- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

RE: Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research?
by eszterlists＠netscape.net 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

> researchers who are guilty of negligence are acting in ways that will > harm others not just the individuals they are working with but also > because they close down opportunities for valuable Internet research to > be conducted in the future. This is a very important point. The unfortunate reality is that academic research is not done in isolation from private sector "consumer research" when it comes to potential respondents. As far as I understand, private corporations don't have human subjects guidelines to abide by like academics do. So how do we deal with the repercussions of that kind of research? The comparison case I am thinking about here is telemarketers and how disasterous the rise of that activity has been to social science projects that rely on surveys conducted over the phone. Response rates keep dropping, people are suspicious, it's increasingly difficult to recruit respondents. > We're all starting to be aware that increasingly chat rooms and > newsgroups are starting to resent the intrusion of researchers who they I don't know of the cases you refer to Chris because I am not that familiar with this area. I would be very interested in hearing some examples. We can all learn from hearing about cases (methods, research design) that shouldn't be replicated. Thanks, Eszter --- Eszter's List: http://www.eszter.com/elist My Weblog: http://www.esztersblog.com __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

1 0

Great Ethical Disasters in Internet Research?
by Christian Sandvig 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

Thank you all for the interesting responses so far! If I can think out loud a little bit in response to the 'methods' vs. 'ethics': What if we had not mentioned ethics, and had titled the post 'Great Disasters in Internet Research?' Could we think of a single great disaster that lacks an ethical component? I don't think so. (If we could, wouldn't this imply a natural disaster?) I favor the Rimm study as an example because I think of it as an unambiguous case of research that has been widely critiqued as unethical. Here is a great overview of the debate, with links to about twenty critiques: http://elab.vanderbilt.edu/research/topics/cyberporn/index.htm Thanks to Tom Novak for putting this excellent page together. To endorse Chris's points: I am just a simple practitioner, yet when I see the tendency to equate "research ethics" with a narrower "subject ethics," I don't understand why "ethics" should live within such a small box. It could be that people shy away from identifying something as unethical because calling a researcher unethical is so pejorative, but in the context of this thread I'm not sure why identifying them with a disaster is any better. Even though David and Quentin disagree about HomeNet, we could partially reconcile them by saying that if HomeNet was a disaster, the disaster might best be located in the media coverage of the research. (It would be harder to say the same thing about the Rimm study.) I'd bet if we identify other examples (e.g., David's dot.com valuations) this idea of "flawed" coverage will be a theme. It is still raining here, so are there any other nominations? Christian **** Christian Sandvig christian.sandvig(a)oii.ox.ac.uk http://www.niftyc.org/

2 1

software as text
by Pete Adey 13 Jul '02

13 Jul '02

Hi I'm Pete Adey a postgrad at University of Wales, Aberystwyth Geography Department. I'm looking at some modelling software and intend to use my interaction and use of the software, or my reading of it, as part of my research methodology. I am relatively new to this subject and was wondering if much had been published on this sort of methodology, reading software as text etc, and if anyone could help by pointing me in the right direction. Many thanks Pete Peter Adey Research Postgraduate G1a Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences University of Wales, Aberystwyth Ceredigion SY23 3DB

2 1

FW: Graduate Conference: Critical Themes in Media Studies Fall2002
by Mike Ayers 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

this is at the New School for Social Research, NY, NY Call For Student ABSTRACTS! Graduate Conference: Critical Themes in Media Studies Fall 2002 All students are encouraged to participate by submitting 1 paragraph abstracts that address issues and topics related to Media Studies. Selected students will present their academic papers at the Fall 2002 conference, which will be held in GF building on September 28th. Paper topics can include interdisciplinary approaches to: semiotics, reality, simulation, philosophy of media, cyberspace, mediology, sociology of media, television, media creation of space and time, virtual reality, public sphere, culture industry, globalization, philosophy of film, photography, media psychology, film critique, visual culture, etc. All abstracts should include the following information: Name, telephone number and e-mail address Department and School Affiliation and address Title of paper and short abstract All abstracts should be sent to: mediaconference2000(a)yahoo.com. Deadline for submitting abstracts is July 21st.

1 0

Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research? (Dr Chris Mann)
by T.R.Jordan＠open.ac.uk 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Interesting question results from this, when is flawed methodology also flawed ethics? And vice versa. My two examples are Internet statistics and the Rimm study. 1. The stats one is in Michael Wolffs (1998) Burn Rate: how I survived the gold rush years on the Internet, New York: Touchstone, p.130 when he recalls simply making up statistics about the Internet under the pressure of internet-hype. 2. Rimm study. There's no doubt (to me at least) there is deeply flawed methodology in this report. Or that the research of it has some links to anti-porn campaigners who were then targetting censoring legislation against the Internet. There's a conspiracy theory (which may be true) about this report that it was created in order to touch of a moral panic in order to get censoring legislation pushed through in the USA. My memory is there's lots of circumstantial evidence that points this way but I'm not certain a 'smoking gun' or complete proof was found. See Mike Godwin's Cyberrights, Times Books 1998, for this story.

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research?
by Ildiko Kaposi 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Hi, To Chris's concern about the resentment chat room and newsgroup participants may feel about intrusive researchers: It seems to me that the issue is whether such online forms of expression are considered public or private. (I remember seeing something along these lines in the AoIR archives but I'm not sure what it was exactly - sorry if I repeat other people's ideas.) In my own research on a Hungarian online discussion forum, the majority of the participants I talk to understand the messages they send to be public. They think many of the same rules apply to those messages as to any other publicly accessible media text. And newspapers have published collections of quotes from the site, not even changing the nicks of participants. (I still offer everyone total anonymity, trying to make sure no quotes can be traced back to individuals unless that's their expressed wish.) Bottom line is: there may be cultural differences too in how the public/private nature of online communication we research is determined, and that can affect the research method. Which is not to say there's no need to try to figure out the universal ethics of the area. Ildiko Kaposi

1 0

COSIGN 2002 registration open
by Andy Clarke 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Registration is now open for COSIGN 2002, the Second International Conference on Computational Semiotics for Games and New Media, which will be held at the University of Augsburg (Augsburg , Germany) on the 2nd - 4th September, 2002. As with last year's event, COSIGN provides a dynamic mix of accademic papers and artistic presentations and allocates enough time for vital and vibrant discussions. Innovative in both content and presentation, this cross-disciplinary conference explores the ways in which semiotics (and related theories such as structuralism and post-structuralism) can be applied to creating and analysing computer systems. Details of the programme are available on the following web page: http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/program.html There are "early bird" rates for those booking before the 22nd July 2002 and also reduced rates for students. Rates are as follows: For registration before 22nd July 2002 - Standard Rate ........ 250 Euro - Student Rate ........ 200 Euro Registration after 22nd July 2002 - Standard Rate ........ 350 Euro - Student Rate ........ 250 Euro Register by downloading the registration form in Word format from: http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/COSIGN 2002.doc or PDF format from: http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/COSIGN 2002.pdf and faxing it to Dr Elisabeth Andre on the following number: +49 821 598 2349 Please direct any questions regarding the conference registration and programme to Elisabeth André <andre(a)informatik.uni-augsburg.de> and/or Frank Nack <Frank.Nack(a)cwi.nl>

1 0

Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research?
by Dr Chris Mann 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Hi! Thanks for the interesting responses so far to the Great Ethical Disasters thread. Frank raised a very interesting point when he said he'd ' like to have some objectives, some scales linked to the objectives' before assessing if something is ethical. To this I'd say 'yes-exactly- but what kind of objectives would we be talking about? Is something ethical in terms of its OWN research objectives - or are there general objectives which apply to all studies? Do other people who are aware of the Rimm study think it's ethical/unethical - and, if so, why?? I also want to pick up on the debate started by David Silver who seems to be making a distinction between 'unethical research' and ' methodologically flawed' research. Personally i'd argue that while the use of an appropriate research methodology may seem morally neutral in fact the way a research project is designed is crucial to its moral acceptability. If a research method doesnt succeed in answering the question posed then it wastes resources or if it gives incorrect data then bad theory or practice may be established. (Clare Foster in a book called The Ethics of Medical Research on Humans, 2001, argues this very well). In my opinion assessing the validity of data generated by the Internet is an ethical as well as a methodological challenge. Also, in a new research area like the Internet, you could argue that researchers have moral obligations to the research community. If the researcher is careless or lacks expertise, disillusioned arespondents may no longer be willing to participate in research projects. Some commentators have raised the issue of enthusiastic well meaning DIY types who collect data using the new fun toy that is the internet. These people may not know the ethical rules of professional and other bodies so may unwittingly break them. Research instruments may be badly designed and promises made to recipients may not be fulfilled adding to feelings of disillusionment and alarm. It could be argued that researchers who are guilty of negligence are acting in ways that will harm others not just the individuals they are working with but also because they close down opportunities for valuable Internet research to be conducted in the future. We're all starting to be aware that increasingly chat rooms and newsgroups are starting to resent the intrusion of researchers who they feel come in and strip the assets of the group. I personally think that a research method which leaves behind bad feeling among participants is morally suspect! What do other people think about this??? Cheers chris

1 0

Ethical Disasters? in Internet Research
by Stuart Offenbach 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

Dr. Frank Thomas asked what made Rimm's study unethical. Several things. First, readers may review some aspects of the study in an article by Fowler in AAAS's Professional Ethics Report (Fowler, A. (1995), CMU Pornography Study, Professional Ethics Report, 7(3), pp. 1 and 6.) The 'controversy' started with Martin Rimm's report of a study published in the Georgetown Law Journal. Rimm was an undergraduate EE student at Carnegie Melon University and was funded by 4 CMU grants. The purpose of the study was to determine how pornographers use computer system to market their services. As part of the study, Rimm tracked on-line activities of CMU students, staff, and faculty to determine the amount of pornographic material downloaded. Rimm did not obtain or receive consent, nor did he (apparently) have explicit permission from his faculty mentor to carry out these aspects of the study. The report was considered the first "egregious" example of "cybersnooping," and many saw it as a clear violation of privacy rights. (I filed my outline and notes in my ethics/privacy folder). I don't know if this study is infamous, nor if it has been published in a peer reviewed journal other than the Georgetown Law Journal. Other readers in this group can probably cite sources and web sites that discuss the study. Stuart I. Offenbach Department of Psychological Sciences Purdue University

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research?
by Lachlan Brown 12 Jul '02

12 Jul '02

.> i can't be the first one to note that ethical flaws (and i'm thinking > critically about attributing any intentionality here) seem to be > operationalized methods flaws...any thoughts on where this discussion has > already taken place? Why, yes, of course. But criticism by Susan Buchman of Judith Kleinfeld's research in MIT's famous gender study clearly delves into para-scholarly questions and quickly reveals the limits of both scientific methodology and ethical or broader social and cultural considerations. The outcome was a sort of pie fight. See below. I think the point is that any research must be clear on the boundaries of its 'meta discourse', which is why the methodology of broadly speaking cultural studies, speaking as it does to and from broader cultural concerns is such a productive, yea even, incisive one. Even where power accumulations appear safe from scrutiny. It takes power and its uneven distribution as one of its subjects. The social compact is maintained through a reflexivity of the researcher concerning her or his assumptions and subjectivity (which is partly why the study is undertaken in the first place, to know oneself in the world) as well as a thoroughgoing analysis of the field of study. External elements, independent agencies, are only admitted where long established codes of ethics are breached. Society ultimately steps in, even as many many executives of IT companies are presently finding out, even where society or the idea of society was not factored into their equations or projections for an IT revolution. The crucial thing is the 'meta-discourse' in which methodology resides or rather the inter-relationship between what we scholars (I use the term in a catholic and informal sense here in AIR) consider appropriate methodology and what the ethical requirement of professional life, as well as society and culture at large demands of us. Yes, very interresting. I would welcome further thoughs on 'operationalised methods flaws' Lachlan Brown Centre for Cultural Studies and the Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths College University of London. LETTER The Flaws in MIT�s Gender Study In �Twenty Irrelevant Pages,� Susan Buchman critiques my study, �MIT Tarnishes Its Reputation with Junk Gender Science� . Buchman asks a fair question: Why does the MIT study �fall below the most elementary standards for scientific evidence�? Here is the way a study of gender discrimination at MIT should have been conducted following elementary standards for evidence in the social sciences: 1. An independent research firm should have been engaged to do the study. The chair of the MIT committee evaluating the charge of gender discrimination was Professor Hopkins herself, the chief complainant. Two-thirds of the committee members were other senior women in the School of Science, interested parties who would personally profit from a finding of gender discrimination and, in fact, did profit. The senior women at MIT were thus judge and jury of their own complaints. 2. The independent research firm would have developed a clear conceptualization of discrimination and operationalized that definition with specific measures, e.g. unequal pay, unequal laboratory space, not listened to in meetings, not appointed to prestigious committees, a sense of disrespect. 3. A comparative study of male and female faculty at MIT would be conducted to see if female faculty differ significantly from male faculty in such resources and feelings. Male faculty may have comparable perceptions of marginalization but lack a socially acceptable label like �gender discrimination� to discuss the problem. 4. The data would be coded by researchers who have received training in the category system and who have reached at least an 80 percent level of agreement in coding accuracy. Subtle personal experiences (qualitative data) can be coded scientifically, not only quantitative data, when concepts are clear. 5. The study methods and results would be published for review and critique by the scientific community. If sex differences were found in laboratory space, for example, were differences in seniority taken into account? For MIT to argue that �confidentiality� is required on such matters as sex differences in square feet of laboratory feet is just plain absurd. Confidentiality means you do not identify individuals, not that you do not publish tables. This is how social science is done. A secret study is how politics is done. Judith Kleinfeld Professor of Psychology University of Alaska Fairbanks www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N69/Judith_Kle.69l.html > a tangent to david and quentin's conversation below: does anyone else notice > the entanglement of methods flaws and ethical flaws in the body of internet > research literature they review for their research? i feel like i encounter > it often in work dealing with sexuality and identity in relation to CMC. > > i can't be the first one to note that ethical flaws (and i'm thinking > critically about attributing any intentionality here) seem to be > operationalized methods flaws...any thoughts on where this discussion has > already taken place? > > best, > mary > _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ > Mary L. Gray <mlgray(a)ucsd.edu> > Department of Communication > University of California, San Diego > vox: 502/451.5003 > mail: PO Box 4004, Louisville, KY 40204 > http://weber.ucsd.edu/~mgray > -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- > > > From: david silver <dsilver(a)u.washington.edu> > > Reply-To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:44:17 -0700 (PDT) > > To: air-l(a)aoir.org > > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Great Ethical disasters in Internet Research? > > > > Quentin, > > > > i mentioned the HomeNet study because it seems to me that it qualifies as > > one of the major controversies in internet research that chris and > > christian are seeking. my point about the methodologically flawed aspect > > was less a critique of the methods (i'm hardly an expert on the > > quantitative analysis put forth by the authors) and more to the point that > > the controversy was methodologically-based rather than ethically-based. i > > could easily be wrong though and would like to hear more from others. > > > > david silver > > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Quentin (Gad) Jones wrote: > > > >> I have read on a number of occasions attacks on the HomeNet studies for > >> poor methodology. I am yet to read in these same messages details as to > >> why considering the claims that were REALLY made by the researchers as > >> to why the research was so "Flawed". The depression claim was not made > >> as the journalists wrote. Nearly all research is flawed, the question > >> then is relative. Perhaps David would like to explain why HomeNet is > >> particularly flawed research. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Air-l mailing list > > Air-l(a)aoir.org > > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8

1 0