 |
 |
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. >