Yikes! Everyone is sensitive these days. I got a note from someone who
thought my comment on web farming was directed at a particular person. I
meant no joke or poke in my reference to web farming. I just like the term.
It reminds me of recycling in the cities, where the work is sometimes known
as urban farming. It is a harvesting activity, and that is noble, virtuous,
and fine. :)
By the way, I heartily recommend the superb article by Paul B. Thompson
called "Farming as a Focal Practice," in Technology and the Good Life,
edited by Eric Higgs, Andrew Light, and David Strong. I use it whenever I
can in my courses.
Let us sow and harvest!
Richard
Richard Buchanan
Carnegie Mellon University
On 4/29/07 1:00 PM, "Richard Buchanan" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Ates,
>
> I believe your message was quite clear, and I don't believe that I
> misunderstood. My comments were not directed toward your note, really. Only
> an added comment to Chris's note, which I liked a lot. I think you
> understand these matters very well.
>
> I believe I was thinking of my own undergraduate students and how I may talk
> with them about the use of on-line materials. And I was also thinking about
> the Nussbaum blog and its relationship to NextDesign.
>
> So, I owe you thanks, too, for raising the issue in such an intelligent way
> and allowing me to put further words to some things in my mind. I apologize
> if what I said seemed to be directed toward you. Perhaps we have all gotten
> a bit sensitive to comments on the list right now that may seem critical. It
> is a fine list for just sharing ideas and testing out words--as we do in the
> corridors around conferences.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Buchanan
> Carnegie Mellon University
>
>
> On 4/29/07 11:44 AM, "ates gursimsek" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Professor Buchanan (and other professors who have replied and/or had
>> questions in mind after my message),
>>
>> First of all, thank you for your replies and contributions on the subject.
>> However, I feel obligated to clarify a misunderstanding in my message. The
>> on-line sources that I have mentioned were not private chatrooms that have a
>> real-time conversation between two strangers, but on-line discussion
>> platforms
>> (forums) that contain a range of threads (topics) on several subjects
>> concerning a specific product/system. In addition, what I am investigating is
>> how people use these communication platforms to discuss issues on their
>> devices/systems and what kind of expressions are used to communicate specific
>> features, functions, problems, etc. In this respect, I can say that the
>> material that is collected from these resources have a role in the study only
>> as they are used to illustrate some points on the theoretical part on new
>> media and design relations.
>>
>> I share your concerns on using this kind of data as a primary material for
>> collecting information and building theories on subject matter. But I prefer
>> to use them as illustrations for the theories that I have already discussed
>> in
>> a larger portion of my thesis. One other method (which am also weighing to do
>> or not to do) may be making actual interviews with users; a more conventional
>> way to collect information, but nonetheless, a more credible one. However, by
>> excluding the 'virtual space' factor from the observation, I'd be missing an
>> important point; the chance to observe how users behave and communicate in
>> on-line environments (which is one of the ciritical parts for my study). As
>> you can realize, I see the on-line extension of specified product group
>> (which
>> maybe generalized as information appliances in Norman's terms) as a
>> fundemental component for the analysis.
>>
>> Apologies for any other misinterpretation that may be caused by my lack of
>> experience or insufficient usage of English. As I hope you may realize, I am
>> looking for criticism rather than approval for my study (since I am in the
>> final part of my thesis, I need criticism more than ever).
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> R. Ates GURSIMSEK
>> Istanbul Technical University, Dept.of ID (MSc. St.)
>> Halic University, Dept.of ID (Res. Ass.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Buchanan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Dear Chris,
>>
>> I appreciate very much your discussion of this matter. I have felt a need
>> to be very careful in using on-line materials, and for a variety of reasons
>> such as those you have discussed. Much is simply data, primary in some
>> cases and secondary in others, depending on how it is used and interpreted.
>> Ethics enters significantly when quoting discussions. I regard a published
>> paper as a significant statement by an author, but I regard chat as
>> something quite different--and I will not cite such chat or chatter as a
>> substantial statement of the speaker . . . nor as a significant statement on
>> the subject under discussion. We do not cite conversation in the corridors
>> of conferences, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
>>
>> So, as you say, it is a matter of research practice rather than mere
>> citation.
>>
>> Well, I won't say more because you have given such a sound discussion of the
>> issues. By the way, I won't quote you except in casual conversation with my
>> students or colleagues. But I would like to see a paper on this matter.
>> Actually, there probably is such a paper by someone--and I will wait for the
>> web farmer of our list to tell us what it is.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> Richard Buchanan
>> Carnegie Mellon University
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/29/07 9:24 AM, "Chris Rust" wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Ates,
>>>
>>> I see this as being about sources of your primary data rather than
>>> citing publications that you are using as secondary sources. So this
>>> becomes a problem of research practice rather than citation. You seem
>>> to be looking for strict rules when actually this depends on what is
>>> needed for your research. Anonymous contributions to chat rooms etc can
>>> only be primary data and must be interpreted by you. In contrast a
>>> contribution to a professional or academic discussion like this jiscmail
>>> list MIGHT be a cite-able source if you can be certain that the author
>>> is a real, known person with relevant knowledge. So if you wanted to
>>> cite this message from me you should probably go to my university's
>>> website and see if they really have somebody called Chris Rust doing my
>>> job, even then you have a problem because I'm not using my university
>>> email address for this message so I could be an imposter.
>>>
>>> Although this is a relatively new area I suggest you look around for
>>> examples of research in communication studies where people often study
>>> online environments and communication.
>>>
>>> If you are using material that is online already, for example in a
>>> chatroom, then you have a number of problems to overcome. The first is
>>> to have a consistent way of describing and characterising people, as you
>>> have already indicated, another is the ethical issues in using and
>>> possibly publishing this data, a third is to ensure that the samples of
>>> communication that you are using are appropriate for your research. I
>>> don't propose to give you an exhaustive list but I'll suggest some of
>>> the issues.
>>>
>>> 1) Naming: This is no different from any other survey or observation
>>> data. You may need to give each participant an identifier, whether it is
>>> a number, a fictitious name or a real name (a screen name is a kind of
>>> real name). The decision on whether and how to give names is entirely
>>> down to you and your project. Does it serve a useful purpose in the
>>> research? After that you have to decide whether you say anything about
>>> these people beyond their name. With data you collect directly from
>>> people you may be able to record some reliable information that helps to
>>> interpret or validate the data: age, politics, profession, shoe size,
>>> location etc etc etc. With online materials you have less opportunity to
>>> collect or check such data but there is usually some material available
>>> - how they describe themselves, their record of participation in the
>>> chatroom, role in past discussions etc.
>>>
>>> 2) Ethics: First of all, is this data in the public domain? That is, do
>>> the people who are "speaking" know that what they "say" is available to
>>> anybody to read? If so then the main question is whether you feel you
>>> are representing them fairly and reasonably, although there may still be
>>> some benefits in anonymising the data for publication. If the people you
>>> are recording believe that they are speaking only to a closed group then
>>> you have a bigger question and I feel it would be dangerous to identify
>>> them, either by their "meatspace" real name or any of their online real
>>> names. You may also need to get their permission. In any event you
>>> should always use the ethical guidance provided by your university, or
>>> if that is not sufficient a relevant scholarly association may have some
>>> useful guidelines. For example the British Sociological Society has a
>>> statement of ethical practice at
>>> http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/63.htm which may be helpful.
>>>
>>> 3) Usefulness: One problem with chatroom data is that, while it gives
>>> you access to particular communities, it does not guarantee that the
>>> participants will be honest, knowledgable or representative. So you have
>>> to be very cautious. The data is most useful if you want to investigate
>>> chatrooms and online behaviour, it may be valuable in revealing opinions
>>> (although you may not know how representative these opinions are), it is
>>> not so reliable when the statements made depend on the experience or
>>> knowledge of the participants, since you cannot check those things. If
>>> you want to refer to particular statements by individuals then you may
>>> be able to contact them direct (most chatrooms seem to allow this) and
>>> they may be willing to have an open discussion about who they are and
>>> why they have their beliefs. You still need to have a way of checking
>>> their reliability just as with the JISCmail example in my first
>>> paragraph above. Finally you have to be exceptionally careful if you are
>>> dealing with people of other cultures and languages - are you certain
>>> you understand what they are saying? For example there is often a
>>> problem between UK and US citizens because they have different ways of
>>> describing things and sometimes a different sense of humour. (actually
>>> Americans don't have humour, they have humor which is something else :o)
>>> We Brits will sometimes say the opposite of what we mean because of our
>>> perverse idea of what is funny.
>>>
>>> Finally, I hope you get the idea from this that there are no strict
>>> rules, just careful thought.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps
>>> Best wishes from Sheffield
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> **********************************
>>> Professor Chris Rust
>>> Chair of Design Research Society Council
>>> Head of Art and Design Research Centre
>>> Sheffield Hallam University
>>> Psalter Lane, Sheffield S11 8UZ, UK
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> www.chrisrust.net
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>>
>
>
>
|