[Air-l] ethnography and ethics

elijah wright elw at stderr.org
Fri May 7 10:16:45 PDT 2004


> Secondly, looking at the AOIR document as an example, whilst it tries to
> be a guideline does it really change anything? Does it really address
> all areas adequately or even consistently? If I want to observe a usenet
> newsgroup are the AOIR guidelines adequate? And are the guidelines for
> usenet research tactics beyond controversy? Do the restrictions
> contained in the guidelines make sense to everyone for all circumstances
> and are they beyond argument? And as another list member pointed out -
> arguments or justifications about importance of a project are all
> matters of personal opinion.

ermm, the guidelines in the ethics document are pretty heuristic, rather
than "absolute rules".  if you want it to be a rule-based document then i
expect you will be mighty disappointed.

you seem to be attacking a strawman.

> Thirdly, I also wonder why AOIR members place such a high standard
> against intrusion into peoples lives when our society has significantly
> lower standards.

Much of what you discuss here are broad repercussions of the way that IRBs
(institutional review boards) and Human Subjects Committees in the United
States and elsewhere govern research.  They are responsible for protecting
human beings from researchers, and for protecting researchers from legal
liability - in addition to the much grander goal of the advancement of
knowledge.  These rules are sensible but can seem restrictive.


> I read a case study yesterday, by a commercial research company. They
> observed both a usenet group and a moderated Yahoo forum. They reasoned
> that since there was no moderator on the usenet forum they did not need
> to seek permission - and I imagine there would be many who would feel
> sympathetic to this view.

"Commercial research company" and "university research environment" are
very different locales.  The corporate folk may be able to do things that
someone in academe can not easily do, but their work is also focused on a
very different audience and may not easily propagate back to universities.
It may even be worthless because of methodological assumptions or other
problems.


> They also argued that they did not believe copyright was an issue for
> information on the usenet forum - I imagine they would get a strong
> argument from many on this approach.

They can probably argue that the information was broadly available to
anyone caring to look, and that there's an implicit grant of republication
rights given by the authors.  Authors still retain copyright, but have
granted broad use of their words without restriction.  Politeness would
dictate asking for permission to republish, but it may be possible to do
so without violating one's internal ethical system.


> At the ultimate level in scoiety I am bound by everyone elses universal
> human rights and my need to respect the inalienable rights of others. At
> the secondary level I am bound by the laws and standards that the
> society I live in maintains.

I agree with the sentiment behind this to a fairly substantial degree.


> Do I really need another set of rules telling me what I can and cant do
> in matters of research when I am already bound by the rules above? Do I
> need "ethical" guidelines to tell me how to deal with the privacy of
> others when there are already laws in place to deal with this issue?

Think of such guidelines as a set of "best practices" which advise those
unfamiliar with "internet studies" as they enter into this kind of
research.


> And, in imposing guidelines upon the researcher, arent you reducing
> their enjoyment of their own human rights?

'guidelines' are not often hard and fast things.

> Why should an internet researcher enjoy lesser rights than a journalist,
> for example?

disciplinary practice is different in the two areas.  journalists are
often governed by stylistic and citation practices that can be / can
appear significantly stricter than what internet researchers live under.
:)

--elijah




More information about the Air-L mailing list