Having just put up a sprawling post on 'ethics,' I immediately find some of my now-stated thoughts in need of refinement - in light of the Rutter and Smith (2005) reading for this Monday's class, and with particular regard to the (previously discussed, but heretofore unacknowledged) question of the online/public.
I think that it is quite fair to point out that while technically, legally (and for most intents and purposes, really) online forums such as blogs or, to a slightly lesser extent, discussion forums are 'public' - i.e. anyone can take a gander at this stuff - that this may not fully justify a 'fair game' approach to any information that an ethnographer might be able to glean. Surely there are nuanced distinctions to be made between different forums and virtual locations, and more generally, a need to consider that being 'public' in this sense does not impy an unlimited right to re-dissemination.
On the question of dissemination of any possible 'findings' or conclusions (and of any information used to back these up), the vague criteria of 'good faith' is perhaps a little thin. Clearly it behooves me to not make an ostentatious show of any information I accumulate in such 'public' forums as the mass-media or to 'hostile' (online or offline) groups that might be inclined to cause trouble for radical-left observers of the Greek context. Simply put, a certain criteria of non-interference implies itself here - it is clearly up to me to make some efforts at limiting the possible uses to which a completed project may be put, and the effects that might derive from this.
I will, of course, try to be strictly attentive to any potential personal, professional or legal repercussions for others - particularly through my efforts at avoiding any identifying information. Similarly, I think that I am unavoidably bound to at least consider the actual (or probable) wishes of any posters, discussants or informants - though this is not to say that I would in any way relinquish my own goals and responsibilities without compelling reasons.
Techniques of fictionalization, the deliberate obscuring of individual (virtual) identities and a tendency towards increasing generality of discussion roughly proportionate to the potential sensitivity of topics or content or (likely) expectations of limited publicity might well contribute to a lighter ethical footprint for a project such as this one...without building up insurmountable barriers to generating a lively and informative piece of work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On the point of re-dissemination, I ran into some trouble yanking quotes from a email listserv discussion to plaster on my blog. I decided to link to the original discussion, but not include the name so that it wouldn't jump out on Google. If people really wanted to find the author, they would have to read the entire discussion in context.
ReplyDeleteHaving had time to reflect, I probably would not take quotes from a listserv to post on my blog without the authors (and maybe even listservs) permission, and would instead use techniques like you describe -> fictionalized accounts, and generality/vagueness.
The experience really pushed home the idea that there are all sorts of boundaries/spaces to take care of 'in public'.
Good range of questions and considerations here, but essentially I have to agree with what Owen says here. We don't need to let our work build up any harassment momentum against an unsuspecting poster who perhaps carelessly wrote a comment six years ago, that he/she forgot about, and is now the impetus for an attack.
ReplyDelete