- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

e-commerce in the 'everyday life' literature
by Shenhav Manor 18 May '07

18 May '07

Hi, I am a Master's student at the LSE in London, currently working on my final year dissertation. I need to find out what kind of research has been done in the past on e-commerce in the 'everyday life' context and literature. So far far I was able to find one research project on this by *Lunn and Suman* found in * Wellman* (2000). If anyone knows about more research in this field, let me know. Thank you!

1 0

Re: [Air-l] students on lists
by Aristides Emmanuel Pereira 18 May '07

18 May '07

I must say that I never gave so much thought about these problems. As a matter of fact, I never felt intimidated or experienced any lack of comfort because of one's title... If the discussion is of interest and "opinion" is all we have, then the opinion itself already entitles us the right to reasoning. Anyhow, I also believe that is a matter of personal stance that others may (or may not) be intimidated by titles that resemble hierarchical structures and power relations. Aristides Emmanuel Pereira, M.A. PhD Candidate Department of Multi-Cultural Societies Graduate School of International Cultural Studies Tohoku University Kawauchi, Aoba-ku, Sendai-shi 980-8576 JAPAN www.bleepsblops.com Tel. +81-90-6255-2095 ************************************************************************ >From: "Paul Teusner" <paul.teusner(a)rmit.edu.au> >Reply-To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org >To: <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> >Subject: Re: [Air-l] students on lists >Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:20:45 +1000 > >Me too. AoIR has a lot or friendly, helpful and humble people on the list. > >I feel the need to say though, at the risk of getting into trouble, that >sometimes I read an email and feel that I shouldn't get involved in the >discussion. And it aint that anyone's claiming to be a top expert on the >topic, or that only academics in the specific field are allowed an opinion, >but just by the fact that an email is signed off with a Dr or Prof in front >of the name of the author, or that the email ends with a list of the >author's credentials. > >I'm not "put off" by the discussion or have negative feelings about the >email's author, and the author hasn't set him or herself up in a way that >is >not welcoming of a response, but there's a little voice in my head that >says >"Dr or Prof said such-and-such, so don't say anything". > >And I know that this issue is mine and only mine, and that only I have put >that little voice in my head, but I think many students like me also have >that little voice. I also fail to see the benefit of placing that Dr or >Prof >in their email signature, and wonder why people do it (are they encouraged >by their university or bound by a protocol to do so?). > >paul teusner > > >-----Original Message----- >From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org >[mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Suzana Sukovic >Sent: Friday, 18 May 2007 12:03 >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org >Subject: Re: [Air-l] students on lists > >Intimidation factor is most often in a too visible authority and >patronising attitude. Sometimes it's worth remembering that PhD students, >especially in the humanities and social sciences, are often middle-aged >people with lots of professional experience. > >I agree that AoIR is a welcoming association on-line and off-line. >Cheers, >Suzana > >At 11:32 AM 18/05/2007, you wrote: > >I'm sure you're right, and it is regrettable. It does tend to suggest, > >however, that poor treatment of students probably isn't correlated with > >whether or not a list permits pseudonymity, and that the intimidation > >factor may well be negatively correlated. > >Best - Julie > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > >[mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mary-Helen Ward > >Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:06 PM > >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > >Subject: [Air-l] students on lists > > > >I know from my PhD project that many students feel quite inadequate > >in the presence of Real Academics. Whether they should or not is > >another matter, but many have been treated quite badly in academic > >forums (or seen other people so treated). It can be really difficult > >for them to trust these forums, and it sometimes doesn't take much to > >send them scuttling for cover. > > > >This list always, in my experience, works hard to provide a safe and > >welcoming space. > > > >M-H > >_______________________________________________ >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/ _________________________________________________________________ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Research question: interviewing online subjects?
by Joshua Raclaw 18 May '07

18 May '07

It's usually best practice to at least include a clause in any consent forms noting that you're under obligation to report illegal activities to proper authorities should they come up during the interview. If you're working with some type of at-risk group where this is likely to become an issue, it's also worth mentioning elsewhere, especially at the start of the interview. I treat online research practices the same as offline in this regard, though - and like Paul, would avoid being a watchdog for immoral rather than illegal behavior :) Joshua Joshua Raclaw - PhD student Department of Linguistics Culture, Language & Social Practice Women and Gender Studies University of Colorado at Boulder http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~raclaw/ ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:00:26 +1000 >From: "Paul Teusner" <paul.teusner(a)rmit.edu.au> >Subject: Re: [Air-l] Research question: interviewing online subjects? >To: <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > >Hey Erika, > >As someone who's also in the social work field, I believe it is important to >include this policy in your research program and make it clearly know to >your participants, in that it allows them NOT TO DISCLOSE information. A >policy like this I think is above all empowering - it facilitates trust >between researcher and researched because the participant knows exactly >where you stand. I wouldn't use the word immoral though, just illegal. We >all engage in immoral activity from time to time, based on someone's >definition of the word. (Would you report someone who was engaged in >extra-marital, consensual sex? Who would you report it to?) > >With regard to "Who would you report it to?" - It can be a bit of a >non-question, in that the policy itself can prevent disclosure and therefore >the need to report. If I need to report something, I would report it to the >Australian Federal police (because my research is based in Australia, and >the AFP can act on reports involving people outside the jurisdiction of >other police organisations in this country). > >The big issue would lie in research across borders - would you report >someone who's profiting from pirated music sales in Thailand or a country >where there are no copyright laws? Or would you report a twenty-one year old >for having sex with a seventeen year-old in Victoria, Australia (it's legal >here)? > >paul teusner > > >-----Original Message----- >From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org >[mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Erika Pearson >Sent: Friday, 18 May 2007 11:24 >To: air-l(a)aoir.org >Subject: [Air-l] Research question: interviewing online subjects? > >Hello all > >I've been reading the general sociology literature on conducting >interviews as part of a research project, and some of the literature >I have come across makes a point of noting that interviewers should >be warning interviewees that any illegal or immoral behaviours >uncovered during the course of the research/interview may be reported >(for example, Adler and Adler, 2003). > >My questions in regards to this are: >1) Are those who have or are conducting online interviews or even >interviews about internet issues making a point of such cautions? ( I >suspect the two approaches have two separate answers). What are >others' experiences of this as practice? > >2) If so, what is the benchmark for classifying acceptable and >unacceptable behaviours? (i.e.: the laws and norms of the >interviewers context? Those of the physical jurisdiction of the >interviewee, if known? The norms of the virtual group, network, or >community under study?) > >I browsed through the AoIR Ethics Committee document on Internet >research, and (as I read it) there seemed to be an implication that >the physical jurisdiction of the research subject was the prime >candidate for setting a legal or ethical standard more generally in >regards to proper treatment of research subjects, but that was just >my sense on a first reading. I would be very interested to hear the >thoughts and experiences of others on this matter. I admit, as I was >reading this, my first thought was 'who would I report it to anyway!' > >I look forward to hearing your thoughts. > >with thanks >erika > > ~~ >Erika Pearson >Dept. of Media, Film and Communication. >University of Otago >P.O. Box 56 >Dunedin 9054 >Aotearoa/New Zealand >Ph: (+0064 3) 479-8680 >E-mail: >erika.pearson(a)otago.ac.nz > > >_______________________________________________ >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

Re: [Air-l] students on lists
by Suzana Sukovic 18 May '07

18 May '07

Intimidation factor is most often in a too visible authority and patronising attitude. Sometimes it's worth remembering that PhD students, especially in the humanities and social sciences, are often middle-aged people with lots of professional experience. I agree that AoIR is a welcoming association on-line and off-line. Cheers, Suzana At 11:32 AM 18/05/2007, you wrote: >I'm sure you're right, and it is regrettable. It does tend to suggest, >however, that poor treatment of students probably isn't correlated with >whether or not a list permits pseudonymity, and that the intimidation >factor may well be negatively correlated. >Best - Julie > >-----Original Message----- >From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org >[mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mary-Helen Ward >Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:06 PM >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org >Subject: [Air-l] students on lists > >I know from my PhD project that many students feel quite inadequate >in the presence of Real Academics. Whether they should or not is >another matter, but many have been treated quite badly in academic >forums (or seen other people so treated). It can be really difficult >for them to trust these forums, and it sometimes doesn't take much to >send them scuttling for cover. > >This list always, in my experience, works hard to provide a safe and >welcoming space. > >M-H

2 1

Trolls
by Julie Cohen 18 May '07

18 May '07

(warning: this is longish - blame the 119 bluebooks...) I'm interested in this discussion for three reasons: I'm a list member; I'm a list member with some outider-ish attributes; and I've just finished grading a long seminar paper on patent trolls and how to define them. I'll take these in reverse order: On definitions: Among folks who care about such things, how to define a patent troll is hotly disputed. Some say trolls are unproductive rent-seekers who exploit the US patent system's lax standards of obviousness to hold up legitimate market participants. Others say that by identifying and resuscitating poorly-performing assets, parties labeled trolls perform a valuable market-clearing function analogous to that performed by, say, ASCAP or the Copyright Clearance Center. The right answer seems to be a little bit of both: some "true trolls" are mere exploiters, while other "market-clearers" are moving the market for intellectual property licensing in a direction that, 10 or so years from now, will seem wholly unremarkable. It seems to me that the same might be said of trolls on lists: some are "true trolls" while others are trying to move the discussion in a legitimate direction, albeit one that many list members find a tiresome hobbyhorse or otherwise want to avoid. [This should be obvious but in case it isn't, I intend no comment on which characterization fits the present controversy.] Some potted etymology: My dictionary lists roughly three definitions for "troll": to sing over and over again, as a round; to fish with a long line; a creature that lives in a cave. Patent trolls and list trolls present an oddly apt merger of the three definitions, which can be framed in a relatively neutral fashion: they fish with the same bait over and over again for a particular "catch" of interest to them, and many find them unsightly. (yup, way too many bluebooks!) On list outsiders: How do we decide what counts as trolling for AOIR purposes? Discussion of this question has mixed two distinct subquestions. The first subquestion relates to what counts as "internet research." This list's membership is diverse, and that's a good thing. I joined it because I had had my fill of "law and economics"; I figured a group of humanities and social science scholars would be more eclectic and openminded. That's true -- oy, except when it isn't. I've met a number of you and thought you were all very nice people, but you do tend to close ranks in a hurry when there is a whiff of crass commerce in the air. Whatever our faults, lawyers tend to be made of sterner stuff, and fwiw I think that behavior is worth reconsidering. These days, the age-old wall between "pure" academia and crass commerce is anything but. Foundations with agendas, partisan think tanks, corporate research centers, and even - gasp - for-profit educational centers are everywhere. The way most of us were educated, the old world made more sense, but the new one is rife with the sorts of hybridity and slippage that excite intense interest to list members when they crop up in other contexts. It would make more sense to consider the interesting questions before rushing to condemn whatever it is. The second subquestion relates to what counts as appropriate behavior on this list. I agree that bad behavior can poison even what ought to be a good topic. But it seems to me that blame is more equally distributed here than many acknowledge. I'm with whoever (Suzana?) suggested a fundamental distinction between calling someone a troll, forever and for always, and accusing someone of trolling. As I'm lawyering today, let's take the facts in the light most favorable to the "accused": someone who believes that he is an internet researcher and that list membership will assist him in pursuing his professional interests, and who wants to stop trolling and conform more closely to the etiquette of the list, might feel that he had done himself such irreparable harm the first time around that pseudonymity is the way to go. Unless you are someone who believes that trolls are trolls, forever and for always, that ought to be defensible. That doesn't make it the smartest choice; for myself, I would have preferred an apology to the list and a statement of intent to try harder not to insult people and waste their time. Two caveats, though: It's amazing how often otherwise-fully-functioning adults have difficulty doing this. It's also amazing how unforgiving other adults can be. Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to my last point: One fairly reliable way of distinguishing between "true trolls" and (trollish) market clearers seems to be that true trolls thrive on attention for its own sake. Whether they receive it, however, is one thing that is not within their control. So enough already about WRC. Please. Julie Julie E. Cohen Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center jec(a)law.georgetown.edu http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/jec/

4 6

Re: [Air-l] Doctorow on Dealing With Trolls
by Suzana Sukovic 17 May '07

17 May '07

James, I like Boring's view. It is poetic and dramatic, there is a tragic hero and a dull pragmatic in the story, and we can all find real examples for comparison. I am not sure how the theory explains people from textbooks like Copernicus. And, whose textbooks? Tesla was certainly in my textbooks, but not in everyone's. Maybe the devil is in the detail (again!). How do we define trolling and scientific controversy? Latour's approach may help here - whose authority and where, what is controversial and why? Mary-Helen has mentioned aggression. Maybe one difference is in argument vs emotional tone. Cheers, Suzana At 10:13 AM 17/05/2007, you wrote: >"After much thought about the matter, I have come reluctantly to the >conclusion that scientific truth, like juristic truth, must come about by >controversy. Personally this view is abhorrent to me. It seems to mean >that scientific truth must transcend the individual, that the best hope of >science lies in its greatest minds being often brilliantly and >determinedly wrong, but in opposition, with some third, eclectically >minded, middle-of-the-road nonentity seizing the prize while the great >fight for it, running off with it, and sticking it into a textbook for >sophomores written from no point of view and in defense of nothing >whatsoever. I hate this view, for it is not dramatic and it is not fair; >and yet I believe that it is the verdict of the history of science." >Boring, Edwin G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological >Review, 36, 97-121. [Boring's 1928 APA Presidential Address about past >controversy in psychology.] > > Suzana Sukovic PhD Candidate _________________________________________ Information & Knowledge Management Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007, Australia www.hss.uts.edu.au/research/research_students/suzana_sukovic.html

14 22

Re: [Air-l] ICA
by Bates, Benjamin J 17 May '07

17 May '07

I'll be there 23-27 as well. Ben Bates, SJEM, UT Knoxville

1 0

research on factors driving traffic to web sites
by Cristian Vaccari 17 May '07

17 May '07

Hi all, I am doing research on factors that drive traffic to political (parties' and caniddates') web sites. Can anyone point me to some previous research in this field, e.g., studies that highlight some key variables that can account for a web site's amount of visitors, page views, etc.? Does not have to be about political web sites (though I could not find any kind of this research on political sites and would be curious to discover there is some), but also on commercial, news, social-networking, or other kinds of sites. Thanks, Cristian Vaccari www.cristianvaccari.it www.comunicarepolitica.it

5 4

Doctorow on Dealing With Trolls
by Alex Halavais 17 May '07

17 May '07

Given a recent definitional discussion over the evolution of the meaning of troll, I figured I would point folks to a column by Cory Doctorow in Information Week entitled "How To Keep Hostile Jerks From Taking Over Your Online Community." It begins: """ The Internet Tough Guy is a feature in all Internet social forums. These are people who poison discussions with anger, hatred, and threats. Some are malicious. Some are crazy. Some are just afflicted with a rotten sense of humor. Whatever their motives, they're a scourge. It takes precious little trolling to sour a message-board. A "troll" -- someone who comes onto an online community looking to pick fights -- has two victory conditions: Either everyone ends up talking about him, or no one talks at all. And where two or more trolls gather, they'll egg each other on, seeing who can anger and disrupt the regular message-board posters the most. """ The rest is here (with apologies for the ads): http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199600005 It provides an interesting exploration of the art and science of maintaining online discussion-based communities, and what to do with the trolls, including employing a "troll whisperer." Best, Alex -- -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //

3 4

FW: Updated estimates about the wireless-only population
by Graham Longford 17 May '07

17 May '07

Alex et al, For those interested in recent stats on wireless-only households, the latest Canadian numbers were released last week by Stats Canada. 5% of Canadian households have given up their landlines and are now wireless-only. See the report here - http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070504/d070504a.htm Graham -- Graham Longford, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN) Co-investigator, Community Wireless Infrastructure Research Project (CWIRP) Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto 140 St. George St., Rm 310 Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5S 3G6 email: graham.longford(a)utoronto.ca +1 416-978-4662

1 0