Eero's post (below) makes me think of this: (from Dewey) the public sphere is called into being whenever two (or more) people are involved in a conversation, and that conversation has unintended consequences that reach beyond the originators of the conversation. Lesson (for me, anyway): The Internet renders visible, concrete, and "public" a social process of communication that may not have been felt in these ways before. Example: three people sit at a Starbucks in New York discussing Massachusettes legalizing marriage between gays and lesbians. Sally and Kate are a lesbian couple that feel strongly that legalized marriage will be a step towards ending discrimination against them. They retell a story to their friend Jamaal, who's sitting with them, about their own experiences with discrimination at work, and at a hospital when Sally was ill. Jamaal mostly listens to the conversation, but leaves the conversation with renewed enthusiasm for legalized marriage for homosexuals. After the three depart, Jamaal meets up with an old college roommate for dinner. They too discuss gay marriage, and Jamaal uses many of Sally and Kate's examples with his college roommate. The college roommate the next day talks with his wife about the conversation with Jamaal, and she, in turn, takes a tidbit of a fact about discrimination that Sally had said, and shares it with a co-worker . . . . . And so it goes. The Internet enables the same kinds of interaction. But, it does so in ways that are visible and far more permanent than a throuh-the-air conversation. This makes the Internet as an archival medium simultaneously a delight and a fright. It's really remarkable to see that the conversation we're having on AoIR about ethnography, ethics, and public and private distinctions, has made its way to a blog. It's remarkable to see my post recreated for another forum, for a slightly different group of people to read and comment on. And, it's out of my control. But, on one hand it's no more or less out of my control than Sally's comments that get passed from Jamaal to the roommate, to the wife, to the co-worker. On the other hand, conversations captured online can be perceived as more harmful because names are associated with the conversations, the conversations are persistent in ways that over-the-air conversations are not, and that persistance and visibility means a message is far more durable online than offline. A conversation that could not easily be quoted or analyzed when occurring face-to-face, becomes an easy opportunity for a researcher, for example, to save and analyze, to reprint and quote. But, just because it's easier to do so online, doesn't mean that it's ethical to do so. So, to return to the larger question at hand: Thomas and Eero, as I understand them, continue to argue that what is posted online is inherently public. As a result, following guidelines for attributing sources, it's A-OK to do what we will with it. My position is that although posts online are durable, persistant, and visible, it does not mean they are inherently public such that researchers can do with the posts what they will. Now, I agree with Nancy that researchers should not have to get consent from participants in a discussion group, such as Usenet, that are open to anyone to participate and to read, and where identities (that is, first and last names and identifying information) is generally unavailable, rendering the posts anonymous. But, there are many grey areas, as others have identified, like the AoIR list. Few of us are anonymous on this email list. Our posts have email addresses and names (usually first and last) attached to them. So, I point back to Dannah's eloquent post, that the *experience* of participating online, the *perceptions* of those involved in the interaction, need to become the primary concern in determining how to proceed with research. If the conversation between Sally, Kate, and Jamaal had happened in a support group for gays and lesbians, I'm unconvinced that many participants would feel it okay for a stranger to record, analyze, and publish the discussion, just as they likely would not feel okay if someone secretely recorded the conversation at Starbucks. But, that is a question that requires a researcher to know and understand the group and abide by the norms the group has established. At the heart of this, I'm urging that the primary consideration when engaging in research of people online is not if posts are durable, archived, visible, public, then they are fair game for research, but how do those who participate in the conversation perceive their participation? If they recognize and are comfortable with their posts being researched, great. If they don't, then as researchers, we ought to respect that. Sincerely, ~Jenny Stromer-Galley

-----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On Behalf Of ET Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:42 AM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Google is watching !

I decided to type my own name into Google. And apart from the top few entries being expected - as they relate to sites I have here, there and everywhere - and a few that dont relate to me, there was an entry about my comments in here.

But the page isnt in this forum. My comments, and those of Danah and Jenny are being discussed in someone ELSES forum !!!

here is the link http://lackaff.net/archives/2004/5/15/ethics-and-online-identi ty/

Isnt that amazing. Our comments of the 15th of May have been picked up and discussed on another forum and are already in Google. So much for privacy :-) I rest my case.... see ya Eero Tarik _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l