007 deadline. Manuscripts and questions send to mfetscherin(a)rollins.edu. Guest Editor Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. Rollins College International Business Department Winter Park, 32789, FL, USA e-mail: mfetscherin(a)rollins.edu Tel: +1 407 691 1759 Fax: +1 407 646 1566 Important Dates: Deadline for Submission: November 1, 2007 Paper acceptance/rejection: January 15, 2008 Revised paper submission: March 15, 2008 Final acceptance following revisions: May 15, 2008 Publication Date: August 2008

1 1

Re: [Air-L] Survey completion rate
by Philipp Budka 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

Dear List and Holly, Interestingly both of my survey, I have currently up running have a completion rate of about 80%. Even though they differ in length, topic and number of participants. I also found that inviting potential respondents via e-mail is not fostering participation. What are your experiences with motivating participants? Best, Philipp Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:57:36 -0500 From: Holly Kruse <holly-kruse(a)utulsa.edu> Subject: [Air-L] Survey completion rate To: <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> I currently have an online survey underway, and as it slogs along, it has made me curious about something. What, generally, do people find to be the completion rate of their online surveys? This is a stat to which I probably wouldn't have access in a traditional paper survey -- I wouldn't be able to differentiate between people who started the questionnaire and didn't complete it, and those who just didn't fill it out at all -- so it's an interesting feature of this survey format. I'm finding that so far, with my survey the completion rate is hovering around 80%. Is that similar to others' experiences? (...) But I am curious to hear about completion rates of others' online surveys. Holly -- Philipp Budka philbu(a)gmx.net Dreyhausenstraße 18/7 A-1140 Wien, Austria http://www.philbu.net -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger

1 0

part 2 of 2
by Ed Lamoureux 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

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). Later in the boxed summary sections: 5. Please explain how confidentiality will be maintained during and after data collection. If appropriate, address confidentiality of data collected via e-mail, web interfaces, computer servers and other networked information. 7. Individually identifiable information. Will any identifiable information, including images of subjects, be published, shared, or otherwise disseminated? . . . NOTE: if yes, subjects must provide explicit consent or assent for such dissemination . . . Elsewhere, copy of their informed consent requirements: http:// www.irb.uiuc.edu/?q=informed-consent/ElementsOfInformedConsent.html +++ we can, then, quibble a bit over what is or isn't public and you may not be forced to stay within UI's parameters that the data be "historic," But my point is, and has been all along, that working in the field does not exempt one from confidentiality, informed consent, and protection of subjects. One might, for various reasons, get off the hook for SOME of it . . . but when the data used can be traced back to individuals (and MUCH web published data CAN BE). . . I think in most places, using that data without prior informed consent might well be frowned upon by many IRB committees. GAWD I hope this makes it through the list's 10k limit. I'm having a lot of trouble making meaningful points around that limit. [obviously, it did not] Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D.

2 1

part one of two
by Ed Lamoureux 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

sorry, but I have to break this into two parts as the 10k limit caught me again please allow me to stop arguing in the abstract for a moment [I sort of gravitate toward hypotheticals] If you have a chance, have a look a the U of Illinois, IRB protection of human subjects stuff at http://www.irb.uiuc.edu/ http://www.irb.uiuc.edu/?q=irb-admin/introduction.html Especially helpful is the download of the "NEW" IRB Application for Exemption. This is the document that controls the process, for the U. of I., of telling researchers that they can go ahead and do what they plan to do cause it fits under the Federal categories for exemption from full review. Even getting the research approved via this form does not release the researcher from best practices; but it does recognize that certain kinds of work (descriptive, observational, etc.) are in a category that pose little risk to subjects so may be done without full board review and constant, repetitive, oversight. before I highlight a couple parts, please note that I'm not at the U of I . . . I'm only familiar with their stuff cause I treat them as a model due to their longstanding involvement with ethnography. See their long term ethnography of the university project: http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/what/index.htm I think this is an IRB that pretty clearly understands, via experience, ethnographic methods. These guys don't make law for everyone. But I think they are a good model and they are breaking ground in the attempted colocation of human subject protection stuff across disciplines. Some highlights in the application for exemption: *NEW* IRB Application for Exemption: http://www.irb.uiuc.edu/files/ exemptform.dot (this will open as a fillable form in WORD) Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau

1 0

research regs.
by Ed Lamoureux 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

please allow me to stop arguing in the abstract for a moment [I sort of gravitate toward hypotheticals] If you have a chance, have a look a the U of Illinois, IRB protection of human subjects stuff at http://www.irb.uiuc.edu/ http://www.irb.uiuc.edu/?q=irb-admin/introduction.html Especially helpful is the download of the "NEW" IRB Application for Exemption. This is the document that controls the process, for the U. of I., of telling researchers that they can go ahead and do what they plan to do cause it fits under the Federal categories for exemption from full review. Even getting the research approved via this form does not release the researcher from best practices; but it does recognize that certain kinds of work (descriptive, observational, etc.) are in a category that pose little risk to subjects so may be done without full board review and constant, repetitive, oversight. before I highlight a couple parts, please note that I'm not at the U of I . . . I'm only familiar with their stuff cause I treat them as a model due to their longstanding involvement with ethnography. See their long term ethnography of the university project: http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/what/index.htm I think this is an IRB that pretty clearly understands, via experience, ethnographic methods. These guys don't make law for everyone. But I think they are a good model and they are breaking ground in the attempted colocation of human subject protection stuff across disciplines. Some highlights in the application for exemption: *NEW* IRB Application for Exemption: http://www.irb.uiuc.edu/files/ exemptform.dot (this will open as a fillable form in WORD) 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). Later in the boxed summary sections: 5. Please explain how confidentiality will be maintained during and after data collection. If appropriate, address confidentiality of data collected via e-mail, web interfaces, computer servers and other networked information. 7. Individually identifiable information. Will any identifiable information, including images of subjects, be published, shared, or otherwise disseminated? . . . NOTE: if yes, subjects must provide explicit consent or assent for such dissemination . . . Elsewhere, copy of their informed consent requirements: http:// www.irb.uiuc.edu/?q=informed-consent/ElementsOfInformedConsent.html +++ we can, then, quibble a bit over what is or isn't public and you may not be forced to stay within UI's parameters that the data be "historic," But my point is, and has been all along, that working in the field does not exempt one from confidentiality, informed consent, and protection of subjects. One might, for various reasons, get off the hook for SOME of it . . . but when the data used can be traced back to individuals (and MUCH web published data CAN BE). . . I think in most places, using that data without prior informed consent might well be frowned upon by many IRB committees. GAWD I hope this makes it through the list's 10k limit. I'm having a lot of trouble making meaningful points around that limit. Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D.

1 0

Buddy churn
by Aleks Krotoski 11 Aug '07

11 Aug '07

Hello, I was wondering if anyone's done any research or has any insight into how often people remove friends from buddy lists. Is there Buddy churn in Instant Messaging or on Social Networking sites? On RSS feeds or on Blogrolls? In virtual worlds or MMOGs? Absolutely any pointers/directions/references welcomed! Thanks very much, Aleks PhD candidate, University of Surrey http://www.toastkid.com ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/

5 5

Re: [Air-L] public private
by Marj Kibby 11 Aug '07

11 Aug '07

Our IRB allows 'Trojan Horse' studies when the results that might be gained from the research are significant and the awareness of the researcher's presence would have highly negative outcomes. One example was the study of an online support forum for schoolgirl sex-workers in Japan. It was thought that announcing the researcher's presence might make some girls stop using the forum and thereby deny them the support. Over the years we have also moved from thinking that online IDs protected RL IDs, and could therefore be used, to a position where both online and RL identities must be protected. 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

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Survey completion rate
by Marj Kibby 11 Aug '07

11 Aug '07

I'm using SurveyMonkey - another fan. My last survey had an opt out after 6 general questions on music and computers. 100% of the people who went on to the specific/detailed questions stayed to the end. 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 >>> "Heidelberg, Chris" <Chris.Heidelberg(a)ssa.gov> 08/11/07 6:47 AM >>> I love survey monkey for my quantitative studies. My study was mostly qualitative with some mixed overtones. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jason Mittell Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:46 PM To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Survey completion rate On a medium-length survey I did last year (via SurveyMonkey, which I too found quite lovely), I had a completion rate of 79%. (The published results of the project, about online spoiler fans of LOST are available at http://www.participations.org/Volume%204/Issue%201/4_01_graymittell.htm if anyone is interested.) -Jason -- Jason Mittell, Assistant Professor of American Studies and Film & Media Culture Middlebury College 204 Adirondack House Middlebury, Vermont 05753 (802) 443-3435 / fax: (802) 443-5123 Homepage: http://seguecommunity.middlebury.edu/sites/jmittell Blog: http://justtv.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ 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

time out please
by Ed Lamoureux 10 Aug '07

10 Aug '07

Sorry folks. I've been overly involved in this one. My bad. I'm sorry if I've taxed your patience. The positions I've taken today have sounded very "establishment." My actual belief system is somewhat contrary to some of what I've noted. In general, what I believe about IP law is this: this new media climate is REALLY challenging for IP law. I teach about it all the time, usually AGAINST the current regime. "WE the people" have NOT been adequately represented by our elected officials in these matters. They've given over law making, for 100 years, to industry legal beagles. So now that the law has to apply to everyman, it can't cause it was written by and for the big content industries. And the law changes real slow. And the last time it changed (DMCA) it headed further against users. We have no IP law for new media users. However, we DO have a lot of IP law that IS still in place and DOES get applied, everyday. Just because many ignore it does NOT make it irrelevant. And of course, US IP law does not in every place apply. In general what I believe about data collection is that informed consent is pretty darned important and that, generally speaking, human subjects should be protected as thoroughly as we can. Having said that, I've both done a lot of field research and taught a lot about it.. . and I'm real clear about the various nuances of public/ private & permissions. I did my dissertation using a recording walkman, set on record in full view, without any permissions, in retail shops, among random and anonymous subjects who were totally unaware they were research subjects. That work would be illegal today and I wouldn't be able to get the permission of the stores--I did then. It was legal 25 years ago in the states in which I did the work . . . so I understand both sides of the fence. I tend, now, to be a bit more conservative about such matters than I was in my graduate school days (and I almost NEVER use the C word to describe me). the nature of the internet certainly complicates all of these matters tremendously. I need to stop harping now. ... please understand if I don't answer your worthy questions past this post. . . my hands hurt. Thank you for listening to my rantings today . . . maybe we helped clarify issues for some readers; maybe not. In any case, I continue to monitor the list of esteemed colleagues, in who almost every case know WAY more than do I about internet research, with interest and respect. peace Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Multimedia Program and Department of Communication Co-Director, New Media Center 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 <http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/index.html> <http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/> AIM/IM & skype: dredleelam Second Life: Professor Beliveau

2 2

the banality of blogging
by McLaughlin, Lisa M. Dr. 10 Aug '07

10 Aug '07

The following piece was posted on the nettime listserv a few days ago. Brook (whose dissertation has to do with 'power in blogging') and others might find it interesting (the piece addresses issues of 'private' and 'public'). Click on the link to access the full article. Regards, Lisa The banality of blogging or how does the web affect the private/public dichotomy by Helen Kambouri and Pavlos Hatzopoulos http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=165 When it comes to debating how gender intersects with digital realities, it is as if the by now mythical term ' digital divide<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide>' subsumes everything under its wings: in the case of gender one simply needs to point out the disproportionate access to digital goods and services that 'women' experience and the issue is settled. Or, is it? Not that these gendered forms of inequality should be brushed aside, but the downside is that they obstinately stick to a limited horizon. And this horizon obfuscates the more radical, interesting, and difficult questions that the focus on gender might raise for the analysis of the net society. The rise of digital technologies does not invite us, in other words, to rehash existing political concepts, but rather to, at least, engage in their reformulation. We will try to engage in such a reformulation by unpacking the following question: how is the private/public distinction re–structured on the web? The problem, here, is not that this question is somehow ignored, but that when it comes to analyses of the net society it is seldom addressed from a gender perspective. All the 'radical' calls for 'participatory journalism', for 'user generated information', for 'being the media', encompass -whether this is voiced or not- a challenge to the private/public dichotomy which is profoundly gendered. How, then, is gender an intrinsic part of that picture? In order to address this problem, we will try to go back to Hannah Arendt's stubborn insistence<http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/13662.ctl>on keeping the limit between private and public strong, not in the name of maintaining the marginalized, undervalued character of the private, but in the name of preserving the rich multiplicity of the public. To use Arendt's metaphor, the web often acts like a vanishing act: the table that existed between people that brought them together, united them and differentiated them seems to have suddenly disappeared. Instead we are all brought together closer without any table in between us to connect and separate us. [more...] # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo(a)kein.org and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org

1 0