- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

BMJ Article on health related virtual communities / cmc-focus issue
by Azy Barak 14 May '04

14 May '04

My experience of several years with a variety of support groups has been quite different from what was reported in this "mega analysis." Moreover, most of the literature I know (see http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~azy/refsupp.htm) show the opposite. Azy > > I wonder if you have taken a look at the new BMJ, which has a theme of cmc > in healthcare. > > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7449/1143 > > and particularly, the following: > > Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic > review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. Gunther > Eysenbach, John Powell, Marina Englesakis, Carlos Rizo, and Anita Stern. > BMJ 2004 328: 1166-0. > > I don't know if any members of this list are working in the area of > healthcare-related cmc, particularly peer-to-peer, but I'd certainly be > interested in knowing if that's the case. My work to date has been with a > large forum (200,000 members) whose intent is smoking cessation. I'd be > very interested to see reactions to this article, which is available > full-text through the BMJ website. > > Carol Perryman

1 0

ethnography and ethics
by bakera＠ohiou.edu 14 May '04

14 May '04

To Jon (and all interested) On your "love of truth" argument I think this has been wisely addressed by Lori, Ed, and Jennifer. Temperamentally, I prefer overt research, and happily, this type gains easier approval from IRB's, and has advantages that Lori points out for getting at certain meanings through interviewing. I would agree with Ed who says there could be cases more amenable to covert research, and add that I believe we as researchers usually engage informally in covert observation before deciding to research a particular area. On this point: "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 -" I am not sure we don't perceive the vagueness, and yet there are other dimensions of this area to explore. For example, does it matter how public or private the participants perceive the setting, and also, how do we resolve the almost inevitable conflict between the member's desire for privacy and the researcher's desire for data? I do agree that there is no one answer to these questions, and yet I believe they are worth pursuing. --andrea baker (andee)

1 0

RE: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by Kendall, Lori 14 May '04

14 May '04

Ed raises a good point about people's accounts of what things mean, and I do agree with him on this. It's one of the reasons I think that interviews alone are often inadequate. You need both observations of behavior *and* discussions with people about their behavior. When I ask people what things mean to them, it doesn't mean that I leave the analysis up to them. It just means that I include their own accounts. Sometimes these accounts tell us more about what people think *should* matter than about what *does* matter. As for people behaving differently when observed: Sure, although not as much as my students believe. (Many, if not most, of my students also believe that everybody lies on surveys and that no one will tell you the truth in interviews either. Do other people get these reactions, or do I have the most cynical students on the planet?) You will find out one set of things when you covertly observe people. You may find out another set of things when you overtly observe people. Which of those sets of things is more valuable for your research depends on what you're analyzing, but in general, I think you get more information by researching overtly. A lot of it comes down to how you do your analysis. In that analysis, you have to take account of your position as researcher and how that has affected what you've observed, regardless of whether your observation was known or not. Lori

1 0

RE: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
by Kendall, Lori 14 May '04

14 May '04

I'm glad Jennifer has returned to the point about whether covert research yields better data. It's something that has been bothering me since the inception of this conversation. This comes up every time I teach Research Methods (which I do every year). When teaching, I attribute the belief that "only covert research yields good data" to the far greater familiarity my students have with quantitative methods and with the fact that culturally in the U.S. the understood model of SCIENCE means experimental methods, in which as many aspects of the research project are as tightly controlled as possible. 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." A similar (but sort of reversed) reaction is contained in ET's original post on this topic. He wrote (on May 5, and I was surprised -- I was sure we'd been talking about this much longer!): > "To me, if one is studying > humanity one should be part of it, exposed to the same experiences, > feeling the full swing of their emotions through their research. > The obvious criticism of such an approach would be that one is too > involved and therefore potentially producing inaccurate research. > But is such research any less accurate than the arms length - dont get > involved - approach where the participants are wary of the watcher?" I have several responses to this. First, coming in as researchers with a research agenda, we can never be participants in exactly the same way as the people we are studying. Most participants presumably have one agenda in participating (although in some settings, other participants may also have more than one agenda, such as a journalist participating in a listserv and using posts from the listserv -- overtly or covertly -- as fodder for a weekly column). Researchers (at least in the type of research I do: participant-observation or ethnographic) always have two (at least!) agendas -- a split self. We are both observers, with all kinds of reasons why we want to observe -- and we are participants. That being the case, you can actually be *more* of an immersed participant overtly than you can covertly. Covert research requires you to always hold something back, as you hide your second agenda. Overt research is therefore *less* "arms-length," not more. Second, being an overt researcher allows you to ask questions. Some of these questions would be considered rude, weird, or out of place from a "regular" participant, but are acceptable from someone new to the culture or studying the culture. Without the ability to ask questions and achieve greater understanding of what's going on, you risk completely misinterpreting things you observe. I have an example from my research of such a misinterpretation (from not asking a question), but it's kind of long to explain, so if people are interested I can email or maybe post it later. Third, I'm personally interested not just in what people do and say but in what these things *mean* to them, in what they *think*. While you can observe some physical cues for emotional reactions (not available in many online situations), 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. An example of this is in my book Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub. The people I was studying had read a short piece I'd published in an anthology and we were discussing the accuracy (or lack thereof) of my observations. So because I was open about my research, and shared the "results" of that research with participants as I went, I was able ultimately to present (a) an excerpt of online text, (b) my own analysis of what that text means, and (c) further text discussion amongst participants about what *they* think the text means (with considerable disagreements between me and them and amongst them). I believe this provides a much better picture of their culture, and it gave me further insights and yielded an entirely new avenue of analysis for me. As Nancy mentioned earlier, there may be some situations in which people would so object to being studied that being an overt researcher would not provide you with an advantage. But in most situations I think it does. When you add that to the ethical considerations, I think covert research can only be justified in a very limited set of cases. Lori ________________________________ Lori Kendall Assistant Professor of Sociology Purchase College-SUNY lori.kendall(a)purchase.edu

2 1

Re: [Air-l] Internet usage patterns of academics and historians
by Irene Berkowitz 14 May '04

14 May '04

The new AoIR Annual may also have some valuable related information. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:44:02 +0200 >From: "Nentwich, Michael" <mnent(a)oeaw.ac.at> >Subject: Re: [Air-l] Internet usage patterns of academics and historians >To: air-l(a)aoir.org > >> I am doing research for a book about how the Internet can be used as a >> tool to teach about history and to conduct history projects. >> Currently, I am looking for existent research on the Internet usage >> patterns of those interested in history -- professors, students, >> amateur historians, museum enthusiasts, and genealogists. Does >> anyone know of any studies, research projects, articles, websites, >> books, etc. that might be relevant? Leads to any general research >> about Internet usage by professors and other academics would also be >> very helpful. > >You might be interested in my book on cyberscience. It >includes an extensive comparison of the status quo of ICT >use in 13 disciplines, among them history. Btw, in this >comparison, North-American History turned out to be the most >"cyber" of all. Here is the quote: > >Nentwich, M. (2003) Cyberscience: Research in the Age of >the Internet, Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. >http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/3188-7. > >Best wishes, >Michael > > >*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >Dr. Michael NENTWICH >Austrian Academy of Sciences, Inst. of Technology >Assessment >A-1030 Vienna, Strohgasse 45/5; Tel. +43 1 51581 >6583 >Fax. +43 1 7109883; mailto:mnent@oeaw.ac.at >Personal homepage: http://eiop.or.at/mn/ >Institute: http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ > >New book: "Cyberscience" >http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/3188-7 > > >_______________________________________________ >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

DVD-Presentation: EXPERIMENTAL NARRATION - X-PILATION 3
by Benjamin Fischer 14 May '04

14 May '04

English version see below Filmgalerie 451 und Wand 5 e.V. praesentieren ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPERIMENT ERZAEHLUNG - X-PILATION 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kurzfilme von Mark-Steffen Goewecke, Oliver Husain, Ulrich Koehler, Eva Koennemann, Stanislaw Mucha, Jan Peters, Corinna Schnitt Vorgefuehrt beim Stuttgarter Filmwinter und zusammengestellt von Giovanna Thiery und Ulrich Wegenast Termin & Uhrzeit: 19. Mai, 21 Uhr Ort: TurmForum Stuttgart 21, Ebene 3, im Stuttgarter Bahnhofsturm Nach der grossen Resonanz von X-Pilation 1 - deutscher Experimentalfilm der 80er und 90er Jahre - arbeiten die Filmgalerie 451 und Wand 5 erneut zusammen und veroeffentlichen eine DVD mit narrativen, experimentellen Kurzfilmen und -videos aus Deutschland. Die aktuelle Kompilation umfasst preisgekuerte Kurzfilme, die sich auf unkonventionelle Art und Weise mit dem Thema "Erzaehlung" auseinandersetzen. Das filmische Spektrum reicht von persoenlichen Reflexionen ueber Oral History und Marienerscheinungen bis zu Campy Storytelling ueber Erfolg und Niedergang eines Popduos. Die Narrationsformen sind heterogen. Stehen Reduktion bei Corinna Schnitt und Ulrich Koehler im Vordergrund, schwelgen Oliver Husain und Jan Peters in Bildern und Worten. So vielfaeltig die Erzaehlstile sind, so vielfaeltig sind auch die Aesthetiken und Techniken: Waehrend Jan Peters seinen Diary Film auf Super 8 drehte und ungeschnitten aneinanderreiht, bestehen Schnitts und Koehlers Filme aus einer einzigen, praezise durchkomponierten Kamerafahrt. Oliver Husain kombiniert computergenerierte Kulissen mit Realfilm und kreiert ein besonders kuenstliches Ambiente. Eva Koennemann uebernimmt Computerbefehle, um eine Option filmischer Narration zu suggerieren: Love and Hate im digitalen Zeitalter. Stanislaw Mucha und Mark-Steffen Goewecke widmen sich mit besonderer Hingabe den Erzaehlenden... Eva Koennemann: Null - Eins 1995-96, 9 Min., 16mm (Preis der deutschen Filmkritik fuer Experimentalfilm 1996) Corinna Schnitt: Das schlafende Maedchen 2001, 8:30 Min., 16mm (Norman 2002 beim Stuttgarter Filmwinter) Oliver Husain: Ron & Leo 1999, 12:47 Min., Beta SP (Hessischer Filmpreis 1999) Ulrich Koehler: Rakete 1998, 10 min, 16mm Mark-Steffen Goewecke: L'hotel 1997, 12 Min., 16mm (Preis der deutschen Filmkritik fuer Experimentalfilm 1997) Jan Peters: Aber den Sinn des Lebens hab' ich immer noch nicht rausgefunden 1996, 20 min, Super 8/16mm Stanislaw Mucha: Ein Wunder 1998, 7 Min., Beta SP (Norman 1999 beim Stuttgarter Filmwinter) Ausserdem beinhaltet die DVD Zusatzmaterial der Regisseure sowie die Trailer des Stuttgarter Filmwinter 2000-2004. Bei der Vorfuehrung sind mehrere Regisseure anwesend und Giovanna Th. veranstaltet ein spannendes Quiz! Getraenke kommen von Frau Schreck. Der Eintritt betraegt 5 Euro. Die Herstellung der DVD wurde mit freundlicher Unterstuetzung des Medienteams der Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart realisiert. Wir danken dem TurmForum Stuttgart 21 e.V. fuer die Unterstuetzung bei der Premiere. Filmgalerie 451 and Wand 5 present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPERIMENTAL NARRATION - X-PILATION 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Venue: TurmForum in the tower of the Stuttgart railway station Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 After the success of X-Pilation 1 (German Experimental Film of the 80s and 90s) Filmgalerie 451 and Wand 5 cooperate once again and publish the DVD with German short films and videos which deal with strategies of narration. The compilation includes award winning short films by Mark-Steffen Goewecke, Oliver Hussain, Ulrich Koehler, Eva Koennemann, Stanislaw Mucha, Jan Peters,and Corinna Schnitt. The programme ranges from oral history and personal reflections to campy story telling and religious visions. For further information please contact the Wand 5 office (wanda(a)wand5.de) The DVD X-Pilation 3 has been realized with the support of the Mediateam of the state capital Stuttgart. Thanks to the TurmForum Stuttgart 21 for supporting the presentation and premiere. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WAND 5 E.V. - ASSOCIATION FOR PROMOTION OF FILM AND MEDIA CULTURE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friedrichstr. 23a 70174 Stuttgart Germany Tel.: + 49-711-993398-0 (NEW!) Fax:+ 49-711- 993398-10 (NEW!) email: wanda(a)wand5.de www.wand5.de media-space 04 www.media-space.org October, 22-24, 2004 18th Stuttgart Filmwinter - Festival for Expanded Media www.filmwinter.de Festival: January 13-16, 2005 Warm Up: January 6-12, 2005 -- Benjamin Fischer | http://www.typedown.com/?RDCT=f333b35aa11703108329

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Internet usage patterns of academics and historians
by Nentwich, Michael 14 May '04

14 May '04

> I am doing research for a book about how the Internet can be used as a > tool to teach about history and to conduct history projects. > Currently, I am looking for existent research on the Internet usage > patterns of those interested in history -- professors, students, > amateur historians, museum enthusiasts, and genealogists. Does > anyone know of any studies, research projects, articles, websites, > books, etc. that might be relevant? Leads to any general research > about Internet usage by professors and other academics would also be > very helpful. You might be interested in my book on cyberscience. It includes an extensive comparison of the status quo of ICT use in 13 disciplines, among them history. Btw, in this comparison, North-American History turned out to be the most "cyber" of all. Here is the quote: Nentwich, M. (2003) Cyberscience: Research in the Age of the Internet, Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/3188-7. Best wishes, Michael *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Dr. Michael NENTWICH Austrian Academy of Sciences, Inst. of Technology Assessment A-1030 Vienna, Strohgasse 45/5; Tel. +43 1 51581 6583 Fax. +43 1 7109883; mailto:mnent@oeaw.ac.at Personal homepage: http://eiop.or.at/mn/ Institute: http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ New book: "Cyberscience" http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/3188-7

1 0

BMJ Article on health related virtual communities / cmc-focus issue
by Carol Perryman 14 May '04

14 May '04

I wonder if you have taken a look at the new BMJ, which has a theme of cmc in healthcare. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7449/1143 and particularly, the following: Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. Gunther Eysenbach, John Powell, Marina Englesakis, Carlos Rizo, and Anita Stern. BMJ 2004 328: 1166-0. I don't know if any members of this list are working in the area of healthcare-related cmc, particularly peer-to-peer, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing if that's the case. My work to date has been with a large forum (200,000 members) whose intent is smoking cessation. I'd be very interested to see reactions to this article, which is available full-text through the BMJ website. Carol Perryman Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign _________________________________________________________________ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

1 0

Internet usage patterns of academics and historians
by Emily Bliss 12 May '04

12 May '04

I am doing research for a book about how the Internet can be used as a tool to teach about history and to conduct history projects. Currently, I am looking for existent research on the Internet usage patterns of those interested in history -- professors, students, amateur historians, museum enthusiasts, and genealogists. Does anyone know of any studies, research projects, articles, websites, books, etc. that might be relevant? Leads to any general research about Internet usage by professors and other academics would also be very helpful. Thank you so much! Emily Bliss Research Assistant Center for History and New Media George Mason University ebliss(a)gmu.edu

2 1

re:[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
by aoir.z3z＠danah.org 12 May '04

12 May '04

I would like to take a meta-moment about this discussion of ethics. This is a fascinating discussion about ethics. The conversation is happening in the context of this AOIR mailing list. Each post argues points from a previous post. Furthermore, there's an expectation of shared interest in internet research and the language being used implies a shared body of knowledge. Yet, with every post, this conversation is not just unfolding on a mailing list of practitioners. It is going down on the public record of the archived web. I Googled a few of the people on this thread and found that their posts to AOIR showed up in the top 10. Perhaps we should turn the questions we are asking inward for a moment. Is everyone contributing to this thread constructing an argument for the public record? Are your word choices, argument structure and logic the kind of thing that you would publish in journals? It appears to me that, while you might not object to having a public record of these conversations, the language being used is far more conversational, intended for an intimate discussion, not a persistent publication. There are spelling errors, grammar problems and linguistic shortcuts. How would you feel if your peers quoted your words here in publication? Presumably, we are having a debate. In theory, some people might change their minds. Might this challenge your authority in a classroom setting if you try to argue an alternate viewpoint in the future? What about to a tenure committee? What if a journalist quotes your post here as-is as the stance on ethics? Might asking yourself these questions help explain the reasons why the Internet cannot be easily compared to offline scenarios? It's not a matter of being "not in this world" but of the fact that people have different understandings of public/private and that none of us have gotten wholely accustomed to the concept of persistent, searchable data that was constructed under a situation that felt far more like ephemeral conversation. How do you feel about the fact that, in my qualitative methods class, we printed out a series of posts from this discussion for analysis and situated these arguments in the qual methods literature? Was that an audience you were expecting when you crafted your rant? Was it ethical of me to do this? It is easy to dismiss what i'm saying because you probably will never experience any consequences of your posts here. But, i'd urge everyone to be reflexive for a moment. We're all exhibiting the kinds of behaviors that we're studying. Many know it's public and don't care. Some probably didn't realize that this list was publicly archived and searchable by Google. There are hundreds of lurkers on this list whose lack of participation might be connected with this issue. [Personally, i'm in this camp. I have no desire to pretend like i'm in an intimate discussion with my peers knowing that my research struggles and reflections are going down on public, searchable record. There is value to ephemerality.] The whole point of consent is to make certain that no one gets hurt in the making of our research; there are guidelines to reach that goal. The debate that is unfolding is split between reading the letter of the ethics guidelines or the intentions behind it. If we solve that problem, we should all consult judges. In part, people's take on this issue is about justifying their own research decisions. Frankly, this thread is a fascinating example of conversation on the Internet. There are different desired outcomes, different approaches to articulating the ideas, different social norms about addressing others' posts. Go meta for a moment; it's fascinating. danah

2 1