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.
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.
It is in the recording and reproducing of things said
how about if I just take field notes? Or have an incredible memory?
in contexts that they cannot themselves control
Boy is this a crock. . . what they've not controlled is private setting . . . and that's wholly of their own doing, not of mine.
So who has the power to reproduce everyday conversations and place in con(texts) where they get generalized and used for policy and other forms of (mis) representation?
I know there is power at work . . . and scientific work often brings such issues into question/relief. In effect, any time a researcher notes a behavior, reproduces and account of it, and "explains" or "interprets" it . .. these power aspects are at issue. And one can always accuse the researcher of abusing power merely because they have decided to do any interpretation. But qualitative researchers don't have to check their interpretive "authority" at the door just because they are trying to explain meanings. Subjects in this case have a very simple protection of privacy. Talk in private. I absolutely promise to NEVER use technology to record something that I could not otherwise hear (without the technology). Further, I absolutely promise to NEVER hide recording technology in such a way that subjects can't see perfectly well for themselves that I'm present with recording equipment. I use a recording walkwan, hung around my neck so that it is in front of my body in full view at all times. And I promise to follow the state law on recording, wherever I am. If it's against the law to record without prior permission, I don't. But if Joe Friday decides to talk in my presence, in public, in such a way that makes his talk readily available to me as an audience, he is already fully aware that I am "recording" his talk . . . for without technology, my brain is a recorder and Joe Friday knows that I am using it. . . if I aid it with machinery, the point hasn't changed. Joe Friday, subject, has made me part of the scene via his knowing behavior in my public presence.
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Director, Multimedia Program and New Media Center Associate Professor, Speech Communication 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~ell http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/