I believe that Dana has struck a nerve. The concept of "Googling" a name or concept involves at least two aspects of this debate. First of all someone (or some 'thing') IS listening to these debates/conversations on the web as Dana pointed out. Google, the search engine, along with others similar, is spidering these conversations, creating an index, and providing a delivery method for raw data. Although the terminolgy may not be as academic, Google, in effect is already researching this discussion. Is that ethical? Does a software program even have 'ethics'? , one might ask. Secondly, regardless of an individual's perception of posting to the web, unless the site specifically indicates that access to the information is secure (i.e. password protected), the information IS public. If there are problems with the perception, then perhaps the responsibility falls upon the creators/moderators of listserves and discussion boards to include a statement at the top of each page to indicate that this is a published/public document. Until Dana's post, I had not considered the idea that perhaps there is a level of responsibility of the data collector (Google or a discussion board moderator) to protect an individual from the same persectives of IRB's.) You may have read this quote ions ago (in tech years) from Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." When applied to the Internet (and even email), I concur. What I believe we have created is the need for a term that is not as black and white as 'public' vs 'private' to weigh in on Internet ethics. Interesting discussion. I regress to lurking, Paul Chenoweth, Web Developer Belmont University 615-460-6867 "Experience is the thing you have left when everyting else is gone." Unknown ----- Original Message ----- From: aoir.z3z@danah.org Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:11 am Subject: re:[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
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 mailinglist 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 behaviorsthat 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 discussionwith 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 aboutjustifying 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
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l