[Air-l] ethics of recording publicly observed interactions

Radhika Gajjala radhika at cyberdiva.org
Tue May 11 07:16:36 PDT 2004


I agree with you Carol.

In addition what I see in Ed's post/response to me is an unexplored 
"ethnocentrism" of culture and behaviour - a universalizing of a 
(socio-culturally) located individual's idea of social ettiquette and 
feeling of "private space" (whether audio, visual or otherwise). And the 
ethnocentrism is an issue because when the research is written up, it will 
no doubt be written up as "objective" - a view from nowhere (but as we can 
see from this post quite clearly the starting point is *some* where).

(note - ed - that was a public post - I as a researcher am free to analyse 
it out of context as I please - based on your own logic:))

Feminists and critical theorists have critiqued this approach to 
researching the Other for years.

Further - an egocentric trap ALL of us researchers seem to frequently fall 
into is - to think that the researcher's notion (situated in a particular 
academic-temporal-cultural episteme of knowledge production) of the lone 
researcher out to excavate the TRUTH and validate/prove it by pointing to 
so-called empirical "data". Thus the overheard conversation is transformed 
into data to be used to elsewhere to justify some other policy for buying 
or selling or whatever.


....

...

radhika

At 10:03 PM 5/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:


>>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.
>
>
>Please pardon what is probably a naiive comment, but it appears that the 
>concepts of ethics are here conflated with an expectation of _politeness_ 
>and an understandable annoyance at the intrusiveness of this rude public 
>behavior.  I am reminded, reading this very interesting discussion, of 
>Japanese practices wherein one pretends not to hear.  In fact, talking 
>with a South Korean friend, she tells me that when two people are 
>speaking, and one other enters the area, it's quite common that this third 
>person would receive no greeting, and nor would one be expected.  Space is 
>so limited that this mutual pretense is (or had been) employed as a 
>virtual wall of privacy.  There appears to be a similar expectation in 
>some areas of the web.
>
>>>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.
>
>I cannot agree with this.  That we can hear it is annoying - but that we 
>can record it appears intrusive.  Using this argument, if I observed my 
>neighbor telling off his kid  - loudly - in the kitchen next door with the 
>windows open, I should feel completely justified in doing what I wished 
>with what I heard.  Analysis is another story.  All is setting, 
>right?  And certainly it would inform our more formal inquiry.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carol Perryman
>Graduate School of Library & Information Science
>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>cp1757 at hotmail.com
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - 
>it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Air-l mailing list
>Air-l at aoir.org
>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l










More information about the Air-L mailing list