RE: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
For the sake of furthering the ethics discussion: How would you proceed with an investigation of the conversations that people have using mobile phones in public places such as the bus or train. This is a situation where lines of public and private are blurred as one sided presentations of sometimes very private conversations are performed on what can be a very public stage. Kevin W. Tharp Community Informatics Officer Senior Research Officer Faculty of Informatics & Communication Central Queensland University Rockhampton, Queensland Australia 07 4923 2566 k.tharp@cqu.edu.au http://infocom.cqu.edu.au/Staff/Kevin_Tharp/
k.tharp@cqu.edu.au On May 9, 2004, at 8:39 PM, Kevin Tharp wrote:
For the sake of furthering the ethics discussion: How would you proceed with an investigation of the conversations that people have using mobile phones in public places such as the bus or train. This is a situation where lines of public and private are blurred as one sided presentations of sometimes very private conversations are performed on what can be a very public stage.
Well . . . the LEGALITY of the issue varies by state (in the USA). Some states permit recording of talk that is held in public places that is publicly available to in-view hearers. Other states forbid recording private conversations under any circumstances, without prior permission. As for the ethics of it: Why would paying attention to the details of such talk be any more an infringement than is being forced to listen to it in the first place? What would happen if each time that a cell phone user comes into my presence, I start to shout "you are invading my private space and privacy rights by forcing me to listen to your conversation. I insist that you stop speaking loudly enough for me to hear immediately or I'm going to call the police!" I think they'd rather that I turn on my tape recorder and shut up. I've always let the test be that I, as researcher, am out in the open in the plain view of the subject. If they are speaking loudly enough that I can hear without any special equipment, or effort, I treat the conversation as public talk freely available for analysis (and recording). In the case of the cell phone, I am not "tapping" the phone call illegally cause I can't hear the other side of the conversation. There are, however, state laws to deal with . . . and those attenuate my research behavior. Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Director, Multimedia Program and New Media Center Associate Professor, Speech Communication 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~ell http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/
At 09:11 PM 5/9/2004 -0500, you wrote:
I've always let the test be that I, as researcher, am out in the open in the plain view of the subject. If they are speaking loudly enough that I can hear without any special equipment, or effort, I treat the conversation as public talk freely available for analysis (and recording). In the case of the cell phone, I am not "tapping" the phone call illegally cause I can't hear the other side of the conversation.
but you'd be amazed at how shocked they would be if they then saw their words quoted in a public(ation) text. What is invaded is the Individual's *sense* of privacy - whatever the medium used. It is in the recording and reproducing of things said in contexts that they cannot themselves control that leads to questions of ethics in such instances. So who has the power to reproduce everyday conversations and place in con(texts) where they get generalized and used for policy and other forms of (mis) representation? I doubt that any "ethics" document officially produced in Academic or Corporate circles (not that the two are mutually exclusive) would ever be complete in the consideration of what it means to have ethical responsibility towards the groups of people that the research supposedly represents and/or describes. just my 2 cents. r 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
ed wrote
I've always let the test be that I, as researcher, am out in the open in the plain view of the subject. If they are speaking loudly enough that I can hear without any special equipment, or effort, I treat the conversation as public talk freely available for analysis (and recording). In the case of the cell phone, I am not "tapping" the phone call illegally cause I can't hear the other side of the conversation.
On May 10, 2004, at 6:35 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
but you'd be amazed at how shocked they would be if they then saw their words quoted in a public(ation) text.
But you'd be amazed at how shocked I am to have to listen to their talk in the first place. If the talk IS private, I should not be able to hear it without special equipment. If I can, it's not private talk, no matter what "they expect." The subjects set the expectations themselves. If they talk in a way that others in public can't hear . . . it's private. If they don't, it's public.
What is invaded is the Individual's *sense* of privacy - whatever the medium used.
Again. The sense of privacy has already been invaded. Not by the researcher . . . but by the subjects, themselves who have taken a private matter into the public domain. I agree that the medium doesn't matter . . . the fact that they are holding a small plastic device to the side of their head doesn't mean that I've got to go suddenly deaf and and become unable to write. But their carrying on their private business loudly in my knowing presence means that they have included me in the talk, albeit as audience, but as approved participant nevertheless.
It is in the recording and reproducing of things said
how about if I just take field notes? Or have an incredible memory?
in contexts that they cannot themselves control
Boy is this a crock. . . what they've not controlled is private setting . . . and that's wholly of their own doing, not of mine.
So who has the power to reproduce everyday conversations and place in con(texts) where they get generalized and used for policy and other forms of (mis) representation?
I know there is power at work . . . and scientific work often brings such issues into question/relief. In effect, any time a researcher notes a behavior, reproduces and account of it, and "explains" or "interprets" it . .. these power aspects are at issue. And one can always accuse the researcher of abusing power merely because they have decided to do any interpretation. But qualitative researchers don't have to check their interpretive "authority" at the door just because they are trying to explain meanings. Subjects in this case have a very simple protection of privacy. Talk in private. I absolutely promise to NEVER use technology to record something that I could not otherwise hear (without the technology). Further, I absolutely promise to NEVER hide recording technology in such a way that subjects can't see perfectly well for themselves that I'm present with recording equipment. I use a recording walkwan, hung around my neck so that it is in front of my body in full view at all times. And I promise to follow the state law on recording, wherever I am. If it's against the law to record without prior permission, I don't. But if Joe Friday decides to talk in my presence, in public, in such a way that makes his talk readily available to me as an audience, he is already fully aware that I am "recording" his talk . . . for without technology, my brain is a recorder and Joe Friday knows that I am using it. . . if I aid it with machinery, the point hasn't changed. Joe Friday, subject, has made me part of the scene via his knowing behavior in my public presence.
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Director, Multimedia Program and New Media Center Associate Professor, Speech Communication 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~ell http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/
participants (3)
-
Ed Lamoureux -
Kevin Tharp -
Radhika Gajjala