someone I know wants info on the following - feel free to email me off list as well - will compile the list and post (I am collecting some from my past work as well - but thought this list could help) r

Do you know of any authoritative articles/references that can support the usefulness of virtual learning communities.

I am interested in potential benefits for teachers sharing their experiences in math and science teaching.

Thanks - and from now on I will wait to thank everyone who emails me after I have a bunch:) r

...

Do you know of any authoritative articles/references that can support the usefulness of virtual learning communities.

I am interested in potential benefits for teachers sharing their experiences in math and science teaching.

I would take a look at Barab's work, either

Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., & Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry Learning Forum. from http://inkido.indiana.edu/research/onlinemanu/papers/etrdilf.pdf

or

Barab, S. A. (2003). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Information Society, 19(3), 1-7.

to start.

Laura _

Laura O'Grady Ph.D. Candidate OISE / University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada

http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~logrady/ logrady@oise.utoronto.ca l.ogrady@sympatico.ca _

_______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@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/

ouch - was I too "political"? r

please unsubscribe me from this list.

...

From: Radhika Gajjala <radhika@cyberdiva.org> Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] references on Virtual Learning communities Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:57:32 -0400

Thanks - and from now on I will wait to thank everyone who emails me after I have a bunch:)

r

...

...

Do you know of any authoritative articles/references that can support the usefulness of virtual learning communities.

I am interested in potential benefits for teachers sharing their experiences in math and science teaching.

I would take a look at Barab's work, either

Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., & Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry Learning Forum. from http://inkido.indiana.edu/research/onlinemanu/papers/etrdilf.pdf

or

Barab, S. A. (2003). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Information Society, 19(3), 1-7.

to start.

Laura _

Laura O'Grady Ph.D. Candidate OISE / University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada

http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~logrady/ logrady@oise.utoronto.ca l.ogrady@sympatico.ca _

_______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@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-aoir.org@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-aoir.org@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/

-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor School of Communication Studies Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik

Do you know of any authoritative articles/references that can support the usefulness of virtual learning communities.

I am interested in potential benefits for teachers sharing their experiences in math and science teaching.

Here is some shamelessly self-serving and probably political info about sharing in communities from the no-longer boycotted Univ. of Haifa... Hope it helps. Most of the stuff is available (online on my home page: Rafaeli, S. and Raban, D.R. (2005) ‘Information sharing online: a research challenge’, Int. Journal of Knowledge and Learning (IJKL), Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.62 Rafaeli, Y. Dan-Gur and M. Barak (2005) Finding friends among recommenders: Social and "Black-Box" recommender systems", International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), Special Issue on Knowledge Management Technologies for E-learning: Exploiting Kowledge Flows and Knowledge Networks for Learning. April-June 2005, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 30-48 Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G., & Soroka, V. (2004) De-lurking in virtual communities: a social communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital, Proceedings of the 2004 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 37) Collaboration Systems and Technology Track. Copyright 2004 IEEE. Published in the Proceedings of the Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences, January 5 – 8, 2004, Big Island, Hawaii. Barak, M. & Rafaeli, S. (2004) Online Question-Posing and Peer-Assessment as Means for Web-based Knowledge Sharing in Learning, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies Vol 61, issue 1 pp 84-103 Rafaeli, S., Barak, M., Dan-Gur, Y. and Toch, E. (2004) QSIA - A Web-based environment for learning, assessing and knowledge sharing in communities, Computers and Education Volume 43 Issue 3 pp. 273-289. Rafaeli, S. & Ravid, G. (2003) Information sharing as enabler for the virtual team: an experimental approach to assessing the role of electronic mail in disintermediation. In Information Systems Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 191-206 Rafaeli, S., Barak, M. Dan-Gur, Y., Toch E. (2003) Knowledge Sharing and Online Assessment, E-Society Proceedings of the 2003 IADIS conference IADIS e-Society 2003 pp. 257-266 Prof. Sheizaf Rafaeli Graduate School of Business Administration and Director, Center for the Study of the Information Society University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Haifa, 31905 Tel. +972-4-8249578, Fax +972-4-8249194 sheizaf@rafaeli.net, http://sheizaf.rafaeli.net

Hi all, a friend and fellow PhD, Tutku Aydin, has asked to pass this question to you. if you have responses for her could you send them directly to tutku.aydin@utoronto.ca. In particular, if any of Barry's students have had to deal with these issues in the context of UofT's "ethics review" requirement, i assume that'd be particularly helpful for her. thanks, reuven <begin pasted section> My research involves transnational ethnic identity formation through the discursive interactions over the internet. What is the standard related to quoting people in a chatroom or in a discussion list on the internet? When you become a member of the list should you identify yourself as an observer of the list? Should you ask for informed consent of the people with a letter if you are quoting, or paraphrasing people? Or are these chat or discussion environments are considered public billboards and people should be aware that they can be quoted when writing to those places? Is it ok to quote people or paraphrase people by using (double)pseudonyms so that they cannot be easily identifiable? <end pasted section> Reuven Shlozberg Political Science University of Toronto -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again

here's another response. Ess is a really big name within Internet studies. the site he's referring to is, i'm guessing, aoir.org. reuven On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:34:22 +0200, "Charles Ess" <cmess@drury.edu> said:

I will be happy - when I return to the States on Monday - to go over this in detail - but on first glance, most, if not all of these questions are explicitly addressed in the AoIR guidelines, so it may not be out of place to suggest that your colleague have a look at those as a start.

apologies for the hurry - I'm literally running out the door for the airport...

-- charles

...

a friend and fellow PhD, Tutku Aydin, has asked to pass this question to you. if you have responses for her could you send them directly to tutku.aydin@utoronto.ca.

In particular, if any of Barry's students have had to deal with these issues in the context of UofT's "ethics review" requirement, i assume that'd be particularly helpful for her.

thanks, reuven

<begin pasted section>

My research involves transnational ethnic identity formation through the discursive interactions over the internet.

What is the standard related to quoting people in a chatroom or in a discussion list on the internet? When you become a member of the list should you identify yourself as an observer of the list? Should you ask for informed consent of the people with a letter if you are quoting, or paraphrasing people? Or are these chat or discussion environments are considered public billboards and people should be aware that they can be quoted when writing to those places? Is it ok to quote people or paraphrase people by using (double)pseudonyms so that they cannot be easily identifiable?

<end pasted section>

Reuven Shlozberg Political Science University of Toronto

Charles Ess

Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/

Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes Norwegian University of Science and Technology NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php

Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23

_______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@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/ -- reuven shlozberg fzusher@warpmail.net

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service

O.k., let's try this again.. My apologies for not including the ULR for the AoIR ethical guidelines in my previous response. The ethics document is linked from the home page of AoIR, and can be directly accessed at www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf In the following, I attempt to respond to these excellent questions both by way of the AoIR guidelines (2002) as well as to more recent work in Internet Research Ethics. As Dan Burk has recently noted, I'm hoping to update these guidelines in the coming year or two - the following includes notes in those directions. Please also note that the following contains copyrighted material from forthcoming articles, and should thus not be cited, copied, or distributed without permission.

<begin pasted section>

My research involves transnational ethnic identity formation through the discursive interactions over the internet.

What is the standard related to quoting people in a chatroom or in a discussion list on the internet?

There is no generic standard (to my knowledge). As the questions raised in the AoIR guidelines try to make clear, much depends on the particularities of the chatroom, its participants, and the nature of the research - along with extant law (which varies from country to country, of course) regarding copyright and data privacy. For example, the guidelines raise a first question about venue, including: What ethical expectations are established by the venue? For example: Is there is a posted site policy that establishes specific expectations ­ e.g., a statement notifying users that the site is public, the possible technical limits to privacy in specific areas or domains, etc. In general - researchers are well advised to follow the policy and expectations raised by the site, for two sorts of reasons: 1) the expectations of the participants is a primary moral guideline - "respect" in some form or another is pretty close to a cultural universal, most people expect it in some form or another, and many (especially Western deontological) ethical systems tend to take respect for a person and thus for his/her expectations as a kind moral north star, around which much else depends. 2) As plenty of researchers have learned to their chagrin and dismay, _not_ respecting basic Human Subjects protections (rights to privacy, anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent) - whether or not these are explicitly listed as conditions for entering in a chat room - has backfired powerfully and negatively on the research community. "We're not your f***in' guinea pigs!" about covers it ... - for documentation of this, see especially Bruckman, Amy and James Hudson. 2004. Go Away: Participant Objections to Being Studied and the Ethics of Chatroom Research, The Information Society 20 (2: April), 127-139. Generally, in the absence of an explicit statement regarding privacy expectations, the larger the chatroom, the more likely people recognize its public character and so have less expectations of privacy. Finally, quoting directly from a chatroom can run afoul not only of the privacy policy and/or expectations of the participants - but if someone makes personal information available online, at least within the E.U. and those countries (e.g., Denmark and Norway) whose data privacy protection laws are built on (and are sometimes more stringent than) the E.U. laws, in theory that information cannot be transmitted (e.g., from one researcher to another, much less show up in a publication accessible to a broad public) without explicit consent from its owner. (This is a particularly nasty problem for U.S.-based researchers, less so for Canadians, whose data privacy laws under PIPEDA, fall somewhere between a great laxity (US) and EU stringency - EU law prohibits transmission of personal information to countries with less stringent data privacy protection, which includes first of all the U.S. I'm not aware of the fine details regarding the Canadian situation - except enough to say that it also varies somewhat from province to province.) A second question: what is the nature of the discourse? Roughly, if the discussion is general and more impersonal, the less need for informed consent, etc. As the discussion moves and more not only into the private and particular - e.g., with issues regarding religious / political belief, sexuality, health condition and history - the potential for harm resulting to a person by the publication of that information goes up enormously, as does the obligation of the researcher to protect that person from harm. Offhand, my guess is that interesting material relevant to identity building is likely to include personal information - hence to be treated with care. Disciplinary - Unfortunately, I can't tell from the description of the research what discipline(s) and methodology/ies are to be used here - BUT there are significant differences between how different disciplines respond to these issues - along with further differences entailed by different methodological approaches. Perhaps most broadly, as the AoIR Guidelines note, a basic starting point is whether your approach is more rooted in the social sciences (which tend to follow medical models of Human Subjects Protections - see Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of the scientific affairs¹ advisory group on the conduct of research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 59 (2), 105-117.) and/or in humanities (art history, literary analyses, etc.) which tend to see posters more as authors whose - subject to copyright requirements - _want_ their texts and identity known. Methodologies. As Susan Herring has cogently argued, for Computer-mediated Discourse Analysis, exact quotes are necessary - these are the "data" that researchers, especially following a more classical model of science, must present to their colleagues for corroboration / criticism. But this, of course, is most risky - especially other participants may easily figure out the source / identity of the quote. And if the discussion material is sensitive ... see above. Participant-observation methodologies lead to their own set of ethical issues. Frequently, participant-observer ethnographers have argued that much of their ability to gather useful data and observations depends on developing a strong relationship of familiarity and trust with their informants. Especially under these conditions, safe-guarding personal - especially potentially damaging - information is an especially strong obligation. Katherine M. Clegg Smith, for example, asks whether or not a researcher ³lurking² (i.e., unannounced and unidentified) in a listserv is more akin to a researcher taking notes on a public bench vs. doing so while hiding in a bush? (2004, 230f.) She initially thought that her participant observation approach ­ at least in relation to a public list whose introductory message to new members emphasizes that the list is public and all messages are archived ­ meant that she was not required to announce her ³listening² to postings; nor did she request informed consent (2004, 231-235). But in confronting the question as to how to include text as data in her research publication, she wrestled with whether to treat posters of text as subjects whose anonymity and confidentiality must be protected, and/or as authors who would want credit for their work ­ choosing, in the end, to keep them anonymous (2004, 230-235; see also Svenningson 2001, Bromseth 2002, Markham 2004). [Bromseth, Janne C. H. 2002. Public places ­ public activities? Methodological approaches and ethical dilemmas in research on computer-mediated communication contexts. In Andrew Morrison (ed.), Researching ICTs in Context, 33-61. Inter/Media Report 3/2002. Oslo: University of Oslo. Available online: <http://www.intermedia.uio.no/konferanser/skikt-02/docs/Researching_ICTs_in_ context-Ch3-Bromseth.pdf> Markham, Annette. 2004. Representation in Online Ethnographies: A Matter of Context Sensitivity. In Johns, Mark D., Shing-ling Sarina Chen, and G. Jon Hall (eds.), Online Social Research: Methods, Issues, and Ethics, 141-155. New York: Peter Lang. Smith, Katherine M. Clegg. 2004. ³Electronic Eavesdropping²: The Ethical Issues Involved in Conducting a Virtual Ethnography. In Johns, Mark D., Shing-ling Sarina Chen, and G. Jon Hall (eds.), Online Social Research: Methods, Issues, and Ethics, 223-238. New York: Peter Lang. Sveningsson, Malin. 2001. Creating a Sense of Community: Experiences from a Swedish Web Chat (dissertation). The Tema Institute ­ Department of Communication Studies. Linköping University. Linköping, Sweden.] (Ethical note: in my reading and conversations, I frequently encounter a kind of 'Golden Rule' approach among participant-observation researchers - most simply, whether stated explicitly or not, their reflection frequently includes a perspective-taking question, "how would I feel if a researcher treated my personal information in this sort of way?" This approach further often includes explicit commitment to feminist principles, e.g. Olivero, Nadia and Peter Lunt. 2004. When the Ethic is Functional to the Method: The Case of E-Mail Qualitative Interviews. In Elizabeth Buchanan (ed.), Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies, 101-113. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science. Along these lines, Mary Walstrom (2004) develops a feminist, communitarian ethic in conjunction with participant-observation and discourse analysis research, specifically by way of appeal to Bakhtin ­ as have G. John Hall, Douglas Frederick, and Mark D. Johns (2004). [Walstrom, Mary. 2004. Ethics and Engagement in Communication Scholarship: Analyzing Public, Online Support Groups as Researcher/Participant-Experiencer. In Buchanan (ed.), 174-202. Hall, G. Jon, Douglas Frederick, Mark D. Johns. 2004. ³NEED HELP ASAP!!!²: A Feminist Communitarian Approach to Online Research Ethics. In Johns, Mark D., Shing-ling Sarina Chen, and G. Jon Hall (eds.), Online Social Research: Methods, Issues, and Ethics, 239-252. New York: Peter Lang.] I hope these general comments may be useful in framing responses to the questions - as well as providing the researcher, in discussions with the REB, with pertinent examples and instances drawn from the rapidly growing literature on Internet Research Ethics. As to the remaining questions:

When you become a member of the list should you identify yourself as an observer of the list? Depends on policy, expectations, discipline, and research design. Some forms of _not_ identifying oneself as a researcher may be justified - usually if (a) the deception is essential to research design, (b) participants will eventually be debriefed as to the true intention of the exchange, and (c) risks of harm (including, in my view, harm to future researchers should unhappiness over such deception result in increasingly unwillingness among people to trust and cooperate with researchers) as a result of the deception are minimal.

Should you ask for informed consent of the people with a letter if you are quoting, or paraphrasing people? In general, if informed consent is mandated, the best practice seems to be letters (i.e., paper) rather than email. For some excellent examples of such requests, see those provided by Leslie Regan Shade (which passed muster with _her_ REB) in the appendix of the AoIR guidelines.

There is also a range of possibilities here, e.g., as helpfully delineated by Lawson: (1) consent to having their nickname and communicative text used for data analysis only (no publication of name or text); (2) consent to having either their nickname or text published in an academic work, but never together (i.e., no identifiers); (3) consent to having either their nickname or text published in an academic work, but never together (i.e., no identifiers) and providing they get to see the ³write up² prior to publication; (4) consent to having both their nickname and text published in academic work, thereby being credited as the authors of their own words or (5) consent to having both their nickname and text published in academic work, thereby being credited as the authors of their own words, providing they get to see the ³write up² prior to publication. The last two options deal directly with the issue of CMC copyright. (2004, 93) [Lawson, Danielle. 2004. Blurring the Boundaries: Ethical Considerations for Online Research using Synchronous CMC Forums. In Buchanan (2004), 80-100.]

Or are these chat or discussion environments are considered public billboards and people should be aware that they can be quoted when writing to those places? See the above comments about policy statements (or lack thereof), expectations, and Smith's analysis/example.

Is it ok to quote people or paraphrase people by using (double)pseudonyms so that they cannot be easily identifiable? Depends ... Brenda Danet argues _against_ using pseudonyms for pseudonyms, because in her research, the identity of the poster, as a kind of performer, was critical to understanding identity, character, relationships, etc.

[Danet, Brenda. 2002. Studies of Cyberpl@y: Ethical and Methodological Aspects. <http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/papers/ethics2.pdf>] But generally, especially if protecting identity and confidentiality is high on the ethical list for one or more of the reasons discussed above - e.g., the comments are about sensitive/personal matters, revelation of which could lead to considerable harm for the poster and/or his/her web of relationships, etc.; nothing in the methodology requires exact quotes, etc. - paraphrase and pseudonyms are in order.

<end pasted section>

I hope these responses make clear a first point made in the guidelines - here, as elsewhere in ethics, there are no moral algorithms or recipes. The best we can do - whether here or in our ethical lives more broadly - is develop such guidelines, seek to apply them reflectively and responsibly, and refine them in light of our new experiences and insights as we go along. This entails _judgment_ and discourse, first of all. I hope this helps with both. As always, comments and suggestions for expansion, revision, improvement, etc., are welcome, precisely in the name of dialogue - especially from AoIR members whose own research and reflection, as in the development of the original guidelines, is so extraordinarily rich and valuable. Indeed, it would be very helpful to know if these comments and suggestions help in this particular case - insofar as yes, how so, and insofar as no, why not (i.e., what are we missing as far as issues raised by an REB that we should address)? In any event, good luck, and cheers, Charles Ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/ Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes Norwegian University of Science and Technology NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23

Hi Thomas,

<snip>

BTW, recently we had a discussion on this list, where a point was made that political issues are off-topic to AoIR (with respect to the AUT boycott of Israeli universities, which, thankfully, has now been overturned ), How do these guidelines, which clearly have a normative, read: political, intent, square with the professed apolitical nature of AoIR?

Since, as I'm delighted to read, we share a strong sympathy with Habermasian discourse ethics (which I, following early feminist critiques thereof, always want to emphasize require attention to solidarity and empathic perspective-taking, alongside rational attention to the unforced force of the better argument, etc.), I think this excellent question has at least one straightforward answer that you might agree with? If we think of AoIR as a discourse community - one composed of many practitioners of many disciplines, all of whom are shaped by diverse national / cultural traditions, all of whom have shaped their particular political views - then in principle, of course, the norm of maintaining an apolitical stance as part of our professional identity and practice is always a norm open for critical review, discussion, and possible change (since it is a norm that affects all of us, and thus is legitimate only if established by consensus arising from critical discussion). As the discussion on this list suggested, there are strong reasons pro and con on this (as well as other important issues). One example: while my own political views are strongly in support of particular calls for political statements requested - with all sorts of good reasons - by various members of AoIR - it is clear that the considerable diversity of our membership does _not_ agree with or enjoy consensus on these particular issues. So there's no immediate support from a Habermasian framework for endorsing one view over another. Rather to the contrary, if our goals include (a) providing a discourse environment in which as many views as possible can be included for consideration and discussion, and (b) developing AoIR as a professional organization that enjoys credibility in the academies of diverse nations - it makes sense to me that we endorse a policy that says we may discuss and debate whatever we like - but that AoIR as an organization will take no particular, political stance. And indeed, so far as I can gather, it appears that there _is_ consensus (so far) strongly on the side of officially taking no political stances, etc. So - it's not too hard to provide ethical arguments, especially based in discourse ethics, that would not simply square with (i.e., stand as logically consistent with) but indeed rationally defend AoIR's apolitical stance as an organization. Moreover, this little exercise may help clarify a second important point raised by your question. Certainly, the ethical is always political in important ways. But if I understand your question correctly, it presumes that being ethical requires us to be political - but in a way that equivocates on two meanings of "political." Western ethics (classically, with Aristotle), as you know, strongly distinguishes between the ethical and the political - while also clearly acknowledging their necessary and intractable interconnection: we _want_ our politics to reflect our ethics. But this distinction remains more than a theoretical one. As I have tried to do above, and as many people on this list have done - there are strong _ethical_ (as well as political) arguments (i.e., at the level of our work together as a professional / discourse community) that we as an organization avoid making political statements. Certainly, in a broad sense, this is itself a political statement, as many people have noted. But this broad sense (we avoid making political statements in general for specific, ethical reasons) is _not_ a "political" statement in the narrow sense - i.e., a particular stance pro or con regarding a particular issue. To make the same point slightly differently: it is one thing, using discourse ethics as a framework, for us as an organization to develop a set of ethical guidelines for our work as researchers (from a variety of traditions and disciplines, etc.) - it is something else entirely for us as an organization to work on developing a consensus regarding specific political issues. Indeed, as the little exercise above I hope makes clear, using the discourse ethics framework of the former argues strongly _against_ the latter. In light of these distinctions, then, to argue that "the ethical is political (in a broad, general sense)" and hence "if we have ethical guidelines for research" so we should have specific political statements as well (in a particular sense, as taking a specific stance on a specific issue) -- is thus to equivocate on these two senses and so to reason fallaciously. (So far as I can tell - perhaps you see a different argument(s) going on here: if so, please elucidate!)

...

Please also note that the following contains copyrighted material from forthcoming articles, and should thus not be cited, copied, or distributed without permission.

While I don't intend to cite this particular post, I am still wondering, how you can ask us *not* to quote material you just made public? (Registration to this list is, after all, thankfully, automatic). Any citation -- provided that it would meet "fair use," "Urheberrecht," or [put your favorite national laws here] -- would certainly be covered by the national/regional laws I am aware of (not many). Surely, copyright laws (US/EU) would thus not prevent us to quote you. Professional courtesy still might (and indeed will in my case), but I was always curious, why one would publish material that should be off-limits for quoting. In the academic world, I have a certain sympathy for that, because, I'd rather not be quoted saying something really stupid. But, then again, this violates Cohen's/Habermas' rules for deliberation, which I actually find quite appealing. If we were less concerned about our reputation and more about deliberations, (social) sciences might actually progress faster. Maybe an ethic that would discount the damage done to professional reputation based on publication medium would help?

It might - and I'd be delighted if you would like to offer some suggestions in that direction. (Were I to do so, I would start with Open Source approaches, which I've long since tied to my own ethics in various ways.) Perhaps I'm missing something here (certainly possible) - but from my perspective, the matter is rather simple. Some of the scholarship that I shared in that post is under review for publication, and so I'm bound by copyright agreements - with a particular publisher for particular countries - to notify anyone, whether my post is public or private, that the material is bound by copyright, and request what is not only a courtesy (we both agree on this) but also a legal requirement. Yes, citation under U.S. copyright law (as I understand it - Dan Burk is our real expert here) would allow me to cite my own work under fair use, and then anyone reading AoIR to do the same - as long as they are under U.S. law. My understanding of the German "Urheberrecht," however, is that it is much more restrictive - correct me if I'm wrong, please - but again, this applies only for German readers who might want to make use of the material among other German colleagues. The larger point is that "fair use" is a U.S. convention, "Urheberrecht" is German - but my publisher in this case is neither - nor are all AoIR readers (thankfully!) bound by either U.S. or German law. So, since (a) I can't know what copyright laws (if any) prevail for specific AoIR readers, and since, (b) yes, I take a certain sense of ownership in my work (not so much for the sake of reputation - I certainly want to see the publication go through - but my main concern is that all of that was a non-trivial exercise in research and writing that took up several months of my life, and I would ask that that be respected and recognized: even authors under Open Source conventions do as much, I believe), I asked readers who may have wanted to cite, distribute or copy parts of that posting to do so with permission. Since you agree that this is a professional courtesy in any case, I'm still not clear on what your objection is - unless it rests on the assumption that fair use under U.S. law is the same in Germany, the E.U., and/or the rest of the world, which, to my knowledge, it is not. So what am I missing? Cordially, Charles Ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/ Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes Norwegian University of Science and Technology NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23

Sorry for posting it to the list... Ewa Cytowanie ecallaha@indiana.edu:

Hello,

I have a paper on search engines in Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary I would like to update, and send for consideration for publication. I am in traveling

in Poland right now, so I just got your message. Could I send the abstract in a day or two - I do not have the paper on the computer I am currently working on.

Greetings, Ewa Callahan

Cytowanie Eszter Hargittai <searchengines06@webuse.org>:

...

Apologies for cross-posting. This is a reminder. Abstracts are due next week. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Eszter

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Special Issue on

THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF SEARCH ENGINES

CALL FOR PAPERS

Guest Editor: Eszter Hargittai Northwestern University

IMPORTANT DATES:

Abstracts (optional, but preferred) due: June 1, 2005 Full papers due: Oct 1, 2005 Anticipated publication: Summer or Fall 2006

ISSUE FOCUS

Search engines are some of the most commonly accessed Web sites online. Millions of people turn to search engines daily to find information about news, health concerns, products, government services, their new neighbors, natural disasters and a myriad of other topics. At the same time, recent trends suggest that the search engine market is shrinking, with fewer large players guiding users' online behavior than ever before. Despite the crucial role that search engines play in how people access information, little attention has been paid to the social, political, economic, and cultural dimensions of large-scale search engines.

This special issue will explore the social implications of large-scale search engines on the Web. It will bring together experts from the fields of communication, sociology, political science, economics, business, law, and computer and information sciences to consider what we know about people's search engine uses and what recent trends suggest for the types of content that will be most accessible to users in the future.

The following are some questions papers might address: Who uses search engines and for what purposes? What are the effects of search engine use on mass- and interpersonal communication? How do users' communication practices influence search engine functionality? How skilled are various population groups at the use of search engines? How do search engines shape identity management and representation online? Are all search engines created equal? Is all content created equal in the eyes of search engines? Is there a viable public alternative to the search engine market dominated by private actors? These are just some of the possible questions papers in this special issue may address.

GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION

Potential authors should submit a preliminary proposal of 500 words by June 1, 2005 to the issue editor Eszter Hargittai (searchengines06@webuse.org). Those interested in submitting an abstract are encouraged to contact the special issue editor with questions and ideas. The proposal should include the central research question, the theoretical and/or empirical basis for the paper and preliminary findings.

Authors whose proposals are accepted for inclusion will be invited to submit a full paper of roughly 7,000-10,000 words by October 1, 2005. Since JCMC is an interdisciplinary journal, authors should plan for papers that will be accessible to non-specialists, and should make their paper relevant to this audience. Anticipated publication date for the issue is Summer or Fall 2006.

Final submissions should be emailed to the special issue editor, Eszter Hargittai at searchengines06@webuse.org.

http://webuse.org/searchengines06/ http://jcmc.indiana.edu/

_______________________________________________ The Air-l-aoir.org@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-aoir.org@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/