On May 11, 2004, at 8:15 AM, Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
A letter to the editor in the NYTimes, a post on Newsgroup, and a loud cell phone conversation are not analogous.
I agree
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.
I'm not very motivated by how a person "talking loudly" in the immediate vicinity of others "perceives themselves." I'm sure that there are MANY things that qualitative research subjects do (or do not do) over which the researcher and the subject would disagree concerning "their individual-level perception" about what is going on in the scene. That's pretty much a given in qualitative research.
I challenge an assumption that they know and feel that their conversations are public, and therefore open to structiny and public comment.
This would imply that one can't do qualitative research, in the field, unless subjects know that they are being observed. This assumption violates many fundamental tenets of high quality observational research. If an observer is NOT effecting subjects and if the subjects are random and anonymous (both on tape and in subsequent reports) and if their behavior is in a public place in the plain view of in-view others . . . qualitative researchers have the right to observe and make records.
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.
I'm not sure many qualitative field researchers would claim that their observations are "objective." I sure don't. And yes, there is quite a difference between my experience and interpretation of the social scene and that of the subject. I'm doing research about everyday life; they are living it. But that difference in perception/interpretation/stance does not mean that I'm not allowed to do the research.
As academics, we have a moral obligation to respect the boundaries our potential research participants establish.
Ah. And what boundaries does a person talking loudly enough for others to hear, in public, establish? If that person takes the call over to the corner of the room, or speaks in whispers when in public, or uses a headset, etc. . . . IF they act as though they are in a private conversation, my protocols would join with their actions to make their talk "private" and therefore off limits to research. But if the "boundaries" that they "establish" force their talk on me (make it available without my taking ANY extra effort to listen) . . . my protocols do not need to further protect a sense of boundary that they have not themselves asserted (assuming previously mentioned aspects of anonymity, public display, etc).
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.
You started this by drawing our attention to non-comparable cases. But here, you fall into the same behavior. Much of the discussion has been about OFF-LINE behavior (people talking loudly in public while researchers listen). That's not the same as ONLINE behavior (researchers observing communication behavior within a mediated environment). I cannot, legally OR morally, tap into those phone conversations (get two-sided, online data) without meeting a ton of permissions/protections, etc. Likewise, there are standards (often discussed in this group) regarding ethics and practices for studying online behaviors carried by computer mediated communication. My comments are NOT about on-line research. I've been following (and commenting on) a discussion about qualitative techniques used in OFF-LINE, public settings where the "data" consists of that which a subject says, out-loud, in the knowing presence of others. Direct observation of such behavior has long been protected as a research practice EXCLUDED from most human subjects constraints (again, within the aforementioned parameters----legality of recording devices by state/municipality, random and anonymous observation/notation/recording, etc.). 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. peace
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/