- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

RE: [Air-l] Google is watching !
by Kevin Tharp 20 May '04

20 May '04

I have used part of a posting to this group in my dissertation. The way that I handled the ethical questions, was that I contacted that person regarding my intention and included the text I was intending to use. I included the text to seek that person's feedback and to compare my perception with their intent. I would not always handle Internet postings in this way. However, in this case, we are communicating indirectly with our peers, and the world is potentially watching. The person I am quoting from this list also shows up in my list of references from other sources. Kevin W. Tharp Community Informatics Officer Senior Research Officer Faculty of Informatics & Communication Central Queensland University Rockhampton, Queensland Australia 07 4923 2566 k.tharp(a)cqu.edu.au http://infocom.cqu.edu.au/Staff/Kevin_Tharp/

3 2

Re: [Air-l] Data
by Irene Berkowitz 19 May '04

19 May '04

Justin, I would also be interested in any posts any ideas in this area. On the other hand it is very interesting to observe where there are significant differences between cybergeography and physical geograpghy relative to high density centers. I think this is very "fertile ground" (pun intended), for further research. IB ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:28:11 -0500 >From: Justin Rosenthal <jrr(a)uchicago.edu> >Subject: [Air-l] Data >To: air-l(a)aoir.org > >Hello all, > >I am interested in hearing any thoughts you have on a data problem that I >have, that I am sure many of you have approached, and which is, of course, a >result of the structure of the Internet itself. In my ideal world, I would be >able to build a relational database of data traffic between the largest cities >worldwide. The data I have found shows gross data traffic between nodes, >which includes traffic originated in third-party cities and destined for >fourth-party cities, for example, and which does not provide an estimate of >the traffic originated in 3 and destined for 4. This means that the data >doesn't relate every node in the city system to every other in terms of >network traffic inbound and outbound. Have you approached this problem? Do >you have any thoughts on how currently available data can be patched for >network analysis, or how such a relational database could be built in the >future? > >Many thanks, > >Justin > >_____________________________________ >Justin Rosenthal >MA Candidate - Social Science >University of Chicago >jrr(a)uchicago.edu > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l Irene Berkowitz Director of Curricular Publications Temple University Office of the Vice Provost 215-204-7596 Please note my new email address below and update your address records accordingly. irene.berkowitz(a)temple.edu

1 0

Re: Science communication and the development of the Internet
by J. Kilker 19 May '04

19 May '04

Franz-- Interesting project...I would add to Andrew's excellent list my own paper, particularly if you are interested in noting interactions among multiple social groups: Kilker, J. (2002). Social and technical interoperability, the construction of users, and 'arrested closure': A case study of networked electronic mail development. Iterations 1(1) (Charles Babbage Institute). http://www.cbi.umn.edu/iterations/kilker.html Abstract: Behind the e-mail's success lies a history of extended social interactions among ARPANET developers, programmers, and users from relatively heterogeneous backgrounds. An analysis of social identifications present in online discussions about e-mail development found that inter-organizational computer networking allowed an increasingly wide variety of programmers and users to interact; assumptions about users to be openly stated and challenged; and the prototyping and testing of new technologies in heterogeneous social and technical contexts. Technical interoperation and its social analogue, social collaboration, became key challenges in the development of networked e-mail and led to "arrested closure" in the form of flexible standards. --Julian J. Kilker, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Emerging Technologies School of Journalism and Media Studies Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas kilker(a)unlv.nevada.edu http://www.nevada.edu/~kilker

1 0

NSF, Science Communication, and Google
by John Monberg 19 May '04

19 May '04

There has been a lot of media coverage about Google's recently announced IPO. One aspect that received little attention is that Larry Page and Sergei Brin, Google's founders, were supported as Stanford graduate students through the NSF's Digital Libraries Initiative. I can imagine that their experience in the program shaped the company's ethos, which emphasized technical expertise and de-emphasized immediate commercial returns, which has turned out to be a pretty profitable approach. Here's a link to some background. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=71217 Regards, John Monberg

1 0

Science communication and the development of the Internet
by Barjak Franz 19 May '04

19 May '04

Dear Internet historians on the list, I am finalising a paper on the Internet use in European science. I would like to include a reference to whether/how the search for new computer-based communication tools in science was influencing the development of the Internet. Can anybody help? Thanks and regards Franz ********************************************* Franz Barjak University of Applied Sciences Northwest Switzerland Solothurn Riggenbachstrasse 16 CH-4600 Olten Switzerland E-mail: franz.barjak(a)fhso.ch Web: http://www.fhso.ch/_e/kont_e/pers_hp/doz_wirtschaft/barjak_e.htm p. +41 62 287 7825, fax: +41 62 287 7845 *********************************************

2 1

Re: emotional content online
by Jennifer Preece 17 May '04

17 May '04

Hi, You might also check out an article that appeared in Communications of the ACM April edition: Preece, J. (2004) Etiquette Online: From nice to necessary. Communications of the ACM, 47, 4, 56-61 Jenny Preece ----- Original Message ----- From: <air-l-request(a)aoir.org> To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:01 PM Subject: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #1061 - 6 msgs > Send Air-l mailing list submissions to > air-l(a)aoir.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > air-l-request(a)aoir.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > air-l-admin(a)aoir.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Air-l digest..." > > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Emotional Content in Weblogs and News Sites Online (Lois Ann Scheidt) > 2. RE: Emotional Content in Weblogs and News Sites Online (Kylie Veale) > 3. Re: online bibliography application to share scientific literature > and citations thru web browser? (Hamish Cunningham) > 4. RE: Re: [Air-l] online bibliography application to share scientific literature and citations thru web browser? (Julio Meneses Naranjo) > 5. CFP OurMedia Conference [new deadline] (Adilson Cabral) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 12:57:26 -0500 (EST) > From: Lois Ann Scheidt <lscheidt(a)indiana.edu> > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Emotional Content in Weblogs and News Sites Online > Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > Rice, Ronald E. and Gail Love. "Electronic emotion: Socioemotional > content in a computer-mediated communication network." Communication > Research 14.1 (1987): 85-108. > > On Sat, 15 May 2004, Nancy Baym wrote: > > > There is an OLD (for internet studies) classic=20 > > article circa 1986 by Rice and Love that looked=20 > > at "electronic emotion" in online fora. I'm sorry=20 > > I don't have the citation handy, but I suspect=20 > > someone on this list does. Nancy > >=20 > > >I am in the process of writing my Master thesis=20 > > >on a comparative study of weblogs and online=20 > > >news sites. One of my measures is emotional=20 > > >content. I want to find out whether weblogs=20 > > >offer more emotional content than online news=20 > > >sites based in print, broadcasting, and the web.=20 > > >I looked at an email and information richness=20 > > >study by Panteli (2000) and there I discovered=20 > > >that emoticons, capital letters or abbreviations=20 > > >were replacements for shortcomings with respect=20 > > >to face-2-face emotions. I am not sure if these=20 > > >measures suffice to make inferences from text in=20 > > >weblogs or online news sites? Does anyone know=20 > > >of measuring tools in online text communication=20 > > >that would make sense in light of this study? > > > > > >Kind Regards > > >Gerd Stodiek > > > > > > > > > > > >ISNM International School of New Media > > >University of L=FCbeck > > > > > >Gerd Stodiek > > >M.Sc. Digital Media Program > > > > > >http://www.isnm.de > > >Willy-Brandt-Allee 31a > > >23554 L=FCbeck, Germany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Air-l mailing list > > >Air-l(a)aoir.org > > >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > >=20 > >=20 > > -- > > Nancy Baym=09http://www.ku.edu/home/nbaym > > Communication Studies, University of Kansas > > Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Room 102, Lawrence, KS 66045-7574, USA > > Association of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Air-l mailing list > > Air-l(a)aoir.org > > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Lois Ann Scheidt MPA MIS SPHR CCP > Doctoral Student > School of Library and Information Science > Indiana University > Bloomington IN USA > Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com > Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > From: "Kylie Veale" <kylie(a)veale.com.au> > To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> > Subject: RE: [Air-l] Emotional Content in Weblogs and News Sites Online > Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 17:10:39 +1000 > Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > Gerd, > > If you haven't already, you may want to look at a publication by Brenda > Danet, who discusses the use of emoticons and other visual 'slang' as = > online > communicative expressions. > > Danet, B. (2001). Cyberpl@y: Communicating Online. Berg Pub Ltd. > > Regards > Kylie > > -------------------------------------- > Kylie J. Veale | Brisbane, Australia > GradDipInvEnv, MInetStds(Design) > PhD student (Internet Studies) > =20 > email: kylie(a)veale.com.au =20 > www: http://www.veale.com.au/kylie=20 > =20 > icq: 27938257 > msn: kyliej(a)hotmail.com=20 > yahoo: kylie_veale > =20 > > -----Original Message----- > From: air-l-admin(a)aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On Behalf Of = > Gerd > Stodiek > Sent: Saturday, 15 May 2004 8:19 PM > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > Subject: [Air-l] Emotional Content in Weblogs and News Sites Online > > I am in the process of writing my Master thesis on a comparative study = > of=20 > weblogs and online news sites. One of my measures is emotional content. = > I=20 > want to find out whether weblogs offer more emotional content than = > online=20 > news sites based in print, broadcasting, and the web. I looked at an = > email=20 > and information richness study by Panteli (2000) and there I discovered=20 > that emoticons, capital letters or abbreviations were replacements for=20 > shortcomings with respect to face-2-face emotions. I am not sure if = > these=20 > measures suffice to make inferences from text in weblogs or online news=20 > sites? Does anyone know of measuring tools in online text communication=20 > that would make sense in light of this study? > > Kind Regards > Gerd Stodiek > > > > ISNM International School of New Media > University of L=FCbeck > > Gerd Stodiek > M.Sc. Digital Media Program > > http://www.isnm.de > Willy-Brandt-Allee 31a > 23554 L=FCbeck, Germany > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 09:43:19 +0100 > From: Hamish Cunningham <H.Cunningham(a)dcs.shef.ac.uk> > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-l] online bibliography application to share scientific literature > and citations thru web browser? > Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > I'd recommend GNU eprints: http://www.eprints.org/ > > h > > > > -- > Dr. Hamish Cunningham > Senior Research Scientist > Department of Computer Science > University of Sheffield [I get too much email, and I use > Regent Court junk filters. If I don't reply, > 211 Portobello St. please resend, or phone!] > Sheffield S1 4DP > United Kingdom > http://gate.ac.uk/hamish/ > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > From: Julio Meneses Naranjo <jmenesesn(a)uoc.edu> > To: "air-l(a)aoir.org" <air-l(a)aoir.org> > Subject: RE: Re: [Air-l] online bibliography application to share scientific literature and citations thru web browser? > Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 14:08:37 +0200 > Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > ----------------UOCGENERATED031070 > content-type: text/plain > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Hi elijah, > > *check out bibster - an application of semantic web tech to > *p2p > *bibliographic management. > * > *http://bibster.semanticweb.org/index.htm > * > *looks pretty neat to me, though i confess that i haven't > *used it (yet). > > Nice try! I've been having a look and it seems to be a good app to=20 > share bibliography without a server in the middle. I will keep on=20 > eye on it, although it's not solving the scenario i'm in. > > Thank you very much anyway :-) > > _________________________________________________________ > > Julio Meneses Naranjo > Investigador del IN3 > Doctorando del Programa de Sociedad de la Informaci=F3n del IN3 > > Universitat Oberta de Catalunya > Estudis de Psicologia i Ci=E8ncies de l'Educaci=F3 > Avinguda Tibidabo 39-43 > 08035 Barcelona (Spain) > > jmenesesn(a)uoc.edu > ----------------UOCGENERATED031070-- > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > From: "Adilson Cabral" <acabral(a)comunicacao.pro.br> > To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> > Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 11:08:40 -0300 > Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Comunica=E7=E3o_Pro?= > Subject: [Air-l] CFP OurMedia Conference [new deadline] > Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > Hope to see you there. > Adilson Cabral > > > OURMedia / NUESTROSMedios / Nossos Meios IV: > Building Communication Societies > > An International Conference > July 22-25, 2004 > Porto Alegre, Brazil > > ::::CALL FOR PROPOSALS:::: > > DEADLINE: May 21, 2004 > > OURMedia/NuestrosMedios is an international network of more than 270 academics and activists -- researchers, practitioners and > advocates working in more than forty countries to strengthen media and information/communication technologies (ICTs) that support > social justice, human rights, community autonomy and grassroots empowerment. > > Our work spans many fields: community media, independent media, radical media, citizens media ... grassroots networking, > telecommunications policy, indymedia activism, cultural arts, communications theory, social-movement research, sociology, > anthropology, cultural studies, development communication and communication for social change. Our annual meeting is a time to learn > from each other and to strengthen our analyses, strategies, collaborations and campaigns. We invite you to join us. > > Presentations and participatory sessions at OM IV will be translated on site into English/Spanish/Portuguese and also fully > documented. Papers, reports and other written or multimedia materials provided by presenters will be posted to the OURMedia website, > which is becoming one of the most comprehensive online repositories of research and commentary on grassroots media and ICTs. Several > publication projects such as books and special-edition journals are currently being planned and others may develop to feature the > presentations, discussions and projects produced at and for OM IV. > > This announcement includes: > ** Types of Sessions > ** Topic Areas > ** Selection Criteria > ** How to Apply > ** More about the Conference (including costs & fees) > ** Preliminary Conference Schedule > > > =============== > > TYPES OF SESSIONS > > The Conference Planning Committee is seeking proposals for two types of sessions: > > 1) PRESENTATIONS: moderated panels, paper presentations, multimedia presentations, small roundtable debates/discussions, > performances > 2) PARTICIPATORY SESSIONS: facilitated discussion groups, workshops, strategic working groups, action planning meetings > > In addition, the first and last days of the OURMedia/NuestrosMedios IV Conference will feature FIELD TRIPS to local Brazilian > grassroots media and ICT projects, advocacy campaigns and popular education centers as well as an active POLYMEDIA LAB which will be > open for the full four days of the conference. > > Based on previous "polymedia labs" at the European Social Forum (Florence 2002), the We Seize! WSIS Counter-Summit (Geneva 2003) and > the Foro de Acá (Montevideo 2003) the OURMedia Polymedia Lab will be a multimedia space for experimentation, creation, collaboration > and skill-sharing. Workshops, projects and exhibits will explore autonomous and community uses of video, audio, Internet and other > traditional and new media technologies. The Polymedia Lab is collectively organized by participants and open to all. Anyone > interested in participating in the Polymedia Lab planning should visit: > http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/OurPolymediaLab > > ====================== > > TOPIC AREAS > > For Presentations and Participatory Sessions, the Conference Planning Committee is seeking proposals that address one or more of the > following topics: > > 1) Connecting Research and Advocacy for Citizens' Media > --data and research findings, advocacy strategies and research/evaluation methods that can help demonstrate to policymakers, funders > and civil society leaders the vital importance of grassroots, community-based, autonomous, participatory media and ICT policies, > systems and projects > -- the research needs of advocates, practitioners and policymakers > -- overcoming barriers to advocacy-oriented or participatory research in academia > -- opportunities and methods for research that can support advocacy as well as practitioner self-evaluation > -- the nexus between academic research and community aspirations > -- pragmatic projects for equity, social inclusion and policy realignment > -- ICT and media policy and advocacy campaigns as empowering tools for future initiatives > -- tactical, practice-based, or other 'non-traditional' research methods and models > -- interactive media and how it links to collaborative and participatory research and practice > > > 2) "Best Practices" and "Notable Failures" > -- stories and lessons from survivors, successes and disasters; transformed, extinct or emerging citizens' media and grassroots > networking projects, media/ICT advocacy and policy campaigns, researcher-practitioner collaborations. What specifically we can learn > from them to incorporate into our practice as researchers, advocates and media practitioners? > -- praxis models for engaging ICTs and media and grassroots activities, community participation or mobilization > -- lessons from other social movements, past campaigns or local examples that relate to current advocacy efforts for "communication > rights," "media democracy," "free speech," "media diversity" and other goals. > > 3) Current Policy Issues and Implications: > -- discussions on current media/ICT policy issues and institutions such as WSIS, WTO, FTAA, WIPO, Convention on Cultural Diversity > and local/regional policy and regulatory issues > -- specific current or emerging political/military/commercial threats to free, diverse, autonomous and participatory media > -- specific current or emerging opportunities to advance communication rights, information rights, freedom of speech > -- considerations of current media/ICT policy campaigns in local, regional or global contexts > -- evaluations of existing policy models at local, regional or world levels > -- the politics of media production and distribution processes > > 4) The Evolution of OURMedia and Project Working Sessions > -- opportunities for OM to advance academic/advocacy/practitioner collaborations > -- specific ways that network members can help each other > -- research, workshops, strategies and campaigns to further develop OM as a network and political force > -- workshops or discussions to address future goals, organizational structures, processes and activities for the network, next steps > and short & long term future of OURMedia > > We are very interested in session proposals that have a specific intended action outcome, such as working sessions designed to > initiate collaborative projects with the goal of producing actual tools such as: > - a guide to self evaluation for citizens media/advocacy groups > - guidelines for practitioner/advocate academic collaborations > - bibliographies of key research for media/ICT advocacy > - media education/media literacy curricula including a citizens' media perspective > - collectively generated maps of the relationships among media and ICTpolicy issues > - booklets or pamphlets on current policy issues and how they relate to community media and ICTs > - public education materials (flyers, articles, posters, multimedia) about citizens media/ICT and policy issues > - action plans, working groups and groundwork for participation in a regional/global policy forum such as WSIS II or WTO, Social > Forums and other movement processes or activist campaigns. > > **Note: we are also specifically seeking research proposals that seek to focus on the OURMedia network as a subject. The team from > CIMA together with Dr. Janice Windborne are planning to conduct a research survey of the OURMedia membership and are actively > looking for additional academic partners interested in contributing to this work. This is an excellent opportunity for academics > interested in studying networks. If you are interested, please contact [ liza @ mediaactioncenter.org] *** > > ====================== > > SELECTION CRITERIA > > The Program Working Group will be most interested in proposals that: > > * address the overall conference objectives and suggested topic areas > * incorporate group discussion and/or workshop-style interactivity > * reflect on the challenges and opportunities for research to support advocacy and/or practitioners > * model participatory research and/or presentation techniques and methods > * engage specific current issues of concern, policy/advocacy campaigns, or debates in the field > * feature people speaking from their own experiences, self-representing and/or sharing local knowledge; presenter teams that include > both academics and a representative of their "subject" group will be considered favorably > * are designed to appeal to a cross-disciplinary and international audience > * include a strategy for how documentation/dissemination or other follow up from the discussion or presentation can help advance OM > goals and conference objectives > * consider the strategic development of OM as a network, and/or potential OM projects as part of the focus/conclusion of the > presentation or discussion > > We will select a mix of proposals with consideration for: > > * geographic, ethnic, professional, gender and age diversity > * a balance of practitioner perspectives and academic perspectives > * a balance of presentation sessions and group discussion/workshop sessions, with a preference for participatory sessions over > panels and speeches > * perspectives and voices from traditionally or frequently marginalized groups and communities > * relevance to current policy debates, advocacy campaigns and specific political/economic conditions > * fun, uplifting and inspirational approaches (eg: games, experiential exercises, multimedia, etc) > > ====================== > > HOW TO APPLY > > Please prepare a short proposal to be submitted by email. Your proposal must include: > > * Name(s) of presenters, panelists or session leaders > * Contact information (organization, address, phone/fax, email) > * Short bio (90 words or less) for each participant named, including country where they are based, institutional affiliation, nature > of their work and/or field of expertise or study > * Description/abstract of your session (no more than 500 words) that includes: title, topic to be covered and detailed description > of format or outline of the session plan. Please be sure to reference the relevant topic areas as listed in this announcement and to > indicate why you think this session meets our selection criteria. > > Please indicate if you are already an OURMedia member and if you have attended past OM conferences. > > ***DEADLINE*** > Proposals must be submitted by FRIDAY, MAY 21, 2004 22:00 GMT (10pm GMT) > > *If you submitted an earlier paper, abstract or proposal, we invite you to re-submit as described above or simply to send us > supplementary information indicating how your proposed session fits the Conference topics and criteria. > > Send complete proposal as email text, Microsoft Word, PDF or RTF document to Aliza Dichter, Program Working Group Chair at > om2004 @ ourmedianet.org. > > =================================== > > MORE INFORMATION, COSTS AND FEES > > OURMedia IV: "Building Communication Societies" will take place in Porto Alegre, Brazil, July 22-25, 2004 as a pre-conference to the > IAMCR, the International Association of Media and Communications Research. > > We are currently fundraising to cover essential conference costs. We are hoping to raise additional funds to enable us to subsidize > the travel and lodging costs of some participants. However, it is unlikely we will be able to provide full travel subsidies for > anyone. Participants are encouraged to acquire their own funding for transportation/food/lodging if possible. Scholarship > information will be available after April 20 on the OURMedia website. > > The Conference full registration fee is $150 USD for the two days of conference sessions and $150 USD for the two days of field > trips, for a total of $300 USD. If you are not receiving funding from an academic organization, large NGO, grantmaking foundation or > other institution, and not otherwise able to raise the funds to do so, then we will waive the registration fee. However, please note > that registration fees will contribute towards essential conference costs such as space, translators, technology and documentation > as well as supplement our budget for the field trips. We have a very tight budget for a very ambitious agenda and we need your > support. > > If you are also planning on attending IAMCR, some grants are available for participants from low-income countries. Please visit: > http://www.pucrs.br/famecos/iamcr/textos/grants.htm > and be sure to apply before April 30. > > For more information about OM IV please first visit our web page at: > http://www.ourmedianet.org/om2004 > > If you still have additional questions after visiting the webpage, > please contact us by email: [ omiv @ ourmedianet.org ] > > ================================== > > PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE SCHEDULE: > (subject to change) > > Day 1, July 22- Thursday > -- Registration > -- Opening meeting > -- Field trips (To Be Announced) > -- Polymedia Lab > > Day 2, July 23- Friday > -- Registration > -- Welcome Plenary: A Tribute to the Legacy of Paulo Freire > -- Morning Sessions: Presentations and Strategic Discussions > -- Afternoon Sessions: Presentations and Strategic Discussions > -- All Day: Polymedia Lab > -- Evening: informal dinners and self-organized meetings > > Day 3, July 24- Saturday > -- Morning Sessions: Presentations and Strategic Discussions > -- Afternoon Sessions: Presentations and Strategic Discussions > -- All Day: Polymedia Lab > -- Evening: closing plenary for conference meeting sessions > > Day 4, July 25- Sunday > -- Field Trips (TBA) > -- Polymedia Lab > -- Space for self-organized meetings available > > > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > > > End of Air-l Digest >

2 1

Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by Jonathan Marshall 16 May '04

16 May '04

jon wrote: > It *is* more data, and data you can't always get unobtrusively. It > does not mean it is 'truth', but in this case it is a commentary > on what perhaps 'should' be happening. And adds, that perhaps what is said by the person is accurate within one set of framings and not within others. The modes of framing, which produce the truth, then also become questions for ethnography. jon -- UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

1 0

Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by Jonathan Marshall 16 May '04

16 May '04

Ed Lamoureux writes > On May 14, 2004, at 8:54 AM, Kendall, Lori wrote: > > The objection raised by my students is usually that if people know I'm > observing them, they will behave differently, and therefore I won't > really find out "the truth." > > Ed notes: > > Lori's student to the side, "Labov's Paradox" has been around in the > qual. literature for quite some time. There are LOTS of professional > field researchers who would say, roughly, the same thing as do Lori's > students. And they would back their claim with writing by Labov and > others. I would say a lot depends on how long people know you are observing them, because one thing that happens in social life is that we are always being observed by others. After a while your 'special' observation often becomes little more intrusive than these other kinds of observation. Of course it cannot be left out of the analysis, but then the observer and their social position never can. People will misrepresent on occasions when questioned, which is why no one should ever just use questionaires, but this again is part of social life. It is interesting to compare the different representations in different circumstances and with what people seem to do. > Kendall, Lori wrote: > a better way to find out what things mean to > people is to ask them. This can provide for much richer, more > nuanced, and yes even *better* data. > > Think I'd have to disagree with Lori on this claim that "a better way > to find out what things mean is to people is to ask them." It *is* more data, and data you can't always get unobtrusively. It does not mean it is 'truth', but in this case it is a commentary on what perhaps 'should' be happening. Better data is not the same as truth. It may not fit in with your views of what is going on after all :) Competing and different meanings are also a 'social fact'. I'd suggest we not be too much in a rush to assume we always know better about everything than the people we are studying. jon -- UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

1 0

Re: [Air-l] BMJ Article on health related virtual communities / cmc-focus issue
by Sarah Stewart 16 May '04

16 May '04

Hello Carol I have just enrolled into a phd, and plan to look at how the Internet can facilitate mentorship for new graduate midwives. I would be very keen to talk to you about it. regards Sarah Sarah Stewart Midwifery Lecturer School of Midwifery Otago Polytechnic Dunedin New Zealand Tel: 03 4793642 sarahs(a)tekotago.ac.nz

1 0

Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by Jonathan Marshall 16 May '04

16 May '04

Ok this is just random. Ethical debates always seem somewhat unsatisfactory - perhaps because if any positions are incommeasureable those are ethical positions. Everything always comes back to a value statement which is contestable, and not in anyway testable or refutable. There seems no way out of an ethical debate into something which can be agreed upon. As hume argues somewhere, there is no necessary transition from an is statement to an ought statement. That value statements cannot always be clearly separated from fact statements makes things more, not less, complex or undecideable. Even if we succeed in showing an ethical possition is incoherent then it does not prove it wrong. Incoherence might be an ethical virtue after all (I've heard it argued by some religious people). Perhaps we should try and live with the incoherence etc. My suspicion is that given the world is vague and slipping, then any attempt to be be strict about morals leads people to contradict those morals. Ie when George Bush declares life in the womb is sacred and has unborn children bombed to bits... Even if the ethical position comes from God then the problem is not resolved. Should we actually follow something simply because it is commanded, or because not doing so will ultimately result in discomfort? Even if we decide on human 'goods' then there is nothing absolutely compelling about arguments which appeal to them. Thus for instance we could appeal to Eero to announce his doing research to his subjects in many ways, but he could not be forced by the arguments into accepting them. I give arguments i find persuasive below, while admitting they are not really persuasive to everyone. thus I could appeal to 'fact': For many people the internet *is* ambiguous as to whether it is private or public, (so is much non-internet space for that matter). Saying that one part is really public and another is really private may be possible on occasions but most things are not clearly marked, and cannot be marked. There are many different kinds of public, which for many will not include the public of research. Privacy and public are social constructs and vague and often contradictory. This is simply a 'fact' as far as i'm concerned, and i'm a bit surprised that some people don't percieve it - which opens up other questions i guess. I could appeal to 'self interest': you are much less likely to get sued, your work is likely to be more acceptable to colleagues, or your work will be allowed by your university ethics committee. I could appeal to a 'love of truth': When research is announced, you are then able to immerse yourself in the world, feel everything, *and* ask the kinds of questions you would not be able to ask other than as a researcher. Likewise the more people are inclined to trust you (and have tested that trust over a long period), the better will be the information they give you, the more they are able to criticise your work the better it will be, the deeper your understanding will be. I could appeal to 'empathy': You are less likely to hurt people. I could appeal to 'benefit to society': But what is considered to be of benefit to society is an ethical position in itself, and hardly persuasive *by* itself. Even if the ideas espoused do not produce the results claimed for them (as with 'free enterprise'), then that is not a proof that those are ideas are not ethical. Perhaps struggling hard against fate is an ethical position. To repeat: there is no particular reason why these rhetorical arguments should be persuasive to anyone - i'm not sure why they are persuasive to me. Are all ethical arguments rhetorical? (nothing bad is implied about rhetoric here) Others could, and have, said that sometimes we have to do research into what we consider objectionable behaviour, and that by announcing our position we will cause the people we want to observe to be quiet. Thus our ethics is not 'practical' and must be bent. The same happens when studying an elite. As suggested above any sufficiently coherent ethics will be faced with contradiction. Mind you, I have known people to do ethnography with very violent subgroups and be quite overt about their dislike.... However, if an ethics is bendable when faced with what it declares to be bad, is it an ethics? I guess that too is an ethical question with no resolution that i can see. Merely saying one position is ethical and another is not, avoids any kind of encounter with otherness. And otherness is more overt in ethics than almost anywhere else. But saying its worthwhile encountering or engaging with othernesses might also be an ethical position. To say that this position (or something else called ethical relativsim) is uncomfortable and does not make it easy to decide what is good or bad, is not a refutation of it, however much such an argument might help retain people's comfort levels. Think of extreme cold, that is not refuted by its discomfort. If one thinks that not being able to make blanket moral statments is to be unethical, then we are back to where we started, with an unresolvable moral question, and the hint of later inconsistencies. however Eero's argument that good people will be good and thus we don't need directives would lead to the same conclusion about laws, and laws are often useful as I think people would agree. So are customs - without them you cannot build much of a person :) However that does not mean we can choose customs souly by ethics as the customs make the kind of ethics that will appeal to us. Similarly if people find violation of privacy objectionable in one situation, that is not necessarilly an argument that that privacy should be violated in another situation. Ultimately the ethics that allow you to do research are similar to those ethics that allow you to survive in any sub-group. There may be no abstract non ethical 'rationality' behind it - other than force :) Researchers have the problem that they may have to deal with several incompatible ethical or legal systems, which makes life harder. That AOIR approves something will not necessarily make it ethical to the group you are studying. But again, the fact that something is uncomfortable is not a refutation of its existence or validity. This is a 'social fact', but yes you can try and change what is acceptable ethics - no you won't always succeed.... That people always argue over ethics is also a social fact as well. I don't see easy answers here. jon -- UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

3 2