Re: [Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions
In-Reply-To: <FA0E750E-A34F-11D8-8518-000393A35E46@bradley.edu> References: <000201c4375a$206104f0$6720a8c0@JJLAND> <000201c4375a$206104f0$6720a8c0@JJLAND> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:34 AM 5/11/2004 -0500, you wrote:
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.
I think all of us do - because our "subjects" are more likely to talk back and question us in present times than when the ivory tower was really ivory. Radhika Gajjala http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik Associate Professor Dept of IPC/School of Comm Studies 315 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 419-372-0528 fax - 419-372-0202
I agree with Eero about keeping life simple. But I also think that what looks simple is often, in fact, an elegant manifestation of deep consideration about complex issues! There are clearly power issues involved in recording people's interactions, be they private or public. And this discussion has reminded me of one of them - Foucault's metaphor of the panoptican. (In case someone doesn't know the image, the panoptican is a circular building with a guard tower in the middle and the prisoner's cells arranged round the outside. With this design guards can always be observing the prisoners without being seen. As the prisoner is never sure when he's being observed, he becomes his own guardian. Whereas in the past we needed monarchies to control "the people", we now live in times where people never know if and when they are being observed (or for what purposes) so people start subconsciously policing themselves.) Observing and recording people's interactions for research purposes without their permission conjures up images for me of a prison guard in a panoptican; a guard regardless of whether "the prisoner" is talking loudly or softly on their mobile phone, or writing in public discussion forums. I don't see ethical guidelines as being only specific to the people involved in a piece of research that I'm carrying out. I see the guidelines as part of my own personal manifesto that says that I won't be part of any process that could be contributing to an increasingly panoptical system of coercion and which could be contributing to people becoming the principle of their own subjection. (Foucault, 1979) So for me, ethical guidelines are a way of taking and showing a position on power relations; the power relations between me and my informants and also power relations in broader societal (and political) terms. I may not agree with or understand everything in the guidelines, but will align myself to the principles behind them while I negotiate the changes. Cheers Beverly Ref: Foucault, M (1979) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York:Vintage Escola Superior de Ciências Empresariais Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal Estefanilha 2914-503 Setúbal Portugal http://btrayner.info Tel: +351 265 709357 (t) +351 265 571425 (c) T/m: 968953247 Fax: +351 265 709301
A few cents on ethics from me -- 1. As Charles Ess has indicated, the AoIR guidelines are not meant to be RULES but a means of helping researchers and review boards think through ethical issues in order to make their own wise decisions. This was a point which was written into that group's charge. 2. Not all online interaction, even within one mode (e.g. newsgroups) is the same. Making ethical decisions requires sensitivity to the context created BY the interaction as well as the technological features that enable the interaction. Despite the technological similarities, the ethics of quoting a newsgroup of people who are talking about their favorite soap operas are different from the ethics of quoting a newsgroup of people trying to sort through their recent rape because the consequences of discovering that one has been a research subject are very different for the two sets of people. Where the former may be mildly miffed (though my subjects were generally delighted to be studied as it lent some legitimacy to what they viewed as a guilty pleasure), the latter may well feel violated all over again. 3. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that ALL research studying online interaction requires consent of those studied. As I've said before on this list, for me, this becomes most troubling in cases where people are studying hate groups. Personally, I have no ethical qualms about covert infiltration of hate groups or covert observational research on them because I believe they are evil, and I hope that researchers will be able to raise awareness of their activities and help those who would fight against hate do so effectively. Most practitioners and advocates of hate are not eager to help those who would fight against them gain access to their inner workings. If researchers can only study people and phenomena that consent to the researcher's gaze, we may as well give up on understanding most of the ugliest of humam behavior. 4. I have long maintained that scholars should spend more efforts helping people understand the public nature of their online interactions (though I'm not sure how to do that). I believe we must take into account peoples' perceptions about the privacy of their interactions (even if others don't) as we calculate the ethics of our specific research projects, but I also think we have a duty to help them understand that their interactions are not, in fact, private if they can be revealed with a quick google search. Though I think it's good in general to seek consent, I worry about well-intentioned researchers nurturing the delusion that people who contribute discourse to publically available sites can continue to control the use of their words after they have been sent. Finally, journalists keep coming up as those with lower standards, but the people who concern me the most are not the journalists, but people like pharmaceutical sales representatives who might search health support groups to compile lists of potential consumers, potential bosses who might do searches to see if potential or current employees might be discussing health conditions that might make them more expensive to insure (or to assess their religion, politics, etc), and so on. Nancy -- Nancy Baym http://www.ku.edu/home/nbaym Communication Studies, University of Kansas Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Room 102, Lawrence, KS 66045-7574, USA Association of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org
A quick side note on Nancy's very thoughtful post: "3. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that ALL research studying online interaction requires consent of those studied. As I've said before on this list, for me, this becomes most troubling in cases where people are studying hate groups." Agreed. But even within hate groups, sociologists have effectively conducted *overt* research. As Kathleen Blee's excellent "Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement" shows, even in *offline* interactions, researchers can still neogiate research access to people with pretty horrendous politics. Too often we as ethnographers are too quick to dismiss the possiblitity of access to social worlds radically different than our own. It may be ethical to conduct covert research on these groups, but as Blee shows, one can often get much better and much more politically useful information if the research is done openly. Gina Gina Neff Postdoctoral Fellow Institute for Labor and Employment UCLA
--- Beverly Trayner <btrayner@esce.ips.pt> wrote:
Observing and recording people's interactions for research purposes without their permission conjures up images for me of a prison guard in a panoptican; a guard regardless of whether "the prisoner" is talking loudly or softly on their mobile phone, or writing in public discussion forums.
OK, but what about online spaces that could be considered forms of panopticon, such as the chat room, where anyone in the chat room (well, at least those who remain visible) can be observed by a variety of people at any given time? I realize there is a difference since researchers use data for academic purposes, but what about others in the space that also may observe and record what a person is saying? I think that the technology of online spaces needs to be taken into account. If a person enters this space, is it merely the researcher who acts as a form of the panopticon or the technology and the many others (in the chat room, for example) who are actively observing and, perhaps, recording in the space? Janet A. ===== Janet Armentor, Doctoral Student Sociology Department, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University email: jlarment@maxwell.syr.edu __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
I am so tempted to say "read my book" - but its not out yet. And really I provide no absolute formulas either. Besides there's a lot of people (some on this list) who address these issues very well. I suspect this is what this thread is about - wanting the answers before attempting the actual investigation at length - and engaging the context with all its complexities and contradictions. What Beverley suggests takes on another kind of "nuance" in online spaces. Didnt someone on this list already say - "get out there in the field" and START (and yes digital spaces are "fields" and have very real effects and consequences too). Also - do a lit search. r At 08:53 AM 5/11/2004 -0700, you wrote:
--- Beverly Trayner <btrayner@esce.ips.pt> wrote:
Observing and recording people's interactions for research purposes without their permission conjures up images for me of a prison guard in a panoptican; a guard regardless of whether "the prisoner" is talking loudly or softly on their mobile phone, or writing in public discussion forums.
OK, but what about online spaces that could be considered forms of panopticon, such as the chat room, where anyone in the chat room (well, at least those who remain visible) can be observed by a variety of people at any given time? I realize there is a difference since researchers use data for academic purposes, but what about others in the space that also may observe and record what a person is saying? I think that the technology of online spaces needs to be taken into account. If a person enters this space, is it merely the researcher who acts as a form of the panopticon or the technology and the many others (in the chat room, for example) who are actively observing and, perhaps, recording in the space?
Janet A.
===== Janet Armentor, Doctoral Student Sociology Department, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University email: jlarment@maxwell.syr.edu
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
http://www.cyberdiva.org blogs: http://www.cyberdiva.org/cyberdiv/october research and teaching: http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik info on forthcoming book: http://www.altamirapress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0759106924
participants (5)
-
Beverly Trayner -
Gina Neff -
Janet Armentor -
Nancy Baym -
Radhika Gajjala