[Air-l] ethical issues in chat room research

[Charles Ess]

Hi Thomas,
> 
<snip> 
> 
> BTW, recently we had a discussion on this list, where a point was made
> that political issues are off-topic to AoIR (with respect to the AUT
> boycott of Israeli universities, which, thankfully, has now been
> overturned ), How do these guidelines, which clearly have a normative,
> read: political, intent, square with the professed apolitical nature of
> AoIR?
Since, as I'm delighted to read, we share a strong sympathy with Habermasian
discourse ethics (which I, following early feminist critiques thereof,
always want to emphasize require attention to solidarity and empathic
perspective-taking, alongside rational attention to the unforced force of
the better argument, etc.), I think this excellent question has at least one
straightforward answer that you might agree with?
If we think of AoIR as a discourse community - one composed of many
practitioners of many disciplines, all of whom are shaped by diverse
national / cultural traditions, all of whom have shaped their particular
political views - then in principle, of course, the norm of maintaining an
apolitical stance as part of our professional identity and practice is
always a norm open for critical review, discussion, and possible change
(since it is a norm that affects all of us, and thus is legitimate only if
established by consensus arising from critical discussion).
As the discussion on this list suggested, there are strong reasons pro and
con on this (as well as other important issues).  One example: while my own
political views are strongly in support of particular calls for political
statements requested - with all sorts of good reasons - by various members
of AoIR - it is clear that the considerable diversity of our membership does
_not_ agree with or enjoy consensus on these particular issues. So there's
no immediate support from a Habermasian framework for endorsing one view
over another.  
Rather to the contrary, if our goals include (a) providing a discourse
environment in which as many views as possible can be included for
consideration and discussion, and (b) developing AoIR as a professional
organization that enjoys credibility in the academies of diverse nations -
it makes sense to me that we endorse a policy that says we may discuss and
debate whatever we like - but that AoIR as an organization will take no
particular, political stance.
And indeed, so far as I can gather, it appears that there _is_ consensus (so
far) strongly on the side of officially taking no political stances, etc.

So - it's not too hard to provide ethical arguments, especially based in
discourse ethics, that would not simply square with (i.e., stand as
logically consistent with) but indeed rationally defend AoIR's apolitical
stance as an organization.

Moreover, this little exercise may help clarify a second important point
raised by your question.
Certainly, the ethical is always political in important ways.  But if I
understand your question correctly, it presumes that being ethical requires
us to be political - but in a way that equivocates on two meanings of
"political." 
Western ethics (classically, with Aristotle), as you know, strongly
distinguishes between the ethical and the political - while also clearly
acknowledging their necessary and intractable interconnection: we _want_ our
politics to reflect our ethics.
   But this distinction remains more than a theoretical one.  As I have
tried to do above, and as many people on this list have done - there are
strong _ethical_ (as well as political) arguments (i.e., at the level of our
work together as a professional / discourse community) that we as an
organization avoid making political statements.  Certainly, in a broad
sense, this is itself a political statement, as many people have noted.  But
this broad sense (we avoid making political statements in general for
specific, ethical reasons) is _not_ a "political" statement in the narrow
sense - i.e., a particular stance pro or con regarding a particular issue.
    To make the same point slightly differently: it is one thing, using
discourse ethics as a framework, for us as an organization to develop a set
of ethical guidelines for our work as researchers (from a variety of
traditions and disciplines, etc.) - it is something else entirely for us as
an organization to work on developing a consensus regarding specific
political issues.  Indeed, as the little exercise above I hope makes clear,
using the discourse ethics framework of the former argues strongly _against_
the latter.  
In light of these distinctions, then,
to argue that "the ethical is political (in a broad, general sense)" and
hence 
"if we have ethical guidelines for research" so we should have specific
political statements as well (in a particular sense, as taking a specific
stance on a specific issue)
-- is thus to equivocate on these two senses and so to reason fallaciously.
(So far as I can tell - perhaps you see a different argument(s) going on
here: if so, please elucidate!)

> 
>> Please also note that the following contains copyrighted material from
>> forthcoming articles, and should thus not be cited, copied, or distributed
>> without permission.
>>  
>> 
> 
> While I don't intend to cite this particular post, I am still wondering,
> how you can ask us *not* to quote material you just made public?
> (Registration to this list is, after all, thankfully, automatic). Any
> citation -- provided that it would meet "fair use," "Urheberrecht," or
> [put your favorite national laws here] -- would certainly be covered by
> the national/regional laws I am aware of (not many). Surely, copyright
> laws (US/EU) would thus not prevent us to quote you. Professional
> courtesy still might (and indeed will in my case), but I was always
> curious, why one would publish material that should be off-limits for
> quoting. In the academic world, I have a certain sympathy for that,
> because, I'd rather not be quoted saying something really stupid. But,
> then again, this violates Cohen's/Habermas' rules for deliberation,
> which I actually find quite appealing. If we were less concerned about
> our reputation and more about deliberations, (social) sciences might
> actually progress faster. Maybe an ethic that would discount the damage
> done to professional reputation based on publication medium would help?
> 
It might - and I'd be delighted if you would like to offer some suggestions
in that direction.  (Were I to do so, I would start with Open Source
approaches, which I've long since tied to my own ethics in various ways.)
Perhaps I'm missing something here (certainly possible) - but from my
perspective, the matter is rather simple.  Some of the scholarship that I
shared in that post is under review for publication, and so I'm bound by
copyright agreements - with a particular publisher for particular countries
- to notify anyone, whether my post is public or private, that the material
is bound by copyright, and request what is not only a courtesy (we both
agree on this) but also a legal requirement.
Yes, citation under U.S. copyright law (as I understand it - Dan Burk is our
real expert here) would allow me to cite my own work under fair use, and
then anyone reading AoIR to do the same - as long as they are under U.S.
law.  My understanding of the German "Urheberrecht," however, is that it is
much more restrictive - correct me if I'm wrong, please - but again, this
applies only for German readers who might want to make use of the material
among other German colleagues.
The larger point is that "fair use" is a U.S. convention, "Urheberrecht" is
German - but my publisher in this case is neither - nor are all AoIR readers
(thankfully!) bound by either U.S. or German law.
So, 
since (a) I can't know what copyright laws (if any) prevail for specific
AoIR readers, and since,
(b) yes, I take a certain sense of ownership in my work (not so much for the
sake of reputation - I certainly want to see the publication go through -
but my main concern is that all of that was a non-trivial exercise in
research and writing that took up several months of my life, and I would ask
that that be respected and recognized: even authors under Open Source
conventions do as much, I believe),
I asked readers who may have wanted to cite, distribute or copy parts of
that posting to do so with permission.
Since you agree that this is a professional courtesy in any case, I'm still
not clear on what your objection is - unless it rests on the assumption that
fair use under U.S. law is the same in Germany, the E.U., and/or the rest of
the world, which, to my knowledge, it is not.
So what am I missing?

Cordially,

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/

Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php

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