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.
>