- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

the ethics of online research
by Lois Ann Scheidt 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

I'm throwing the debate open a bit because one of the undertones I see repeated throughout this thread I find very disturbing. It seems to me that some of the writersIm not throwing stones at anyoneare coming at the debate with the attitude that researchers are in a special place verses regular people who may have access to the subjects or their artifacts. When framing new research, I believe that one of the first questions I must ask myself as a social scientist is - am I in a different position than anyone else who the subject would interact with or would have access to the data I will need to use for this study? Obviously if I will be using experimental methodology the answer is YESin all caps all the time. The answer is yes here because no one else would have the same data I have created through the research. The answer to the question falls along a continuum to, and beyond, purely qualitative methodologies that may place the researcher in both a usual and unique position in relationship to the subject and the data or may place the researcher as yet another viewer, albeit with special properties and considerations but still they are just another member of the crowd. I find it hard to imagine under what conditions, a researcher viewing a blog and analyzing the presentation of the material in the blog, their viewing would be unethical. While anyone else who stumbled onto the blogand linked to it, or talked to their social network about it would be ethical. When I write about teen blogs, I use the names given to the blogs by the authorsso that proper attribution of creative work can be given. I write for and publish in academic journals and books, as such I am not exposing the authors creative work to a broader audience, rather I am exposing the work to a more focused subset of the audience they already haveanyone worldwide with access to the internet. The risks associated with my research are minimal, not nonexistent, though in truth the risk level is pretty close to zero. Now we can structure lots of what-ifs that would make any particular webpage author in danger from my work. Personally, I do work through such scenarios in my developmental process before I begin a new project, and I review them regularly throughout the process. However, it is impossible to get a risk level down to absolute zeroif that is the goal then all research must stopas well as all plane flights, skateboarding, and football since far more people are harmed in these activities than in most social science research. I sincerely think its time to discuss what listserv authors mean by ethical and human subject rather than using the terms without a definition, when definitions are so clearly differing. We are at cross-purposes as this thread has developedcan we get it back on track by looking at the underlying beliefs and structures that are clearly motivating responses? 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

Re: [Air-L] public/private [part 2 of 2]
by Lois Ann Scheidt 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Ed and anyone else who is interested, a few published citations that might help you understand the points that several of us have made repeatedly throughout this thread and which are based in sound ethical and human subjects knowledge and experience. Keep up the debate folks, we never should accept "rules" proforma, but open your minds to what others are saying...we do this work as well...and even if the writer doesn't sport a PhD after their name, they may still have information that can help you...assuming that is really your goal. I have given authors full names to make searching for these citations easier. This list is not exhaustive by any means - in fact I know there are at least two books waiting to be entered into my reference program - but it is the citation list I use regularly in my teaching and my research. Reference List Bassett, E. H. & O'Riodan, Kathleen (2001, December). Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subjects Research Model. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bas_full.html Bruckman, Amy S. (2001, December). Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bru_full.html Capurro, Rafael & Pingel, Christoph (2001, December). Ethical Issues of Online Communication Research. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_cap_full.html Efimova, Lilia (2005, October). Not documenting, doing: blogging as research. Presented at the meeting of the Internet Research 6.0: Internet Generations, Association of Internet Researchers, Chicago IL. Retrieved October 14, 2005, from http://conferences.aoir.org/viewabstract.php?id=238&cf=3 Elgesem, Dag (2001, December). What is special about the ethical issues in online research? In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_elg_full.html Ess, Charles (2001, December). Internet Research Ethics Introduction. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_ess.html Ess, Charles (2004). The cathedral or bazaar? The AoIR document on internet research ethics as an exercise in open source ethics. In Mia Consalvo, Nancy K. Baym, Jeremy Hunsinger, Klaus Bruhn Jensen, John Logie, Monica Murero, & Leslie Regan Shade (Eds.), Internet Research Annual: Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conferences 2000-2002 (pp. 95-103). New York: Peter Lang. Ess, Charles (2005). International Restrictions Affecting Internet Research: Conflicts, Risks, Resolutions? Charles Ess's Academic Homepage. Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.drury.edu/ess/NCEHR_CNERH/ESS.htm Ess, Charles. (2005, June 12). Re: [Air-l] ethical issues in chat room research. Frankel, Mark S. & Siang, Sanyin (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research in cyberspace: Report of a Workshop. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf Jones, Robert Alun (1994). Internet research (Online). Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 4(3) King, Storm A. (1996, June). Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12(2), 119-127 Morris, Jeremy and Middleton, Catherine (2005, October). The Net Generation? Exploring the Complexities of Innovation Adoption among Youth. Presented at the meeting of the Internet Research 6.0: Internet Generations, Association of Internet Researchers, Chicago IL. Retrieved October 19, 5 A.D., from http://conferences.aoir.org/viewabstract.php?id=220&cf=3 Sharf, Barbara F. (1999). Beyond Netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the internet. In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet Research (pp. 243-256). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Thomas, Jim (2003). Reexamining the Ethics of internet Research: Facing the Challenge of Overzealous Oversight. In Mark D. Johns, Shing-Ling Sarina Chen, & G. Jon Hall (Eds.), Online Social Research: Methods, Issues, & Ethics (pp. 187-202). New York: Peter Lang. Walther, Joseph B. (2001, December). Research Ethics in Internet-Enabled Research: Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_wal_full.html White, Michele (2001, December). Representations or People? In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_whi_full.html 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

Reminder CFP: The Synthetic Aesthetics of New Media Art
by Carolyn L Kane 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Call For Papers: THE SYNTHETIC AESTHETICS OF NEW MEDIA ART Presented by The New Media Caucus in Association with the College Art Association February 20-23, 2008; Dallas, TX http://conference.collegeart.org/2008/ Panel Chair: Carolyn Kane, PhD Candidate Media, Culture, and Communication, New York University clk267(a)nyu.edu Contrary to traditional aesthetic theories that argue for the primacy of either the subjective and phenomenological, or formal and objective interpretations of artwork, the aesthetics of electronic media, like the logic of technical media itself, is thoroughly removed from anthropomorphic sensibility. One could say that electronic media aesthetics are marked by technical trauma. However, much contemporary new media art criticism exemplifies a hermeneutic approach that seeks to rationalize and transform work into intelligible *art objects* for canonization and social theories. Is this approach problematic for the logic of technical media? Can certain attributes such as color, form, affect, or sound, effectively reconcile computer based artwork with the subjective and humanistic drives in art making? The panel invites papers that address the aesthetics of New Media art in distinction to previous aesthetic models or media platforms. For instance, papers suggesting the ways in which color, sound, line, form, symbolism, affect, anti-aesthetics or ideology may be distinct to new media aesthetics are all welcomed. Essentially the panel inquires: what do theoreticians and practitioners address in New Media art, and why? Which artists and / or commercial work do you think best exemplifies these issues? Special attention will be given to those abstracts that are concerned with the use of color in New Media work. Presenters can propose brief lectures; media or artist presentations of their own, or other artist's work; discussions; or other acceptable suggestions. Timeline: Due by October 1, 2007: *Abstracts (max 500 words) * Paper / Presentation Titles *Confirmation that presenters will be able to travel to Dallas on February 20-23, 2008 * Current CV and a brief bio. *Specification of presentation format Send proposals and / or any question to Carolyn Kane clk267(a)nyu.edu For CAA conference information visit: http://conference.collegeart.org/2008/

1 0

Private Public
by alex＠islands.vi 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

I wonder if the argument is missing the point. Much of what used to be private is now out in public view. Love letters in envelopes are hidden. Love letters in MySpace are public. Are we entitled to the same rules of privacy as were relevant in the stamp and envelope era when we are using open media? Will the laws regarding privacy be subject to revision in the near future. RIAA is filing lawsuits against kids who copy music. Will this change the kids or change the laws?? Alex Randall Prof of Comm Univ of the Virgin islands.

3 2

DRHA07 Reminder NOW
by Craig Bellamy 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

A brief reminder that this year's conference on Digital resources in the Arts and Humanities will be held at Dartington College of Arts, 9 - 11 September inclusive. Visit the conference website at http://www.dartington.ac.uk/drha07 now to see the draft programme and register for this unique and extraordinary event. * Plenary speakers (in alphabetical order) *Paul Ayris*, *Gavin Bryars*, *Greg Crane*, and *Deke Weaver* * Panel sessions on *After the AHDS*, *Second Life*, *Representing Performance* * A dozen themed sessions on Virtuality; Performance and documentation; Linguistic Resources; Textual Resources; Digital Media and Community Building; Digital pedagogy; Tools and Resources; Music and musicianship. * A concert from leading British contemporary music ensemble Icebreaker, performing their recently recording of Philip Glass' "Music with changing parts" * Performances from Blind Ditch, Avatar Body Collision, Tim Sayer, Michael Young, and others "DRHA continues to defy the border guards and challenge cultural hegemonies, by demonstrating how Going Digital enriches our understanding, our abilities, and our achievements. A splendid time is guaranteed for all." Lou Burnard and Chris Pressler ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

1 0

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