I think that there is a difference between simple empiricism, learning from experience, etc. Then there is a difference between doing that and performing social science, where we vary a system to test a hypothesis. For the former, we just observe, for the latter we vary to see if something changes, manipulating the subjects in the process. Isn't there? You can watch all you want, that is the basis of experience, but when one proposes to manipulate subjects, or to use manipulation of subjects, even secondarily, as part of research, then i think there are issues and yes, there needs to be consent structures, especially if there is possibility of harm, either communal or individual. So in short, if you formalize it into a research project, and subject people on lists to intervention or manipulation either primarily or secondarily then there are issues I think, don't you? On May 11, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
I vehemently disagree with the notion that all learning from evidence should be considered research that cannot be carried out without permission. I constantly learn from how people post things on air-l and what kind of responses they get (e.g., somebody posed something in a particular way, and got a lot of thoughtful responses, and somebody else posed something in a different way, and didn't get much response). Sometimes I even make decisions based on this (e.g., adoption of a particular rhetorical style that I have observed to be successful in generating thoughtful discussion.) Shall I be banned from doing so because that is considered a form of research? Shall I be required to submit a formal request to air-l executive committee and to my IRB to learn in this way? Mark
Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
jeremy hunsinger wrote:
the list is not something we should experiment with, there used to be an exec-comm statement to that effect somewhere.
it is likely in the archives. it basically said please don't use the list for experiments without permission of the list participants or something pretty similar. which basically means, don't make people research subjects without their permission, which given it is nearly impossible to ensure you have every recipients permission... it is pretty much impossible to do research. archives are a different concern of course.
if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices. http://aoir.org/?page_id=3
On May 11, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
Thank you for putting it this way. I don't agree that the default reply option in and of itself powerfully sets a norm about communication expectations on a list, but the fact that you have put forward such an argument and a prediction that flows from it means that it can be empirically tested.
Let's see if the traffic to this list slows down over a certain period of time, and, if so, by how much. I would contend that a certain slowing down is desirable (if, for example, there previously were messages sent in error to the entire list, and now there are not). But if the reduction is traffic is dramatic, and the list becomes less useful to people because of that, then we'll find that out in due time. Mark
Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
There have been some requests for research that might help indicate whether the change to the email list is beneficial/problematic for the list.
The research that informs my concerns about the shift to the new default-to-individual reply focuses on norms. Norms are shaped not only by other people but by the technology that frames the interaction (Martey and Stromer-Galley, 2007; Stromer-Galley and Martey, forthcoming). If the old norm of the AoIR list was that a replied-to message went to the entire list, then the expectation for the list was that interactions on the list were, by default, public. The norm then for communication through this list was that it was public communication.
If the new norm of the list is that a replied-to message goes to the individual, then the norm for the list will shift to become the case that most interaction is private. To put it another way, the structure of the technology establishes the norm for interaction. Although I don't disagree that it takes but a moment to push the necessary buttons to make a replied-to message go to the list, there is more at play here than just pushing buttons. Individuals have to cognitively engage the question of whether the message should be public or private. The default setting suggests that the norm for interaction is that replied-to messages should be private; hence, it requires a new level of justification on the part of the sender to determine that the message is appropriate for public consumption. The net result, I predict, is that there will be significantly less traffic on the AoIR list over the following months as people adapt to the new norm that's established by the technological shift. I personally would find that disappointing, as I learn a great deal from the public conversation, and would lose their insights as the conversation shifts to private channels.
References: Martey R. M., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). The digital dollhouse: Context and social norms in The Sims Online. Games & Culture, 2, 314-344. Stromer-Galley, J., & Martey, R. M. (in press). Visual spaces, norm governed places: The influence of spatial context online. New Media & Society.
Regards, ~Jenny
Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/