[Air-l] RE: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #1051 - 8 msgs

Chris Marsden chris.marsden at oii.ox.ac.uk
Fri May 7 06:26:50 PDT 2004


Well, given that Internet researcher covers a multitude of disciplines
and activities, I fit broadly into the category. My basic research is
into cyberlaw and international political economy.

A question - new surveys by companies and trade groups make continuous
claims of the reach of mobile texting and web dating and jobsearch
sites. Is there any independent governmental or academic research into
the extent of use of these sites?

Christopher T. Marsden LL.B., LL.M.
Internet Governance Project Manager
Oxford Internet Institute, 1 St Giles, Oxford, UK.
Mobile: +44 777 926 0376
Papers www.ssrn.com www.selfregulation.info www.ijclp.org


-----Original Message-----
From: air-l-admin at aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin at aoir.org] On Behalf Of
air-l-request at aoir.org
Sent: 06 May 2004 17:01
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: Air-l digest, Vol 1 #1051 - 8 msgs

Send Air-l mailing list submissions to
	air-l at aoir.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	air-l-request at aoir.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	air-l-admin at aoir.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Air-l digest..."


 

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: researchers ??? (Charles Hendricksen)
   2. Re: researchers ??? (Irene Berkowitz)
   3. Re: ethnography and ethics (RGH)
   4. Re: ethnography and ethics (Thomas Koenig)
   5. Call for Participation - CATaC'04 (Fay Sudweeks)
   6. Re: researchers ??? (Hamish Cunningham)
   7. Re: ethnography and ethics (Charles Ess)
   8. Re: researchers ??? (ren at aldermangroup.com)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 09:45:06 -0700
From: Charles Hendricksen <veritas at u.washington.edu>
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-l] researchers ???
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

Friends,

     I am currently employed half-time on a research project with large 
NSF grant.  The team is studying Public Participation in Transportation 
Planning.  My brief is to advise and assist the research team in the 
design, selection and use of asynchronous tools and methods.  While I 
engage in collaboration with the team in substantive research, my 
principal task is enabling collaboration.


ET wrote:
> hi all,
> 
> just a question for the groups members - hopefully some may wish to
reply.
> 
> The "modern" internet has now been going for about 10 years.
> As a result we have many new professions...
> we have web designers, programmers and a host of specialist IT
positions.
> 
> Does anyone in here work full time in a position that is called 
> "Internet Researcher" or that one could take to be, from the job 
> responsibilities, to be a full time internet researcher?
> Does anyone know of another person who has the above role?
> I am particularly interested to know if anyone works for a company in 
> such a role.
> 
> thanks in advance for your time,
> 
> regards
> 
> Eero Tarik
> Adelaide
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Air-l mailing list
> Air-l at aoir.org
> http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

-- 
  Charlie Hendricksen, PhD
  Research Collaboration Architect

"Information technology structures human relationships."

Dissertation link: http://depts.washington.edu/bkn/public/pubs/diss.html
DocReview link: http://purl.oclc.org/DocReview/get


--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 13:12:12 -0400
From: Irene Berkowitz <irene.berkowitz at temple.edu>
Subject: Re: [Air-l] researchers ???
To: air-l at aoir.org
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

I am not an internet researcher, but do work extensively with
web applications to reengineer information.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:30:03 +0930
>From: ET <et at tarik.com.au>  
>Subject: [Air-l] researchers ???  
>To: air-l at aoir.org
>
>hi all,
>
>just a question for the groups members - hopefully some may
wish to reply.
>
>The "modern" internet has now been going for about 10 years.
>As a result we have many new professions...
>we have web designers, programmers and a host of specialist
IT positions.
>
>Does anyone in here work full time in a position that is called 
>"Internet Researcher" or that one could take to be, from the job 
>responsibilities, to be a full time internet researcher?
>Does anyone know of another person who has the above role?
>I am particularly interested to know if anyone works for a
company in 
>such a role.
>
>thanks in advance for your time,
>
>regards
>
>Eero Tarik
>Adelaide
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Air-l mailing list
>Air-l at aoir.org
>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
Irene Berkowitz
Director of Curricular Publications
Temple University
Office of the Vice Provost
215-204-7596

Please note my new email address below and update your address records
accordingly. 
 
irene.berkowitz at temple.edu 


--__--__--

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:49:37 -0500
To: air-l at aoir.org
From: RGH <rgh at rghoward.com>
Subject: Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

Hello All:

I would go a full step further than did Mark (I think) when talking 
about doing online "ethnography" or "interviews."  I think this is 
something in which we must be very careful about keeping the highest 
standards.  Lots of people do "online research," but here in AIR I 
think that we should be vocal about setting the bar for how to do 
right.

There are almost no situations in social/behavioral research where 
"covert" methods are ethical.  (Let's remember the 
faking-shocking-people-hay-day of what-not-to-do-in-experiments 
seminar!)

The only situations where deception (as in hiding of any sort) should 
even be considered must meet two basic conditions.

First, there must be a significant benefit to society and/or the
participants.

The second condition is that the actual research intentions and 
methods must be fully disclosed after the necessary data is 
discovered. This means that you cannot tell people you are selling 
them software and then later tell them you are actually testing their 
IQ.  Instead, it means that you can tell them you are testing their 
IQ and then later tell them you are actually testing their ability to 
buy software.  That is a big difference.

But again--that sort of research really only should be done when it 
significantly benefits society.  And those kind of benefits do not 
typically come under social science research projects about social 
norms and such.  The best counter argument to this I have heard is, 
of course, social scientists don't risk much when they do research . 
. . . but I would argue that "secretly" observing people online makes 
all online research harder to do because when people feel spied on 
they tend to be less interested in working with researchers. Take the 
real world case of some native American groups who now tightly 
control (and for very good reason) researchers among them precisely 
because of the failures in ethics on the part of some academics.

And, of course, there is the further point that concessions made to 
spying do damage to research in different but sometimes significant 
ways than would the concession of being honest.  Take _When Prophecy 
Fails_ as a good example of that. But openness in online research  is 
a particularly serious issue because its so easy to "lurk."

I do agree with Mark (If I didn't read into his short reply too far . 
. .)  "Lurking" is itself distinctly problematic because "secret" 
observation like that is not just basically rude, but it also fails 
to force the ethnographer to fully engage in the community.  A lot of 
the real value in ethnography is, of course, gained from the 
experience of actually "being there."   And lurking isn't really 
"being there" in a on-line community in particular because the silent 
member of a discourse-based world is really only "half" there already.

To start, I would look at some basic ethics stuff in anthro. to get a 
good handle on it. Just off the top of my head, you could look at:

Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn..  1998.  "Ethics."  Handbook of Methods in 
Cultural Anthropology, H. Russell Bernard, Ed.  Walnut Creek, 
California:  AltaMira Press.  173 - 201.

Anyway--I can't seem to access the air ethics statement right now, 
but, of course, these issues are hugely important for us to keep in 
mind particularly because a lot of not-so-great (in my mind anyway) 
research is done in online communities (esp. by my undergraduates!) 
and we of AIR should be in the forefront of insisting on the highest 
standards of ethics and rigor in online research.

All that said, if somebody posts it in netnews or on the WWW, isn't 
that actually a public statement?  So . . . citing a public statement 
is very different than citing a private conversation (as in email 
say) . . .  but I guess the issue gets sticky when someone says 
something online under the assumption that its to a small audience 
and then a researcher cites it widely--for example citing a blog that 
only a few people seem to ever access.   I agree with Eero on that 
point for sure--online stuff makes the distinction between public and 
private a little blurry sometimes . . . so I guess I try to error on 
the side of politeness.

Rob

-- 
Robert Glenn Howard
Assistant Professor

Department of Communication Arts
& Communication Technologies Research Cluster
University of Wisconsin - Madison
rgh at rghoward.com
http://rghoward.com


--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 04:42:43 +0100
To: air-l at aoir.org
From: Thomas Koenig <T.Koenig at lboro.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

At 01:49 06/05/2004, you wrote:
>There are almost no situations in social/behavioral research where 
>"covert" methods are ethical.

I know that there is a lot of talk about ethics and even more
regulations 
these days, but bar a few cases where extraordinarily vulnarable people
are 
involved (young children, persons with illnesses of various sorts,
etc.), I 
cannot see, why "covert" research on the internet should be
"off-limits"? 
Most activity on the internet is public, even if some people are not
aware 
of that fact.

>The only situations where deception (as in hiding of any sort) should
even 
>be considered must meet two basic conditions.
>
>First, there must be a significant benefit to society and/or the
participants.

And who is going to say, what is beneficial to society?

>The second condition is that the actual research intentions and methods

>must be fully disclosed after the necessary data is discovered. This
means 
>that you cannot tell people you are selling them software and then
later 
>tell them you are actually testing their IQ.  Instead, it means that
you 
>can tell them you are testing their IQ and then later tell them you are

>actually testing their ability to buy software.  That is a big
difference.

I agree, if you are doing questionaires that's a different story, but
for 
"ethnography" different rules should apply.

>But again--that sort of research really only should be done when it 
>significantly benefits society.  And those kind of benefits do not 
>typically come under social science research projects about social
norms 
>and such.  The best counter argument to this I have heard is, of
course, 
>social scientists don't risk much when they do research . . . . but I 
>would argue that "secretly" observing people online makes all online 
>research harder to do because when people feel spied on they tend to be

>less interested in working with researchers. Take the real world case
of 
>some native American groups who now tightly control (and for very good 
>reason) researchers among them precisely because of the failures in
ethics 
>on the part of some academics.

I think this is a very tenuous analogy. If you research people in their 
private settings, of course, you will have to adhere to very scrupulous 
rules. But if you are observing persons in a public space, as is Usenet,

un-moderated Listservers, much of IRC, web forums, etc., why should you
be 
more liable than, say, journalists, whose work has usually much more
severe 
consequences to those observed?

I am currently doing research on Antisemitism on the Net. If I were to
tell 
persons I observe in webfori that I am doing research on their *publicly

available* communications, my data would be pretty useless. If people
make 
publicly antisemitic statements in the public, should I "warn" them that
I 
might quote them? Protection of one group can also result into a higher 
vulnerabilty of a different group.

If, as a consequence, people would indeed shy away from public
antisemitic 
statements in the future (which I doubt, after all, how many people read

sociology journals?), that might be an obstacle for future research. But
if 
I (or anybody else) were to delurk, my (or anybody else's) research
results 
would have very little validity.

Again, if very vulnerable persons are involved, things look different,
but 
much of research in sociology (unlike psychology) is *not* concerned
with 
vulnerable groups.

One more point: In most countries, where social research on the net is 
conducted, penal codes against intrusion into privacy, defamation, etc. 
exist. Why should the not democratically legitimated research community
be 
liable decide what is ethical and what is not?

Thomas

-- 
thomas koenig
department of social sciences, loughborough university
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html 



--__--__--

Message: 5
From: "Fay Sudweeks" <Sudweeks at murdoch.edu.au>
To: <air-l at aoir.org>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:51:53 +0800
Subject: [Air-l] Call for Participation - CATaC'04
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

Dear Colleagues

We are pleased to announce that Nina Wakeford (Director of the Incubator
for
Critical Inquiry into Technology and Ethnography (INCITE) research
centre in
the Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, UK) will present the
keynote address opening this year's conference on Cultural Attitudes
towards
Technology and Culture (CATaC'04). Professor Wakeford's address is
entitled
"Technology and Mobility at the Margins".

The program for CATaC'04 further includes presenters from 28 countries
focusing on six major themes:
1. Culture: theory and praxis
2. ICTs and intercultural communication
3. ICTs and cultural hybridity
4. Culture and economy
5. Governments and activists in culture, technology and communication
6. Culture, communication, and e-learning
as well as several themed sessions.

The program also includes two panels, each chaired and shaped by
distinguished colleagues:
1. The Multilingual Internet - chairs, Susan Herring and Brenda Danet
2. Utopian Dreams vs. Real-World Conditions: Under what conditions can
ICTs
really help worse off communities? - chair, Michel Menou

CATaC'04 will take place 27 June - 1 July 2004, in the "city of the sun"
-
Karlstad, Sweden - right after Midsummer celebrations on June 25-26.

For additional information regarding the conference, including complete
program, accommodation, registration, and travel information, please see
the
conference website, www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/.

On behalf of our local co-chairs, Malin Sveningsson, Ylva Hard af
Segerstad,
and Robert Burnett, we hope you will be able to join us in Karlstad.
Please
feel free to address any additional questions to:

Charles Ess
Drury University
Tel: 417-873-7230; Fax: 417-873-7435
catac at it.murdoch.edu.au

Fay Sudweeks
Murdoch University
Tel: 61-8-9360-2364; Fax: 61-8-9360-2941
catac at it.murdoch.edu.au



--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 11:21:49 +0100
From: Hamish Cunningham <H.Cunningham at dcs.shef.ac.uk>
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-l] researchers ???
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

The problem with "internet" is that it is such a big term - from
the IP protocol to community groups. So saying "internet researcher"
is so broad as to be almost meaningless without further qualification?

For example, I work with people at BT labs on a project called SEKT
(http://sekt.semanticweb.org/) that develops semantic technology for
knowledge management; I work with people at the BBC on a project
called PrestoSpace (http://prestospace.ina.fr) about preserving and
accessing audiovisual media in digital libraries. Just accross campus
from me are historians busily transcribing 18th Century court reports
for on-line access. Upstairs people are modelling complex mathematical
entities called X-machines that may help verify the correctness of
net servers. All are clearly "internet research", but are quite
diverse - and that's just stuff that I personally have at the top of
my head.

I suppose that if you work on the statistics of net usage, or similar,
then you might end up shortenning your description to net researcher,
but it wouldn't be very meaningful?

Best,

Hamish


--
Dr. Hamish Cunningham
Senior Research Scientist
Department of Computer Science
University of Sheffield             [I get too much email, and I use
Regent Court                         junk filters. If I don't reply,
211 Portobello St.                   please resend, or phone!]
Sheffield  S1 4DP
United Kingdom
http://gate.ac.uk/hamish/


ren at aldermangroup.com wrote:
> I’ve never been ‘internet researcher’ but I used to 
> be ‘global head of commercial internet strategy’ when I was 
> at (at the time) the worlds biggest ‘isp’. 
> 
> Previous to that I was at British Telecommunications who have 
> a large research facility at Martlesham Heath in the UK and 
> there I’m sure there were entire departments called internet 
> research and room-on-room of people called internet 
> researchers – the kinds of stuff done in the labs ranged from 
> basic research into things like protocols (resulting in RFCs 
> etc) all the way up to commercial applications of technology, 
> and, pause – futurology, shudder.
> 
> BT labs home page is here: http://www.labs.bt.com, I’m sure 
> their PR people would be happy to help if you were interested 
> in job titles and stuff there. 
> 
> Ren  
> www.renreynolds.com
> terranova.blogs.com
> 
> 
> ---- Original message ----
> 
>>Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:30:03 +0930
>>From: ET <et at tarik.com.au>  
>>Subject: [Air-l] researchers ???  
>>To: air-l at aoir.org
>>
>>hi all,
>>
>>just a question for the groups members - hopefully some may 
> 
> wish to reply.
> 
>>The "modern" internet has now been going for about 10 years.
>>As a result we have many new professions...
>>we have web designers, programmers and a host of specialist 
> 
> IT positions.
> 
>>Does anyone in here work full time in a position that is 
> 
> called 
> 
>>"Internet Researcher" or that one could take to be, from the 
> 
> job 
> 
>>responsibilities, to be a full time internet researcher?
>>Does anyone know of another person who has the above role?
>>I am particularly interested to know if anyone works for a 
> 
> company in 
> 
>>such a role.
>>
>>thanks in advance for your time,
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Eero Tarik
>>Adelaide
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Air-l mailing list
>>Air-l at aoir.org
>>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
> 
> ?????????????????????????????????????器??x%??@????"??+?m????
?j??????f??f??X??)ߣ?
> 
> 

-- 
Hamish

[I get too much email, and I use
  junk filters. If I don't reply,
  please resend, or phone!]


--__--__--

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 07:43:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
From: Charles Ess <cmess at drury.edu>
To: <air-l at aoir.org>
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org

Dear Eero Tarik:

Yours are most important questions - they deserve extensive and careful
response.

1.  The primary reason for worrying about ethics in research (and
anywhere
else) is to avoid harming people and violating their rights - including
rights to privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, and informed consent
(insofar
as one follows medical and social science models: humanities disciplines
have different approaches - but the basic framework of attending to
persons'
rights and avoiding harm still applies).

2.  The danger with "obsession with results" is that it runs the risk of
turning the human beings one is studying into means to one's own ends -
i.e., for the sake of results, researchers may be tempted to ignore the
fact
that these are people they are interacting with, and whose rights they
risk
trampling.  
Stated still another way, if our only ethical guideline is  "the end
(results) justifies the means" - we can justify everything from
violating
basic research ethics (more on this in a bit) to such things as medical
experiments that intentionally cause harm to human beings (whether they
are
the African-American subjects of the Tuskeegee Institute study of the
1940s
- or prisoners in Nazi and Japanese concentration camps).
 
This direction of ethical reflection is called consequentialism (because
the
consequences of our acts are decisive).  In its more benign form of
utilitarianism (the good of the many outweigh the good of the few) - a
researcher might justify using his/her research subjects as means for
the
sake of research results that promise to benefit the larger society.
For example (real-life): Canadian and U.S. laws require researchers (and
anybody else) to report child abuse when it is discovered - hopefully,
in
order to protect children from abuse.  But a utilitarian might argue
that if
s/he could carry through a study on present forms of child abuse - i.e.,
_without_ reporting the abuse but following it through to its sometimes
fatal ends - s/he just might discover enough about the mechanisms and
circumstances of child abuse to allow us as a society to put an end to
it
forever.  
This would undoubtedly be a great good - especially for future potential
victims of child abuse.  But the knowledge and benefit would be bought
at
the cost of ignoring the rights (and perhaps the lives) of current
victims.

Another approach to ethical reflection is called deontology - it
emphasizes
precisely such ethical basics as rights (as well as intentions,
expectations, etc.) as decisive.  For a deontologist - such basic rights
have a near-absolute value: they must _never_ be violated - because this
is
to deny the essential humanity of the rights-holder - no matter what
benefits might accrue for the larger society.
For the deontologically-minded researcher - such a child-abuse study is
unacceptable.

But even if you're more utilitarian (as - _very_ generally speaking -
more
people in the Anglo-American world are - in contrast with our more
deontologically-minded friends and colleagues in Europe and Scandinavia)
-
as a researcher you'll want to be careful about lurking and other forms
of
participant-observation methodology.  (Annette Markham, Elizabeth
Buchanan,
and many others on this list can make this point far more eloquently
than
I.)  
There are some famous cases of Internet research where such approaches
have
badly backfired - e.g., from the male psychologist posing as a disabled
woman in the late '80s/early '90s to any number of chatrooms whose
participants have reacted strongly and _negatively_ when they've
discovered
that a researcher has been observing them unawares.
The _consequences_ of this are bad for researchers:  many chatrooms are
basically now posted as "off-limits" to researchers.  And in a
forthcoming
study, the authors show a rather direct proportion between the size of a
chatroom and its hospitality (better: lack thereof) to researchers as
announced and unannounced.   The news here is not good for researchers
thinking about lurking in smaller chatrooms, where the behaviors under
study
might be more interesting than in larger chatrooms: not surprisingly,
the
smaller the chatroom, the more people (rightly or wrongly) expect
privacy
and respect for privacy - and the angrier they get when they discover a
researcher has been lurking among them.
The point is that even for a pure consequentialist, violating basic
rights
to and expectations of privacy may be profoundly damaging to the
possibility
of future research.

3.  (Next to finally), you ask a famous question:
> And, of course, who should judge the ethics of another anyhow?
The short answer to this question, of course, is: we are.  Like it or
not,
whether always right or wrong, human communities attempt to establish
ethical standards and judge human behaviors by those standards.
In particular, my understanding is that in Australia, researchers and
researcher projects require approval in some way by the National Health
and
Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council [see
<http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/issues/researchethics.htm>] - and our
Vice-President Matthew Allen can say more about that (smile).

For its part, AoIR has spent some time attempting to establish ethical
frameworks for online research that reflect the diverse methodologies
and
national ethical traditions of its members - if you haven't seen it yet,
take a peek at <www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf>.
No one is saying these standards and the judgements they support are the
final absolute truth.  But at least I would say: these are pretty good
standards for reference - first of all, because they were developed
through
a consensus process within the communities and stakeholders affected by
them.  As such, they are always open to criticism and revision - by the
communities and stakeholders affected by them.
Further - after its approval by AoIR in November, 2002, this document
has
found good use among researchers and students around the world,
suggesting
that it has at least partially succeeded in developing guidelines that
are
indeed useful and relevant to a range of research methodologies and
national
ethical traditions.
_Not_ that it's perfect or final - au contraire.  But it's a good start.

The longer answer (aren't you glad you asked?):
At least when my students ask "who's to judge?", they mean to say: no
one
can judge anyone else - there are no universal ethical standards - and
so
judgments of right and wrong are entirely relative to individuals and
cultures.
This position is called ethical relativism.  There are a few times and
places when, in my view, it's perfectly justified to be an ethical
relativist.  
[For social scientists who have teethed on _cultural_ relativism as a
methodological guideline - worry not!  While they may sound similar,
there
are important differences between cultural relativism and ethical
relativism
- see the AoIR ethics document for discussion.]
But for the most part, ethical relativism doesn't survive critical
scrutiny.
A. Taken to its extreme, ethical relativism would prevent us from
condemning
_any_ behavior - e.g., who's to say that child abuse, terrorist attacks
on
innocent civilians, rape rooms and genocide are wrong?
B. The position is also self-refuting.  The nice thing about ethical
relativism is that it tries to endorse tolerance - i.e., some of my
students
want to tell those opposed to homosexuality and same-sex marriages that
they
cannot condemn these behaviors because "who's to judge" what's right or
wrong?  
But this leads to a contradiction.  The relativist wants to say that
there
are no ethical universals - in order to then argue that we should
universally practice tolerance, i.e., to claim that tolerance _is_ (or
should be) a universal value.
(This contradiction is parallel to the self-refutation of
epistemological
relativism: "There are no universal truths" - a claim that itself
attempts
to stand, however, as a universal truth.)
(Fortunately, there are lots of ways other than relativism to ethically
protect homosexuality and endorse same-sex marriages)

In sum: to avoid the flaws and risks of ethical relativism - and to
ensure
that the communities of researchers and those we want to study are able
to
determine the ethical guidelines for our work (in contrast, say, with
institutional and national authorities who may be woefully clueless
about
what we're up to) I think it's best for us to respond to the question
"who's
to judge?" with, _we_ are, rather than dismiss the work of ethics as
unnecessary or impossible.

4.  Finally:
> is wanting to immerse oneself in
> research as an active participant with the same "no rules" approach as
> the other participants unethical and is it unacceptable to the broad
> body of researchers?
> Am I going to be lonely in my School of Unethical Research - members,
> 1   :-)
No offense intended - but for both strong deontological and
consequentialist
reasons - I would hope so.  Not because I wish you harm - but because I
think human beings must be treated with respect, and I don't want to see
future research jeopardized by current researchers behaving in ways that
would (rightly) lead to anger and outrage.

I hope this helps -

Charles Ess
Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies
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: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/

Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23

> From: ET <et at tarik.com.au>
> Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
> Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 18:53:58 +0930
> To: air-l at aoir.org
> Subject: [Air-l] ethnography and ethics
> 
> greetings aoir'ers,
> 
> I am trying to get my head around the issue of ethnography and ethics.
> 
> As I understand it, a researcher should announce themselves to the
group
> they are researching and set guidelines etc for their involvement in
the
> study group.
> This is seen as ethical,  correct??
> 
> But not everyone has the same ethical stance, the same morality, the
> same values.
> 
> I, for example, place far more emphasis on results than process -
others
> place a higher value on process.
> 
> As someone obsessed with results, I would prefer to see a person
immerse
> themself in a group unannounced and live and breathe and interact with
> the study group as one of the participants. To me, if one is studying
> humanity one should be part of it, exposed to the same experiences,
> feeling the full swing of their emotions through their research.
> The obvious criticism of such an approach would be that one is too
> involved and therefore potentially producing inaccurate research.
> But is such research any less accurate than the arms length - dont get
> involved - approach where the participants are wary of the watcher?
> 
> Does this desire to be immersed completely, passionately and
unannounced
> make one an unethical researcher?
> Is such a form of  research bad, or is there a normal, healthy school
of
> thought proud to promote itself as the school of unethical research?
> And, of course, who should judge the ethics of another anyhow?
> 
> 
> I suppose what I am trying to ask is, is wanting to immerse oneself in
> research as an active participant with the same "no rules" approach as
> the other participants unethical and is it unacceptable to the broad
> body of researchers?
> 
> Am I going to be lonely in my School of Unethical Research - members,
> 1   :-)
> 
> see ya
> 
> Eero Tarik
> Adelaide
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Air-l mailing list
> Air-l at aoir.org
> http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l



--__--__--

Message: 8
From: <ren at aldermangroup.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:37:10 +0100
Subject: Re: [Air-l] researchers ???
To: air-l at aoir.org
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
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--__--__--

_______________________________________________
Air-l mailing list
Air-l at aoir.org
http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l


End of Air-l Digest





More information about the Air-L mailing list