Just to complicate the matter even further: The discussions of pseudonomizing [sic] bloggers and commenters has an added piquancy for me, considering that on many of the racial and ethnic blogs i examine, the author's choice of pseudonym often reflects a cultural or personal identity. I came to this conclusion before the rise of the social networks, where many people employ the same username across multiple platforms as populations migrate to keep up with their old friends or to establish a consistent online presence/brand. (or maybe they're like me, where i use the same name across multiple platforms because i'm lazy LOL) Changing their chosen pseudonym, which unlike their given name or patronym is actually a self-made identity, seems kind of arrogant. Is it the case that the mainstream online communities you study don't have any personal connection to their pseudonyms? Are the names just nonsense syllables chosen to satisfy arbitrary registration for membership in a given community? I'm curious; do those of you who change names to protect privacy consider your change to be equally reflective of the OP's discursive identity choice? Sorry for the disjointed logic...i'm still trying to recover from a workout.
I agree with Andre's comments on "pseudonymizing" for the sake of "protecting" research participants. It is arrogant, I think, to choose a new name for someone. Remember, too, that names carry cultural baggage with them. Many of the most common names in the U.S. (which tend to be the common pseudonyms I see in "anonymized" articles because those names--John, Mary, etc.--are "generic") have roots in Judeo-Christian traditions....and perhaps some research subjects would strongly oppose being given a Christian name. I gave interview participants pseudonyms in one article I wrote, but I regret it and now make sure to use "Participant A" or something like that now. In my opinion, if you're going to make research participants anonymous in your study, you should go this really sterile "Participant A" route. db --- Daren C. Brabham, Ph.D. Assistant Professor School of Journalism & Mass Communication University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Carroll Hall, CB 3365 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (919) 962-0676 (office) (801) 633-4796 (cell) daren.brabham@unc.edu www.darenbrabham.com
Or ask participants to choose their own pseudonyms... - Alex On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Brabham, Daren C <dbrabham@email.unc.edu> wrote: ...
I gave interview participants pseudonyms in one article I wrote, but I regret it and now make sure to use "Participant A" or something like that now. In my opinion, if you're going to make research participants anonymous in your study, you should go this really sterile "Participant A" route.
-- // // This email is // [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net //
Dear Andre - Might as well weigh in here - I did anonymize my interviewees (four key participants). I chose one Hebrew name, one Spanish name, and two non-gendered names (Chris, Lee). I did not include any Muslim or Japanese names, as I didn't interview any Muslims or Japanese people. However I will say from the point of reviewers that Participant A is a bit cumbersome, awkward and very tiring for the referree. In my situation, I had Case A, B, C, and D. Making Participant X, Case B a nightmare. It all gets too hard to read. One older anthropological text I read used double initials, such as "A.B." which I found more reasonable to read, although again, with my cases labeled A, B, C, and D, was really not an option. And finally, what is wrong with anonymizing according to the background of the participants, who may all be middle-class, white Anglo-Saxon. That's sad, but how many psychology studies have used white male and female college students for their tests over the years, the S.A.T.'s and so forth, included. Only today is that bias being addressed. My favourite statistic on that is that heart medication in the USA was tested on white males until the 1980s or even 90s. . . of course, women and African Americans had to take the drugs once 'approved' by men. Hah! My study focussed on career paths so I made sure that I had participants from their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50+ - something that I thought more germane to my topic than ethnic (?) distribution which wasn't what I was measuring to begin with . . . FWIW, Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD. Premier Participant, Lismore Art in the Heart - Fibre Feast & Fantasy Exhibition - with the Lismore Spinners & Weavers 15 Oct - 23 December, adjacent to the Lismore Regional Gallery in the former Left Bank cafe, Lismore NSW AUSTRALIA Mobile +(61)(0)438 233344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/esm/staff/pages/drall/
participants (4)
-
Alex Halavais -
André Brock -
Brabham, Daren C -
Denise N. Rall