- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Transcription services
by Burcu Bakioglu 11 May '11

11 May '11

Greetings AoiR members, The transcription service that I had been using over the past years is going out of business. Can anyone recommend me another transcription service? I need audio files to be transcribed on a regular basis (interviews and such). Any input is much appreciated. Thanks! -- Thanks,</burcu> Burcu S. Bakioglu, Ph.D. http://www.palefirer.com http://palefirer.com/blog/ Skype: PaleFireR AIM: PaleFireR -- "It is not what the vision is. It is what it does."

1 0

Study: Even in the Digital Era, Canadians have Confidence in Mainstream News Media
by Alfred Hermida 11 May '11

11 May '11

Dear colleagues Today, the Canadian Media Research Consortium (CMRC) releases its latest report showing that, even with the growing importance of social media, the mainstream media have retained the confidence of most Canadians. The fourth in the CMRC’s series of reports on Canadian news habits, Even in the Digital Era, Canadians Have Confidence in Mainstream News Media, shows that nine out of ten Canadians consider the traditional news media to be reliable and trustworthy. Social media and other information websites are now used by many Canadians for news alerts and alternative perspectives but established news brands continue to be the gold standard for verification. These findings are good news for traditional journalism but the established media also face significant challenges as news consumption habits change, new sources of information proliferate and novel forms of journalist-citizen collaboration emerge. Public confidence in traditional journalism is an important resource in this process of adaptation to new audience expectations and demands. To report more of the CMRC report, click on the attachment or visit http://mediaresearch.ca/en/projects/trust_report.htm For further information, contact my colleague Prof Fred Fletcher at fred_fletcher(a)sympatico.ca Regards, Alfred Alfred Hermida: Assistant Professor The School of Journalism | University of British Columbia 6388 Crescent Road | Vancouver | BC | V6T 1Z2 Contact: alfred.hermida(a)ubc.ca | (+1) 604 827 3540 Web: http://www.journalism.ubc.ca | Blog: http://www.reportr.net

1 0

do we need an aoir data archive
by jeremy hunsinger 11 May '11

11 May '11

I brought this up on twitter yesterday. Perhaps it is time for AoIR to start an archive of data for current and future use. My thought is that right now many researchers have access and rights to share significant bits of data, and many do not have access. As I've said elsewhere, i don't actually think you can do peer reviewable research without providing access to the data that generated that research, and given that I have reviewed several papers based on proprietary information they could not release..., I'm thinking that we need to find ways of getting our data out there in the spirit of community and to promote scholarly quality. I also think having a neutral nonprofit holding the information would make it far easier for people to get information shared from corporations. However, that i see the need and others have agreed here and there, I think it is time to have a discussion. Personally, I know that I could set the infrastructure up without issue. The website in theory has close to unlimited storage space, though downloads would need to be limited as we have limited processor speed. There are also legal issues, copyright issues, and codebook issues that would need to be sorted out. so do we need something like this? and if so or if not, why or why not? Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. --Byron

8 10

Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
by jeremy hunsinger 10 May '11

10 May '11

Well what actually happens when you put something on facebook? it isn't like you are sending a private letter to a group of friends. it is much closer to going to a shopping mall where all the video cameras are tracking your every move. It isn't your property you are acting within... it is facebooks, in doing that acting you are agreeing with the terms that they put upon you. It isn't about your or my ethics Michael at that point, it isn't about what we should do or our ethical systems, it is then about the agreement that we consent to. There are no subjects to ask what you want to ask if you are doing document based research. You can ask the webpage, but your browser probably is not going to respond. The assumption you are putting forth is one that... there are subjects and it matters what their opinion is, but I want to say, when I read and interpret a book, a newspaper, a public record or any other published document, I need not consider that. You want to say perhaps that 'they don't know they are publishing it' and even if they publish it 'they might not want it researched' but that is not something we afford authors of published documents. We could, but I think it is going the wrong direction. That debate, I'd argue ended, when they put on the web in a manner similar to a published document in which it is assigned a copyright and is freely available to anyone without login. I've already stated that login may change that status. I think you can do research on a database with personally identifiable positions without running afowl of u.s. standards for research ethics and I mostly agree with that personally. If the data was freely given to a corporation and then the corporation freely gives it to you, then I don't think anyone is going to have any issue with you using that data as it was a. previously gathered and b. you are not interacting with the people. It might not be something people like, but I think that is generally the way it works. We have many colleagues doing this research right now actually, they all seem to have had their material passed by IRB's, most I suspect with waivers, but some perhaps with deeper reviews. I am fairly certain that if Facebook gave me data that they collected with personally identifiable information in it, and it was given under contract, and I ran that by the irb they would treat it much like they treat personally identifiable census data or use of standard social research data sets with individually identifiable data, that is... unless it contains private information, which as I said is a problematic construct, it is probably going to get a waiver, and the debate about whether these are human subjects or not, won't come up gotta run to an appt. but look forward to rejoinders. On May 10, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Michael Zimmer wrote: > I find this logic troubling, Jeremy. > > In our earlier exchange about Facebook suddenly making something public that was originally shared to a limited group, you seem to be placing strong preference on what a platform might afford at a given time (does it make something publicly available) rather than what the subject expected/intended/currently desires. That's not how I wish to have research ethics determined. > > And below you again now that "Texts are not people. Representations of people are not people", and appear to state that unless you are directly engaging with a human, you're not engaging in human subject research. Elizabeth has replied in part on this, but just to add: your logic seems to indicate that I can do research using a database of personally-identifiable and sensitive information, publish my results, etc without ever having to worry about ethics related to "human subjects" since I'm merely using a database, a "representation of people". Is this your position? > > -mz > > > -- > Michael Zimmer, PhD > Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies > Co-Director, Center for Information Policy Research > University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee > e: zimmerm(a)uwm.edu > w: www.michaelzimmer.org > > > On May 10, 2011, at 8:33 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote: > >> I think i already mentioned the private information exception. But past that, as I said, instead of complicating it, i argue that we we need to simplify it. Texts are not people. Representations of people are not people. Whatever claims people have on those objects are not claims against their nature, they are claims to ownership or copyright. That is the line I think we have to take here. Things like documents are not research subjects. They are research objects, research quasi-objects, but they don't rise to the level of being a research subject no matter what exterior subjective claims people put on them. If they have private information embedded in them, that is still an object, the issue with private information is not that the object becomes a research subject, but that the claim of a subject overrides the interests of the researcher in that case. So my argument is that the private information claim is not that it transforms the document, but it creates a clai >> m by one person upon another based on the claim of privacy, however... very few things once published rise to that claim of private, especially once they are published, for instance a person's name on a document published is not private, it isn't private in the newspaper, it isn't private on public documents, nor are other identifying characteristics, height, demographic features, even salary might be public. So what rises to the claim of private in a public document? Medical records are one... though even then medical records can be made public by any number of sources and once public, might not be made private again. so... this line... seems really to be far, quite far away. Treat a published source as a published source, it is not a research subject. >> >> >> >> On May 10, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Elizabeth Buchanan wrote: >> >>> Hey, all, >>> >>> I'm late in adding a couple of points about this discussion. From a US-human subjects perspectives (talking more regulatory), I disagree with Jeremy's hard line "if you are dealing with texts, you are not dealing with research subjects." I disagree with it from disciplinary and philosophical perspectives, but, that would take us down the road of another discussion. >>> >>> But--from a US regulatory perspective,(f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains >>> >>> (1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or >>> (2) Identifiable private information. >>> >>> So, I would argue that to patently reject "texts" as subjects is a risky choice and not a line that holds a lot of ethical weight; disciplinary specificity is very important for this discussion--these decisions are not, should no,t be based on only one set of criteria; with online research, as we know, there are community (or venue) norms, ethics, practices; disciplinary norms, ethics, practices; extant research ethics guidelines at the federal/country/commission level; and, increasingly, third party (eg, Facebook, etc etc) norms, "ethics", practices. All of those must be considered in making these decisions about research practices. >>> >>> Regarding the issue of public v private (which I agree with Michael is a fluid and moving dichotomy), again, from a regulatory perspective, there are boundaries: >>> >>> From 101 (b)(2) and 101(b)(4) in the CFR 45: >>> >>> Regarding online observation and exemptions for existing data, the issue of researcher "entry requirements" and "threshold of access" is significant. The OHRP standard is "what is readily ascertainable." If there are costs, restrictions, or other measures that prevent data from being "readily ascertainable, "the exemption does not apply and the data should be considered private. (This comes from a report in draft form, written with a colleague from the Office for Human Research Protections here in the US.If you are looking for more regulatory guidance, I can share this report). >>> >>> Recently, I gave a few talks with the lawyer who advises OHRP, and while they have issued no formal guidance on Internet research in particular, some interpretations have been presented. I can share our powerpoints on Internetresearchethics.org for those interested. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> e. >>> >>> >>> Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D. >>> Endowed Chair in Ethics >>> Director, Center for Applied Ethics >>> University of Wisconsin-Stout >>> PO Box 790 >>> Menomonie, Wisconsin, 54751-0790 >>> >>> buchanane(a)uwstout.edu >>> >>> >>> Principal Investigator, >>> Internet Research Ethics Commons >>> internetresearchethics.org >>> (NSF Project # 0924604) >>> >>> elizabeth(a)internetresearchethics.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/ >> >> Jeremy Hunsinger >> Center for Digital Discourse and Culture >> Virginia Tech >> >> >> >> Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. >> --Pablo Picasso >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. --Byron

7 10

Call for Papers: ICITST-2011!
by g.akmayeva＠icitst.org 10 May '11

10 May '11

Apologies for cross-postings! Kindly email this Call for Papers to your colleagues, faculty members and postgraduate students. CALL FOR PAPERS ************************************************************ The 6th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST-2011), Technical Co-Sponsored by IEEE UAE Computer Chapter December 11–14, 2011, Abu Dhabi, UAE (www.icitst.org) ************************************************************ The 6th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST-2011) is Technical Co-sponsored by IEEE UAE Computer Chapter. The ICITST is an international refereed conference dedicated to the advancement of the theory and practical implementation of secured Internet transactions and to fostering discussions on information technology evolution. The ICITST aims to provide a highly professional and comparative academic research forum that promotes collaborative excellence between academia and industry. The topics in ICITST-2011 include but are not confined to the following areas: Internet Application and Technology: * Internet Architecture * Internet of things * Broadband Access Technologies * Application Agents * Boundary Issues of Internet Security * Database Management * Data Models for Production Systems and Services * Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems * IPSec Quality of Service * Knowledge Management * Embedded Systems * Defence Systems Ubi/Cloud Computing: * Authentication and Access Control for Data Protection in Ubi/Cloud Computing * Context-Awareness and its Data Mining for UbiCom * Data Grids * Distributed Information Systems * Human-Computer Interface and Interaction for UbiCom * Ubiquitous Systems * USN/RFID Service * Smart Homes and its Business Model for UbiCom Service * Security and its Data Management for UbiCom * Peer to Peer Data Management * New Novel Mechanism and Application for Ubi/Cloud Computing Information Security: * Trust, Privacy and Data Security * Network Security Issues and Protocols * Security Challenges and Content Authoring * Cryptography * Secure Communications * Authentication Techniques * Chaos-based Data Security * MANET Security * Wireless Sensor Network Security * Organization Considerations in Security Policy Formulation and Implementations * Digital Forensics and Crimes * Biometrics * Cyber Security Multimedia and Web Services: * Intelligent Multimedia and its Data Management * Multimedia Information Systems * Multimedia Security * Web Databases * Web Metrics and its Applications * Web Mining including Web Intelligence and Web 3.0. * Web Services * XML and other extensible languages * Semantic Web and Ontology Infonomics and e-Technology: * Infonomics * Information Visualization * Information Management * Information Quality * Technology-Enabled Information * e-Learning * e-Commerce * e-Business * e-Government * e-Society * System Design and Security for e-Services * Synchronizing e-Security IMPORTANT DATES Full Paper Submission Date: June 30, 2011 Extended Abstract (Work in Progress) Submission Date: July 31, 2011 Proposal for Workshops and Tutorials: May 31, 2011 Notification of Workshop and Tutorial Acceptance: June 05, 2011 Proposal for Industrial Presentation: April 30, 2011 Notification of Extended Abstract Acceptance/Rejection: August 15, 2011 Notification of Industrial Presentation Acceptance: May 10, 2011 Notification of Paper Acceptance/Rejection: July 31, 2011 Camera Ready Extended Abstract Due: August 31, 2011 Camera Ready Paper Due: August 15, 2011 Early Registration Deadline (Authors only): May 01 to September 30, 2011 Late Registration Deadline (Authors only): October 01 to November 15, 2011 Participants Registration: May 01 to December 01, 2011 Conference Dates: December 11-14, 2011 For more details, please contact info(a)icitst.org

1 0

Casual tutor required, Digital Culture, U of Newcastle Australia
by Marj Kibby 10 May '11

10 May '11

Hi all, For my sins I have been seconded to a full time position improving the student experience. So I'm looking for someone to teach Digital Culture - a third year course in the BA that has students from a wide range of programs taking it as an elective. As taught in 2010 it has three modules. Module 1 The Information Revolution Module 2 Produsers, Creativity and Remix Culture Module 3 Social Networks & Online Communities Students undertake tasks relevant to the module. Set up an annotated bibliography in Delicious; edit specific Wikipedia pages; Post images to Flickr, download a classmates images and manipulate and re-post them; and so on. They then read related material and discuss the process in an online forum. Three assessible items: Contribution to the discussion A research project A production project using free online tools. As the course is online the tutor would not need to be located in Newcastle. However being able to have one or two f2f meetings would be an advantage. If interested please contact me privately marj.kibby(a)newcastle.edu.au Regards, Marj Associate Professor Marjorie Kibby Discipline Convenor: Film, Media and Cultural Studies School of Humanities and Social Science The University of Newcastle Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby(a)newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604

1 0

Using Social Media in High School Classroom
by Schmitz 10 May '11

10 May '11

Hello, I'm a high school teacher getting my MA in education technology. Just starting research on this topic and I wanted to check with all of you for possible leads on scholarly work or foundational research done in this area. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Joseph Schmitz

1 0

Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
by Elizabeth Buchanan 10 May '11

10 May '11

Hey, all, I'm late in adding a couple of points about this discussion. From a US-human subjects perspectives (talking more regulatory), I disagree with Jeremy's hard line "if you are dealing with texts, you are not dealing with research subjects." I disagree with it from disciplinary and philosophical perspectives, but, that would take us down the road of another discussion. But--from a US regulatory perspective,(f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) Identifiable private information. So, I would argue that to patently reject "texts" as subjects is a risky choice and not a line that holds a lot of ethical weight; disciplinary specificity is very important for this discussion--these decisions are not, should no,t be based on only one set of criteria; with online research, as we know, there are community (or venue) norms, ethics, practices; disciplinary norms, ethics, practices; extant research ethics guidelines at the federal/country/commission level; and, increasingly, third party (eg, Facebook, etc etc) norms, "ethics", practices. All of those must be considered in making these decisions about research practices. Regarding the issue of public v private (which I agree with Michael is a fluid and moving dichotomy), again, from a regulatory perspective, there are boundaries: From 101 (b)(2) and 101(b)(4) in the CFR 45: Regarding online observation and exemptions for existing data, the issue of researcher "entry requirements" and "threshold of access" is significant. The OHRP standard is "what is readily ascertainable." If there are costs, restrictions, or other measures that prevent data from being "readily ascertainable, "the exemption does not apply and the data should be considered private. (This comes from a report in draft form, written with a colleague from the Office for Human Research Protections here in the US.If you are looking for more regulatory guidance, I can share this report). Recently, I gave a few talks with the lawyer who advises OHRP, and while they have issued no formal guidance on Internet research in particular, some interpretations have been presented. I can share our powerpoints on Internetresearchethics.org for those interested. Best regards, e. Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D. Endowed Chair in Ethics Director, Center for Applied Ethics University of Wisconsin-Stout PO Box 790 Menomonie, Wisconsin, 54751-0790 buchanane(a)uwstout.edu Principal Investigator, Internet Research Ethics Commons internetresearchethics.org (NSF Project # 0924604) elizabeth(a)internetresearchethics.org

3 3

a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
by Elizabeth Buchanan 10 May '11

10 May '11

Jeremy, I know we rarely agree on these perspectives; what would help me understand your theoretical foundation for this stance--could you share an example, something from your research, for instance, where this line, this clear demarcation around text is evident? Could you describe how your methods engaged text and avoided subjects? I am just curious if I, from a totally different perspective, would see HS research involved? eb Principal Investigator, Internet Research Ethics Commons internetresearchethics.org (NSF Project # 0924604) elizabeth(a)internetresearchethics.org

1 0

The Story So Far: What We Know About the Business of Digital Journalism
by Richard Forno 10 May '11

10 May '11

Perhaps of interest to some here. --- rick http://www.cjr.org/the_business_of_digital_journalism/introduction.php The Story So Far: What We Know About the Business of Digital Journalism a report by Bill Grueskin Dean of Academic Affairs, Columbia Journalism School Ava Seave Principal, Quantum Media Adjunct Associate Professor, Columbia Business School Lucas Graves Ph.D. Candidate, Columbia Journalism School To download the complete version of "The Story So Far: What We Know About the Business of Digital Journalism," a new report on digital news economics from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, click here. http://cjrarchive.org/img/posts/report/The_Story_So_Far.pdf

1 0