[Air-l] ethics of 'net discourse research

Paolo Manzelli lre at unifi.it
Sat May 4 05:36:21 PDT 2002


Dear David
>
> david_eddy_spicer at harvard.edu
>
> Doctoral Candidate
> Harvard Graduate School of Education
> Cambridge, Mass.

sincerely I think Your guidelines in mailing are not democratic from my point of
view because you do not considered the defence of culture in using the concept
of "privacy" as a standard for all cultures.

If you be welcomed in Italy you see for instance that in a train or a a public
place all people speak among all others very sincerely and without asking any
permission.
interactive communication is the advanced ability of man in respect to animals.

So that this ethical.idea of the superiority of man communication in respect to
the animal communication , give to my "Italian Culture" the permission to all to
speak to all do not considering any privacy. The above probably  is a concept
more accepted in the North were the sun light is no so strong.  So please before
to give any proposal lecture in the WWW consider the reflects cross-cultural and
ethics pluralistic differences in Europe and in the World.


Thank you very much. Paolo Manzelli

Charles Ess wrote:

> Funny you should ask...
>
> The aoir ethics working committee has been, well, working on this for a
> while.  Our preliminary report from last October is online:
> <aoir.org/reports/ethics.html> and includes a number of resources we've
> found valuable.
> We're currently developing and reviewing a second document, designed less as
> a list of guidelines and more as a kind of rubric for what questions should
> researchers and relevant oversight bodies (in the U.S., IRBs) ask about such
> research, and the ethical issues specific examples entail.  With any luck
> (it's finals week after all), I hope to circulate a revised version of that
> document to the aoir list in the next week or so for comment.
>
> As Amy Bruckman, one of our committee members has pointed out, some of our
> discussion rehearses issues and responses elaborated in a special issue of
> _The Information Society_, Vol. 12 (1996).  Several articles there are very
> much worth your attention, including
> Storm A. King, "Researching Internet Communities: Proposed Ethical
> Guidelines for the Reporting of Results," (pp. 119-127)
> (especially useful for connecting together the APA ethical guidelines with
> online research)
> Elizabeth Reid, "Informed Consent in the Study of On-Line Communities: A
> Reflection on the Effects of Computer-Mediated Social Research" (pp.
> 169-174).
> (There are others; this is not meant to be an exclusive list, but only
> reflects what I've managed to read so far.)
>
> As well:
> Lynne Schrum, "Ethical Research in the Information Age: Beginning the
> Dialog," _Computers in Human Behavior_, Vol. 13 (2), pp. 117-125.
> is really excellent for its discussion of the qualitative research tradition
> and its connecting extant guidelines with research on listservs. Schrum
> develops a list of ten guidelines that stress that the authors of listserv
> postings are the owners of that material; e-mail should be treated as
> private correspondence "that is not to be forwarded, shared, or used as
> research data unless express permission is given"; and she likewise stresses
> the importance of informed consent and protecting the confidentiality of
> listserv members.
> This is important, and, in a way, quite standard.  One of the central
> debates, of course, is whether - and if so, how far - one can ethically
> override such subject protections,
> - either in the name of the quality of the research (informing subjects of
> the research, as King points out, can drastically interrupt precisely the
> communication and interaction processes one wants to study)
> and/or in the name of greater benefits to be acquired through the research
> (the utilitarian or cost-benefit consideration).
>
> This is a crucial debate between U.S.-based researchers - see, for example,
> Amy Bruckman's guidelines at
> http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/ethics/
> Amy takes a more deontological approach (i.e., one less inclined to override
> subjects' protections in the name of research goals and its ostensible
> benefits).  Many other researchers - including Susan Herring - take the more
> utilitarian approach.
> This was debated quite powerfully at aoir 2.0 as part of a panel on research
> ethics, and our very own Nickolas Jankowski, with his colleague Martine van
> Selm, has written up a nice overview of the aoir report and the debate -
> "Research Ethics in a Virtual World: Some Guidelines and Illustrations"
> http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/crict/vmpapers/nick.htm
>
> The debate is also important because it reflects cross-cultural differences:
> roughly (_very_ roughly!) the U.S. tends to accept utilitarian
> considerations more readily than the extant European guidelines for privacy
> and data protection would allow.
>
> FWIW: our report will not endorse one approach over another - but emphasize
> the importance of each as part of a spectrum of ethical decision-making
> approaches that need to be brought to bear on specific issues raised by
> online research.  This ethical pluralism hopes to respect the integrity and
> authority of national traditions and ethical orientations - while not
> melting into simple ethical relativism that would "let anything go."
>
> Of course, I'd be delighted to see whatever list of additional resources
> your query also turns up!
>
> Cheers and best wishes,
>
> Charles Ess
> Director, Interdisciplinary Studies Center
> 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 2002: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/catac02/
>
> Education is what is left over after you've forgotten everything that you've
> learned.  (source unknown)
>
> > From: david_eddy_spicer at harvard.edu
> > Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
> > Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 13:52:47 -0400
> > To: air-l at aoir.org
> > Subject: [Air-l] ethics of 'net discourse research
> >
> > I'm new to the list, and I'm sure this question has come up before. I'm
> > interested in articles that elaborate ethical guidelines for doing
> > naturalistic studies of online discussions.
> >
> > The one very helpful piece I've found so far is Barbara Sharf's chapter in
> > _Internet Research_: "Beyond netiquette: the ethics of doing naturalistic
> > discourse research on the internet". What other sources would you
> > recommend, either in print or on the web?
> >
> > Please reply to me directly at the address below. I'll compile whatever
> > information I get and post it back to the list.
> >
> > My thanks,
> >
> > David
> >
> > david_eddy_spicer at harvard.edu
> >
> > Doctoral Candidate
> > Harvard Graduate School of Education
> > Cambridge, Mass.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Air-l mailing list
> > Air-l at aoir.org
> > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Air-l mailing list
> Air-l at aoir.org
> http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

--
   Director of LRE  // EGO-CreaNET

    PAOLO MANZELLI <LRE at unifi.it>
   http://www.chim1.unifi.it/group/education/index.html

  Education Research Laboratory / EGO-CreaNET
  Via Maragliano 77 -50144 - Firenze - Italia

   Tel//Fax.:+39/055/332549 ; handy GSM ;+39//335/6760004






More information about the Air-l mailing list