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 We do not cite conversation in the corridors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" <[log in to unmask]> 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
>