- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

RE: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Rod Carveth 11 May '04

11 May '04

Jenny, I agree with you about the public nature of writing to a newspaper and the ambiguity of whether or not posting to a newsgroup is public. I disagree about the public nature of a loud cell phone conversation. Culturally, it is *polite* to ignore a person being loud on the phone. OTOH, we all know that there is a point in terms of the loudness of our voice where while the intent of the conversation may be private, the effect is public. Once past that point, we lose control over how the communication is used. For all intents and purposes, the part of the conversation is in the public realm. Example. Suppose a few months ago, Bennifer (pick either one) is having a cell phone call with a friend. They're talking and the conversation gets animated. The volume gets loud enough that people can easily hear Bennifer say "It's so over. We'll have to anounce that soon." Among the people that hear the conversation is a gossip columnist. Would we be suprised if an item based on this phone call appeared as a scoop in the gossip column the following day? Would we think the gossip columnist was acting unethically? Same example. If I -- an academic following a "higher standard" of research approaches -- was writing an article about cell phones and how people get so into them they exceed culturally acceptable standards of volume, I would have no problem using actual conversations in the article. Once a person gets too loud, he or she by behavior has waived any right to privacy. OTOH, there's a more practical matter to consider in terms of this kind of data -- you only get part of the conversation, and you only hear one side. So, while I believe such data is fair game, there are few times when such data would be useful. Rod Rod Carveth, Associate Professor Department of Communication Rochester Institute of Technology 100 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623 585-429-6127 docrod(a)rit.edu "On the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog, but they do know if you are an ass." >From: "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer(a)albany.edu> >Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org >To: <air-l(a)aoir.org> >Subject: RE: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions >Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:24 -0400 > >A letter to the editor in the NYTimes, a post on Newsgroup, and a loud >cell phone conversation are not analogous. > >A person writing a letter to the NYTimes knows that his or her letter, >if it gets printed will be part of the public record, open for public >comment and public scrutiny. Culturally, we understand that a newspaper >is a public document; and, if one writes a letter to be placed in it, we >recognize that it may be read, analyzed, and commented upon privately >and publicly. > >A person posting to a Newsgroup may or may not share the same cultural >understanding of publicness. Some participants in this discussion on >AoIR have assumed that all participants of the Internet understand the >public nature of the Internet, but I challenge that assumption. Late >adopters of the Internet and technologically unsavvy users (just to name >two groups) may not full understand or appreciate how public their posts >are. It's one thing for a techie to declare all communication online >public, and another thing entirely for a user of the Internet to >perceive his or her communication online as public. To compare back to a >letter to the NYTimes. There is a culturally-shared understanding of the >newspaper's publicness. There is not a culturally-shared understanding >that all communcation online is public. > >A person talking loudly on a cellphone on a train may experience his or >her phone conversation as a private act, even though the people in the >immediate vicinity hear one side of the conversation. Unlike a letter to >the NYTimes, there is not a culturally-shared agreement, nor is their an >individual-level perception, that such cell phone talk is public. How >many of you have started a cell phone conversation while walking or >driving (eek!) have ended the conversation and realized that you're >surprised at where you're located? We pay less attention to the external >world when we engage in cell phone conversation than when we're not >having that conversation. Although some cell phone users may be >conscientious to the fact that others can hear their conversation, I >challenge an assumption that they know and feel that their conversations >are public, and therefore open to structiny and public comment. > >So, before we academics start declaring that "those people" should know >that their communication is public because we can hear it need to >recognize the difference between academic "objective" observations of >public communication (i.e. "Newsgroup posts ARE public") and the >observeds own perceptions of publicness. > >As academics, we have a moral obligation to respect the boundaries our >potential research participants establish. As academics, we are held to >a higher standard of research approaches than, say, our journalist >colleagues (although, I wish journalists were held to a higher >standard). We ought not record and analyze for research purposes online >communication unless we are certain that the participants engaged in the >communication recognize the publicness of their communication, or unless >we acquire some level of informed consent from those participants. > >Best wishes, >~Jenny Stromer-Galley > > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

1 0

RE: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Kevin Tharp 11 May '04

11 May '04

Hello Everyone: When I tossed out the nugget of the public / private phone conversation, I was thinking along the lines of Goffman's stage / backstage and how they are becoming blurred with the increasing use of modern ICT. Ed said, >But this group is most interested in online research (Internet).< While I understand the sentiment that this discussion may be noise from the current perspective of online (Internet) research I would have to disagree. As ICT becomes more ubiquitous in our lives, I think there is going to be a continued blurring of some of the lines that we have drawn. For instance, if the discussion that the person having on the cell phone was instead being conducted using WiFi and Voice over IP, it does then in my mind become clearly related to Internet research. Online (Internet) research is no longer only about text based spaces that comprised the Internet just a few years ago. Picture this scenario: The RFID in our clothes or our PDA alert a digital billboard that we are approaching. The billboard then searches online databases about our consumer habits and presents a personalized advertisement for our eyes and then changes it for the next person travelling behind us. In that scenario, when online and offline lose their distinctions because of ICT ubiquity, any lines drawn to say this is Internet / online research would seem to be moot. I personally believe that this conversation on the ethics related to research where lines used to be clear but are now blurred has become a jewel. I appreciate everyone's contributions. 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/

1 0

RE:ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Carol Perryman 11 May '04

11 May '04

>They must assume that their communication is being observed by other people >who may comment about it, record it, analyse it etc - and if they do not >wish for this to occur the solution is very simple, dont make such >utterances publicly. >Life is a pretty simple business when we sweep away the bulldust, why must >we complicate it ? Thanks for your comments, Eero. But how is it simple, when the minute we begin to look at the record of even a single human interaction in any form, we are made aware of all the weight of history and custom, the constructs of shared meaning, the potential clashes between private definitions on the part of any two people - even if they live in the same town? My grandfather had a different sense of civility than my own, my colleague from Korea, yet another. I'd say it's simple only when viewed from a great distance. I'd add to that the reality of technological mechanisms for observation and capture constitutes so large and rapid an alteration of our interactions that we're all learning as we go about its impact in every part of our society. We shape and reshape our civility, and ethics rise from that creation. One hundred years ago you might not have been subjected to another's private conversation on the bus, because you might not have had access to such public transportation. If, legally, we should learn to be aware that our privacy is no longer a reasonable expectation, as it once was, how does that affect us - not only our practices, but our expectations of dignity? And can't we differentiate between 3 things (there may be more, I don't know yet): expectation, ethical behavior, and law? The law may sternly claim that each individual carries a responsibility for whatever utterances or behavior he or she enacts, but the individual may blithely proceed with whatever their inclinations might be, feeling (the foolish thing!) safe among a like-minded society. Carol Perryman Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cp1757(a)hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Adrian Miles 11 May '04

11 May '04

On 12/05/2004, at 2:01 AM, Eero Tarik wrote: > People carrying on a loud conversation on a train, or speaking into a > mobile phone in a public place, or writing a Letter to the Editor, or > posting to a publily open newsgroup are all accepting the same risk > when > they undertake these activities. They must assume that their > communication is being observed by other people who may comment about > it, record it, analyse it etc - and if they do not wish for this to > occur the solution is very simple, dont make such utterances publicly. may have been pointed out, but this was one of the points made by Cees Hamelink in his keynote at the Maastricht AoIR. He even used examples of where he has participated as the 'included' third party in mobile phone conversations in public places. in addition other things: 1. it is legal to film/photograph people in public places (you do not need clearances) 2. it is legal to film/photograph, in closeup, people at sporting events in the crowd cheers Adrian Miles ................................................................. hypertext.rmit || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/adrian interactive networked video || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog research blog || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/

1 0

Re: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Radhika Gajjala 11 May '04

11 May '04

In-Reply-To: <FA0E750E-A34F-11D8-8518-000393A35E46(a)bradley.edu> References: <000201c4375a$206104f0$6720a8c0@JJLAND> <000201c4375a$206104f0$6720a8c0@JJLAND> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:34 AM 5/11/2004 -0500, you wrote: >I'm not trying to get the last word here. But this group is most >interested in online research (Internet). I get defensive/protective >over/during discussions of field protocol . . . but I think I'll probably >lay off now. My points are made about as well as I can make them and I >think this is something of a tangent for the central (online) thrust of >the group. I think all of us do - because our "subjects" are more likely to talk back and question us in present times than when the ivory tower was really ivory. Radhika Gajjala http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik Associate Professor Dept of IPC/School of Comm Studies 315 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 419-372-0528 fax - 419-372-0202

5 5

Re: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by E. Sean Rintel 11 May '04

11 May '04

G'day all, Some replies to points about the privacy of recording online interation: A) To follow up Jennifer Stromer-Galley's point about cell-phones not being public for the participants, which was in reply to arguments about "if it's loud enough for me to hear it then it's public", I am surprised that no-one has discussed--on the pro or con side of those arguments above--the fact that the cell phone is clearly *changing* what "public" and "private" mean. To claim that there is a set "public" and a "private" excludes both how the technological affordances and constraints of any given meaning allow for specialized and in-the-moment-enacted practices of "publicness" and "privateness". This is an extension to Baym's argument, in that not only do 'different media have particular purblic/private configurations and users' but also that we, as individuals and societies, are constantly in the process of negotiating our public/private notions even as we enact them one interaction at a time. B) I disagree that chatrooms, newsgroups etc. are similar to the panopticon in particular. 1) In terms of visibility: While some people may lurk without participating, or even being seen (like the guards in a panopticon), most people who are active can see each other. 2) In terms of power: A chatroom etc. is not carceral. Those who participate are not prisoners held without their consent for crimes--they are free-willed subjects who can come and go as they please. Those who watch are not guards intended to observe prisoners--they are either other participants or lurkers. But that is not to disagree entirely with the point. As Goffman would argue, we are all, at all times, regulated and self-regulating in terms of how we understand others to perceive our public performance--even when we are the only person around. But as Baym (and I think JSG) argues, people's awareness of the extent of public/private visibility in internet media are very different, and that matters as to how we, as researchers, can formulate a plan of data-collection and dissemination. It also matters to the IRBs who have to make decisions about protecting human subjects. Until anon Sean -- E. Sean Rintel Department of Communication University at Albany, State University of New York http://www.albany.edu/~er8430

1 0

ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by Carol Perryman 11 May '04

11 May '04

>ed wrote >>>I've always let the test be that I, as researcher, am out in the open in >>>the plain view of the subject. If they are speaking loudly enough that I >>>can hear without any special equipment, or effort, I treat the >>>conversation as public talk freely available for analysis (and >>>recording). In the case of the cell phone, I am not "tapping" the phone >>>call illegally cause I can't hear the other side of the conversation. > On May 10, 2004, at 6:35 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote: >> >>but you'd be amazed at how shocked they would be if they then saw their >>words quoted in a public(ation) text. >> >But you'd be amazed at how shocked I am to have to listen to their talk in >the first place. If the talk IS private, I should not be able to hear it >without special equipment. If I can, it's not private talk, no matter what >"they expect." The subjects set the expectations themselves. If they talk >in a way that others in public can't hear . . . it's private. If they >don't, it's public. Please pardon what is probably a naiive comment, but it appears that the concepts of ethics are here conflated with an expectation of _politeness_ and an understandable annoyance at the intrusiveness of this rude public behavior. I am reminded, reading this very interesting discussion, of Japanese practices wherein one pretends not to hear. In fact, talking with a South Korean friend, she tells me that when two people are speaking, and one other enters the area, it's quite common that this third person would receive no greeting, and nor would one be expected. Space is so limited that this mutual pretense is (or had been) employed as a virtual wall of privacy. There appears to be a similar expectation in some areas of the web. >>What is invaded is the Individual's *sense* of privacy - whatever the >>medium used. >Again. The sense of privacy has already been invaded. Not by the >researcher . . . but by the subjects, themselves who have taken a private >matter into the public domain. I agree that the medium doesn't matter . . . >the fact that they are holding a small plastic device to the side of their >head doesn't mean that I've got to go suddenly deaf and and become unable >to write. But their carrying on their private business loudly in my >knowing presence means that they have included me in the talk, albeit as >audience, but as approved participant nevertheless. I cannot agree with this. That we can hear it is annoying - but that we can record it appears intrusive. Using this argument, if I observed my neighbor telling off his kid - loudly - in the kitchen next door with the windows open, I should feel completely justified in doing what I wished with what I heard. Analysis is another story. All is setting, right? And certainly it would inform our more formal inquiry. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Perryman Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cp1757(a)hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

2 2

RE: Joint AoIR ASIS&T EC workshop/ Organiser message
by Irene Berkowitz 11 May '04

11 May '04

---- Original message ---- Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:54:14 +0100 From: "Thelwall, Mike (Dr)" <M.Thelwall(a)wlv.ac.uk> RE: Joint AoIR ASIS&T EC workshop/ Organiser message SUBJECT: Call for abstracts and participation TEXT: The web as a mirror of scientific and technical chievements: issues in access and measurement Workshop at the AoIR conference, 19-22nd September 2004 http://aoir.org/2004/ Organisers: Mike Thelwall (University of Wolverhampton, UK), m.thelwall(a)wlv.ac.uk Andrea Scharnhorst (Nerdi/NIWI, The Netherlands) Irene Berkowitz (Temple University, USA) Lennart Björneborn (Royal School of Library and Information Science,Denmark) Christine Hine (University of Surrey, UK) Michael Nentwich (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Technology Assessment) Steve Schneider (SUNY Institute of Technology, USA) Henry Small (Chief Scientist of Thomson ISI, USA) Liwen Vaughan (University of Western Ontario, Canada) Michel J. Menou (ASIS&T international liaison officer) Co-sponsored by: The European Chapter of the American Society for Information Science & Technology - ASIS&T/EC (www.asis.org/Chapters/europe/) The European Union funded project WISER - Web Indicators for Science,Technology & Innovation Research (www.webindicators.org) The Communication and Information Technology section of the American Sociological Association The academic journals "Cybermetrics" and "Online Information Review" Scope and objectives The web has changed the way in which many researchers conduct research, communicate their findings and share data. In some research fields, such as high-energy physics, online posting of preprints is standard practice. In others, such as astronomy, the maintenance of large shared online data banks is common, fundamentally changing the way in which scientists operate. Other changes are less dramatic, but more universal, such as the widespread creation of public home pages for individual researchers and research groups. There is a need for assessing the impact of the myriad web uses and for the identification of the potential and actual impact of the web. This workshop will provide an opportunity to discuss quantitative and quantitative approaches to studying academic web use. The themes of the conference will be: * Scientific collaboration and communication on the Web: new opportunities,new social organisation. * Measuring science on the web: new techniques. * Publishing research online: adaptation and innovation. * Disciplinary differences in web use. * Individual case studies. * Large scale analyses. Submission Process The structure of the workshop is different from the usual format. The aim is to create a lively discussion about relevant topics rather than to be based around a few speakers giving presentations. The following procedure is therefore proposed. Those interested in participating should submit to: Mike Thelwall m.thelwall(a)wlv.ac.uk by June 26, 2004 an abstract (750 words maximum) of a position paper dealing with any aspect of the above topics. Abstracts will be refereed. Authors of accepted contributions will be notified by July 31, 2004. They will be invited to provide an expanded abstract or short paper (2500 words maximum) and to register for the workshop on the conference web site by August 31, 2004. Expanded abstracts and short papers will be circulated among workshop participants (and possibly posted on the ASIS&T/EC web site) with a view to allow for an advance discussion that will take place on the ASIS&T/EC listserv. At the workshop the discussion will be arranged around 3 main topics: scientific collaboration and communication, measuring science on the web, and publishing research online. For each one, participants will be invited to very briefly summarize their positions before a general discussion takes place. We anticipate that most participants will have the opportunity to present. Participants wishing to distribute their position statements as handouts or posters are welcome to do so. Summaries of the sessions will be published in Cybermetrics and Online Information Review. 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

ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by ET 11 May '04

11 May '04

Perhaps Carol, we could look at this interaction business in some other ways. What should I do if I want to research and analyse the Letters to the Editor page in the New York Times? Should I ask the NYT to post a warning that I may be recording what people write about? And what happens if there are hundreds of people conducting research on the NYT Letters to the Editor page? Should the newspaper clog their pages with warning messages about the research activities going on? Lets look at a possible example of newsgroup research. Lets imagine that I get permission from one of usenets most prolific publishers of pornographic material to observe him and identify him in my research. He has consented so there should be no problem. What if his fervently religious wife is humiliated by this public recognition of his activities and she commits suicide? What if his children suffer? And what of his yet to be born children? How can I , the researcher, be responsible for other people and how they may be hurt? If we treat all utterances in the public domain as fair game then we are able to retain our sanity and its easy to identify a consistent standard. People carrying on a loud conversation on a train, or speaking into a mobile phone in a public place, or writing a Letter to the Editor, or posting to a publily open newsgroup are all accepting the same risk when they undertake these activities. They must assume that their communication is being observed by other people who may comment about it, record it, analyse it etc - and if they do not wish for this to occur the solution is very simple, dont make such utterances publicly. Life is a pretty simple business when we sweep away the bulldust, why must we complicate it ? see ya Eero Tarik Adelaide

3 2

researchers ???
by ET 11 May '04

11 May '04

Dr Allen (Matt) wrote... "What we ended up with is not for me to judge...I think we do well at it, but mostly because we have students *like* ET :)" struth ! there are more like me around??? How do you people ever get to sleep at night :-) Anyhow, I would just like to add that I think you ladies and gentlemen at Curtin do an excellent job. You are providing an opportunity that would otherwise not exist and doing so in a cutting edge environment. It can not be an easy thing to achieve when the floor beneath you is being constantly moved by changing technologies. When I think of the wide variety of ages, experiences and hopes of the people who have been in my "classes" so far, it really is a sensational set up that you, Matt, and your crew, have put together with Curtin, the Open Learning organisation and the WebCT facility. I wouldnt hesitate for a moment in recommending the course to others, indeed I am always promoting to those I meet how fantastic it is to actually be able to "study" the internet, rather than just being hostage to it. Matt also wrote... "A kind of valuable arts-major in Internet Studies, embedded in a degree that permitted choice and recognised prior experience, leading to a professional status, in a field where there are no 'professions'." I suspect Matt that the commercial world is just waiting for someone to define what an internet researcher is, and to show it how to use one. I can imagine a world where internet researchers are a vital part of every large corporate entity - in an obvious manner. Lets face it, the commercial opportunities being harvested from the internet today by business are so elementary when one considers the massive potential. Anyhow, thats another subject for another day... Back to the original subject - finally, I must say a big thank you to all those staff who have to put up with me. Whilst this may surprise many of you AoIRer's who no doubt see me as a calm and relaxed fellow, I am actually a very vocal and questioning student and tend not to accept what is put before me at face value. Sometimes one just has to take a stand - as in the case against Mr Barlow and his declaration, or this business about there being a cyberspace or this issue of ethics. And not to mention a certain software product that annoyed me with its wrong results last week. Could I accept a wrong result ? No .... and it only took me 20 hours to pull the log files apart with a spreadsheet and find the truth, but in the process nearly driving the lecturer mad, again :-) (I hope you are paying him well) I have no doubt that the journey in this area has just begun and by drawing in students from around the world with courses such as yours Matt, your department will be a key player in placing this talent into the major corporations of the world as they hungrily venture forth into largely unexplored territory. see ya Eero Tarik Adelaide

1 0