[Air-L] list as research subjects.
jeremy hunsinger
jhuns at vt.edu
Mon May 11 16:43:00 PDT 2009
I think that there is a difference between simple empiricism, learning
from experience, etc. Then there is a difference between doing that
and performing social science, where we vary a system to test a
hypothesis. For the former, we just observe, for the latter we vary
to see if something changes, manipulating the subjects in the
process. Isn't there?
You can watch all you want, that is the basis of experience, but when
one proposes to manipulate subjects, or to use manipulation of
subjects, even secondarily, as part of research, then i think there
are issues and yes, there needs to be consent structures, especially
if there is possibility of harm, either communal or individual.
So in short, if you formalize it into a research project, and subject
people on lists to intervention or manipulation either primarily or
secondarily then there are issues I think, don't you?
On May 11, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
> I vehemently disagree with the notion that all learning from
> evidence should be considered research that cannot be carried out
> without permission. I constantly learn from how people post things
> on air-l and what kind of responses they get (e.g., somebody posed
> something in a particular way, and got a lot of thoughtful
> responses, and somebody else posed something in a different way, and
> didn't get much response). Sometimes I even make decisions based on
> this (e.g., adoption of a particular rhetorical style that I have
> observed to be successful in generating thoughtful discussion.)
> Shall I be banned from doing so because that is considered a form of
> research? Shall I be required to submit a formal request to air-l
> executive committee and to my IRB to learn in this way?
> Mark
>
> Mark Warschauer
> Professor of Education and Informatics
> University of California, Irvine
> Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors)
> Irvine, CA 92697-5500
> tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965
> markw at uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
>
>
>
> jeremy hunsinger wrote:
>> the list is not something we should experiment with, there used to
>> be an exec-comm statement to that effect somewhere.
>>
>> it is likely in the archives. it basically said please don't use
>> the list for experiments without permission of the list
>> participants or something pretty similar. which basically means,
>> don't make people research subjects without their permission, which
>> given it is nearly impossible to ensure you have every recipients
>> permission... it is pretty much impossible to do research.
>> archives are a different concern of course.
>>
>> if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should
>> change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices.
>> http://aoir.org/?page_id=3
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 11, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for putting it this way. I don't agree that the default
>>> reply option in and of itself powerfully sets a norm about
>>> communication expectations on a list, but the fact that you have
>>> put forward such an argument and a prediction that flows from it
>>> means that it can be empirically tested.
>>>
>>> Let's see if the traffic to this list slows down over a certain
>>> period of time, and, if so, by how much. I would contend that a
>>> certain slowing down is desirable (if, for example, there
>>> previously were messages sent in error to the entire list, and now
>>> there are not). But if the reduction is traffic is dramatic, and
>>> the list becomes less useful to people because of that, then we'll
>>> find that out in due time.
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> Mark Warschauer
>>> Professor of Education and Informatics
>>> University of California, Irvine
>>> Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors)
>>> Irvine, CA 92697-5500
>>> tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965
>>> markw at uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
>>>> There have been some requests for research that might help indicate
>>>> whether the change to the email list is beneficial/problematic
>>>> for the
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> The research that informs my concerns about the shift to the new
>>>> default-to-individual reply focuses on norms. Norms are shaped
>>>> not only
>>>> by other people but by the technology that frames the interaction
>>>> (Martey and Stromer-Galley, 2007; Stromer-Galley and Martey,
>>>> forthcoming).
>>>> If the old norm of the AoIR list was that a replied-to message
>>>> went to
>>>> the entire list, then the expectation for the list was that
>>>> interactions
>>>> on the list were, by default, public. The norm then for
>>>> communication
>>>> through this list was that it was public communication.
>>>>
>>>> If the new norm of the list is that a replied-to message goes to
>>>> the
>>>> individual, then the norm for the list will shift to become the
>>>> case
>>>> that most interaction is private.
>>>> To put it another way, the structure of the technology
>>>> establishes the
>>>> norm for interaction.
>>>> Although I don't disagree that it takes but a moment to push the
>>>> necessary buttons to make a replied-to message go to the list,
>>>> there is
>>>> more at play here than just pushing buttons. Individuals have to
>>>> cognitively engage the question of whether the message should be
>>>> public
>>>> or private. The default setting suggests that the norm for
>>>> interaction
>>>> is that replied-to messages should be private; hence, it requires
>>>> a new
>>>> level of justification on the part of the sender to determine
>>>> that the
>>>> message is appropriate for public consumption.
>>>> The net result, I predict, is that there will be significantly less
>>>> traffic on the AoIR list over the following months as people
>>>> adapt to
>>>> the new norm that's established by the technological shift. I
>>>> personally
>>>> would find that disappointing, as I learn a great deal from the
>>>> public
>>>> conversation, and would lose their insights as the conversation
>>>> shifts
>>>> to private channels.
>>>>
>>>> References:
>>>> Martey R. M., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). The digital dollhouse:
>>>> Context and social norms in The Sims Online. Games & Culture, 2,
>>>> 314-344.
>>>> Stromer-Galley, J., & Martey, R. M. (in press). Visual spaces, norm
>>>> governed places: The influence of spatial context online. New
>>>> Media &
>>>> Society.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> ~Jenny
>>>>
>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>> Department of Communication, SS 340
>>>> University at Albany, SUNY
>>>> Albany, NY 12222
>>>> 518-442-4873
>>>> jstromer at albany.edu
>>>> http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>>>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>>>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>>>
>>>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>>>> http://www.aoir.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>>
>>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>>> http://www.aoir.org/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
More information about the Air-L
mailing list