- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

public/private
by Cameron Adams 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

Edward writes: "if you are chatting in the knowing presence of others, you know who can hear you and you can moderate your volume based on who you want to listen. <snip> so in the case of data collected from the internet . . . did the subject have a reasonable expectation that YOU would be observing them? Did they have the chance to modulate their transmission based on your presence?" I find this very interesting. Clearly, most people will moderate their tone and volume in a coffee shop or other venue where others are around. We can assume that what is easily heard is not "private," or relatively less so than communications made at a volume below the hearing threshold. In web communications, it seems according to this thread, that which is available for millions of people to easily overhear can not be so easily considered to be "public" as the loud bragging of the oaf at the bar (though this can be overheard by only a few people). I do not contest this, but I am curious as to why someone may consider an easily read document (or viewed pictures) to be at all safe from prying eyes. I think there is something fundamental going on here that ought to be investigated. Its not just blogs, but also the phenomenon of recording one's crimes on their phone, which makes prosecution astoundingly easy. What's going on in a broader cultural sense that makes people publicly broadcast, or close to it, what they really intend to be privately held? I just can't believe that there are that many deeply ignorant people out there.... Cheers, Cam

8 13

Search announcement, University of Illinois at Chicago
by Steve Jones 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

The Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago invites applications for the following position: Assistant Professor of Communication. A successful candidate must have interests in the study of new media, the internet, and/or communication technology in combination with the study of one or more of the following areas of department research strength: diversity, health, political, or visual studies. The candidate will also have an earned doctorate in Communication or a related field, strong promise of scholarly achievement and teaching success (at the undergraduate and graduate levels) appropriate for appointment as Assistant Professor, good prospects for external research funding, and demonstrated commitment to multidisciplinary scholarship. Exceptionally strong applicants at the associate professor level may also be considered. Located in the heart of Chicago, UIC is a Research I University with 16,000 undergraduates, 6,500 graduate and 3,000 professional students. The Department of Communication has 11 full-time faculty, approximately 100 undergraduate majors, 25 M.A. students, and 6 Ph.D. students in a doctoral program focused on the relationship between technology and communication. The desired appointment date for the position is August 16, 2008. Interested parties should send a full curriculum vitae, samples of relevant scholarly publications, evidence of teaching effectiveness, and four letters of reference to: Professor Hui-Ching Chang, Chair Communication Search Committee Department of Communication (MC-132) 1007 W. Harrison St. University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL 60607-7137 Applications should be received by October 1, 2007, to receive full consideration, although the search will proceed until the position is filled. The Department expects to conduct interviews at the National Communication Association (NCA) convention in Chicago, November 15– 18, 2007. Women and traditionally under-represented minorities are strongly encouraged to apply. The University of Illinois is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer.

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Public/ Private
by George Floros 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

I said > the devil is in the details. "A living individual" IMHO disqualifies > > imaginary personas and as long as you can't rule them out, you > > write off > > your entire work (even if we talk of just one in a hundred.). > Jeremy responded > I'm not sure I understand where you are going here? I don't need > 'real' people to talk about the things that I need, I just need the > results to be created by either humans or created by something that > human creates. It is perfectly valid, but then I'm not dealing > explicitly with human subjects either. The point is very simple ; unless your results can be traced back to specific individuals then they can't be treated as valid. In an Internet board for example anyone can log in with multiple aliases and publish opinions. Problem is that the researcher can do that too, create multiple imaginary aliases and force his opinion as something "out there". You do need some very real people in order to prove that your work is valid and not something pulled out of a hat. I said > Name one field of research which does not "need" identifiable > > individual > > subjects. I'm not aware of any. > > Jeremy responded > sociology, anthropology, musicology, literary studies, anything that > does not require methodological individualism, which is most fields > of research. Even some topics of research that do no sometimes > require methodological individualism don't require identifiable > subjects. In fact, I'd say those that ''need'' identifiable > individual subjects are probably in the minority in terms of research I can't really see that in any of those examples. All of those fields deal in the study of concrete human cultural output. You seem to confuse the actual quoting of names with the existence of identifiable individuals. You can't just say "we conclude on the basis of our observations that x stands and y doesn't", the natural question by any reader would be "so what or whom did you observe, what was his demographics, for how long did you observe him/her, how many times, etc. ?" You need not identify them on print but you certainly need to have records of their existence and/or records of you spending time in the field doing the observations, or records of which cultural produce you studied (which again implies creators hence individuals with names). Just because you may be a conscientious researcher don't mean everyone else is. The recent example of that Korean guy springs in mind. I don't really think that research w/o those characteristics can even be considered, in principle, reproducible . George

3 2

Re: [Air-L] on the Wayback Machine (was public/private [part 1 of 2])
by Vidar Falkenberg 14 Aug '07

14 Aug '07

In Denmark, the archiving and preservation of the Danish portion of the internet is done by The State and University Library and the Royal Library. From www.netarchive.dk : "A new legal deposit law came into force on the 1st of July 2005. As a result, The State and University Library and the Royal Library are now collecting and preserving the Danish portion of the internet. In practical terms, this means that the two institutions collect internet-material using so-called "harvesters" (web crawlers). The archive is not publicly accessible and initially can only be used for research purposes and with prior permission from the Danish Data Protection Agency. A set of guidelines regarding the new law has been developed. It outlines the implications of the new law for the national libraries and for websites and content-providers. " The guidelines are in danish only, but the law itself states that setting up a password might not be sufficient to avoid harvesting: "§ 10. The person under the legal deposit obligation must upon demand inform the legal deposit institution about access codes and provide other information etc. necessary for gaining access to the material, produce copies of the material and make the material available to the general public. " http://www.bs.dk/content.aspx?itemguid=%7B332484E6-A5B1-4CEE-B953-059843182… The archive is meant to collect everything made publically available. Examples of material not considered public are closed intranets with a limited set of users like company employees or research groups, or emails and the like aimed at a limited group of persons. The decisive factor between public and private seems to be whether a password is obtainable for all (= public) or by invitation only (= private). Opt-out is not possible, and robots.txt is ignored. Vidar Falkenberg Ph.d.-student Institute of Information and Media Studies University of Aarhus Denmark The Den 14.08.2007 kl. 00:50:10 skrev <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org>: > Do remember that The Wayback Machine is not the only archive...possibly > just the most well known at least to the online research set. Several > libraries are archiving blogs they view as significant, The National > Library of Australia comes to mind here. > > To my knowledge selection for archiving there is opt-out...not that I > know of anyone who has done so...nor do I know what the library would > do if someone said know. Please more info here from anyone in the > know. I do know that those who have been selected have been informed > of the selection...not asked if it was ok for their work to be included. > > Lois Ann Scheidt > > Doctoral Student - School of Library and Information Science, Indiana > University, Bloomington IN USA > > Adjunct Instructor - School of Informatics, IUPUI, Indianapolis IN USA > and > IUPUC, Columbus IN USA > > Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com > Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com >

1 0

Literature on Seeding Online Communities
by Lorraine Buis 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Hello all, I was wondering if anyone is familiar with any academic literature that discusses seeding forums within online communities? By seeding, I mean posting messages from community moderators to get conversations going within online communities. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Laurie Buis Post Doctoral Fellow at Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service buisl(a)msu.edu

3 2

Re: [Air-L] public private
by George Floros 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Jeremy Hunsinger said >> > I can't agree with the definition of a subject as simply *someone* you >> > intervene with or *someone* whose private information you have. >> > > that is the federal definition though as cited on the umich irb and > many others. > > I don't know where you got just that. The original definition is > A human subject is* a living individual* about whom an investigator > (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (a) data > through *intervention or interaction* with the *individual*, or (b) > *identifiable* private information the devil is in the details. "A living individual" IMHO disqualifies imaginary personas and as long as you can't rule them out, you write off your entire work (even if we talk of just one in a hundred.). On the first note you certainly need a specific someone to intervene on or interact with , since you need to be able to distinguish between pre- and post- interaction / intervention states. On the second note you can't identify private information which is unconfirmed. >> > A subject should be a *unique someone* in one's research, a single >> > person and not a single persona (unless of course your research design >> > specifically addresses this issue of multiple personas). While the >> > opinions expressed in a blog like Jeremy's can be attributed >> > relatively >> > safely to him, opinions in a forum or behaviors in an online world >> > cannot be attributed to any single person. In my book, failing to >> > convincingly address the issue of web anonymity is sloppy research. A >> > signed consent form goes some way (but not all the way) in addressing >> > this very real problem. >> > > which problem? that your research needs identifiable individual > subjects? in that case, you are very likely going to have the > ethics issues noted earlier, which will then be resolved in some way > like a consent form. > Name one field of research which does not "need" identifiable individual subjects. I'm not aware of any. George Floros, MD MSc Medical research methodology, Thessaloniki , Greece.

2 1

Re: [Air-L] Public/ Private
by Charlie Balch 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

A list member made an off-list point that the poster might later regret the content of their public post. The fact that the net is public and recorded is one of the issues that I have my students consider. It is common practice for human resources to explore a persons web identity before hiring someone for professional jobs. What is the extent of harm when embarrassing information is published in academic journals versus the benefit? I'd like to believe readers of academic journals include fewer predators than those of traditional media. I also think that acacademic journals are not as widely read as traditional news links or blogs. Other information outlets have little or no restrictions on the "public" content that the distribute. Why should academics be more restricted? We (academics) need to understand phenomena. Everything on the net is not only searchable but it is possible to even set up search criteria that provides notification of new content when it appears. This brings up the issue of when I as researcher must/should notify appropriate authorities of criminal activity. Blogs are often daydreams... Charlie Balch

1 0

dg.o2008: 9th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
by Yigal Arens 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

We invite you to attend dg.o 2008 The 9th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research May 18-21, 2008 - Montréal, Canada “Partnerships for Public Innovation” The Digital Government Society of North America (DGSNA) is an organization of professionals and scholars who share an interest in furthering the development of democratic digital government. The Society grew out of the community of researchers sponsored by the US National Science Foundation Digital Government Research Program and the government partners involved in their projects. We welcome government professionals, managers, researchers, educators, students, and others interested in the linkages among democratic processes, government management, innovation, information, and technology. The conference, now in its 9th year, will feature invited speakers, panels, research presentations, system demonstrations, posters, workshops, and discussion groups. Please join us! Conference website: <http://www.dgo2008.org/> Call for papers: <http://www.dgo2008.org/images/pdfs/cfpdgo2008_v18.pdf> -- Yigal Arens USC/ISI arens(a)isi.edu http://www.isi.edu/arens

1 0

The Global Information Society Watch 2007
by Jeremy Hunsinger 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

http://www.eldis.org/go/display&type=Document&id=32835 I have not read this through yet, but the announcement said that it focuses on the digital divide in asia, africa, and latin america 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] public private
by George Floros 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Ed Lamoureux said: > 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. > Jeremy Hunsinger said: > They are 'subjects' just not the type of subject defined by human > subject research, which as I've said several times is clear, a > subject is someone you intervene with or someone whose private > information you have. that is what the fed says they are. THat > does not mean that they are not ethical subjects or that we do not > have certain responsibilities of care in our research, it just means > that for the terms of human subjects review, studying texts is not > studying human subjects. > I can't agree with the definition of a subject as simply *someone* you intervene with or *someone* whose private information you have. A subject should be a *unique someone* in one's research, a single person and not a single persona (unless of course your research design specifically addresses this issue of multiple personas). While the opinions expressed in a blog like Jeremy's can be attributed relatively safely to him, opinions in a forum or behaviors in an online world cannot be attributed to any single person. In my book, failing to convincingly address the issue of web anonymity is sloppy research. A signed consent form goes some way (but not all the way) in addressing this very real problem. just my two euro-cents. George Floros, MD MSc Medical research methodology, Thessaloniki , Greece.

2 1